| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
Is this the time to ask how a few small Harmonix discs or a bit of Dynamat might alter the perception of what is in the room?
Uh, I guess so!
It is, Jan, but I won't give you that answer. Too much information! Never give people enough information to figure things out. Even giving them the idea that the considerations are even remotely possible - is far too much information.
I wasn't "asking" as I tried to make this point back in "Charts". My post should have read, "Is this the time to suggest how a few small Harmonix discs or a bit of Dynamat might alter the perception of what is in the room?"
At the moment we are only dealing with what is already within the room. We are not making changes to the sound within the room. We are proposing changes to our perception of what is in the room, in other words making ourself what changes not the "sound".
Our questions involve what portion of "what is in the room" can we perceive and by what choices/means we take can we open our awareness to what is in the room. This may sound like gobbledygook to you but you are smart enough to get this if only you will kindly place the left side of your brain on that shelf over there and operate for the moment with the perceptive side of your brain.
Try this exercise before you consider anything else we've discussed; http://drawright.com/vaceface.htm#vaseface It's from this web page; http://www.drawright.com/ It's quite an interesting book which allows people to tap into their right/left side brains with relative ease.
When you ask this, "Do you honestly believe that the type of insulation on the wire to an unused lamp can affect the sound in a room?", you choose to ignore the premise that the sound is already in the room. We are not attempting to "change the sound" in the room, we are choosing to become aware of what is already in the room, to remove specific filters and to open the doors to our perception of what is in the room. You are choosing, for some reason, to ignore the premise that we can consciously select which filters to put in place and how those filters influence the flow of data in and out. Where most of us are at right now is working on the premise that we can consciously choose to operate at a level that to this time had remained subliminal - like a ticking clock - to become aware of what is in the room just as we can consciously choose to be aware of our socks, our heartbeat or our body temperature. I'm not certain how many are going along on the "concert ears" premise but I think that is where most of us are generally gathered.
The question then becomes, how do you teach yourself to choose these levels of unconscious or subliminal perception with consistency and ease? To that end I asked you, Ethan this series of questions;
If you'll answer those questions, Ethan, we can move you along to where most of us are at on this thread.
For an author of children's stories, this Dr. Seuss was really subversive, wasn't he?! Thanks for the quote.
KBK wrote:
Any effects that May alludes to with regards to AC power considerations need be tested on a Pure balanced AC system to begin with, and it needs be done with the same gear and situation.
Unless one starts there, any conclusions are really going to show any chance of being valid. As well, one will have to be attuned to the situation as well as May is. IF someone wants all things to be equal to prove a point as either valid or not, then they're going to have to start with the same premise.
I agree that we have a much crappier system in NA than the UK has, but I believe the effects May was alluding to have nothing to do with the electrical system. This is why the effect is pertinent to a lamp cord, as it is to one attached to your components. The phenomena is one that affects perception of sound, not any electrical signal. I've done many experiments in this domain, experiments on AC power cords (connected and not connected to the audio system, also connected and not connected to the power grid), as well as house wiring. They were not attempts to improve electrical current conditions, but improve perception of sound via the AC system. Of course, if I were to describe any of them here, I'd be laughed out of the house. These experiments fall into, as you say, "the cutting edge of human perception", and those who know nothing about that cutting edge will just write them off as placebo effects.
One last bit here then I have to go for a while. Buddha, do you know where our "perception" of Hell came from? Obviously none of us have experienced Hell as in "after life Hell". So how did we come up with what we, meaning Modern Western Christianity, think of as Hell? Any idea what Hell meant to a Christian in the fifth century? Any idea what Hell means to a Hindu?
Aw geez Jan, I wish you had said that 139 pages ago! In that case, here's all you need to alter your perception while not actually changing anything physically in the room.
'eer. Have fun with it, and please let me know how you make out!
BTW, I'd say anyone's money will be far better spent on the following, rather than wasted on power conditioners and magic dots.
--Ethan
Let's see, how's it go? Something like, He can't answer! He just can't answer a simple question!!! I think that's it.
Ethan I would appreciate an answer to those questions and add this one, are you aware of more of what is in the music when you inbibe in these talismans? If so, do you have any idea why?
And I'll ask that if you prefer not to actually partake in this discussion, you at least not obstruct it.
All these posts, in both threads makes me go back to one of my favorite illustrations of the audacity of the mind of the average man, of any given level of intelligence and knowledge.
If you walk out to a microphone, on the stage, of a room with 2000 people in it..and smile and have that knowing look in your eye and on your face..and nod to the whole crowd and say, " 10% of the people in this room are quite intelligent"..which is the factual part....
...75% of the people in the room will smile back and assume you are talking about them.
Which partially explains how politics, people, and situations can be so easily manipulated. By their own minds.
On any side of a given situation.
Being aware of such things is merely a potential first step in getting that straight in one's mind.
KBK,
Not to me impertinent, but what you are saying is besides the patronizing pomposity of your declarations about human intelligence; despite the seemingly ego-driven treatises on your mega high performance stealth-rocket-Q-ship Bimmer; despite the insistence on coyly avoiding giving away earth-shattering trade secrets of the hi-fi cognescenti; besides warning that very few of us would understand your metaphysical concepts (which I mostly agree with, btw); despite all prior indications that your ego is alive and sizeable, you feel your ego has died to reveal the true self and you admit you really don't know shit, just like the rest of us proles? Because you sure come across like the exception to your cosmic rule.
No.
The research is summarized on line if you care to look into this further.
Jan, do you contend that this is relevant to this thread, claiming that a listener to a stereo system is similar to a skilled musician in some fashion?
If so, I will share that most of us that preform regularly prepare simply by setting up our music, putting our instruments together and warming up. Trumpet players need to get their embrochures and fingers moving, 'cellists need to get their fingers, wrists and arms warmed-up, etc. No magic here.
May is clearly stating that the insulation in an unused cable, even an unused lamp cord unrelated to the system, affects the sound in a meaningful way. Interesting concept.
Do you contend the same?
Is this relevant to this thread? I would not have asked the question had I thought it not relevant. Particularly after Ethan's proclamation, "Emotional stuff is outside the realm of science, or at least outside the parts I'm interested in and knowledgeable about." "Emotional stuff" is hardly outside the realm of science unless your view of "science" is deliberately closed to provide a more satisfying self perception. "Emotional stuff" is only outside of the realm of science Ethan cares to explore and investigate. That doesn't mean, I would hope, Ethan is totally devoid of emotional stuff. But it is reasonable to assume that what Ethan does not care to explore, Ethan does not explore, such as turning on the lights or trying the exercise I provided to help him understand his left/right brain activities. Ethan is quite the dup doppelganger of his own Bizzarro World in that respect.
