| 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
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining. I don't know why things sounded so good on that particular night in your listening room, but I'm happy that they did.
Sometimes everything just seems to click into place. There are probably many reasons for it. I don't know why it happens, but I love it when it does.
Yes, it is great. I am starting to think maybe the cartridge is getting broken in later than I thought. I have about 150 hours on it now and like my speakers, it seems to mellow with time.
I have no conflict with your approach to perception, Jan. My answer will still be the same as I gave to Stephen - that there are two approaches.
1) Getting yourself relaxed (by whatever means) to listen to and to play music - what I will call 'within the person'.
2) Outside the person. Something influencing the person from outside.
Yes, the two are complimentary but separate. And, as I have pointed out, an explanation STILL has to be found for such as Harmonic Discs and Mpingo dots changing the 'sound' - i.e small things in the room affecting the 'sound'.
It shows rigidity of mind to so simply dismiss people's experiences as 'the placebo effect', or 'imagination', or 'being mistaken' - particularly after people have described those 'changes in the sound' as - 'tighter bass', 'bass was less boomy', 'more transients than before', 'bigger soundstage, more space, less fatiguing, more realistic'.
If journalists write those similar descriptions ( hear those similar improvements in their sound) from NEW, audio equipment which they are reviewing, people do not immediately rush in with comments like "Oh it's just the placebo effect, or it is just their imagination, or they are mistaken'." So, why would they react so completely differently when they read SIMILAR words and sentences about the effect on the sound from 'small devices' ?
Regards,
May Belt.
I see a highly complimentary relationship between what is occurring within the listener and what is present outside of the listener. Just as with pain managenment techniques I believe a listener can selectively detune themself to certain environmental effects if they can move their emotional recall to another location and another time - the concert experience. A listener needs to focus as much of their perceptive ability as possible on "being in the moment" and any distractions away from the music only limit the listener's ability to focus. In "Charts" I mentioned I dismissed the idea of opening all the CD covers with green liner notes (or whatever the tweak was that JH wrote about in that particular issue of "HiFi Answers"). I dismiss its value to me since it would force me to focus too much on the in room environment and interfer with my preparation for the concert experience. If someone wants to go through opening CD's as their ritual for moving their perception to another level, I have no problem with that but I find it either complicated or unnecessary if you're able to use a simpler technique to arrive at the same result.
However, without ever having the opportunity to work with the Harmonix Discs, the Shun Mook discs or the Shakti device, you are confusing me here. My guess is none of these devices perform in an identical fashion to the other two though the reviews all suggest similar results. I see these three as being as much unlike each other as Real Traps and ASC Tube Traps are alike. Maybe I've missed something in the literature from these companies. I also see all three of these devices operating on a different level than the Belt products as a whole. If we don't merely dismiss the products as quackery or placebos or whatever else some here might call them, am I off base on my assumptions that none of these devices go about their business in exactly the same way?
Thank you. It's nice to be recognized.
No problem, you told me you were the only sane one back in "Charts" and the asylum crowd hasn't changed much.
That may be what you wrote but that is not always what someone means when they speak about "listening" to music. I have found many non-audiophiles are capable of doing a much better job of hearing the music (and hearing it in a more lifelike portrayal) than many high end audio consumers I have dealt with. Audiophiles tend to obssess over what their system is doing and how it stacks up to their ideal as referenced to a magazine review. They are hearing "depth" and "soundstage" and other things related to the system's performance and comparing it to another system's performance. When they attend a live performance they are too busy comparing how an orchestra's "soundstage" compares to either what they have at home or what they believe they should have at home. It never occurs to them to use the live experience to measure the reproduced sound they have, or want, and they spend their time at a live event applying the measuring tools backwards - that is when they go to a live event which most do not. The entire point of the "concert ears" exercise and my dislike for "critical listening" comes from having to constantly remind audiophiles to switch off their desire for a better system and simply enjoy the music, taking in what is already in the room rather than what they wished was in the room or believing what they have is as good as they can have. One friend calls me about once a week to tell me what he's heard and it typically has nothing really to do with the music. Possibly there are some very advanced audiophiles on this forum but I tend to think most of those represented here are quite similar to the clients and friends I know. IMO, until you have listened for an entire week and never once thought about how your system "sounds" or whether the depth is truncated or the space is palpable enough, etc., etc. you still haven't caught on to the concert ears exercise.
I make no assumptions regarding how anyone else experiences the world. For you to say such a thing I would have to believe you've ignored everything I've posted here. Just to clarify, I don't believe I can tell anyone what they can or cannot perceive nor how they should experience music. I also don't believe anyone can tell me what I can or cannot perceive, how I should go about trying to perceive as much as possible in as pleasing a way as possible or how I should experience music. That would seem to be common sense to me but apparently not to some others on the thread.
I just told you I don't have such an obssession. I have told you I was beginning to have a better understanding of how you play music. That perception only comes from my having spent more than a decade around performers of various stripes and abilities on a daily basis and most of that around the instructors who taught them how to perform. I told you, Elk, part of my M.F.A. work was done getting to the root of how performers do what they do. There are exceptions to any rule but the rules are fairly similar for most of those engaged in the performing arts. You fall into one category I find familiar.
