Quote:
what it is in my article that disturbs you so much, to get so insulting toward me about it.

I honestly did not know you wrote that! But it doesn't surprise me. Actually, there's so much pompousness it reads more like KBK.

Quote:
anyone that can't tell any difference between a $5 cable and a $5,000 dollar cable and goes on to claim to be an expert at critical listening, isn't dealing with a full deck

Or, in other words, "anyone who thinks he hears a difference between a $5 cable and a $5,000 dollar cable and goes on to claim to be an expert at critical listening is a delusional fool."

Heh, I can toss insults with the best of them. I'm not big on insults, but I didn't know it was your article so that means you started it. Just like that scene in Midnight Run where Charles Grodin argues with Robert De Niro that since De Niro didn't know Charles lied first, from De Niro's perspective he lied first. I guess you had to be there. Anyhoo...

Quote:
I'll match my skills against yours any day. Question is, are you willing to back up what you say?

Excellent! Yes! Let's do it. PLEASE!! How do we proceed?

--Ethan

Quote:
at the bottom of Michigan's "How to Listen" page is a list of "Do's and Don't's." Which ones are crap, in your opinion?

6 and 7 are pretty silly IMO. But it's the body and intent of the article I find most silly. Not necessarily every single sentence, but taken as a whole it shows a lack of basic audio knowledge. Here are a few howlers:

"I

6) DON

Quote:
So, if Michigan asks for some rigor or internal test consistency, you find that idea to be crap.

No! The silly part is saying that starting playback with Pause somehow sounds different than Play.

Quote:
Michigan is being very honest and open about his own experience. He strikes me as very true to himself.

If he were truly honest he wouldn't hide his identity while insulting me and calling me incompetent.

As I've said before, I have no reason to think that people are being dishonest. I'm sure folks here believe what they write. Most of them, anyway. A few people seem to have a hidden agenda, and since they refuse to identify themselves I tend to suspect the worst. "The worst" being someone with a vested financial or competitive interest. This would not be the first time a competing vendor in my business signed up in a web forum under a bogus name to insult me while pretending to be an unbiased bystander.

At least everyone here knows who I am and what I do for a living. And you can bet your life that I believe everything I write! Not that I have any agenda other than Truth, Justice, and the Scientific Method. But at least people can decide that for themselves because I don't hide behind a screen name.

--Ethan

Quote:
Too many of you folks are a bit too full of yourself.

We just disagree with you.

Quote:

Quote:
Too many of you folks are a bit too full of yourself.

We just disagree with you.

"We just disagree with you" = "Too full of yourself."

Hope that helps!

Hear about the starving cannibal who ate his own leg? He was really full of himself!

Continuing on with my reply to KBK on the subject of 'explanations'.

Another very good example of an 'observation' being made and then an explanation being offered from the 'technical check list'. And that is to do with the painting of the edge of a CD with the Green Pen.

Many people had reported hearing an improvement in the sound after painting the outer edge of a CD with the Green Pen, including John Atkinson who ended HIS 'mention' with "As for an explanation as to how it works, don't ask."

Martin Colloms also described hearing an improvement in his sound after carrying out the same procedure with the Green Pen but Martin offered an explanation - that it had something to do with reflection or refraction of the laser beam !! Obviously having struggled to find some explanation from the conventional 'check list'.

Now, if you use a Purple/Violet pen instead of a Green Pen you will get a greater improvement in the sound but here are the crunch bits.
If you use the colour Purple/Violet, you do not need to cover the whole outer edge of the CD, you can make just a one centimetre mark at the edge to gain the improvements in the sound.
You can make an identical one centimetre mark on the outer edge of a VINYL record and gain an identical improvement in the sound.
You can make an identical one centimetre mark on the outer edge of the plastic case of an AUDIO TAPE and gain an identical improvement in the sound.
And, you can colour the end face of the end cap of a FUSE with the colour Purple/Violet and gain an identical improvement in the sound.

So, the explanation of 'it has something to do with reflection or refraction of the laser beam' can no longer be used !! There is NO laser beam involved with vinyl records, audio tapes or fuses !!! So, again one is left with an observation (an improvement in the sound) but with no explanation. Or with the previous explanation which now no longer holds water !!!!

The world of audio is littered with observations which have no understandable 'technical' explanation - hence all the controversies.

You then have the group of people who say that (in such as the example of the Green Pen) if the digits on the CD are being changed or if the information extracted from the CD is being changed, then those changes should be able to be measured. If any measurements taken show no changes, before and after applying the Green Pen, then this group say "Therefore no changes to the sound can possibly have been heard."