But now you have me interested in what would set a "skilled musician" (how do you know Ethan is just that? The frilly shirt?) apart from anyone who listens to music? What makes one superior to the other? We all have skills and talents which we bring to the table. We are all human - I would hope. If that is the case, we all have commonalities which we can use for discussion. If merely calling yourself a musician or a scientist or a listener imparts some special place in the heirachy of perception, I am unaware of that designation. How would being a "skilled musician" relate to, say, a paraplegic without the use of their arms? Would that automatically make them a less superior human because they could not play an instrument? If "skill" is your perception of status, however, that explains quite a bit. Care to explain?
And shade prepares simply by lighting candles, pouring himself a drink(?) and clearing the clutter a bit while "warming up" to listen. So you see no "emotional stuff" occurring during your "skilled musician's" set up period? No one taught you or suggested to you how to "get in character" as a performer? I find that amazing but would still like to hear from Ethan on this matter. Elk, you seem to do a lot of answering for Ethan. (Might I also point out those "who" perform are not those "that" perform? Though, if totally devoid of emotional stuff, you might both be considered "that's". Could either of you be replaced for less money and the same effect by a digital track looped over and over?)
You've made the same error Ethan stumbled/jumped/plunged into. Unless I am mistaken, May has made it quite obvious any of her discussion items do not "affect the sound" in a "meaningful" way. As I comprehend May's posts the sound that began in the room is still all that is in the room and has undergone no change as it relates to the soundwaves within the room nor the electrical pulses through the components or cables.
Whichever one of us is incorrect in this issue needs to go back to "Charts" and review what has been said since May entered the two threads. This is crucial to this discussion and if we misunderstand the concepts being discussed, we will never arrive at a conclusion which satisfies the majority of respondents. Is that truly what you believe May has said?
So, in your opinion, a small baby will refuse one flavor from the onset without ever tasting it once based on an innate preference? That child will never taste the "disliked" flavor?
Read what I wrote to KBK here about power cables, as it relates to this discussion. You're both right, in a way. Jan's right, in that "the sound that began in the room is still all that is in the room and has undergone no change as it relates to the soundwaves within the room nor the electrical pulses through the components or cables." Elk's right in that "the insulation in an unused cable, even an unused lamp cord unrelated to the system, affects the sound in a meaningful way." It just has to be made clear that when we're talking about "sound" here, we're talking about "perception of sound". So what has changed, then?
*********************
Quote by Elk :-
>>> "May is clearly stating that the insulation in an unused cable, even an unused lamp cord unrelated to the system, affects the sound in a meaningful way. Interesting concept.
Do you contend the same?" <<<
Quote by Jan :-
>>> "Unless I am mistaken, May has made it quite obvious any of her discussion items do not "affect the sound" in a "meaningful" way. As I comprehend May's posts the sound that began in the room is still all that is in the room and has undergone no change as it relates to the soundwaves within the room nor the electrical pulses through the components or cables." <<<
***************
Can I make myself clear. Yes, I do state that the insulation in an unused cable, even an unused lamp cord, affects the sound. But that it does not "affect the sound" in a "conventional way" - 'conventional' meaning electronic and acoustic. So, can we change the descriptive word 'meaningful' to read 'conventional electronic and acoustic theory way' and then bring in the word 'meaningful' later.
So, to restate. I say that the insulation in an unused cable, even an unused lamp cord, unrelated to the audio system affects the sound. But does not affect the sound in the conventional electronic or acoustic theory way. However, the EFFECT on the 'sound' can be perceived as quite 'meaningful'.
Back to my example of the plant producing a 'physical' stress chemical and other plants being able to 'physically' detect that 'physical' stress/warning signal !!
Back to my list of the different chemicals used in the various plastic insulation on numerous cables in the room !!
If the concept can be understood that we (human beings) can detect a 'stress' chemical when applied to a stain on a coffee table and KNOW this has happened because the sound has changed, then this can explain how different plastic insulation materials (different mixes of chemicals - with various levels of 'stress' chemicals used) can 'sound' different - even when used on cables not associated with the audio equipment or carrying information. They just have to be present, in the environment, for us (human beings) to detect !!!!
The latest controversy ranging in the world of audio is the 'sound' of different AC power cables. - i.e. This power cable 'sounds' different to that power cable which 'sounds' different to that power cable !!
***************
Attached to the front cover of the February 2006 issue of the UK magazine Hi Fi Choice was a tissue impregnated with the Nordost chemical ECO 3. The effect of this chemically impregnated tissue was described as :-
"simply wipe all types of cable with this tissue and the treatment is complete and digital harshness will be reduced and the soundstage become more spacious. You should also hear a lower apparent noise floor with greater definition of each note and a more coherent sound overall".
Nordost believe that their chemical is 'dealing with static on the insulation material of cables and that the static can damage the way a signal flows through."
It is stated that "other anti-static solutions are available, but many have been found to destabilise cable dielectric, some leave a sticky residue that attracts dirt and dust, and some can even chemically react with the cable, actually deteriorating the sound" !!!!!!!!
The president of Nordost, Joe Reynolds, was quoted as saying "You will easily hear the improvements in your system. You can try this on your power cables and the label side of your CDs and when treating video cables, any power cables and even the centre label of vinyl LPs".
*****************
Over 20 years ago, we introduced our Cream-Electret (based on our experiments and discoveries) which we recommended should be applied to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs and to the outer insulation of ALL cables !!!!!! Our explanation is 'nothing to do with static'., 'nothing to do with affecting the signal going through the equipment'.
Our concept is that Nature has quite a few techniques which she uses to provide 'reassuring' signals - and some of those techniques involve certain chemicals (which, presumably, were the techniques used millions of years ago, long before the five senses as we know them now were ever developed).
Our explanation is that, by utilising Natures techniques, we are superimposing, on objects, 'reassuring' signals. That not only are we (human beings) programmed by evolution to constantly read/sense our environment for danger/predator/intruder so that we can 'sign off' our environment as 'safe' but we are also programmed by evolution to constantly search our environment for signs of 'reassurance' !!
Now, bring back the subject of the controversy surrounding cables 'sounding' different (which has been raging since the mid 1970s). Bring back the subject of the Nordost ECO 3 chemical. Bring back the (later) subject of different power cables 'sounding' different. Bring back the subject of different Lacquers 'sounding' different. ALL chemicals. Or plastic insulation materials (all made with different chemicals).
Different explanations put forward as to why they all sound different - i.e Static, Dielectric effect, Resonance, etc. Surely they can all be explained by them ALL being chemicals, present in our environment, and explained by one concept ? That it is the human being who is reacting to them all in our environment but reacting differently to them ? That as soon as we want our brain to do some important work, then the differences can be detected ? By the 'sound' changing ?