The only thing I "suppose" about you, Elk, is taken from the information you've provided and it has nothing especially to do with this thread. The only thing I see that concerns you and this thread is whether you are willing to try any of the experiments and exercises provided here. Have you tried any so far? Are you willing to try some now? Beyond that, this thread is about perception of music not any one person. Please, stop looking for insults where they don't exist. I thought we had reached common ground and could start afresh.
I guess you missed where that was discussed, eh?
Well, Elk, I can see the light but I'm not there yet. What have I said that is not positive enough for you? Maybe if you tried listening with the right side of your brain engaged, you wouldn't find my posts so baffling.
?
Elk,, you make unfounded claims about what I think of you and how I go about things and then you tell me to place "the personalities" on a shelf. That makes me wonder how many personalities you think I have in me.
Or were you thinking ... ?
Oh, I see.
?
I thought we were starting on neutral ground?
Uh, do what? Enticing you to simply ask questions rather than lasso clouds is tougher than driving LBJ Freeway at rush hour blindfolded.
Elk, the thread is about perception. This thread came from "acoustic size" and "Charts". None of that has anything to do with my components or my room beyond what I've already shared. If you would like to share your experiences with alternative room treatments, that would be appropriate to this thread. If you would care to share an experience that enhanced your perception of music without being illegal or dangerous, that would be appropriate to the thread.
I've offered a few alternative methods to alter someone's perception of what is around them, how to experience it and how to adjust to that experience. You have offered nothing of the sort. Why not give it a try and not worry about how my system sounds. What are you/have you been willing to try outside the mainstream of cables and the like?
Quote Jan: "Well, Elk, I can see the light but I'm not there yet."
You reminded me of a cool old song lyric:
"...I wear my shadows where they're harder to see
But they follow me everywhere
I guess that should tell me that I'm travelling toward light
I guess something you sang made me remember that
I guess I'm saying thanks for that."
So, I was working with some micro tweaks today and got everything just so. Then, I brought a friend into the room to hear the difference, but the extra person in the room changed the whole dynamic.
Which reminded me of another thing...
I do know this, and it's not exactly a micro tweak (maybe a size 4/6 tweak?): When I listen with my wife, whichever system we are listening to sounds better!
I think her effect on the system/sound is a divine mix of altered room acoustics and the things May and Jan want us to think about!
>>> "So, I was working with some micro tweaks today and got everything just so. Then, I brought a friend into the room to hear the difference, but the extra person in the room changed the whole dynamic.
Which reminded me of another thing...
I do know this, and it's not exactly a micro tweak (maybe a size 4/6 tweak?): When I listen with my wife, whichever system we are listening to sounds better!
I think her effect on the system/sound is a divine mix of altered room acoustics and the things May and Jan want us to think about! " <<<
To recount a story. Quite few years ago, an audio journalist recounted a story to us that whenever a particular journalist (from a rival Hi Fi magazine) visited him - to either collect an expensive piece of audio equipment for review or to deliver one - and stayed to listen to his Hi Fi system, the sound would always be worse !! We all presumed that it must be because of some deep inherent jealousy on behalf of the visiting journalist (presumably of either better sound or better equipment or even something else entirely !)). Apparently, no other visiting journalist had this same adverse effect on the sound, even though they would all sit in exactly the same chair to listen !!
This story really came as no surprise to Peter and I as we (human beings) are programmed by evolution - for survival purposes - to read/sense both our environment and other people in that environment.
You are obviously receiving 'good' (loving and affectionate) vibes from your wife, Buddha.
You will soon know Buddha, if that state ever changes !!!! Your SOUND will tell you !!
Hence one of my earlier stories about being able to read/sense an atmosphere, in a room, immediately you enter it.
With your story Buddha, and thinking more about 'a state of equilibrium', you have now triggered memories of other experiences, some that have a bearing on Blind Trials.
If you have a group of people in a room listening to some music, if one person tells a lie, then the sound will go worse not only for that one person telling the lie but for everyone else in the room !! And the sound will not come good again until that person tells the truth.
If one person THINKS a lie, then the sound will go worse not only for that one person thinking the lie but for everyone else in the room. And the sound will not come good again until that person thinks the truth. If you want to create mischief in the demonstration rooms at Hi Fi Shows, then just sit in the room and tell or THINK a lie !!!!! The sound will be perceived as worse not only for you (telling or thinking the lie) but for everyone else in the room and will not come good again until either you tell or think the truth or leave the room !!
If you have a group of people in a room, they will adjust their body posture until they reach a state of equilibrium - a state of 'ease'. They do it by crossing or uncrossing their ankles, by crossing or uncrossing their legs (left over right or right over left), by crossing or uncrossing their arms (left over right or right over left) until the group reaches a 'state of equilibrium'. At that point the sound will be at it's best. If any one person fidgets and changes their body posture, the sound will be perceived as worse and some of the group will begin to rearrange their posture until a 'state of equilibrium' is again reached.
Regards,
May Belt.
May be?
RG
The placebo effect is perhaps the favorite tool of the Skeptic, another favorite being Science cannot explain it so it can't be true. I use the term Skeptic not in the sense of being an inquisitive seeker of truth but in the sense of being bound by convention and suspicious to a fault. :-)
~ Cheers
The placebo effect is an appropriate explanation in many cases. "Science cannot explain it so it can't be true" - No, the proper understanding is:
Science cannot find a way to explain it right now - therefore there is no current scientific support for the idea. Suggest a possible mechanism or hypothesis and it can be explored. Until then, with no evidence to support the claim, we do not support the claim. We do NOT say it isn't true - but clearly there are hurdles that anyone should consider before they consider it true..
