Quote:

Quote:
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.

...

I hope we're talking about the same thing, the PWB discussion site, as you didn't make that clear(!).

I had hoped that my positive reference to May made clear that I do not find her or her website to be unclear.

May's contributions have been exceedingly valuable in establishing some direction to the discussion. She additionally answers questions directly and concisely.

My comments are directed more at a number of the other posters here. The concepts we are discussing are very basic and simple.

And, yes, I do expect the average high school student to have struggled with basic epistemology by the time they graduate. What we know, how we know it - together with how we observe and perceive - are basic, standard questions every thinking secondary student asks.

Quote:
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.

This is well worth stating. I, for one, am certain you are correct.

Quote:
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.

Ethan and I are the same? And this rant along with the last few you've directed at me places you where on the "I know it all" ladder, Buddha?

Quote:
You'll need to come to terms with the possibility that each person travels his own path to audio happiness

You say it and then deny it. I was under the impression this was a thread concerned with the path we take. What do you think this is about?

Budhha, it's clear you have issues with me. If you'd rather spend your time ranting about me instead of discussing what I say, why don't you just place my name on "ignore" and we'll both be happier.

---
Edit: The formatting of this post was disrupting the frame of the forum, so I fixed it. I haven't altered any of Jan's words.
-SM

"Budhha, it's clear you have issues with me. Why don't you just place my name on "ignore" and we'll both be happier."

I would, but I feel it a partial duty to help be a crap/lout filter. The fact that I end up arguing with you so much is purely coincidental - your posts happen to occur at the source of alot of crap, I guess. Budhha, it's clear you have issues with me. Why don't you just place my name on "ignore" and we'll both be happier.

On the plus side, it has been great fun having May and Michigan on board - they are at least trying to back their ideas up instead of saying the same thing louder and LOUDER each time.

Just what would you prefer I say, Buddha? Or would you, like Ethan, prefer I say nothing? If so, place my name on "ignore".

You don't really want us to start throwing out logical instead of mystical ideas as to why shade percieved his system sounding different? You know...like

He'd been up for 24 hours...

He was at a loud rock concert...

May have self medicated...

Contact high....

Chemical X...

Roger Waters and the sound at Super pages.com suck....

Has not listened to this system in weeks...

Maid pushed in the loudness button when dusting.

Cat jiggled the shorted interconnect, system actually sounds worse...

We can explore these with shade if you really want to?

RG

Quote:
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.

Why do you assume you are being insulted? Why is any push back on my part interpreted as "insult" and "antangonism"? I do spend my time arguing, I agree, I state my case and try to draw a relevant reply from others.

Quote:
Argument;
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
3 a : the act or process of arguing : ARGUMENTATION b : a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion

What part of "argument" have I violated? That you feel insulted is not truly my problem. I have attacked no one unless I was first attacked. Did no one ever tell you it is up to you to determine how you respond to a situation? That's not an insult, merely a question. What Buddha posted above I take as a personal insult. There were no discussion points in that rant, it was all personal. Ethan's once again exit was insulting - as it was meant to be! Have none of you caught on to the idea I will let you in on it when I decide to insult you?

This thread is called "Perception". I assume the discussion is about perception and how it applies to our music listening experiences.

That's what I'm discussing.

My approach to this is not identical to May's, nor Frog's nor anyone else's it would appear. My approach is not far removed from May's. But it is not identical. Both of us are discussing "perception" and how we go about "listening" with heightened perception.

There's no monetary cost to my method. My method is more similar to shade's after concert experience than to May's in most respects, so my method might cost you the price of a scented candle if you would prefer to take shade's advice. OTOH, many of May's treatments could substitute for shade's candle's when following my "method". I'm not arguing for or against May's approach but simply stating my own. Is there room for only one approach here? If May would prefer to only discuss her alternate treatments on this thread, I shall be more than happy to post my approach somewhere else. I'm not much in the mood to be shouted down however. My approach is similar to shade's experience. And shade has asked a question which has been ignored. I find that rude.

Quote:
You don't really want us to start throwing out logical instead of mystical ideas as to why shade percieved his system sounding different?

We can explore these with shade if you really want to?

You seem to constantly misunderstand me. Yes, I think this is worth exploring with shade otherwise I would not have returned to this incident. It is particularly relevant if your effort is merely to discredit his experience rather than explore his findings.

We began this thread denying "perception" and it doesn't seem we've moved very far beyond that point.

Now for some two hundred word paragraphs. Actually more like 600-700 words. So, if you get bored easily, you might want to skip to the next post.

Quote:
May
#40320 - 05/05/08 06:25 AM

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' !!

Quote:
"The extent of the ego's inability to recognize itself and see what it is doing is staggering and unbelievable. [...] To become free of the ego is not really a big job but a very small one. All you need to do is be aware of your thoughts and emotions - as they happen. This is not really a 'doing' but an alert 'seeing'. In that sense, it is true that there is nothing you can do to become free of the ego. When that shift happens, which is the shift from thinking to awareness, an intelligence far greater than the ego's cleverness begins to operate in your life. Emotions and even thoughts become depersonalized through awareness. Their impersonal nature is recognized. There is no longer a self in them. They are just human emotions, human thoughts. Your entire personal history, which is ultimately no more than a story, a bundle of thoughts and emotions, becomes of secondary importance and no longer occupies the forefront of your consciousness. It no longer forms the basis for your sense of identity."
Tolle, A New Earth, pp.117-118.

Quote:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Could either of you be replaced for less money and the same effect by a digital track looped over and over?

Quote:

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.

I return to this because I am astounded at the number of people who are willing to believe they are half wits! Or at least they are willing to believe they are restricted to using only half their brain at any time. Those who wish to appear "logical" and "scientific" at all times ignore how they actually function.

Excuse me while I state the obvious and say we all have two halves of our brain which cannot be shut down by force of will. To believe a performer operates solely through mechanical actions is to deny this simple fact. And this denial is, IMO, very important to this discussion because remaining "logical" is not how we perceive music as a listener nor as a "skilled musician".

"Performance" is coming from the right side of the brain and is mediated by the left side to keep the performer's emotions in balance with what is required to act. "To act" is not restricted to actors and stage plays but refers to anyone involved in the performing arts.

No one expects the performer who portrays Hamlet to be racked by Oedipal trauma or give in to hallucinations of their dead father. The performer who engages in the activities within the assylum stage setting for Marat Sade need not be insane to convince an audience of their truthful portrayal, at least no more than the dancer needs to truly be a Fairy Queen. The character actors who expressed simple greed and evil lust on the 1950's TV Westerns got up after being shot dead. Elk, you accuse me of stating the obvious in too many words but you still seem to miss the point of my words.

Quote:
And, yes, I do expect the average high school student to have struggled with basic epistemology by the time they graduate. What we know, how we know it - together with how we observe and perceive - are basic, standard questions every thinking secondary student asks.