It would appear that I am suggesting that all these people - quite sincere people and skilled engineers - are all wrong in their individual explanations. What I am trying to point out is how things can happen, so often, by chance. In fact, so many discoveries in past history, have happened 'by chance'. What I think has happened is that someone, somewhere, heard improvements in their sound by doing something 'by chance'. Just thinking about this logically it must have happened like that. If these different people had read a procedure of how to mix a chemical to improve the sound, from a conventional electronic or acoustic text books, then the procedure would be known to all skilled electronic or acoustic engineers - so there would be no CONTROVERSY !! Because there are different explanations and there IS a controversy, then that means that the information is NOT in the conventional text books !!
What I think (and know from my many years observing electronic engineers) is that when confronted with something which has changed the sound which they did not expect to change the sound, engineers go through what I call a 'conventional check list' - looking for the closest explanation.
I.e Is it something to do with :- ?
Capacitance ?
Resistance ?
Inductance ?
The Dielectric effect ?
Microphony ?
Static ?
Vibrations ?
RF Interference ?
Resonance ?
And, I think this is what has happened with some of the explanations I have quoted. Some have 'ticked' the 'dielectric effect'., some have ticked 'static'., some have ticked 'resonance'., some have ticked 'RF interference'.
Again, let me make myself clear before people begin to react and tell me about this equipment stand 'dealing with vibrations'., that shielding material 'dealing with RF interference' and so on. I have been answering the one query about insulation on cables !!!!!
How can you check what I am saying. Why, by doing experiments for yourself !!
*****************************
I have just seen the thread >>> "most effective corner treatment for $0" <<<. I
I am back again with the SAME theme !!!!!
I wrote a whole paper on this some years ago. You have to be careful WHAT type of egg boxes you use. Pulped paper egg boxes will be better (sound wise) than polystyrene egg boxes - even though they may be identical from an acoustic point of view. In fact you should not use the chemical mix of polystyrene if you want good sound !!!
I am not talking about the 'acoustic effect' of the egg boxes, I am talking about the chemical mixture !!!
Will it ever come to the situation when people begin to get (at least) a glimmer of what is actually going on ?
Regards,
May belt.
Jan, I made no such claim. I simply asked whether you were presenting the concept that a listener to reproduced sound is in some ways similar to musician.
Rather than assuming that you are being insulted, why not share your thoughts with us? Why the constant antagonism? You spend more time arguing and insulting than addressing the concepts.
None.
While one should really enjoy performing and derive great satisfaction from it, playing an instrument well is a complex physical and intellectual task. If you allow emotion to control the activity you will fail miserably.
It's the same reason that alcohol and performance do not go together well. Alcohol may inspire the performer but it impoverishes the performance. (It may inspire the audience however.)
Not even close. Movie producers have tried this for years and failed miserably with each attempt.
A musician readily expresses heart breaking emotion without being heartbroken at the time of performance. We are not sad when we play sadly, nor manic when playing exceedingly fast. All of these emotional states would destroy the ability to play and project emotion.
The point is that the preference is innate, not learned. For example, the child has a preference in favor of carrots and against green beans prior to having tasted either.
Hi, May
I believe understand what you are stating. We just have a terminology problem.
Is this accurate?:
1) The choice of insulation type (and whether the cord is present) impacts how the listener responds to the sound. That is, it changes what the listener experiences as sound.
2) The insulation in the unused lamp power cord does not change the sound itself in a physical fashion. The acoustic waves as physical phenomena are the same with or without the lamp cord in the room, and regardless of the insulation used.
3) The listener responds differently because of a real (not imaginary) physical reaction to the lamp cord's insulation. This physical response is grounded in evolutionarily determined perceptions of "safe" and "non-safe" environmental conditions.
4) The precise method by which humans determine "safe" and "non-safe" is not understood but is believed to be physical in some way. Thus the listener does not need to consciously know that these changes are present in the room.
5) These perceptions are fixed, repeatable and consistent.
And my original point was a very young child has not yet accumulated a data pool which defines their preferences without experimentation taking place first. They may possess an innate preference for carrots - I would still assume this is a genetic trait passed from parent to child and not a learned preference in the womb - but until they learn "carrots" are orange and look and taste a certain way (observation/interpretation) they will also be open to tasting green beans. It is the process of building filters through observation and interpretation which is at the heart of the issue here. The child may be predisposed to prefer carrots but has yet to put in place the green bean filters which are amassed through observation and interpretation - not orange/different shape/not good.
To remain open to "green beans", "concert ears" or other perceptions, overt and subliminal, we must first recognize those filters and then learn to choose other filters in their place. This is no different than the actor's task or someone using pain management techniques. The learned behavior in both instances is to pay as little attention to one's own perception of what is (the actor Jack's perception of being in the situation or the patient's perception of pain at the moment) and replace it with another perception of what you wish to experience (the character's emotional responses or a pleasant walk in a forest at sunset). Above all else the point is we can choose which data pool to pull from and that decision will influence our perception of what is (safe environment) and our reaction to what is taking place (concert ears).
No. It is a learned preference. What mom eats while pregnant is strongly determinative of the child's future tastes.
That is, the child is born with a set of preferences. These are not learned in the traditional experiential sense.
Of course, as you appear to be stating, what the child does with these predilections is up to that child.
>>> "Hi, May
Is this accurate?: " <<<
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
5) Yes. with a qualification. Because it is human beings involved and as all human beings are different and react differently, it is not guaranteed that "These perceptions are fixed, repeatable and consistent". They are with a lot of people but at any time, other things in the environment may take precedence - i.e greater importance.
Regards,
May Belt.
Cool!
Thank you for the qualification. I should have written that for each individual listener the perceptions are repeatable.
And again thank you for your efforts in making your thoughts and observations clear. I respect and enjoy knowing that you are thinking out of the box and actively following your muse.
Can you recommend something with which to experiment that the majority of us would likely experience as a positive improvement to our listening experience?
Of course Jan won't answer that. He can't answer that without looking like a fool. Which is why he continues to duck this and the "three threads" question. Of course, Jan is not shy about expecting me to answer his questions which, unlike mine, are pointless and irrelevant. Talisman indeed.
This mimics my thoughts over the weekend, and I've about had enough of this pointless discussion. What follows will surely offend, but it's not meant as name calling - it's simply the facts as I see them.
We have in this thread some very reasonable people who have a good grasp of reality. They understand enough about the physical world and "how things work" to know that tiny plastic dots cannot possibly change the sound in a room no matter how many anecdotal reports may exist. They understand that 30 gauge speaker wire may change the sound, but that any change will not be for the better. They also understand that nobody is immune from bias and the placebo effect.