"I use the term Skeptic not in the sense of being a seeker of truth but in the sense of being bound by convention and suspicious to a fault. :-)
~ Cheers"
I, on the other hand, use the term Skeptic in the sense of being a seeker of truth, knowing there are bogus claims out there, and therefore looking for support for unusual claims before accepting them based on insufficient evidence.
Convention has nothing to do with it, one way or another. Skeptics can be in or out of the mainstream.
Extraordinary claims! So when one attends concerts, with hundreds or thousands of other thinking humans there, the sound actually varies in quality based on audience thoughts? And if the person with the most lying thoughts in the concert hall leaves, the sound becomes noticeably better for the remaining audience? And gets worse if he walks back in? And then is counteracted by me thinking more positive thoughts?
The question is, can that be reliably demonstrated in a valid way? If not, then it's merely a claim that can't be "disproved", in the same way that you can't "disprove" that I have an invisible leprechaun in my pocket. You have the right to make the claim. Others have the right to believe it. And we don't have any obligation to believe it without some compelling support.
Already have. You apparently missed this.
So far carefully placed pieces of paper of the specified colors has done nothing other than the pleasant look of blue against the green of live plants.
Maybe if you tried listening with the right side of your brain engaged, you wouldn't find my posts so baffling.
Jan, enough of the personal shots - especially those based on your assumptions and biases.
Additionally, your posts are not baffling. In fact, as I have previously noted, you are presenting very basic concepts.
None of which I have asked you about.
Move on, Jan. Stop fussing about how I listen, what side of my brain is or is not engaged, what others have asked you about, how I approach my work as a performing musician, etc. (Amazingly, I made it through three concerts this past weekend without making a big deal of preparing to perform.)
There was nothing positive in your last post - just a need to fight for fighting's sake.
What May is describing is a dynamic equilibrium.
This can be tested and calculated.
The testing is obvious, with subjects in the room reporting what they hear
Buddha, you are deliciously evil.
And exceedingly clever.
On the upside, after your explanation I no longer feel guilty that any evil thoughts I might have would destroy everyone else's audio experience; I am only an insignificant one of many.
If you read some earlier 'postings' in this thread Bill, you will see that Elk commented that
"he is as skeptical as Ethan". I challenged his comment by saying:-
"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'?"
I continued with "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 !!"
******************
Now you, Bill, say that on the other hand, you use the term Skeptic in the sense of being a seeker of truth, knowing there are bogus claims out there, and therefore looking for support for unusual claims before accepting them based on insufficient evidence.
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"
NO ONE is suggesting that 'unusual claims' HAVE TO BE 'accepted' (like a sponge) based on 'insufficient evidence'. Surely the majority of people taking part in this particular discussion are of sufficient intelligence NOT TO ACCEPT 'unusual claims' based on insufficient evidence !!
But are perfectly able to CONSIDER other concepts put forward, discuss them, look them over - forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down - with an open mind, without that mind being as open as a sieve !!
The reason why I challenged Elk with his comment that "he is as skeptical as Ethan" was that Ethan's 'skepticism' was closer to Geoff's description of Skepticism "being bound by convention and suspicious to a fault."
Ethan is not alone in being at considerable distance from Richard Lehnert's "It pays to remember the rhythm by which science has always advanced: first comes the admission of the existence of inexplicable phenomena; only then can theories be advanced to explain them."
Ethan et al cannot admit ANY existence of inexplicable phenomena regarding audio - however many well respected audio journalists report their observations.
Now to your reply to my posting.
>>> "Extraordinary claims! So when one attends concerts, with hundreds or thousands of other thinking humans there, the sound actually varies in quality based on audience thoughts? And if the person with the most lying thoughts in the concert hall leaves, the sound becomes noticeably better for the remaining audience?" <<<
Surely you don't have to exaggerate do you ? Exaggeration is often used as a common 'put down'. You had to bring in the concept of hundreds and thousands of people - you cannot just stay with a concept of a group of people, in a room, either just listening to music or actually taking part in blind listening trials. Buddha gave the example of ONE person changing his sound. I explained that it can also happen with a group of people. Psychologists know that a group of people will react amongst themselves and change their body posture until the group is comfortable within themselves. It is not until people are doing some intense activity like listening to music that they are able to detect changes taking place.
>>> "And we don't have any obligation to believe it without some compelling support." <<<
Of course you don't have to believe it. No one is forcing you to believe anything. You don't have to believe Buddha with his one example - he gave it merely as an interesting observation.
Bill, are you actually saying to me, with your "And we don't have any obligation to believe it without some compelling support." - keep quiet with your ideas, we only want to discuss conventional things ???
Regards,
May Belt.
I think Ethan seems like a good and sensible guy, but for the purpose of this discussion there's no need to bring him in as a "straw man" to make a point based on your impression of the person. Let's proceed.
I used the concert hall example to, indeed, exaggerate the numbers in order to illustrate my point. But my question still applies when we are talking about a handful of people in a listening room, so I'm happy to go back to that as an example. Even in that smaller environment, it strains my credulity to think that if one person "thinks a lie", that the sound will be different.
Was I saying, in effect, "keep quiet with your ideas, we only want to discuss conventional things???". No, not at all. We are discussing, let's continue!