I'm not at all certain how you arrived at "epistemology" as the category for what I've been discussing here. But I have no more been discussing how we acquire knowledge than I have been discussing how we hear. I have been discussing perception which is not the same thing as knowledge. We know 1+2=3 and we know how we arrive at that knowledge. We do not always know how we arrive at the perception a particular candidate is a "good person" and it can bediffcult to find someone who agrees with our perception though most would agree 1+2=3. What I perceive, Elk, and what I am being convinced is more knowledge of your approach to playing music, is you are not aware of how you play.

A performance requires three things; a space, a performer and an audience. That you dismiss both the space and the audience from your recitation of how a "skilled musician" plays says to me you are missing at least one of the emotional connections between performer and audience. I'm guessing you don't actually miss this conenction when you actually perform, but for this thread you have. Im guessing that, as with listening, you would have a different performance if asked to stand in a city landfill up to your hips in dung for a few hours while playing; different, say, than if you were asked to perform in a quiet chapel or performance hall. I might as well also guess that you would have a very difficult time playing for several hours in front of an audience who responded only with disdain for your performance and your response to that event would probably be, "They didn't get it." A different performance would occur if you could not hear the other performers. And a different performance would result if you could not hear yourself.

I would now turn your attention to another WP review in this month's Stereophile. "The ultimate goal of the human mind is to become acquainted with truth." pg. 114

"A musician's ultimate responsibility is to the music itself." pg. 115

In this case, what is the truth? A musician has a responsibility to the music, of course. No, Elk, I don't expect you to fall down sobbing as you play a sad song. But you must have the ability to portray the song as sad. You need not be frenetic to play fast any more than the actor needs to be evil to play Iago. However, you must understand the emotions which drive the character or the music and you must portray them with truth. As you play a minor or diminshed chord you cannnot be immune to its influence any more than a performer who is asked to say, "I love you", can ignore those emotions which provide the audience with "the truth" behind the words. If you care to draw a distinction between skill and talent, then we can talk more about art vs craft but I've lived with and been around talented performers long enough to know performing in any way is not a rote mechanical function.

If nothing else, Elk, you are taking off the "Elk, Stereophile forum member" facade and putting on the "Elk, musician" facade. You are replacing one "ego" with another. When it comes time to be "Elk, son" you take on another persona. "Elk, brother" is another. And so on.

To perform this exchange of "egos" you must first empty the other egos from your mind. This is the same as placing your mind over on that shelf for a few hours. To perform this successfully you must allow a certain "ego death" as has been described here earlier. The difference being that any particular ego is never truly dead and can easily be revived within a second's time like the character actor on "Bonanza" who in one half hour showed up on "Gunsmoke".

Now to think that exchanging egos or performing any function without the input of emotions is ignoring reality. As you perform this exchange of egos more frequently and with greater success you can push the emotions involved further down into the unconscious part of your mind. You can ignore it at a physical level but you cannot ignore it at a perceptual level. And this perceptual level is involved with your ritual for getting to the point of performance. Setting up your music stand is more than the physical act, it represents another step in the ritual of removing "Elk, Stereophile member" and replacing it with "Elk, musician". Same for running scales or driving to the performance. You are subconsciously or consciously comparing your last performance to what you expect to occur that night. You are critiquing your performance and that of your band mates. It is all emotional behavior not the "logical" function of 1+2=3.

Back some time ago in this thread I mentioned a Russian theatre director name Meyerhold. Meyerhold's method was to accomplish "truth" through "biomechanics". The performer studied the actions of the character he was to portray and by performing those same movements truthfully, the truth of the charatcer's actions, motivations and beliefs were put before the audience. Meyerhold's actors achieved emotional recall through the ritual of cutting a board as a skilled or unskilled carpenter would depending on the character to be portrayed. Stanislavski on the other hand had his actors achieve emotional recall through the ego of the character. Think of Jimmy Stewart in "The Glenn Miller Story" learning how to hold a trombone and "perform" like a performer other than himself.

All this leads to the ritual shade performs before he listens. The biomechanics are the same as a musician setting up as far as placing one ego on the shelf and putting on another. It is this pre-performance ritual which establishes shade's emotional character for listening to music. Where any one person takes this is up to them. My method of listening is one of a concert goer. My perceptions are those of a concert goer. Just as an actor doesn't see canvas sets and fresnel lighting, despite the fact they are present, my listening room is a performance space rather than a room in my home and I have prepared myself to listen as I would at a performance. I have assumed the role of concert listener.

This may be a very small or oblique difference in how you listen but I think it is not for most audiophiles. Too many audiophiles listen as audiophiles and replace the concert goer filters with audiophile filters. With either May's treatments or my method the ability to perceive more of what is in the room is determined by the listener and not the system. With my method the music is perceived as better. With May's treatments the music is perceived as better. The difference is in how we both get to "better".

One thing we have not truly addressed is what does "better sound" mean when we are discussing various alternative treatments? What are we addressing? The soundstaging? The detail retrieval? Or the music overall? What are we perceiving "better"?

Quote:

Quote:
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?

I do spend my time arguing, I agree, I state my case and try to draw a relevant reply from others.

So the answer is?

You claimed that the comparison was relevant. So why not address the simple question in front of you?

Quote:
Elk, you accuse me of stating the obvious in too many words but you still seem to miss the point of my words.

I understand you. I simply disagree.

Quote:
I'm not at all certain how you arrived at "epistemology" as the category for what I've been discussing here.

Simply because it is the appropriate term. For example, epistemology addresses our appreciation of the world initially gained through the senses or introspection, and our reactions to it. This sure sounds like the topic of this thread.

Quote:
What I perceive, Elk, and what I am being convinced is more knowledge of your approach to playing music, is you are not aware of how you play.

This is more than little presumptuous.

Quote:
That you dismiss both the space and the audience from your recitation of how a "skilled musician" plays says to me you are missing at least one of the emotional connections between performer and audience.

We were discussing only what a musician does as a warm-up and soundly dismissing your assumption that there were magic talismans involved, nothing more.

Quote:
But you must have the ability to portray the song as sad.

Quote:
So why not address the simple question in front of you?

What question? "Why not share your thoughts?" Good grief! What do you suppose I posted this evening? It was not a ham sandwich!

Quote:

Quote:
Elk, you accuse me of stating the obvious in too many words but you still seem to miss the point of my words.

I understand you. I simply disagree.

You certainly can do so but I haven't changed my mind on the issue.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm not at all certain how you arrived at "epistemology" as the category for what I've been discussing here.

Simply because it is the appropriate term. For example, epistemology addresses our appreciation of the world initially gained through the senses or introspection, and our reactions to it. This sure sounds like the topic of this thread.

If you feel all high schoolers have asked what we know, how we know it - together with how we observe and perceive the world - then I would disagree based on several of the responses posted on this thread. I'm not at all certain introspection is at this point what the majority on this thread are discussing. How in your view is introspection a part of May's work?

Quote:

Quote:
What I perceive, Elk, and what I am being convinced is more knowledge of your approach to playing music, is you are not aware of how you play.

This is more than little presumptuous.