Then you have the group of people who say that if changes in the sound CAN be heard by some people, and the information IS being changed but not able to be measured, then everyone listening in a room should all be able to hear those changes to the information (i.e blind trials). If the majority of the people listening in the room cannot hear any changes in the sound, then this group say "Therefore no changes to the sound are happening, or else eveyone would hear those changes."

If, however, the concept is put forward that it MIGHT NOT be the digits which are being changed, it MIGHT NOT be the information going through the audio equipment which is being changed, it MIGHT NOT be the acoustic air pressure waves in the room being changed, it might be the human being reacting to what is going on in the environment, then this group say "If there ARE adverse conditions in the environment which human beings are reacting adversely to (i.e sensing danger, intruders, predators etc) and THAT reaction is what is changing the sound, then the people in the room should ALL react in the same way, to the same danger and the sound should change in the same way for them all. And, in any case, everyone in the room can SEE that there is no danger, no intruders and no predators, so why WOULD they react and why would the sound change ?"

This approach, to me, is completely narrow - just not allowing for different people to react differently to different things.
For example; My intelligence and my intellect tell me that a spider cannot possibly do me any harm. But, LONG BEFORE my intelligence and intellect come into play, I am already frozen to the spot !!! But, again, not everyone in the room where the spider appears will react in the same way as I do. So, it would appear logical that different people will react differently to and in different environments.

In a 'posting' on the Prop Head Plaza section of Audio Asylum started by someone called 'thetubeguy1954' headed :-
"Electronics Vs The Human Ear --- Which Is More Sensitive." he refers to an article he had just come across by a man named Arthur C Ludwig Sr in which Ludwig says:-
"He came to the conclusion that the ear evolved primarily for self-defense or perhaps hunting. Language and enjoyment of music are delightful evolutionary by-products."

I would have thought that THAT was SELF EVIDENT, not even warranting quoting amongst intelligent people !! Surely no one could be ignorant enough not to know that hearing (as with all the other senses) evolved for survival purposes - self defense or hunting being secondary requirements to survival ? And, then, yes, language and enjoyment of music are indeed delightful evolutionary by-products. You just cannot exclude the human being from any discussion regarding audio and listening to music. So, in my opinion, how the human being functions in the environment HAS TO feature prominently in any discussion.

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "On my CD's I have applied an even smaller strip than your literature recommends and still had profound improvements in sound quality. Everyone to a person described the experience in similar words without coaxing. As I said, these are not audiophiles but their words said exactly what an audiophile would experience under the same conditions. "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity", etc. are the words they all used." <<<

When you, Jan (and others), can hear "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity", then it can be understood that you feel frustrated when others cannot hear what you can hear. But, as I have just explained in my previous posting to KBK, different people will react differently and it is important that they keep trying different things, different methods and in different places, to different things at different times. You are quite correct Jan when you say that it has nothing to do with suspending 'disbelief', or with 'magic talismans', or someone having a "worship site", or 'Peter Belt having a cult following', or 'having your local priest blessing your listening room'.

What I don't know is how many other people have understood the concept I have been trying to explain. I don't mean how many people have BELIEVED it, I mean how many people have understood it. You don't have to believe the concept in order to understand it. I ask because I have read DUP's response on General Rants and Raves. He had read some other journalists reviews of our techniques from (say) 10 years ago as well as descriptions of such as our Cream-Electret and responded with :-

>>> "Imaginations gone wild. funny stuff. Single crystal quartz resonace, love it. Magic creme applied on emolecule thick, how did you come up with that, how as an application doer measeure that, do you supply the instumentation....that be some mighty thin stuff there May...... But some of this stuff was almost 10 years ago, do you think materials in speakers have improved, that your magic cream might no longer be influential? Or do you have a new cream, for teh 21st century? Does it work on SACD too, since they are different pit sizes than CD...working on the one molecule level, certainly you would have researched this thorougly?" <<<

I have struggled, every which way, to explain that our devices are designed to superimpose, onto objects in the environment, a reassuring pattern which, in turn, then allows us (human beings) to be more able to 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'. Which then, in turn, allows us to resolve more of the information which is already available in the room. That it does not take much of any device to begin to have a beneficial effect - as you Jan, for one, have discovered.

So, is DUP serious in that he cannot understand or was he being facetious ? From the beginning when he calls it 'Magic' cream - to asking do we supply instrumentation to apply the cream one molecule thick ? Have materials improved in speakers in 10 years so that our 'magic cream' is no longer influential ? Or do we have a new cream to deal with the 21st century - and so on ? Surely his response is like him not understanding how antistatic liquids work and asking 'is instrumentation supplied to apply it one molecule thick' ? Is there a new 21st century antistatic liquid to deal with new materials ? Does it work on SACDs with their different pit sizes than CDs ?