Perfect question, BillB!
At what point does the "lie thinking" effect diminish to below the 'ambient' level of a group's mental noise; or "What is the 'lie thinking' audibility threshold?"
I bet it differs from person to person.
Even in my own life, I have found that I am more susceptible to being lied to by pretty womens.
Pretty womens can think all sorts of "lying thoughts" that I seem to either not be able to detect or perhaps do not care enough about to detect.
But I digress.
With group effects like May is talking about, we each probably have our own point of "diminishing detection" when it comes to the "lie thinking" or "truth thinking" affecting the sound in a shared listening environment.
In a listening group of two, who are initially not
Sorry, I ran long.
Boils down to:
Audio is a lie. We are not really in the presence of Miles Davis - we are lying to ourselves. The nature of audio is to create a lie. Therefore, all audio thinking is "lie thinking."
We are lying to ourselves - so we should really be talking not about "lie thinking" or "truth thinking." It's all varying degrees of "lie thinking." There is no truth in audio reprodcution - audio is illusory.
From that premise, we may proceed.
If we think "bad lies," our perception of sound suffers.
If we think "good lies," our perception is enhanced.
Ethan and May are both correct.
One person's "good lie" may be another person's "bad lie."
Just a little neurolinguistic programming and we should all arrive on the same page.
Done and done!
Whoa, duuude!
(Note that a Kuality factor post, you forgot to carry the 4. So corrected result is .391378. Otherwise valid, thanks.)
>>> "So, I was working with some micro tweaks today and got everything just so. Then, I brought a friend into the room to hear the difference, but the extra person in the room changed the whole dynamic." <<<
But, Buddha, could you describe "the extra person in the room changed the whole dynamic" as 'the placebo effect' ?
Was the effect 'real' (i.e actually happening) or was it only in YOUR mind ?
Could it possibly be that someone else, also listening to the music in the same room at the same time, who had also heard the same standard after you had 'got everything just so', also 'hear' the whole dynamic in the room change ? In other words, are we back to the original discussion - 'was something happening in the room which was not changing the acoustics of the room but which 'changed the sound' ?
>>> "Wait, isn't that what Ethan would call "Placebo Effect?"
Hey, I think we finally have some overlap between everybody!
What we call the effect of "lie thinking" may be what Ethan calls "Placebo Effect!"
Are we all just arguing about the different vocabulary we are using to describe the same effect, looked at May's way vs. Ethan's way? " <<<
My interpretation of what Ethan would refer to as 'the placebo effect' is 'something taking place in the mind'. Whereas "May's way of looking at it" is 'something physical happening in the room which, in turn, triggers a physical effect, which in turn has an effect on the sound' - which is then not a 'placebo effect'.
Regards,
May Belt.
Can't say I blame you too much for doubting these "micro tweaks"....Yet, I have this nagging feeling you don't realize what you're up against yet, and how small some of these things actually are. Take the Intelligent Chip, for example, with active ingredient approx. several thousand atoms, artificial though they may be :-) with nanoscale dimensions. But the one that takes the cake is the Teleportation Tweak, coming in at zero mass and zero dimensions.
Who knows, maybe one day you can have Miles Davis in your room, too.
:-)
~ Cheerio
Artificial atoms?
Who makes them?
I understand the distinction that you are drawing, but how can we tell the difference?
The experience is the same to the person who is listening.
They are grown in a laboratory specializing in such things. The artificial atoms are "self-organizing"... once contained in a suitable shell, they're very robust and won't "evaporate."
The primary use for this stuff is actually in the medical field, where it has been researched like mad for many years by many universities and commercial orgs to replace MRI technology. The audio application was found accidentally. :-)
>>> "The audio application was found accidentally." <<<
How many times has that happened in audio Geoff - an application found accidentally ?
That is exactly the point I am and will be making further in my articles in Positive Feedback Online - applications developed or used for something else yet found, quite by chance, to 'improve' the sound !!
Regards,
May Belt.
>>> "I understand the distinction that you are drawing, but how can we tell the difference?
The experience is the same to the person who is listening." <<<
Good question. My dictionary's definition of the placebo effect is 'something given to humour the patient'., 'to give a felt improvement'. From the Latin placere - to please.
So, if the placebo effect is to do with 'an improvement', and such as the Harmonix Discs and the Mpingo discs are working in the placebo effect and give an 'improvement in the sound', then if you remove the Harmonix Discs or the Mpingo discs, the sound should not get worse !! - that is if 'the placebo effect' really IS about 'an improvement'. As I understand 'the placebo effect' you cannot give it to make things 'worse' - or else it would NOT be a 'placebo effect'.
If however, you apply Harmonix Discs or Mpingo discs and gain an 'improvement in the sound' - if you then remove those discs and the 'sound' is worse, then surely the Discs are doing something physical which can be switched on or off at will ? You can have the sound better or worse at will !!
I think this is why such as Ethan (and many others) switch backwards and forwards from it being 'the placebo effect' - to it being 'imagination', to it being 'suggestion, to such as John Atkinson being ' mistaken' !!! Because they know that many journalists have written about their sound 'getting worse' if ever they intentionally or inadvertently remove the Discs.
Regards,
May Belt.
As it applies to listening to audio, a placebo as something that produces a real psychoacoustic effect on the listening experience, but this effect is only in the mind of the listener.