It's my perception and I am entitled to my perceptions. It's not an insult. It's merely an observation based upon watching other musicians and watching how musicians learn to play. Your perception of me is that I employ and believe in "magic" even though I've stated plainly that you are incorrect in that assumption. You believe that my components are all based on magic thinking. That everything I do is unreal and false. What you put in your posts is an outright insult to what I do believe. What you believe about me is not true and not even close to being true. But it's simpler to dismiss magic than discuss reason. I'm willing to change my perception of you. And you are willing to ... ?

Quote:

Quote:
That you dismiss both the space and the audience from your recitation of how a "skilled musician" plays says to me you are missing at least one of the emotional connections between performer and audience.

We were discussing only what a musician does as a warm-up and soundly dismissing your assumption that there were magic talismans involved, nothing more.

And why do you assume a talisman must invoke "magic"? I could call the object a dozen different names, the effect is all I'm concerned with. Is a Crucifix a "talisman"? Does it possess "magical" powers? Your perception of me, just as with Buddha and Ethan, is that I only have magic on my side. If you have no belief in anything else, I suppose that makes sense in a convoluted sort of way. It is what keeps you from communicating with me but that's your chosen reaction to the situation.

Quote:

Quote:
But you must have the ability to portray the song as sad.

Quote:

Quote:
So why not address the simple question in front of you?

What question?

The question you edited out of the post:

"I simply asked whether you were presenting the concept that a listener to reproduced sound is in some ways similar to musician."

Quote:
Your perception of me is that I employ and believe in "magic" even though I've stated plainly that you are incorrect in that assumption. You believe that my components are all based on magic thinking. That everything I do is unreal and false.

I have never posted any such thing. Others have referenced "magical thinking" and the like, but not I.

I did state: "We were discussing only what a musician does as a warm-up and soundly dismissing your assumption that there were magic talismans involved, nothing more."

Quote:
And why do you assume a talisman must invoke "magic"?

Only because this is what a talisman is. As you like to cite dictionaries, consider the definition contained in The American Heritage Dictionary

"An object marked with magic signs and believed to confer on its bearer supernatural powers or protection."

Quote:
I won't repeat the half wit remark again.

Thank you.

Quote:
OK, so you admit to being a half wit?

No need to be insulting, Jan. Why do you make everything so personal?

Quote:
But I do think May is correct, you are not willing to move in any direction and you have a very dismissive tone to your responses to several members on this thread.

I do not recall May being so judgmental toward me. In fact May and I appeared to have a very pleasant and fruitful dialog.

Quote:
You've ignored several other member's posts.

No one responds to all posts. Fortunate, or all threads would be thousands of posts long.

Quote:
...May - though she believes you are not a true sceptic and I agree with her on that

May is more than capable of speaking for herself. She commented only: "I would not describe Ethan as simply 'skeptical'." She has been gracious in not characterizing me or others.

With respect to Shade's post, I stated: "...the deliberateness of sitting to listen opens oneself to truly appreciating the experience. This type of focusing to listen is missing from the way many currently experience music as simply background. Thanks for bringing this out, Shade.

Quote:

Quote:
You don't really want us to start throwing out logical instead of mystical ideas as to why shade percieved his system sounding different?

We can explore these with shade if you really want to?

You seem to constantly misunderstand me. Yes, I think this is worth exploring with shade otherwise I would not have returned to this incident. It is particularly relevant if your effort is merely to discredit his experience rather than explore his findings.

We began this thread denying "perception" and it doesn't seem we've moved very far beyond that point.

When I consider shade's experience, I wind up with questions that are very similar to those presented by rgibran. And it's not because I mean to discredit shade's experience, but exactly because I am exploring the experience.

This is what shade shared with us:

Quote:
I came home from a concert last night and spent the rest of the night listening to my stereo. I was amazed at how, for no apparent reason it sounds incredibly more open with a wider, taller soundstage than I have heretofore been able to achieve. I can see no change in the room, the system is just the way it was two weeks ago when I turned it off. There is some newspaper on the floor at the back. And there are some school books and ungraded papers laying on the loveseat at the far end of the room. Why did the sound change? Is it me? Is it garbage in the room. Garbage is always there in some configuration or another. (Sorry, we are not as domestic as some folks, a bit messy at times.) Maybe it was the fact that my cat was not there as she usually is. I could say it was that I was listening differently after the concert. But coming from a loud rock concert ot a low level (volume) listening environment I would have expected to not hear as well. Nevertheless I was able to consistantly get lost in the music on side after side until 5:30am. I would add that I came home expecting everything to be as it has been for the last few months so I don't think this was expectations on my part.

I doubt that the better sound has anything to do with the school books or newspapers. Shade says that there is usually some garbage in his room anyhow. I also doubt that it had anything to do with the cat. I imagine that the cat is there sometimes, and not there other times. (Cats are like that, from what I understand.)

So I wonder: Was shade wearing earplugs at the loud rock concert? If not, his hearing would definitely be altered. Many of us have experienced this. (I remember coming home hungry from loud rock concerts and throwing some frozen White Castle burgers in the microwave and not being able to hear the microwave "ding" when the burgers were done.) In fact, even if shade was wearing earplugs, his hearing could have been altered somewhat.

Second, I'm impressed that shade even wanted to listen to music after attending a loud rock concert. I often find that I want a break from music after attending a loud rock concert, but that's just me, I guess.

Third, I'm impressed that shade was able to stay up until 5:30 in the morning after attending a loud rock concert. I would be pooped! Considering this, I am led to wonder whether shade's hearing was altered due to the fact that he had been up so late. I also then wonder if shade had taken some sort of stimulant to enable him to stay up so late. Then, of course, I wonder if that stimulant altered his hearing.

I also note that shade first says he expected to not hear as well after coming home from a loud rock concert. Soon after, he somewhat contradicts himself, saying, "I expecting everything to be as it had been...." In any case, I must wonder how those expectations influenced his listening session.

Anything else? Let me see...

Nah, that's it.

Quote:

What do you experience listening to music that you can share?

What changes to your listening room have you found to add enjoyment to listening to music? Why do you think they work as they do?

Great post, Elk. And excellent questions. I am also interested in learning more about these things.

I very recently purchased a new rug. It is larger, thicker, and heavier than the previous cheapo rug I had. It didn't occur to me at the time, but now I wonder if the new rug has anything to do with the sound in my room, which seems to have tighter, fuller bass and better defined images.

How did we get to this point ? Can we pause and take a deep breath ?

I seem to be being quoted in areas I did not expect to be quoted so I will make my position clear.
When I challenged Elk's comment that he is "as skeptical as Ethan", I was suggesting that "Surely no one wants to be described as being 'as skeptical as Ethan' ? Surely no one wants to be regarded as the equivalent of someone who is "endlessly dismissing other people's experiences as "the placebo effect", as "mistaken". Or who describes products as "total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking" - products which many journalists (also intelligent) have positively reviewed as improving their sound'?"