On the other side we have a collection of inmates who wish they were running the asylum. They put forth fantastic theories using correct grammar and well-crafted sentences. But when it comes to actual substance they argue from ignorance. They have no idea what they're talking about, and deep down they know it. They do not have the talent to play or write music, so they throw stones at those who can. They don't know how to design and test electronic circuits, so they insult the engineers who can calling them foolish meter readers. And they can't stick to the facts in a discussion. All they have are condescending comments about how much farther along they are in their thinking and "perception" than the rest of us mere mortals. But I bet not one of them can sing or play a musical instrument competently, and I bet not one of them has a decent sounding hi-fi setup. These armchair quarterbacks have strong opinions on everything related to their hobby, but their opinions are based on fantasy.
I realize now that I demean myself by even dignifying this BS with my responses, so I will not do that further. Go ahead guys, toss your insults at me. I have a thick skin. Call me a conceited know-it-all. Hell, I am a know-it-all! And as such it's a waste of my time and energy trying to explain to these people why magic dots and replacement power cords and pillows under preamps - and all such related tweaks - work entirely on placebo effect by definition.
It's been real guys. Carry on. I'm not out of this forum! But I'm definitely done talking to folks who are not only ignorant but are also unreasonable and unwilling to learn anything new.
--Ethan
Ethan, I have no specific quarrel with you, & I don't mean to take sides, but I can't help but notice that it's actually you who slings the mud harder than anyone here. Jan's been pretty civil as of late, it seems, so why the ad hominems again? If you are indeed a know-it-all, then what's up with all the insecure flailing and insults?
Like I said, Ethan, if you don't care to participate, just don't obstruct. Do us the honor of keeping your word.
Buhbye!
Appreciate Elk putting the questions that way, and your responses. Follow-up question: If your product/approach does work in the way you describe, then wouldn't the listener also be more positively affected in the room whether or not he/she is listening to music? For instance, if the right "reassuring" signals are in place, leading to a better listening experience, then wouldn't the person be more content while reading or just sitting in the room too, without listening to music?
>>> "Can you recommend something with which to experiment that the majority of us would likely experience as a positive improvement to our listening experience?" <<<
If you go to our Home Page and scroll down to Free Sound improving techniques, you will find some techniques you can try. With all of them (except for the freezing technique) you can do before, after and back to before experiments. So, you can always get back to where you started.
Regards,
May Belt.
>>> "Appreciate Elk putting the questions that way, and your responses. Follow-up question: If your product/approach does work in the way you describe, then wouldn't the listener also be more positively affected in the room whether or not he/she is listening to music? For instance, if the right "reassuring" signals are in place, leading to a better listening experience, then wouldn't the person be more content while reading or just sitting in the room too, without listening to music?" <<<
The answer to that would be a simple yes and you have reasoned it out well - if the beneficial effect is there, it is there. However, unless the person is comparing one 'reading/sensing' against another 'reading/sensing', then would they notice ? Whereas when listening to music and you can compare the same music before 'treating' the environment and then after 'treating' the environment, at least you have two separate experiences to compare. If you are just reading or just sitting, what experiences are you comparing with what. The survival mechanism works by comparing what happened a second ago, the second before that and then with what happens this second.
Regards,
May Belt.
Thanks, May. I should have thought to go back and look at the website.
I am as skeptical as Ethan, but I wanted to fully understand your position. I sincerely appreciate your efforts in participating in this thread and for helping me understand your theories.
Ethan, wait! Please don't go!
Nah, it's OK if ya wanna go, but it's more fun when you're here.
I think the main reason you and Jan/May aren't connecting is because you are talking about those small dots affecting the "acoustics" of the room, and they are talking about the small dots affecting the listeners in the room.
No way you could agree on things when you are talking about two different things.
An experiment for you to try with regard to "small things:" Get a small kitchen sponge and soak it in asparagus pee, or ammonia cleaning solution, or butyric acid, and leave it in a saucer in your listening room for a few hours and then see if you enjoy your listening session as much as you did before.
My guess is that you would not.
What May (and maybe Jan, but I can't tell through the haze of aggressive hostility and obsfucation) is postulating is that there are relatively small things you can do in your listening room that may have a salutatory effect on your experience in the room.
On an objective level, we know this kind of thing can be true, because there are some non-audio related real world examples of this sort of thing working....
Realtors know to bake cookies before a prospective buyer tours a home to make them more prone to like the home.
Radiologists have experimented with vanilla scent being piped into an MRI to keep anxious patients more relaxed during their 45 minute sojourns in that tomb-like device.
Think of what one drop of your wife's (or significant other, or other word for people you are attracted to) perfume can do for your appreciation of her neck!
I have a hunch you are not one to be all that interested in the things that might make your listening session more pleasant, but do try the aversive ones and see if, in fact, something the size of a kitchen sponge, or fraction thereof, can change your perception of the room. If it can, then maybe the converse is possible!
(Not meant as a blanket Belt endorsement or of Jan's magical thinking, just saying that you guys might have more fun arguing on the same topic instead of two different ones. It would change the dynamic of this debate from some sort of simultaneous mental masturbation to a more interactive kind of communication.)
Cheers!
Nice job explaining the basics, Buddha.
May was quite clear from the onset, but I have no clue what most of those that appear to support May are even attempting to say.
I hope their chosen tweaks do not add such obscurity to the sound or their appreciation of sound.
These are all electron transfer systems, as even the electrochemical balance/ph/etc of the blood, and the idea of 'neurons' are. Etc.
In a 3-d 'linear unidirectional time/flow based' reality, every iota of every possible consideration of any kind, comes down to some sort or given level of being an electron transfer system. Either some, none, or a little. The one commonality. For this dimensional vector, at the least. Oh, yes. Before someone attempts to poo-poo that remark or act out in a rage, it's frequential and oscillatory, as well. Nice little balanced inne and outie gyroscopes, originated of a pair of 2-d oscillating stress fields acting against one another. It kinda tends to allow for (among other things), as Einie said: "Spooky action at a distance". In his work, the stretch of/to 'C' of energy is what covers that aspect.
Contrary to popular belief, Einstein DID formally publish a complete and finished 'unified field theory' in a mathematics rag. For supposedly one of the most important theoreticians in modern times, even his failures need be intensely scrutinized. It truly WAS published.
Now............. go find a copy. I wish you luck.
An electron, like any molecular or sub molecular consideration is a complex vibratory gyroscopic angular vector schizm. The fact that it holds together so well, is due to that each 'iota' is based on the infinitely large vibratory 2-d stress fields that are in balance, for the most part. But as soon as you know that, then you can begin doing things with them. They are not quite 100% in balance, therefore one field ever so slightly dominates, and you have a outer gyroscopic component, which creates a vector, and thus linear unidirectional time, where the 'future' is more 'indeterminate' the further it is away in 'time', and the 'past' is fixed. But both stress fields are near 'certain' in the 'moment', thus the fixation of the particle in the immediate moment (double slit experiment), and the infinite wave dominating the further out from that 'point' of immediate 'fixation'.