The medical analogy is giving someone a sugar pill telling them it will make them feel better. The patient subsequently "tricks" himself into feeling better, even though the sugar pill could have no possible benefit.
Removing a placebo object from an audio environment also worsens the sound; it removes the perceived improvement that the placebo provides. The analogy would be to cutting off a patient's supply of sugar pills which are "treating" a chronic condition - his symptoms return as he is no longer on the sugar pills.
Additionally, these perceptions also do not necessarily run in a positive direction. Medicine recognizes the nocebo effect whereby a patient who does not accept the validity of a given treatment appears to get worse.
We still have the difficulty of determining which changes are placebo only and which result in actual physiological responses.
I cannot think of a way to reliably test the difference other than DBT. I don't want to discuss the reliability of DBT itself, but it is the only way I can think of that removes the listener's potential perceptual bias in favor or against objects that do not physically change the sound itself.
Some of May's examples suggest that a listener has experienced differences while not knowing that something in the room has changed. This is DBT like.
Perception, eh? Reality, eh?
Try this:
Be at a location with thousands of people. Malls are good for this experiment.
Look at the back of a given stranger who is walking away from you. Specifically someone who is not aware, visually or otherwise, of your presence. Think of nothing, nothing at all. Keep the mind completely blank. No conscious thought. They will not react.
Now, the next person, think evil thoughts. I mean real, serious, we're not screwing around- evil. Like thrusting a knife in the back of their neck, right where you are staring. Visualize it, live it.
Watch them turn around and stare right at you.
When you get good at such things, you can cause a reaction or no reaction, exactly dependent on the mental considerations within you, and nowhere else. This, at a rate of accuracy of somewhere around 90%+ of the times you try it. That's a damned high level of correlation.
Now, what does that do to your sense of exactly what reality is?
If you've no idea what I'm talking about, I knew this sort of thing when I was a child, with respects to such reactions.
I'm over 30 years beyond you in such thinking of what the hell it means. If you already know - good on you. It's what you do with these sorts of understandings that counts.
For you hard core nay sayers, well I guess it's baby steps for you. Watch out for those there monkeys you've got inside you... they can be dangerous.
As Manley P. Hall said, the growth -the illumination- begins.. when you first understand that you are a entity captured and imprisoned in a body..and stuck in a strange thing called - time.
At that point, if you work at it, if you continue down that line, you begin to cease being a talking monkey, and begin to become human. Hopefully a decent one.
Many aspects of the experiments with staring you mentioned are described in Sheldrake's fairly recent book, The Sense of Being Stared At.
http://www.amazon.com/Sense-Being-Stared-At-Extended/dp/060960807X
Furthermore, I do think there's evidence that the "extended mind" Sheldrake talks about in this book are very much related to some, but not all, of the audio-related topics discussed on this thread -- i.e., how the mind "pick ups" on inanimate objects and words, perhaps thoughts, in the local environment. Maybe even in the non-local environment. :-)
There was a group at Princeton (PEAR), recently disbanded, that for 28 years explored "anomalous phenomena," many of which were thought by PEAR to be related to how the (subconscious) mind interacts with its surroundings. Many papers by this distinguished group are available online at:
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
~ Cheers
KBK, What YOU do with "these sorts of understandings" in post after post is pat yourself on the back for being so much more highly evolved than the rest of us- which completely marginalizes any positive message you wish to share. Don't you have the basic self-awareness to moderate your ego so that your anti-ego message can be taken seriously? Are you so bereft of self-worth that you must smugly stroke yourself post after post? Or am I just lacking the subtlety to truly understand what these self-serving comments have to do with forwarding your viewpoints? Help me understand.
I like to think that they are not egotistical at all. However, they ARE written without concern for whether they provoke, or not. For that, I should apologize. However, the need to apologize is part of the issue itself.
A real smiley, not a faked one. It's a 'look within' kind of comment. The idea that clarity first begins with the self, and nowhere else.
I have also tried a seeming multitude of different ways to get the point across on multiple forums. Every way you can imagine. Finally, I tend to give up the (feels like) pandering aspect, and state it straight out, clean and clear, no emotional baggage attached, just my usual caffeinated self. The physical presence is not evident in the replies, as would be in a video. I'm commonly referred to as being, at the least--intense. I've also been accused of being the nicest guy around, always doing things for other folk, without being asked, and also extending them the courtesy of generally trying to not take anything out of context. I walk up to and talk to strangers all the time, like I've known them for years. Personable. But, evidently it does not translate exactly - in print. I tend to not waste the energy of not 'making strange' in public. I don't feel that it's worth the effort, unless the situation is dangerous or contradictory to the considerations of the people I'm with or could be detrimental to their positions.
It's a big beautiful world. Have fun. If we sort through the reasons for existence, it only gets better. MUCH better.
Hope that helps explain it a bit!
And in the end, they ARE designed to provoke. Candy offered--gets folks to take the candy. Making them think about the candy is another thing altogether. That sort of stuff. There's a million ways to do it. I have, over time, through about 14,000 posts on different forums, realized I could spend twice as much time to as much as 5-6 times as much time preparing and thinking out a post, and then loose a considerably greater time of my life on forums, when I've done enough of that already. All it generally leads to is the same amount of confusion about the posts as it does with the more direct and shorter ones, is my conclusion - after mucho experimentation. All one does is end up enraging and/or losing/gaining a different crowd. One cannot win, it seems. Can't satisfy all folks. it is merely a manner of typing on the internet.