Skepticism is healthy - that is 'healthy skepticism' is 'healthy' !!! Please don't equate Ethan's attitude with 'skepticism'. If you do, you denigrate the word and meaning of 'skepticism'. An attitude like Ethan's is just dismissive of practically everything - including such things as cryogenic freezing THAT is not skepticism !!

The whole thread started, way back, around the subject of 'can small devices have an effect on the sound if they are not doing anything with the acoustics of the room' ? People then asked "If these small devices CAN affect the sound then how is it possible ?"

Yes, shade's lighting candles in preparation for sitting down to listen, Stephen tidying up and not listening when he has a headache, people playing a musical instrument with 'emotion' are ALL relevant to deriving pleasure from listening to music. But the initial search was for an explanation as to why 'small devices', in the room, could affect the sound and the discussion has strayed away from that particular search !!

We are supposed to be looking at and discussing 'things in the room, small things in the room' affecting 'sound' and that is when and why I joined this particular discussion. It only changed it's title to "Perception" at a later stage.

Regards,
May Belt.

'can small devices have an effect on the sound if they are not doing anything with the acoustics of the room' ?

The way I do it is this:

Many have decided to themselves that when they utilize these devices that 'something' is going on.

I encounter these situations where someone relates this information gleaned, to me.

Instead of doubting the people involved, I investigate the situation.

I find that many feel through their experiences in physics..that no such mechanism exists, therefore they decide that the people involved are fooling them selves with respects to some sort of psychological conditional.

I return to the information gleaned and consider the situation along the lines of points of physics that are not being properly resolved and I dig deeper. The real point is..that the gross aspects of pressurizing a room are fairly well understood in terms of the basics of repeatability as connected to theory predicting repeatable numbers on paper via formulation, but beyond that, the mechanisms are truly little understood.

I find the physical mechanism in physics that explains the function.

I keep it to myself as it allows me to walk around the 'automatic non-believers',and never talk about the subject,as the point of knowing allows me to investigate other related phenomena and thus, gain advantage over them in the market, due either to their ignorance, or their simple unwillingness to understand the points involved, due to their own psychological makeup. I neither encourage investigation or involve myself in the arguments. I have commercial and investigatory interests here in this area.

Due to the stupidity of the average man, regarding emotional 'knee-jerk' reactionism, or an inability in the physics that they utilize to account for the given phenomena, they automatically lock themselves out of such areas of investigation. Shakespeare, Or Bacon (one of the creators of the ORIGINAL scientific method which Newton bastardized into the modern scientific method), besides being intelligent enough to inject 7000 new words into the English language..also promoted a term for such thinking: "Hosted by his own Petard". Ie, 'locked into permanent stupidity by his own ass'.

The point being, that even Bacon, one of THE creators of the scientific method, felt it quite important to make it clear to people that the height of stupidity involves having a closed mind.

If I never show the hand of the point of discovery and investigation, I can eventually, come up with items and devices that will work according to their standards of acceptance of what physics 'is'. And they will accept those devices. What they don't realize, is I made it there by not being dismissive. By not dismissing the things they dismissed. Simply by paying attention and investigating. Find the point of correlation within the sciences. If it's new, it's cutting edge, and the correlation is likely found in other sciences, in their 'newest' areas of discovery. This evolves to the point that almost all new discoveries are related in aspects of nearly all anomalous or all newer and newest discoveries in science. Therefore, I spend the vast majority of my time looking at ONLY anomalous points in science and physics, and cutting edge work. It is only there that the unexplained and misunderstood points stand any chance of coming clear.

I'm damned good at drawing information out of seemingly unrelated fields. Almost nothing escapes me on that front. The thing or specific point that few pay attention to, is the basic relational aspects of all sciences at the base level. I explained it in simple to understand terms a few pages back.

The most important point of all, is that the talking monkeys, for the most part, need to calm down and get the hell over themselves. Otherwise, no growth in either understanding the universe, or in the personal sense..will ever take place. If such a thing takes place within the individual..then one finally offers themselves a chance to be a fully realized human. We all suffer from this. The trick is to catch it when it is happening, and realize it for what it is. It then becomes easier and easier to get by it. As way of an explanation, the part that engages stupidity in the given individual..DID react quite strongly at the start of this paragraph. See what I mean?--Watch out for it. Every minute-every day. Your ass spends it's entire existence trying to thump and trump your intellect. Never forget that. Not for one second. The longer you work at it, the easier it becomes.

Einstein, for one, understood this point very well. He told you that to understand the more difficult questions, you have to stand completely OUTSIDE OF the paradigm of which the problem itself evolved within. It is a problem-it is apparently unsolvable. Therefore the answer cannot be found within that area.

DUH!

As obvious as the day is long. If you are paying attention.

Extra bonus credit: Gyroscopic particles are stable and symmetrical in the static sense. On the transient consideration, ie, impulse, or 'under influence'...they become their true selves..which is asymmetrical. This was contained in Maxwell's original treatise on EM theory. Twenty equations in twenty unkowns! This was shortened to two equations in two unknowns..when at a quite young age, Maxwell somehow died of stomach cancer. Strange. hhmmm. Oliver Heaviside shortened it, which become the standard in physics concerning EM function/theory. Wrong as it was. Lorentz, at the behest of JP Morgan, also modified it further, and totally cleared away any remaining asymmetricality. Now all physics texts show all EM theory as symmetrical, but gyroscopic theory does not allow for molecular function to be perfectly symmetrical. There is egress of energy from the two-d infinite stress field. And THAT..is the essence of the huge plethora of bizarre 'fudge factors' that permeate the entire field of physics, with regards to formula and theory. Maxwell somehow dies, and we are locked out of the truth of the situation for 200 years. Remember: gysroscopic/two-d stress fields/wave particle.

Quote:

Quote:
What question?

The question you edited out of the post:
"I simply asked whether you were presenting the concept that a listener to reproduced sound is in some ways similar to musician."

I did not edit anything out of the post, I chose the actual question you had posed in that post. If you had wanted a reply to your declamatory sentence, ...

The original question posted several pages ago described the musician as "skilled" and requiring no emotion to change from "Elk, forum member" to "Elk, musician". Therefore, I see the question as being, is Elk wearing a different persona with each task he performs? If the answer is yes, then how can Elk learn to use those personas to his advantage when listening to music? And so it's back to the dictionary for "persona"; "1 : a character assumed by an author in a written work 2 a plural personas [New Latin, from Latin] : an individual's social facade or front that especially in the analytic psychology of C. G. Jung reflects the role in life the individual is playing compare ANIMA b : the personality that a person (as an actor or politician) projects in public : IMAGE"

What I am presenting is the concept that we are all similar in that we all do similar things to get in character for each persona we must present in a day

Quote:
The most important point of all, is that the talking monkeys, for the most part, need to calm down and get the hell over themselves. Otherwise, no growth in either understanding the universe, or in the personal sense..will ever take place. If such a thing takes place within the individual..then one finally offers themselves a chance to be a fully realized human. We all suffer from this. The trick is to catch it when it is happening, and realize it for what it is. It then becomes easier and easier to get by it. As way of an explanation, the part that engages stupidity in the given individual..DID react quite strongly at the start of this paragraph. See what I mean?--Watch out for it. Every minute-every day. Your ass spends it's entire existence trying to thump and trump your intellect. Never forget that. Not for one second. The longer you work at it, the easier it becomes.