This is how psychic phenomenon, ghosts, 'spooky action at a distance', (insert a contentious bizarre phenomena here), 300x the speed of light communication (a fact!-all you hard core noobs), multiple dimensions, so called 'over unity', aetheric fields, and the smallest component of all...the universe of absolute particle based determinism, aka the current scientific paradigm....all can, and do exist at the same time.
Existence itself, in this so-called '3-d reality', literally makes us..'Shock Wave Riders'
Of course Jan won't answer that. He can't answer that without looking like a fool. Which is why he continues to duck this and the "three threads" question. Of course, Jan is not shy about expecting me to answer his questions which, unlike mine, are pointless and irrelevant. Talisman indeed.
Indeed. Maybe he thinks yours are pointless and irrelevant? Why do you get to say what's "pointless and irrelevant"? It seems fair that you answer his questions, and that of others, if you're going to continue showing your face in these threads. I noticed you regularly avoid doing that when you don't have a strong argument to return, including all of those I asked of you (so I know what Jan goes through with you!) I've seen you avoiding arguments & issues an incredible number of times, not just in this thread, but in the "Acoustics" / "Charts" thread we were last in. I always assumed it was because you were afraid that you'll look like a fool, however you answer your opponent, so you avoid doing so. What you don't seem to realize, is you look like a fool not answering them as well. So if I were you, I wouldn't worry about Jan looking like a fool. But go ahead, you can ask me the question you say Jan won't answer. I'm not at all insecure about how I look like to fools.
This mimics my thoughts over the weekend, and I've about had enough of this pointless discussion. What follows will surely offend, but it's not meant as name calling - it's simply the facts as I see them.
aka "Your unfounded opinions".
We have in this thread some very reasonable people who have a good grasp of reality.
Thanks. I think that's the one thing you said about me that wasn't an insult.
They understand enough about the physical world and "how things work" to know that tiny plastic dots cannot possibly change the sound in a room no matter how many anecdotal reports may exist. They understand that 30 gauge speaker wire may change the sound, but that any change will not be for the better. They also understand that nobody is immune from bias and the placebo effect.
Cognitive dissonance. Look into it. Change is bigger than you Big E., no matter how mighty your fight.
On the other side we have a collection of inmates who wish they were running the asylum.
Are you saying you wish to be declared "king loon" around here? Big Chief Bromden? I'm sure that won't be difficult.
They put forth fantastic theories using correct grammar and well-crafted sentences. But when it comes to actual substance they argue from ignorance. They have no idea what they're talking about, and deep down they know it.
OTOH, you may put forth established theories, which indeed are all you know, using incorrect grammar and predictable sentences. But you still have no idea what you're talking about and you argue from ignorance, when you speak against audio phenomenon (ie. tweaks) you know nothing about and have never, could never, would never experiment with. I think deep down, you know that you have no idea what you're talking about, but nevertheless, like pretending you're an authority on things you know nothing about. It may be time to revise that page on your site, "Why we believe". At least rename it to "Why I Believe", and stop speaking for everyone else! Comb-filtering is -not- the "root of all evil". Narrow and wrongful thinking is.
They do not have the talent to play or write music, so they throw stones at those who can. They don't know how to design and test electronic circuits, so they insult the engineers who can calling them foolish meter readers.
Argument from authority.
And they can't stick to the facts in a discussion. All they have are condescending comments about how much farther along they are in their thinking and "perception" than the rest of us mere mortals.
Said he who came down from his tower to declare "I'll respond if I see something particularly stoopid....", and "I know it all!". Your mindless knee-jerk response to KBK's intelligent, provocative post, completely missing the meaning of everything he wrote and thus unable to argue against any of it so you simply dismissed all of it as you like to do, showed me how far you are along in your thinking and perception. Your sophomoric reponse to Jan's intelligent, on-topic comments about perception, trying to get you to join the discussion of perception only to have you return with another meaningless locker-room joke response featuring pictures of narcotics and stimulants, confirmed it for me. As Jan put it, you were like 33 pages behind the rest of us in this thread. Now you're more than that, and taking us all back to the audio stone age with these tired knee-jerk responses. So you're the one who can't or refuses to follow a discussion, from what I've seen. But when you say "they can't stick to the facts in a discussion", I now take that to mean "They won't agree with MY facts! Why won't they agree with MY facts! Don't they know I know it all?!".
But I bet not one of them can sing or play a musical instrument competently, and I bet not one of them has a decent sounding hi-fi setup.
Argument from authority again (and no, I don't think you're impressing anybody here by saying your opinions are worth more because you can sing or play the Jew harp). I also noticed that you make a lot of bets you don't back up, just like you declare a lot of opinions as "fact" which you don't back up. It's easy to say "I bet..." if you're not actually going to "bet" and back up your words. Way I see it, you owe KBK $100, because you also told him "I bet you don't know what you're talking about". And you were wrong about that. Since I think, no scratch that, I -know- I'm much much farther along in my thinking and perception of audio than you, how about you make that bet with me, and make it stick? We'll bet, say, $1,000 that I can sing or play an instrument competently, and I have a "decent sounding hi-fi setup".
These armchair quarterbacks have strong opinions on everything related to their hobby, but their opinions are based on fantasy.
You might have more credibilty there buckaroo, if you got up from the couch when you say that. You certainly have the strongest opinions around here it seems, but tell me again... how many Harmonix dots have you tried? Those thread thingies, how many of those? The singing bowls? Anything? A green pen? How about a fancy power cable? What were you saying about armchair quarterbacks with opinions based on "fantasy"?
I realize now that I demean myself by even dignifying this BS with my responses,
Actually, you've already demeaned yourself with this response.
so I will not do that further. Go ahead guys, toss your insults at me.
Nah... that wouldn't be right. You make too easy a target, Ethan.
I have a thick skin.
Um, judging by this little tantrum of yours, doesn't look like it.
Call me a conceited know-it-all. Hell, I am a know-it-all!
Well, that pretty much says it all, donut? I guess we can stop talking and sit around you on the floor in a circle, while you wave your magic mirror and lecture us about everything we need to know about audio. Then we can all go home and listen to our Fisher-Price stereo and tell our parents what we learned today in Ethan's class.
"Dad... did you know that everything sounds the same in audio, except Ethan's acoustic panels?".