Strip your emotional reactions away from yourself when reading my posts, and it becomes clear.
Oh yes. I'm partly German. Germans are the kings of run-on sentences. Wouldn't know punctuation or periods if they came up to them and hit them in the face. So I tend to use a lot of short sentences, otherwise I get lost even in my own grammatical stew. This tends to bring out a quite emotional response to the written patterning that makes it seem to the reader that I'm being some sort of curt and painful asshole.
I'm not.
We're not all wired the same way. Thank the Gods for that. Marching up and down the square in identical uniforms is quite boring.
Hi,
One of my favoritist concepts, this placebo thing.
The "Placebo Effect" can be both positive or negative, and can be quite striking in either direction, or none at all, of course.
It offers astounding insights into just what amazing things we can do "to ourselves," as it were.
One particular example I find fascinating:
Mark Twain used to make money by applying various inert substances or prescribing random actions for a person to take in order to be rid of a wart or warts.
"Therapies" varied from application of purple dye all the way to swinging a dead cat around one's head in a graveyard at the stroke of midnight..
(He built upon the subject in The Adventures of Tom sawyer.)
He would tell people that, whatever action he came up with, their warts would diminish and fall away within seven to ten days.
This line of "therapy" has an approximate 70% success rate. In fact, Clemens (Twain) supplemented his income from the Territorial Enterprise by treating warts while he lived in Virginia City, Nevada.
OK, so
Close! I believe most of the ass clowns are on the right. *rim shot*
Are you sure?
I find that a real fire burning in the fireplace makes CD sound more like LP.
I stand by my previous declaration that you are evil.
LPs do sound warmer than CDs...
KBK, Thanks for your measured response. You are correct that the written word can be perceived differently than a person-to-person exchange and these are the nuances I am missing in many of your comments. I'm sure many of my comments don't meet my own criteria as well.
You know, as long as we're here...
There was some discussion about "just listening to the music" vs. audiophiles listening in a sort of "perpetually evaluative state." I thought it was a great idea to think about how we listen, and the more I think about it, the more I admit to thinking that there may be a constant
>>> "At the extremes, we have objectivists saying "everything that can't be directly measured is placebo effect," and subjectivists saying that "nothing that I or another subjectivist claim to hear is due to the placebo effect."<<<
The examples you give for the placebo effect, Buddha, are all perfectly valid. It is BECAUSE they are valid that so many people can use the term 'the placebo effect' so often. Unfortunately many people (the extreme example you give) use the term 'the placebo effect' as a knee jerk reaction, as a means of telling themselves that they don't need to 'think' !! Quite honestly, I have not met anyone from your other extreme example i.e a subjectivist claiming that NOTHING they hear could be due to the placebo effect.
It is also because there are such things as (and many good examples also of) 'suggestion'., of 'imagination'., of 'being mistaken'., of 'effective marketing' that these terms can also be used by some people as a means of telling themselves that they don't need to 'think' and as a means of dismissing other people's experiences !!
>>> "Subjectivists object to the possibility of the placebo effect being present." <<<
I don't believe that intelligent subjectivists DO deny the possibility of the placebo effect being present. The intelligent ones I have met have considered 'the placebo effect'., 'suggestion'., 'imagination'., 'of being mistaken'., of 'effective marketing' MANY times before coming to the conclusion that what they 'heard' must have physically happened - the sound must have physically improved. At some point in an intelligent discussion - faced with so many reports, from so many intelligent people, of their sound changing - that one has to consider the POSSIBILITY that what they heard actually happened !! Otherwise you end up doing what Ethan did and suggest ??? that such as John Atkinson was 'mistaken' when he described the Harmonix Discs giving him an improvement in his sound. And, as John Atkinson is just one of quite a large number of experienced listeners who have also heard similar improvements, then at what point are people going to say "It is time to think about it more seriously" ???
Unfortunately, there is so much truth in the examples of 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'suggestion' etc that it IS difficult to have serious discussions when they are thrown into the debating pot so often !!
Nothing is more evident of this than the controversy surrounding 'can different wires and cables sound different' ? This controversy has been going on, to my knowledge, since the mid 1970s. Numerous people are STILL trotting out - 30 years later - "Oh it is the placebo effect, it is suggestion, it is imagination, it is effective marketing."
I have been in at the beginning of (and witnessed) most controversies in audio.
Mid 1950s - When there were only valves - no transistors.
Mid 1950s - When it was mono only - no stereo.
Early 1980s - When manufacturers of audio equipment were at the vagaries of what cables a reviewer had around to use to review their equipment or what cables a retailer had around to use to demonstrate their equipment. When a reviewer could be reviewing a Joe Bloggs amplifier using cable A, then compare it with Jack Smith's amplifier but this time using cable B. Did the Joe Bloggs amplifier REALLY sound better or was Jack Smith's amplifier just unlucky because cable B had been used for that listening test ? To try to get around this serious problem, such as Julian Vereker of Naim would insist that his Naim amplifier or his Naim speakers should be reviewed or demonstrated using his Naim cabling but was constantly met with the attitude that the concept of different cables 'sounding different' was nonsense !!! It is STILL going on. Many people still insisting that 'cables CANNOT sound different', that it must be 'the placebo effect', or 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'effective marketing'.