And that is the good advice for someone first attempting the task of getting in character to listen. I've seen this more than a few times when a "natural born actor" is faced with the craft of acting. The natural is winging it with a loose cannon for a right brain. When tasked with reaching inside themself to draw only that which is fundamental to the character their left brain takes hold and convinces them they look foolish doing exercises when they already know how to act. Perception is a right brain activity as evidenced by the exercise I linked to from "Drawing from the Right Side of Your Brain". It is only when the left side facilitates control over the artistic side that the craft merges with the art.

If you feel foolish trying the exercise in switching to "symphony listener", you are not alone. The filters you have put in place as you became an adult which allow you to avoid embarrassing yourself in public just need to go over on the shelf for a while. Allow yourself to be embarrassed at first. Gradually your left brain can come over to join the right side and they will create what is required for the exercise to become semi-automatic.

Quote:
When I consider shade's experience, I wind up with questions that are very similar to those presented by rgibran. And it's not because I mean to discredit shade's experience, but exactly because I am exploring the experience.

We need shade to rejoin the discussion and fill in some of the blanks. He has also had some time to reflect and surely has come to some possible conclusions.

Hopefully shade wasn't just trying to stir the inmates, or worse yet, dismissing Jan's input by not replying. How rude and insulting is that?

RG

Quote:

The way I do it is this:

Many have decided to themselves that when they utilize these devices that 'something' is going on.

I encounter these situations where someone relates this information gleaned, to me.

Instead of doubting the people involved, I investigate the situation.

I find that many feel through their experiences in physics..that no such mechanism exists, therefore they decide that the people involved are fooling them selves with respects to some sort of psychological conditional.

I return to the information gleaned and consider the situation along the lines of points of physics that are not being properly resolved and I dig deeper. The real point is..that the gross aspects of pressurizing a room are fairly well understood in terms of the basics of repeatability as connected to theory predicting repeatable numbers on paper via formulation, but beyond that, the mechanisms are truly little understood.

I find the physical mechanism in physics that explains the function.

If you are indeed talking about tweak ideas people have mentioned in this or previous threads, it seems you're still making the same mistake as those who have dismissed the ideas without trying them; those who have decided "the people involved are fooling themselves with respects to some sort of psychological conditional". Because when you say "instead of doubting the people involved, I investigate the situation", you do not investigate the situation in the sense I understand that term. You are not talking about attempting to try their idea or tweak in an attempt to try to understand their experience.

The problem with taking a purely intellectually analytical approach to an audio tweak (a device or idea which purports to enhance or change the sensory experience of listening to music and can only be evaluated that way), is you are trying to understand it within the limitations of your education and knowledge (but trying to understand it is at least one step above the reactionist who dismisses it all without hesitation, claiming he already does). Although I suspect your education and knowledge is far less limited than most, I've debated these concepts (concept that perception of sound can be not just affected but improved by things that don't affect the audio system) with people who had 16 phd's (something like that...). They still got everything wrong, still applied their own prejudices over top of it, and never came close to understanding what was at play. It goes something like this:...

The physics student (or teacher) might look at the pressure of the room, and seeing the idea or device can have no influence on that, say "No, it must not work".

The acoustician might look at the acoustics of the tweak and determining it can't possibly have any acoustic effect will say, "No, it must not work".

The electronics engineer might analyze the tweak and finding no way it can influence the signal will say "No, it must not work".

The quantum physics scientist might look at the tweak and seeing no active quantum material that would suggest it operates on such principles, declare "No, it must not work".

Then what usually happens is, everyone consults this giant flow chart, which shows that if x is not equal to a/b/c/d/e... ---> the default conclusion is placebo. Ding!

I've never understood why so many audiophiles are willing to spend more time arguing about and trying to analyze a tweak than simply trying it out - (at least not when its freely available to do so). I would have thought the opposite; that if audiophiles are fanatics about audio, they would spend a lot of time trying new things. Which would differentiate them from non-audiophiles, who would naturally not understand what they are doing, and think it's all a silly affair. But I do understand the more time hobbyists spend debating theories, which may or may not have any relation at all to the working mechanism for the tweak and may have more to do with stroking the ego, the less time they spend doing listening tests. And consequently, the less capable they are of evaluating such things, in a practical manner, whenever they do take it upon themselves to conduct actual tests on the actual phenomenon under debate.

Quote:
However, in my experience, most audiophiles still listen mostly as audiophiles. Their critical faculties are attuned to the system

Quote:

Shakespeare, Or Bacon (one of the creators of the ORIGINAL scientific method which Newton bastardized into the modern scientific method), besides being intelligent enough to inject 7000 new words into the English language..also promoted a term for such thinking: "Hosted by his own Petard". Ie, 'locked into permanent stupidity by his own ass'.
The point being, that even Bacon, one of THE creators of the scientific method, felt it quite important to make it clear to people that the height of stupidity involves having a closed mind.

>>"Hoisted (not 'hosted') by his own petard" means injured by the device you intended to use to injure others. I don't think it really means what you want it to mean in the 2 examples above.

I'm damned good at drawing information out of seemingly unrelated fields. Almost nothing escapes me on that front.

>>Oxymoronic. How would you know what escapes you? That's like saying, I am sure I have made no spelllinngg errors that I know uv.

the talking monkeys, for the most part, need to calm down and get the hell over themselves.

I agree with that last point...

Quote:
But I do understand the more time hobbyists spend debating theories, which may or may not have any relation at all to the working mechanism for the tweak and may have more to do with stroking the ego, the less time they spend doing listening tests. And consequently, the less capable they are of evaluating such things, in a practical manner, whenever they do take it upon themselves to conduct actual tests on the actual phenomenon under debate.

LOL Now we half wits are too stupid to properly evaluate even if we do try the tweaks!!! So why try? Can I remove this vase of flouride water now?

I think it

Quote:
LOL Now we half wits are too stupid to properly evaluate even if we do try the tweaks!!! So why try?

I don't recall calling you a half-wit. In fact, I don't recall ever saying anything to you, period. But if you consider yourself among those you call "half-wits", I won't be presumptious enough to argue with you about it. Still, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with anything I said, because you haven't tried to formulate an argument either way. I can only presume you didn't understand any of it, because I answered the question to "why try" in the text you quoted of me. What sort of mental block are you having understanding that one paragraph?

Quote:
Can I remove this vase of flouride water now?

That depends... Did you actually do the fluoride experiment, or is this more blind reactionism?

Quote:
I think it

Quote:
My belief is there is little point listening to the system as a grouping of electronics. The whole point of an audio system is to listen to music as music.