You claim to know everything, but you've shown you don't even know the very words you preach to others. Which say: "All they have are condescending comments about how much farther along they are in their thinking and "perception" than the rest of us mere mortals.". hint to Mr. Know-It-All: It doesn't get any more condescending than claiming to know-it-all. I'm glad that I don't know it all, because the day that I do, is the day this hobby stops being any fun.
And as such it's a waste of my time and energy trying to explain to these people why magic dots and replacement power cords and pillows under preamps - and all such related tweaks - work entirely on placebo effect by definition.
"Placebo effect by definition"! Good one! For someone who works in acoustics, I would have thought you'd be familiar with a concept called "resonance". It's even the primary principle by which speakers and cartridges work. It can be measured by frequency, like the effect of acoustic panels. By the same principle spikes work under speaker or equipment stands, when you put a pillow under a preamp, you change the resonant frequency of the casing and everything it contains. Yes, that's measurable, and there are both physical and electrical explanations for why power cables might sound different, but it seems you only understand or believe in measurements that you (think) you know something about. It appears by all accounts, you believe in nothing you don't already know something about. Everything you don't know about is, "by definition" (ha!), a "placebo effect". I do believe in the placebo effect, Ethan. I believe your beliefs are a placebo effect.
It's been real guys. Carry on. I'm not out of this forum! But I'm definitely done talking to folks who are not only ignorant but are also unreasonable and unwilling to learn anything new.
Given that you've proven here to embrace all three of the above characteristics you've projected in others, I take it this means you're through talking to yourself? You've done this a few times, and I don't see the need to be dramatic about it, to threaten to not talk to people or not participate in a thread. If you don't wish to particpate or respond, then just don't. You don't have to announce it every time. You don't have to get all haughty about it, barge into the room and yell "I've about had enough of this pointless discussion! Harumph!" while people are trying to have a civil, level-headed discussion. Also, I recognize that it's your right if you don't wish to talk to folks who are ignorant, unreasonable, and unwilling to learn. But consider this: it never stopped me from talking to you, did it? And had I adopted your self-limiting policy, we might never have had these illuminating conversations. So you should learn to be more tolerant of other people's views and you might actually learn things about audio, new things.
Earlier, you said you wouldn't respond to me (if I didn't prove to you in email that I was Michigan J. Frog), and yet despite nothing forthcoming from me, you responded to me anyway. But I didn't respond to you, because I just couldn't take you seriously, with a name like "Ethan Winer". That's only one of many contradictions you make in what you say, so I don't know if what you're saying now about not responding to people even means anything. Especially since you gave yourself some wiggle room to stay in the thread, even though you seem to be against the very subject of it, and either not willing or intellectually capable of taking the thread's theme seriously. Just want you to know, its ok by me if you don't wish to respond to me. Just don't feel a need to announce it, ok?!
Have a merry xmas.
What May (and maybe Jan, but I can't tell through the haze of aggressive hostility and obsfucation) is postulating is that there are relatively small things you can do in your listening room that may have a salutatory effect on your experience in the room.
Somehow I don't see tweaking perception in this way as comparable to baking a tray of muffins or scented candles. "Salutatory"? "Interesting" theory, I guess.... but off the mark. For one thing, the effect is not limited to the listening room. But I think that muffins will have an effect. I mean anything you eat, really. I would prefer to start a serious listening session on an empty stomach than a recently full one, or worse, eating or drinking during. Same for singing.
May was quite clear from the onset, but I have no clue what most of those that appear to support May are even attempting to say. I hope their chosen tweaks do not add such obscurity to the sound or their appreciation of sound.
I think everyone's like that at first, when they see the site. I was! I knew it had something to do with audio but... it was more like a meeting of Masons. It took a lot of reading, but I eventually decoded what people were talking about. And then it made perfect sense. From my experience, the tweaks do not add "obscurity" to the sound. Quite the contrary, they add a very natural improvement, one that can't be obtained by any conventional tweak, one that's only limited by the number you apply. The experiences I've read about show many writing about their appreciation of what their treatments have done for their listening pleasure.
KBK wrote:
You just blew my mind. Don't do that again. I don't think I can ride that shock wave a second time....
************************
Quote from Buddha to Ethan:-
>>> "An experiment for you to try with regard to "small things:" Get a small kitchen sponge and soak it in asparagus pee, or ammonia cleaning solution, or butyric acid, and leave it in a saucer in your listening room for a few hours and then see if you enjoy your listening session as much as you did before.
My guess is that you would not." <<<
***********************
Yes, by all means try the experiment suggested by Buddha, and yes, do it if you want to have the actual experience so that you can discuss it. But, you don't need to actually do the experiment to discuss the consequences and implications..
Ethan believes that everything in the room is 'acoustic' and if it isn't 'acoustic' then it cannot be affecting 'sound'.
If you DO try the experiment outlined by Buddha and it DOES adversely affect the perception of your sound ('perception' - because it cannot be affecting the actual acoustics of the room), then you have some serious thinking to do.
If, prior to doing the experiment described above, you had heard the wealth of information ABC through to XYZ coming from the loudspeaker system. This means that this wealth of information ABC through to XYZ is ALREADY in the room as acoustic information, has already reached your ear drum, has been processed by your hearing mechanism and has reached your working memory - which has then resolved the information into as complete a 'sound picture' as it can to present to the brain.
If, after carrying out the experiment described by Buddha, your sound is 'worse', then you are left with the problem of how to explain what has happened !!!
HOW can the sound be worse ? It is EXACTLY the same ACOUSTIC information ABC through to XYZ in the room !! It is EXACTLY the same ACOUSTIC information ABC through to XYZ reaching your ear drum !! So, WHERE did the information change so that you are now no longer enjoying it ?
If you consider a reaction to the chemicals, which Buddha suggests using, to be from 'smelling' them then, yes, any smell of (such as) ammonia, in the room, is enough to spoil anyone's enjoyment of their music. But, as I have just said, the ACOUSTIC information ABC through to XYZ is STILL the same, in the room - with or without any obnoxious chemical in the room !! The chemical hasn't changed the acoustic information. So, where exactly has that information been changed for it to be perceived as 'worse' ?
I would refer back to an earlier posting of mine in the section 'Acoustic effects and size matters' - the part referring to where the information, having been processed by the hearing mechanism, is transformed at the start of it's further journey along the auditory nerve into 'electro-chemicals' (positive and negative ions) - the medical researchers think the chemicals involved include sodium, calcium and potassium !! Supposing (due to circumstances in the environment) the brain is 'triggered' into producing a greater amount of 'stress chemicals' than normal, supposing those 'stress chemicals' can interfere with the chemicals now carrying the information ABC through to XYZ along the auditory nerve, supposing the FINAL information reaching the working memory is not as complete as it was when it started it's journey, or is disjointed so cannot be identified as positively as before, then surely the FINAL information, received by the working memory, is NOT exactly the same as is in the room, is NOT exactly the same ABC through to XYZ which started it's journey along the auditory nerve ?