At what point are people prepared to put to one side 'the placebo effect', 'suggestion', 'imagination', 'being mistaken', 'effective marketing' ??
>>> "Objectivists object to the fact that tweak effects must be "sighted" in order to judge them and, therefore, MUST be placebo effect. <<<
Many subjectivists are as knowledgeable of conventional electronic and acoustic theories as the objectivists - some even more so - so at some time people have to decide just who'se experiences they are going to take notice of. That does not mean that people have to BLINDLY accept or believe what others say - but it means that they haven't to be so readily dismissive either.
The one major problem for the objectivists is that they argue that IF the devices under discussion are physically having an effect on the sound (as opposed to a psychological effect) then practically EVERYONE trying the same devices SHOULD be able to hear the effect that others are describing. But, as there are quite a few people (including the objectivists themselves) reporting that they hear NO effect when trying the same devices therefore, the objectivists claim, there can be no physical effect or else practically everyone would be able to hear an effect - end of discussion !!
That if the devices under discussion are, in any way, affecting the audio signal then that should be able to be measured, or if the devices are, in any way, affecting the acoustics in the room, then the effect should also be able to be measured. And, if the measurements show no differences whatsoever, then nothing has changed, no effect has happened - end of discussion !!
Which is the usual argument put forward in the controversy over cables. That IF different cables can give different sounds and it is the audio signal being affected, then the effect on the audio signal should be able to be measured and, if there are no changes in the measurements between different cables, then there can be no changes taking place with the 'sound' - end of discussion !!
So THAT controversy carries on for over 30 years !!
Regards,
May Belt.
I lifted this whole, out of the SBT thread in the general rants area, as this fits here, perfectly. It has to do with personal evolution, personal awareness, and human mental ordering and flow, in the general and specific sense.
~~~~~~~~~~
Quote:(Buddha)
While I agree with Bertdw about the difficulty of doing this with many components, it would seem to be a fun thing to do with cables.
I have had buddies do this for me with interconnects, and then listen at leisure and try to see what I can hear.
I've also done it with certain tweaks.
I find it fun and illuminating, but my agenda is not fully the same as a reviewer's.
I also think it would be cool to get some honest, no cross communication, simultaneous reviews and see what different reviewer's hear with the same component of any sort.
I know the arguments against it are numerous, and it HAS been done in a limited way in the past - but I'd be interested in an issue where Sam Tellig, Wes Phillips, Art Dudley, Mike Fremer, Brian Damkroger, Robert Reina, etc...all submit a two page review of the same component using the same recordings (I'm sure Stereophile could manage to get them all a copy of each Stereophile recording...;)...)
That would not only be interesting from a component standpoint, but would also be enlightening with regard to varying rooms and reviewer sensibilities.
What a great way to really get a sense of a component!
Reply: (KBK)
As a manufacturer, you end up with this sort of detail when a product goes out for 'evaluation' to differing dealers. Sometimes the given item is handed through about 5-10 of the given store's favorite customers or the owners friends who have straddled that line of friends/customers over the years.
I've found there are TWO main types of listeners, And TWO main types of manufacturers, this being logical, once you hear the point that is coming.
It's the exact WAY of how we listen, and WHAT we listen for.
AFAWK (As Far As We Know)..
..It comes down to the organization of the given audio related brain bits, over time, in the given individual.
There is seemingly two main ways that folks listen. One is seemingly a bit more holistic , the other a bit more intellectual. Mostly one follows the other type of listener, as a type that we tend to get into. Holistic tends to come second in the order of the 'mental considerations', over time. It's audiophile listener-- "stage two".
Stage one, the intellectual listener. The quantification of tiny bits. This is the process by which the bits of the music are quantified and considered in little bits, even though they are all enjoyed together-like anyone who buys gear, it is about music, not matter how it seems. This is the more fundamental learning stage in audio, IMHO. The tearing down of what we hear.
There is a very specific set of reasons for this, and the one basic is the human hearing mechanism, and that mechanism is principally looking at the leading edge of transients, their timing and the levels they are at with respect to one another. In the context of a speaker, for example, it involves having the leading edge of a transient fly out of speaker and off into the air..before the rest of the signal is obscured and the box and system explode with noise and distortion. Commonly known as 'bleeding edge' ie, the high frequency transient emphasis crowd. A very specific crew and type. Ow. My ears are bleeding. Spatiality and transients are the emphasis, whether they realize it or not. There will be specific component types in these systems, you will recognize them after you see enough of them.
Then there is the crowd who, over time, has learned to realize that the BODY of the note is at least as critical as the transient and spatiality. Part of the audiophile evolution, in the personal sense, IMHO. They only desire to swing their butts to the music, even though they still value those other parts and do not want to let them go. But those components must now integrate into the body of the note, those folks must now hear the body of the music, and if the body of the note is obscured by noise, they do not want that component in their systems. That's audiophile stage two.
When an audiophile has given up, changed gears, etc..this the general sign that this is when they are making that transition. Their auditory skills have grown over time and then they find that there actually IS equipment that delivers the 'body' of the music. The 'backwave', the parts that follow the transient are actually revealed better, and integrated better in some gear than compared to others. This is the equipment they find themselves gravitating to.
It would require a more lengthly dissertation to state it more correctly, but the general idea is here.
What such a test with Stereophile reviewers would do for me, is to reveal where the given writer's audiophile 'stage' of 'learning about signal' is actually is at.