Ahh... at last... common sense makes a comeback! Thanks, Elk. And this was the intended goal of the subjectivist camp at one point.

Quote:
And, yes, this is all simliar to a musician's persona exchange. All of those events are in some way equivalent to what a musician experiences. The fact that one is the listener while the other is the performer is not as important as the fact that both have a switch to be made to go from one ego to another ego to acomplish the task.

Interesting theory. I, for one, do not even vaguely function in this fashion - but intriguing that at least you apparently do so.

What is also very intriguing is that in order to refute the rigid belief structures of the "scientific/objectivist" camp the "mystical/subjectivist" opposition (and I apologize for the inadequate labeling) has, in this thread, co-opted the liturgy of science and its inherent reductionist tendencies to validate their points. To compartmentalize persona and detach oneself while observing and calculating the fragments is classic behavioral reductionism and seems on the other side of the universe from the holistic approach deemed necessary to achieve total musical immersion, IMO.

Quote:
To compartmentalize persona and detach oneself while observing and calculating the fragments is classic behavioral reductionism and seems on the other side of the universe from the holistic approach deemed necessary to achieve total musical immersion, IMO.

Yes, nothing like remaining open minded enough to try an exercise without over thinking it to death. Congratulations, guys. This is why psychology students make lousy actors.

Quote:

Quote:
OK, so you admit to being a half wit?

No need to be insulting, Jan. Why do you make everything so personal?

My gosh, Elk, why do you always have to assume there is an insult there? Does everything need to be followed by a smiley face for you to see a little levity?

Quote:

Quote:
But I do think May is correct, you are not willing to move in any direction and you have a very dismissive tone to your responses to several members on this thread.

I do not recall May being so judgmental toward me.

I do not recall anyone being "so judgemental" toward you, it's a forum and this thread began its life being judgemental.

May is exceptionally polite and has 25 years experience dealing with this. I commend her for that, it cannot have been an entirely easy 25 years. But if you are going to find insults were they do not exist, then you are going to find everyone to be judgemental sooner or later.

Quote:
May is more than capable of speaking for herself. She commented only: "I would not describe Ethan as simply 'skeptical'." She has been gracious in not characterizing me or others.

And she is the only one who has not "characterized" the opposing side on either side.

Elk, it seems you spent quite a bit of time speaking for Ethan when I would ask him a question and you would quickly supply an answer. So why don't we call this a draw and start over fresh?

Quote:
When I consider shade's experience, I wind up with questions that are very similar to those presented by rgibran. And it's not because I mean to discredit shade's experience, but exactly because I am exploring the experience.

And in all your exploration, Stephen, you could only come up with questions which negated shade's experience? You didn't have even one possibility for why he might have simply been listening better? Not one?

Quote:
So I wonder: Was shade wearing earplugs at the loud rock concert? If not, his hearing would definitely be altered. Many of us have experienced this. (I remember coming home hungry from loud rock concerts and throwing some frozen White Castle burgers in the microwave and not being able to hear the microwave "ding" when the burgers were done.) In fact, even if shade was wearing earplugs, his hearing could have been altered somewhat.

And you can equate not hearing the microwave to shade's description as being one where, "I was amazed at how, for no apparent reason it sounds incredibly more open with a wider, taller soundstage than I have heretofore been able to achieve ... Nevertheless I was able to consistantly get lost in the music on side after side until 5:30am. I would add that I came home expecting everything to be as it has been for the last few months so I don't think this was expectations on my part."

Don'know, Stephen, I would not equate the two experiences.

Quote:
I also note that shade first says he expected to not hear as well after coming home from a loud rock concert. Soon after, he somewhat contradicts himself, saying, "I expecting everything to be as it had been...." In any case, I must wonder how those expectations influenced his listening session.

Quote:
... so I don't think this was expectations on my part."

I guess we'll have to wait and see if shade makes it back to the thread.

Quote:
Yes, shade's lighting candles in preparation for sitting down to listen, Stephen tidying up and not listening when he has a headache, people playing a musical instrument with 'emotion' are ALL relevant to deriving pleasure from listening to music. But the initial search was for an explanation as to why 'small devices', in the room, could affect the sound and the discussion has strayed away from that particular search !!
We are supposed to be looking at and discussing 'things in the room, small things in the room' affecting 'sound' and that is when and why I joined this particular discussion. It only changed it's title to "Perception" at a later stage.

May, isn't "perception" what we are discussing however? What is the purpose of your methodologies? Is it not to provide what the listener perceives as a "safe environment"? That's where I am at with my appoach. I would instruct the listener to recall the safety of the concert experience in order to relax the sensory mechanisms which would otherwise be alert and aware of danger. By relaxing those areas of our perception dedicated to non-music listening I feel the listener's perception of what is in the room can be heightened if they so desire. How is this different than the techniques you employ if we are after the same result?

I understand your's focus on the physical environment of the existing room and mine do so in a different manner but relaxation is the end result of both, is it not? Your methods involve a check by adding and removing the devices and mine do not, mine are involved with the listener only. My method is one that is probably not as successful as yours in the immediate result since mine is a learning system and yours is not. However, IMO, my approach is not a substitute for your methods as much as it should be considered a companion piece. My only concern is that the listener's awareness of what is in the room is more complete.

Quote:

If you are indeed talking about tweak ideas people have mentioned in this or previous threads, it seems you're still making the same mistake as those who have dismissed the ideas without trying them; those who have decided "the people involved are fooling themselves with respects to some sort of psychological conditional". Because when you say "instead of doubting the people involved, I investigate the situation", you do not investigate the situation in the sense I understand that term. You are not talking about attempting to try their idea or tweak in an attempt to try to understand their experience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I've never understood why so many audiophiles are willing to spend more time arguing about and trying to analyze a tweak than simply trying it out - (at least not when its freely available to do so). I would have thought the opposite; that if audiophiles are fanatics about audio, they would spend a lot of time trying new things. Which would differentiate them from non-audiophiles, who would naturally not understand what they are doing, and think it's all a silly affair. But I do understand the more time hobbyists spend debating theories, which may or may not have any relation at all to the working mechanism for the tweak and may have more to do with stroking the ego, the less time they spend doing listening tests. And consequently, the less capable they are of evaluating such things, in a practical manner, whenever they do take it upon themselves to conduct actual tests on the actual phenomenon under debate.

Slight miscommunication. I do definitely try the tweak myself. If I find it works, then I look for the source or mechanism at work. It could be anywhere or anything. Start narrowing it down, somehow. If it is not immediately clear, file away for further investigation. One never knows when something else will come along to allow that situation or 'thing' to come clear. If it is a tweak and it does not really show much promise or effect, the I consider that I'm doing something wrong. If it involves money to investigate, then the value of the money spent is analyzed insofar as potentials-ahead of time. If it is still not clear, in any given situation...then I sit it out until the situation becomes clear.

Or some variation of the above. But never dismissal.