Could this be an explanation as to why the 'sound' would be perceived as 'worse' ????
Is it as Ethan insists, repeatedly, 'the placebo effect'., or 'imagination' ? Or COULD it be something 'physical' happening, in the room, causing something 'physical' to take place within the hearing mechanism ?
Now, Buddha. You say "Ethan, wait! Please don't go! Nah, it's OK if ya wanna go, but it's more fun when you're here."
How can you describe it as 'more fun'? I am sorry Buddha, but it is an unedifying spectacle to see a supposedly intelligent adult endlessly dismissing other people's experiences as "the placebo effect", as "mistaken". Or products which many journalists (also intelligent) have positively reviewed as "total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking".
And, Elk, you say you are "as skeptical as Ethan" but "sincerely appreciate my efforts". My reply is identical to the one above to Buddha, also I am afraid that I do not see Ethan as simply 'skeptical'.
I would describe me (May Belt) as 'normally skeptical'. I would describe Jan as 'normally skeptical'. I would describe Michigan J Frog as 'normally skeptical'. But I would not describe Ethan as simply 'skeptical'. Skeptical to me means "curious but might not yet be convinced, open to ideas without being a complete sponge, maybe there is something in (whatever) but wary and need more evidence before I make up my mind, or maybe won't make up my mind just yet, or I find it interesting and my skepticism could be wavering"
Regards,
May Belt.
Fair enough; suspended judgment v. incredulity.
The problem, as I see it, is the convoluted language and the inability to state simple concepts simply.
May is very willing to present her beliefs clearly. Many followers however are unwilling to do so or are unable.
There is nothing difficult in stating, for example, "the following tweaks do not physically change the sound itself, but may have a positive impact on your appreciation of the music."
This isn't an attack and not directed to any one person in particular. I just do not understand the need to write multiple obscure two hundred word paragraphs when two or three clearly worded sentences would do a better job.
There is nothing complicated about these ideas. Why not present them clearly?
I agree. Excellent post, Buddha. You communicated these ideas very clearly and simply.
And it goes back to what JA said in the earlier "Charts" thread:
True (and sad) story: I recently had a house guest who stunk up my listening room. It made listening to music less fun. Once I had done some cleaning, things were as good as ever.
For me, having a clean and tidy environment is very important. It makes me feel better, in general, and helps me to enjoy listening to music.
There are lots of similar examples. It's not a good idea to listen to music when you have a headache, for instance. Again, something has happened to the listener which seems to influence the sound of the music.
Is this what we're talking about, or am I missing a point?
I'm picturing a little teeny Ethan on one shoulder, and an imaginary Michigan J Frog on the other.
The Frog keeps saying different things to think about and the tiny Ethan keeps saying, "Inconceivable!" (The tiny Ethan speaks with Wallace Shawn's voice from The Princess Bride.)
What I think I am willing to go along with is that...
1) Negative stimuli can diminish the quality of a listening session without affecting the acouistics of the room, and there are things that happen that can enhance it, as well - for some.
2) We are capable of "perceiving" stimuli at levels somewhere below the cognitive threshold.
3) So, I am not averse to someone postulating that there may be some thing that she/he does that seems to have an "enjoyment enhancing" effect on a listening session.
4) It is important to be perhaps a little more than "normally skeptical" if "normally skeptical" implies a position too far afield, and it's also important to keep fiscal agendas in mind on either side, but this is a fun topic! This topic also requires the contributions of Ethan, May, Michigan, etc...those on opposing ends of the spectrum in order to keep the topic from becoming a promotional parade for one hypothesis or the other.
I am happy with the sound of my gear with neither microdot/creme tweaks nor Ethan's products - Tom Petty sounds just like Tom Petty, every time! How does that happen!??!
Placebo!
I think even Ethan would agree that you probably don't know, or prefer not to admit (who tried my link to the "Right Side of the Brain" activity?), what's better until you experience what's better. This argument seems to be a reversal of, "We are all capable of fooling ourself", which was used to dismiss the validity of alternative treatments. At one point you use this device - our ability to "fool" ourself - as a way to dismiss the benefits of the concepts discussed here. Then you turn it around on its ear to provide anecdotal evidence nothing more than what you presently employ could alter your perception of what is already in the room. Are you truly that naive to think you have as good as it gets? Either you are fooling yourself or you are not willing to admit you are fooling yourself.
Is that concise enough for everyone?
I have more to add but not enough time for several two hundred word paragraphs.
Before I go, however, 1) If you consider an experiment similar to Buddha's involving scents and aromas, consider reducing the experiment. From a scented sponge I would reduce the "size" of the stimulant to a letter or note card.
If you found the smell of a foul scented sponge to be disruptive of your perceptive abilites, I would then suggest you take a piece of paper with something disagreeable on it - a dentist's bill or as I found the other night a news article on the epidemic of animals being euthanized in the Dallas "animal services" system, 80-100 each day going from happy, wagging tails and bright eyes to another piece of trash placed in plastic garbage bags and sent to the city dump, or whatever you find that disturbs you on a deeply emotional level - and place it atop your CD player or a speaker after studying it carefully. Enjoy your music?
2) Those who have proclaimed themself "sceptics" have avoided shade's post regarding his post-concert experience. IMO, this is a very important post and it deserves some attention. On the one hand it is rude to simply dismiss such a question from a member trying to decipher their responses to this thread. There was a perceived improvement in the music shade enjoyed that night. Nothing physically changed within the room from his last use of the system. Only shade seemed to change. You owe him more of a response than just a flat disregard for his post and a dismissal of his contrbution to this thread.
More importantly, shade's post goes to the heart of what I have been discussing and to the essence of what May has postulated when she then asks, "How small does a device need to be to affect our perception?" It would appear shade is really pointing out just how "non-sceptical" many of you are and that you are really quite unwilling to address or even come close to facing anything that might inch you away from your set position. shade in this respect has taken a far more open minded view of his scepticism of alternative treatments and their positive effects on perception. We need to pay attention to this before it gets too far lost in the muck and mire of this thread.
Really, folks, a short return trip to shade's post is, I think, in order. Does no one here have any guesses even as to why shade had such a positive response to his music that night? Though this thread need not be come a dirge of dour denouncements, the humor displayed in this thread and in "Charts" has often seemed to be the defense mechanism adults and particularly males in our society use to avoid facing an emotional conflict. Humor is fine but not if it is used to dismiss cruical information or concepts.
I don't think what we are discussing falls into the category of "simple concepts", though what I have discussed in being taught at the high school level, or else we could face them easily and not dance around whatever we find uncomfortable.