We all evolve and change at different speeds and we are all at our given point in that journey. Some never make it past stage one, and some come into the game already at the later stages, with respects to how they listen, hear, think, and feel. It tends to follow the given human evolution and personal awareness levels quite closely, as factors go. In the general sense. It's not exact, but then again, nothing is.
There are similar levels of evolution, and similar stages, in other hobbies, professions, and endeavors.
Great post, Buddha.
I like your description of audio NORAD. There is truth in this in my experience.
I agree. Excellent post, Buddha.
Why Emotional Memories Of Traumatic (or intense) Life Events Are So Persistent:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080509152307.htm
As an interesting aside, we are relatively poor at recalling actual physical pain. We seem to have a good filter that way.
I knew one neuroscience prof who called it the "childbirth filter." We "slightly forget" the degree of the actual physical phenomenon, so a woman, for instance, would be willing to have more than one child.
I asked my wife, and she feels that is accurate.
From my own experiences with physical pain, it seems true, as well.
I've heard this before and don't get it. My memory for pain is way too clear. I shiver with re-lived pain when I think of injuries I've had, dental work performed, etc. Though I agree that it would be useful to suppress the memory of childbirth pain - that probably has survival/evolutionary value. While forgetting other pain wouldn't have any such value.
There is a massive amount of endorphins shot into the bodies and brains of both the newborn and the mother at childbirth. This helps create a permanent 'snapshot' of one another in each brain. Permanently burned or etched into each other at that moment. Only makes good sense, with regards to the idea of biological function, regrading reproductivity and child rearing. Sex, traumatic moments, etc. All creating long term physical aspects of neurological connectivity. The 'pain of separation' is the physical opposite. 100% real and chemical/physical based. The now painful neurons (memories, habits, repetitious behaviour-like getting up to let the dog in, when the dog has been dead for two months) are being separated, broken away from. But the main nerve structures can be and are still there, but muted, over time-it's a change in connectivity. Chemical becomes/is physical. Both considerations pertain to actual alteration of the mind in the physical sense. Oh yes.. Same things happens when you die, obviously. (Edit: in the positive sense. What happens is that you start to recall many and nearly all of the more important moments of your childhood and life, and then as you die, a massive amount of endorphins are dumped into the brain, and a giant 'snapshot' of your mind is formed, or created.)
This is the reason that meditation is incredibly important, as for the idea of 'Kundalini' and the internal 'pushing of the pleasure button', when it comes to understanding new things. It actually makes your mind grow, makes production and use of the chemicals easier, ie rote repetition. 100%, the literal aspect of 'enlarging your mind'. More leads to more. It can actually spin out of control! Seriously. Like a plant growing too fast - and toppling over.
Thus those who meditate and ruminate on reality and existentialism actually make themselves more intelligent- in the absolute positive hard and proven sense. No joke here. I learned to 'get off' on the idea of discovery and new things when I was quite young.
This is why I have no television. It stops individual human thought and individual human evolution dead in it's tracks. We like it, as it distracts. Get rid of the distraction, and your mind will begin to grow again. It takes time for that to take place, but get that piece of crap out of your house and out of your life. And learn how to think again. Believe me, you won't miss it after about 6 months. Why? You'll find you have a growing and creative mind again. Just like when you were young. You'll end up knowing more about the world than any friends who spend their time in front of that 'idiot box'.**
It has served me well. I say this-to encourage you to try yourself.
Remember one thing, after all the instruction in the world-you are your own best teacher.
~~~~~~~~
** The irony is that the inventor of television, John Logie Baird, was actually attempting to reach higher realms, the spirit world, for example, in order to communicate with them. That was his personal reason for creating television. It was all about enlarging human intelligence, in the personal sense of illumination. He'd be horrified to know what happened to it. He also created a 1000 lines of resolution color transmission system in ..uh...1947? or thereabouts. Seriously. Premium HDTV, way back then.
It's not exactly true in this specific case, but when the real 'go getters' in the scientific world put the screws to things and start moving, it shows you want I said, is that the one who hungers for the illumination of discovery and moves forward in that realm..they can move, most times, 10x faster than most folks can 'eat it up', unless you yourself are desiring to learn new things.
point being that learning new things is PAINFUL,as we must strip way the badly learned or erroneous old..and when you learn lots of new things..it is only normal and obvious to say that misconceptions and old thoughts must die. And it's painful! So we refuse illumination due to the animalistic, the monkey desire, the hind brain's overreaching and overarching rule of your ENTIRE life.....we refuse as it..hurts. But the joy of new has to be taken into account, as well.
This exact point becomes the thing I've said before, about the way that so-called scientific experts refuse to learn new things that upset their 'paradigm of existence' as this is literally quite painful for them to come to an understanding that what they know is wrong.
Due to their lack of understanding of the simple mechanisms of memory, learning, and cognitive function, they really have no freaking clue that they are basing their dismissals of new things on their EMOTIONS. They think they are employing logic..but they are not. Their own brain hides this from them, as the unconscious mind is one hell of a lot smarter than the conscious mind.
Remember that, it's very important..vitally so....and if you do, every moment, of every day..you WILL eventually catch your own mind trying to 'fuck you over'.
And THAT..is when real learning..will begin. That is literally the point when the monkey begins to become the human.
Good Post!
Nice to see that someone else has read M. P. Hall.
Have you traveled to the east?
Pages