For example, Peter Belt's tweaks, or Enid Lumley's wet towels. the wet towels are quite self explanatory, after a bit of thinking. I'm pretty darned sure (near 'bout 100% sure) of the source conditionals of some of Peter's tweaks, except I'm not talking! Not my place to do so...

Never illuminate the ignorant who happen to be in the same business. Let them rail against what they don't understand. Suits me, It keeps more money in my pocket, When I create more or other product from that knowledge. Only a fool teaches their competition.

And as for the Shakespearian/Bacon quote thing, sure I know. But it suited me to use it that way. Close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades.

'Tis fitting to use, as the term engineer comes from comments about the bomb makers of the late middle ages, who where blown up by their own devices. Ie a bomb engineer who was 'hoisted by his own petard' (his dumb-ass blowed right up!) from crummy work and sheer idiocy.

Kinda suits the situation concerning most uncontentious objectors of audiophile tweaks, hhmmm?

Quote:

Quote:
And, yes, this is all simliar to a musician's persona exchange. All of those events are in some way equivalent to what a musician experiences. The fact that one is the listener while the other is the performer is not as important as the fact that both have a switch to be made to go from one ego to another ego to acomplish the task.

Interesting theory. I, for one, do not even vaguely function in this fashion - but intriguing that at least you apparently do so.

Of course you don't, Elk, you're the sane one here. Still are you willing to place the "logical " side of your brain on the shelf for an hour or so and allow your right side brain the freedom to actually try this exercise? It costs nothing but your effort and can be performed tonight.

Quote:
My belief is there is little point listening to the system as a grouping of electronics. The whole point of an audio system is to listen to music as music.

The point of the exercise is to not listen to music as "reproduced" music. You want to listen as if you were at the live event. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume as a musician you are aware of a "through line" of action. All it means in this case is you are recalling the emotions and motiviations of a listener who is living "in the moment" while maintaining a line of action/emotion which terminates with a result. In this exercise the result is the same as your experience at the live event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meisner_technique

Try the exercise and see what you find.

Perception is everything.

Quote:
Perception is everything.

Perception is everything. Like my perception of your contribution to the discussion.

I can see you obviously have a problem with me, Jan, please put me on ignore.

It's not widely known, but my 6-year old self was the original inspiration for Calvin. Uncredited mind you, which is why I tried to sue Bill Watterson over it. Didn't succeed. Jury was bought and paid for by "The Syndicate".

Quote:
Slight miscommunication. I do definitely try the tweak myself. If I find it works, then I look for the source or mechanism at work. It could be anywhere or anything. Start narrowing it down, somehow. If it is not immediately clear, file away for further investigation. One never knows when something else will come along to allow that situation or 'thing' to come clear. If it is a tweak and it does not really show much promise or effect, then I consider that I'm doing something wrong. If it involves money to investigate, then the value of the money spent is analyzed insofar as potentials-ahead of time. If it is still not clear, in any given situation...then I sit it out until the situation becomes clear.

That I would say is a smart and "healthy tweak attitude". Albeit one that appears to be driven a bit by commercial interests.

Quote:
For example, Peter Belt's tweaks, or Enid Lumley's wet towels. the wet towels are quite self explanatory, after a bit of thinking. I'm pretty darned sure (near 'bout 100% sure) of the source conditionals of some of Peter's tweaks, except I'm not talking! Not my place to do so...

Why, are you in competition with this?

Quote:
'Tis fitting to use, as the term engineer comes from comments about the bomb makers of the late middle ages, who where blown up by their own devices. Ie a bomb engineer who was 'hoisted by his own petard' (his dumb-ass blowed right up!) from crummy work and sheer idiocy.

Kinda suits the situation concerning most uncontentious objectors of audiophile tweaks, hhmmm?

"Close enough", as you say.

It might come to that, Buddha. At one time I took your username as an indication of your approach to life. I was wrong to have assumed too much of you.

It is very interesting as we go to see how there must be some sort of hierarchy to these "minimalist" (for want of a better word) tweaks.

Although it is impossible to get some people to think about a lower limit to the effect of tweaks, we see even the most radical proponents of micro-tweaking sometimes quickly dismiss items in the environment that may be affecting the sound of our systems/rooms.

At some point, we should be able to tell if, in fact, yesterday's paper was left behind the couch...after all, the ink is vegetable derived, and those plants must have screamed in mass alarm as they were killed in order to make ink. The trees used to make the paper itself would have screamed bloody tree murder in their last moments of photosynthesis.

But then, as omnivores, wouldn't you expect that we absolutely evolved taking comfort in the mortal components of plant angst as signals that we were about to be nourished?

Plant alarm signals should actually signal warmth (wood for the fire) and safety rather than causing us alarm, no?

What should it be: that plant alarm signals alarm us, or reassure us?

And so it goes, how about your wife's issue of Cosmo in the next room releasing a pheremonal storm of what could alternately be interpreted as signals of promised rewarding sex vs. forbidden and eternally damning adultery? Is the scent a good thing, or an evil thing?

Within the cacophony of what stuck to our clothes that day, the odors clinging to our hair, the fragrances and odors administered upon us by our soaps, shampoos, deodorants, colognes, toothpaste, toilet paper (why would they scent that, anyway?) and the vagaries of temperature and humidity, how is it we can make any sort of assured claim as to the effect of a micro-tweak?

At some point, it even seemed to have driven Enid Lumley mad. At some point, we have to ask,

Quote:
Buddah, where do you get those big spoons!

I've never heard them called that before.

Quote:
At some point, it even seemed to have driven Enid Lumley mad. At some point, we have to ask,

Quote:
I can see you obviously have a problem with me, Jan, please put me on ignore.

The rain was a good one. (just grabbing the post to reply Jan, not saying anything ..it's just that the 'golden rain' was a gut buster.)

Quote:
It is very interesting as we go to see how there must be some sort of hierarchy to these "minimalist" (for want of a better word) tweaks.

I'm not sure that's an appropriate term for it. With these "minimalist" tweaks you speak of, carefully applied, I've been able to completely transform the sound of many people's audio systems. I would hardly call that "micro", myself.

Quote:
Although it is impossible to get some people to think about a lower limit to the effect of tweaks, we see even the most radical proponents of micro-tweaking sometimes quickly dismiss items in the environment that may be affecting the sound of our systems/rooms.

When you have actually done a decent amount of experimentation with these tweaks, then you would be in a position to talk with a so-called "micro-tweaker" about the "lower limits" of the effects. Safe to say, if you've never experienced the effects at all of perception-based tweaks, then you can't know what someone else's experiences should or shouldn't be with it.

Quote:
At some point, we should be able to tell if, in fact, yesterday's paper was left behind the couch...after all, the ink is vegetable derived, and those plants must have screamed in mass alarm as they were killed in order to make ink. The trees used to make the paper itself would have screamed bloody tree murder in their last moments of photosynthesis.

I'm sure they did scream blue murder... in plantese! But you're again exaggerating your case, and making unfounded speculations as to what we (humans) should or should not be sensitive to. Particularly when you say "We should be able to tell". Should "how"? Do you think the sound of one's audio will be transformed because a newspaper was left behind the couch, as it may contain vegetable-derived inks, and you'll notice it from the last time you heard your audio before the paper was left there?