I hope we're talking about the same thing, the PWB discussion site, as you didn't make that clear(!). (Even so, I've not seen multiple obscure 200 word paragraphs posted there. The messages tend to be quite brief, much to my dismay). If we are, then it wouldn't be fair to say they are not making their beliefs clear, because they are generally discussing them among themselves, not the uninitiated. Some of them have been dabbling with these tweaks for 25 years. So they're already familiar with the nomenclature, the concepts, and how the products work. I know that if I try to describe the concept in a few words, it doesn't work. It doesn't get across what I'm really talking about, so for example if I just say "well it doesn't work on the signal, it works by changing your perception of sound", I get Ethanistic comments like "So you're admitting it's all just a placebo then! That's what I've been saying! Why didn't you say that all along, save us some time?!". In my ever-so-humble opinion, when you approach this phenomenon outside of its working context of aural evaluation, it's quite difficult to explain clearly. Almost like describing colour to a blind man.
I agree that we need opinions from both sides, otherwise a debate gets pretty boring. But when you're trying to have a serious discussion (and let's face it, that's rare enough on these audio boards!), it's nice to have -reasonable opposition-, not the usual knee-jerk blanket dismissals we've seen 10 billion times. Otherwise the discussion can never advance, and that helps no one, least of all audio. I disagree that "it's important to keep fiscal agendas in mind on either side". I don't believe that has any relevance here and that it should be any sort of added consideration to what someone here says (no more than one's moniker should be!); as it presumes the contributors are not or may not be honestly representing what they believe. It's the ultimate in cynicism, and I won't adhere to that belief, or automatically tack on my own prejudices over top of what is said, before I consider anything else. I wholeheartedly believe, from what I've read, that both Ethan and May truly believe what they are saying, and would believe the same whether they were selling products that represented their beliefs, or didn't. Even though you may have a fiscal agenda in mind (if I could ever figure out what tweaks "NFS Audio" produce!), I believe just as strongly that you honestly represent your beliefs, regardless of any fiscal considerations.
So with that aside, this is about "what is conceivable". Well, many things are inconceivable to someone who isn't willing to conceive that they could be possible, finding nothing persuasive on the evidence given, because its something beyond their experience and knowledge. But what if it weren't? What if it became a part of their experiences? Then it might become a part of their knowledge. I've gained a lot of knowledge these last few years by following these concepts that are inconceivable, because my scientific curiousity would not allow myself the limitation that something was inconceivable. Not when it was so easy to do research on it, that experimentation wasn't a limitation either. I'm not suggesting that any kind of experimentation on these outr
You just blew my mind! I have the exact same problem. What are the chances of that? I mean, you take a stereo, put it in a room with just a bit of attention paid to furnishings, in the comfort of your own home, with if your lucky the smell of fresh baked chocolate chip cookies coming from the kitchen and viola...Tom Petty Rocks!
I suggest we leave the gender aspect out of this...
RG
Spoken as a true moon eyed acolyte, Jan!
Part of this discussion includes differences between listeners as well as tweaks.
Perhaps you are not able to get over the fact that a dentist fixed your teeth and putting his/her bill on your CD player will bother you. That is by no means proof that all listeners will share your reaction to such a "tweak."
When you venture from your specific experience (which I doubt you have performed, by the way) into make proclamations about what others must hear, you enter the realm of being full of crap.
That's the rub with tweak freaks - they all think their own tweak is the final answer for everybody, then they start talking like Jan with the "Well, I know best" BS.
On an important level, you and Ethan are the same. Your mantras are, "I know what's better. If you don't agree you are some sort of deaf Philistine..."
Maybe you need a positive affirmation taped to your CD payer to enjoy the sound - that's fine; you are "tweaking" yourself. If I don't have your issues, I shouldn't be required to 'need' your tweak.
I wonder what some nice time on an analyst's couch would do for the sound of your system.
You'll need to come to terms with the possibility that each person travels his own path to audio happiness, and just because you may need some form of sonic Viagra in order to get it up, many people may be able to get it up without the assist.
"Audio Moonie Pedants" are a pox.
On the plus side, I wrote "Jan is good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like him. His Hi Fi will sound better today" on a piece of paper and then placed it with a chocolate mint and a picture of Stuart Smalley on my turntable. You're welcome.
Quote by Stephen :-
>>> "True (and sad) story: I recently had a house guest who stunk up my listening room. It made listening to music less fun. Once I had done some cleaning, things were as good as ever.
For me, having a clean and tidy environment is very important. It makes me feel better, in general, and helps me to enjoy listening to music.
There are lots of similar examples. It's not a good idea to listen to music when you have a headache, for instance. Again, something has happened to the listener which seems to influence the sound of the music.
Is this what we're talking about, or am I missing a point? " <<<
********************
With respect, you are missing the point IF you are linking both examples as similar. They are actually two different circumstances - which is relevant to the discussion.
The first example is something outside YOU, in other words in the room, (your words - a stink in your listening room) - some external influence which does NOT affect the acoustic information but which affects the 'sound'. THIS is the particular area we are all discussing. It might be
(a) the example you have given (a house guest who stunk up your listening room) or it might be
(b) something else (something physical happening in the room) which also spoilt your sound but did NOT affect the acoustics of the room.
Or,
The second example such as a headache. Which is not happening in the room but in your own head - so no external influence - nothing physical happening in the room.
We ALL understand that the second example can spoil one's enjoyment of the music. No disagreement there.
Let me now look at the first example. Obviously it was the (stinky) smell after the house guest had left which made your music disappointing and much less pleasant. But, supposing, unknown to you, some other house visitor had left something in your room which you could not SMELL, could not SEE as any problem, was not anything which could affect the acoustics in the room but when they left, your sound was not good, you no longer had the same enjoyment listening to your music.
The spoilt sound was real, you were not imagining it. Others in the room could also hear that the sound was not as good. After a process of elimination, systematically removing items and listening, you found the culprits and removed them permanently. Eureka, back was the good sound !! The culprits were actually 'dime sized' metal/plastic/wood layered discs !!!
You describe what had happened to an Ethan type person who says, "No way. Bullshit. If the discs you describe cannot have had any influence on the acoustics of the room, then they cannot possibly have any effect on the 'sound'. It cannot have happened. You (and everyone else) were mistaken."
That is it. That is the brickwall. All I have done is to turn the story upside down from the Harmonix Discs and the Mpingo dots 'improving' the sound to 'spoiling' it !!!
You see, Stephen, it does not make any difference whether the story is about Harmonix Discs and Mpingo dots 'improving' the sound or 'spoiling' the sound. The reaction is the same.
"No way. Bullshit. If they did not change the acoustics, then they could not have changed the sound."
Regards,
May Belt.
Pages