Quote:
But then, as omnivores, wouldn't you expect that we absolutely evolved taking comfort in the mortal components of plant angst as signals that we were about to be nourished?

No. I wouldn't. Are you suggesting that humans have never devoured healthy plants? We couldn't defend ourselves against them, so we just waited for them to die?

Quote:
Plant alarm signals should actually signal warmth (wood for the fire) and safety rather than causing us alarm, no?

Seems you're confused. Who argued that plant signals cause us alarm?

Quote:
What should it be: that plant alarm signals alarm us, or reassure us?

I would expect neither.

Quote:
And so it goes, how about your wife's issue of Cosmo in the next room releasing a pheremonal storm of what could alternately be interpreted as signals of promised rewarding sex vs. forbidden and eternally damning adultery? Is the scent a good thing, or an evil thing?

Neither. Because it isn't releasing a "pheromonal storm". See above, with your plant argument.

Quote:
Within the cacophony of what stuck to our clothes that day, the odors clinging to our hair, the fragrances and odors administered upon us by our soaps, shampoos, deodorants, colognes, toothpaste, toilet paper (why would they scent that, anyway?) and the vagaries of temperature and humidity, how is it we can make any sort of assured claim as to the effect of a micro-tweak?

Start by listening, follow that by learning. I did. So I can make an assured claim that if you're going to go through everything in your bathroom cabinets to see what can and can't change sound, you should start with the toothpaste. That might improve your sound, to some degree. Note: I'm offering the tweak for free, so the claim comes with no guarantees!

Quote:
At some point, it even seemed to have driven Enid Lumley mad.

Now you've gone off the deep end, with your baseless speculations. I don't think you know Enid Lumley any more than you know Peter Belt.

Quote:
At some point, we have to ask,

Quote:

[Here's a non-facetious tweak you might try: Place a bottle of drinking water on the north face of a magnet for a few minutes. Then drink the water. Needless to say, you carefully listen to your stereo before you do this, then afterward. See if you find any improvement.

You are an electrochemical creature, and blood operates by the very essence of electrocharge, ie, pH levels. (I'm misstating it, I'm not putting in the middle parts of the chain of logic) My understanding of it is that if your blood is off by just 0.1 of a neutral pH of 7.0, you are truly in danger and stand chance of being seriously harmed.

Thus it comes as ZERO surprise that simple and common ionic changes in the air of any sort are going to alter the function of the human body, or it's recognition of transfer conditionals. The human body, the blood itself, is intimately connected to the air via the lungs. The body is adjusting the pH level of the blood constantly, to keep it neutral. I've developed the habit (tried to remember,anyway) of eating 1/2 or one full (the chocolate and creme is my favorite) Tums tablet after drinking my morning coffee, in order to help my body deal with the imbalance that the highly acidic coffee creates. Soft drinks with caffeine and acids are something I've learned to never use or ingest.

It should come as zero surprise that magnetism of any sort does alter bodily function. Note the German and NZ government disallowing cell towers of any kind anywhere near any children's play areas. Killing adults is OK though. I know more than a few of people who have had their bodily function damaged by having a cell tower planted on their apartment tower ---and some are now dead. Magnetism is a far healthier consideration than any damned cell tower, though. To take it to the more far end of the scale with respects to possibilities, Some say age reversal is there as a possible side effect of the proper type of magnetic considerations. It is definitely plausible, with regards to the biology stating that it is possible..... Investigate on your own.

Oh Yes, Mfrog, my interests are my interests, due to my intense curiosity..and sometimes it might result in a final product for commercial resale. But..it's about 99% personal interest and curiosity, first. I've only begun to explore the idea of exploiting these discoveries for commercial resale as of recent,after over 20 years of investigating things in such a manner. I throw them behind me and move on to the next so fast, I have no time to be slowed down by attempting to make money.

Business is a VERY slow way to discover anything. You tend to have to run on your own, if you want to move along at any speed at all, when it comes to cutting through discoveries, hopping from one understanding to the next. As an astute observation, due to being in a business for the past 8 years and a backlog of over 30 years in other areas..I'd say that business 'speed', with regards to the adoption and adaptation of the public, when it comes to new ideas and understandings...moves about 10x slower than the 'mad scientist', who tends to be more centered on exciting and tweaking his own 'discovery monkey'.

My business partners tend to have the same view of me as it is/was humorously stated at one time on the Eichmann technologies site (ETI, bullet plugs, etc), about Kieth Eichmann. What they said, was that they let him out of the basement every now and then, slap some lab clothes on him to make him look presentable (with respects to public ideas/ideals about such things) and then after his speech, fresh air, etc, they shove him back in there, and don't let him talk to too many people.

I will play with the magnets, I have about $1k of strong N54 Neo magnets lying about the house right now, I'll try that this evening. Some have over 400lbs of 'pull'. Nasty when they get to close or pinch your hand. They most certainly make my hands go numb. With that sort of strength, the vast majority (10 out of 10 count kinda thing, so far, with my tests)of people -MOST DEFINITELY- sense the intensity of the field when the magnet is put in their hands. The fields interrupt the flow in their neurons/body in a very basic and intense way, and their hands go numb.

Imagine what it does to balanced and incredibly sensitive DNA and blood, and all the electrochemical transfer characteristics. We are designed to exist in the earth's magnetic and electrical fields. These fields vary in intensity, frequency, and type, according to an overall natural human/earth formula that has existed for millennia, and this, throughout the very creation of the idea of DNA itself.. Fucking with them, as we routinely do, in this modern world (every day, in all ways!!), is a good way of destroying and or disturbing the basic human functions.

The lesson is that everything counts. If something is noted as a realized/noticed phenomena, investigate. There will likely be a basic connection of some sort. The trick is finding the actual connection, which in many cases, has yet to be discovered.

But the point remains is that the origins of the scientific method involve 'human realization' of the existence of a given potential phenomena, and then investigation of that ensues, and then math and theory created and thrown at it, in order to quantify it. Newton screwed that up quite a bit, when he took over the Royal society, in order to institute his math on Light and such, even though the Royal society had rejected it as pure math with no foundation in realized phenomena.

Both points ended up being right, but Newton blindly decided to always place the math first, and the scientific method has been polluted and bastardized by this stance, ever since. We place cutting edge phenomena realized by humans in the trash and 'kook' bin, and bow to the existing theory...when the ORIGINAL scientific method created by Hooke, Boyle, Wren, Bacon, etc, was based on the exact opposite point.

Thus, the purely human and 100% working and functional scientific method that had taken man QUITE far, was bastardized by Newton to suit his petulant desires for revenge.

Thus we've been screwed in observing and understanding cutting edge human phenomena ..and moving forward via it...ever since, as our entire scientific caste has been raised under this screwed up umbrella of 'science' and 'method'. Newton was a great man. He was also a serious asshole.