Just what is difficult to understand with the words on our instruction leaflet "It is only necessary to have the thinnest coating of the Cream-Electret." ? Does one REALLY have to ask (as DUP has asked) "How does an application doer measure that ?"

If one is superimposing a 'reassuring pattern' onto objects in the environment, then it is irrelevant whether the objects are items of audio equipment made during the 20th century or into the 21st century ? If DUP cannot understand that, then WHY cannot he understand it ? Is KBK correct when he says:-
>>> "One of the many things you learn is that most of what we call science, is full of folks who have no clue about the basics of their own psychology." <<<

When you Jan (and others - including the many journalists) can hear "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity", has it really 'not much to do with audio' as suggested by dbowker quoted below ?

>>> "Won't say much about the Belt stuff except that it is somewhere along the lines of cognitive psychology, life-coaching for audio, and having your local priest blessing your listening room. If it makes you feel better, go right ahead; but I don't think it had much to do with audio." <<<

Regards,
May Belt.

MJF: what it is in my article that disturbs you so much, to get so insulting toward me about it.

Ethan: I honestly did not know you wrote that! But it doesn't surprise me.

I've never had anyone tell me they were surprised that I actually wrote the articles on my own site. I don't know who you think wrote them, but that's usually the way it works. "Michigan's site", Michigan's articles. I don't know who wrote that comb filtering manifesto on your site (you know, the one where all audio evils or controversial phenomena is attributed to the all-powerful, all-encompassing "Comb Filtering Effect" you "discovered"...). But if I were you, I'd put a stop on the check and have a careful look at what it says, before paying the guy. Then again, I don't know what you were intending for that. I mean, if the intended effect was to produce reams of laughter, then yes, I think he did a pretty good job.

Actually, there's so much pompousness it reads more like KBK.

Well, KBK is a powerfully intelligent guy and I respect his general intelligence and knowledge, so I'm taking that as a compliment. To quantify, if you took out 4/5's of his brain, the remaining fifth could overtake you in its sleep, while you remain oblivious to what happened to you, or where you stand in the scheme of things. So now I know that with you, "pompous" means "something that flies over your head so high, you haven't a hope of understanding it".

MJF: anyone that can't tell any difference between a $5 cable and a $5,000 dollar cable and goes on to claim to be an expert at critical listening, isn't dealing with a full deck

Or, in other words, "anyone who thinks he hears a difference between a $5 cable and a $5,000 dollar cable and goes on to claim to be an expert at critical listening is a delusional fool." Heh, I can toss insults with the best of them.

Hate to inform you friend, but, I am the best of them. And no, you can't. You wouldn't last thirty seconds with the best of them. 'Specially if you think the above is a good insult. All you did was repeat what I said, and then twist a couple of my words around to change the meaning of what I wrote and advance your own beliefs. Otherwise known as a "lame IKYABWAI", in the biz. You're good at starting insult attacks though, I'll give you that. For example, you've just insulted pretty much every professional audio reviewer in the world, who's reviewed about hearing the influence of cables costing more than $5 dollars. Of course as we all know, in The World According To Ethan Winer , they're either "placeboing themselves", or high on the "comb filter effect". And with that, congratulations, for it appears you've just won The Armchair Skeptic's sweepstakes. Or as they might call it around here, the "Search for DUP's Soul Mate".

I'm not big on insults, but I didn't know it was your article so that means you started it.

I see. So I write an article on my site to try to help hobbyists become more successful in their listening tests, you go and visit my site and read my article, then insult me to someone else in this thread based on what you read in that article, and I'm somehow responsible for you doing that? Because you didn't know that I wrote the article on my own site? You're not big on logic either, but what else is new.

In another demonstration of hypocrisy, you say you're not big on insults, but that's all I seem to recall you doing in this thread. If not the last one related to it, as well (that was closed because of all the "insults"). It seems that even though you said you were leaving the thread (I don't know how many times), every time you've come on board here, its been to insult or mock people. You haven't added anything meaningful to the discussion, or even tried to advance the topic. Even though as Jan pointed out, the evidence that your products work ultimately relies on the thread's subject (thus one would think you'd have more respect for this concept than you do). When KBK wrote a very thoughtful, intelligent response to you, instead of even attempting to respond to his points in an intelligent manner, you rudely dismissed all of it as pompous nonsense, simply because it went completely over your head. Your idea of advancing the topic of this thread is to come in here and dismissively call everything you read on my website "crap" and "pompous nonsense". As if that even has anything to do with what we were discussing. No, I'd say you are big on insults, even if you're not very good at it.

Excellent! Yes! Let's do it. PLEASE!! How do we proceed?

Great. Well, best way I know how, is you come to my place, and we arrange a third party to administer a blind test (whom we do not see setting up the trials, before or during the trials). To make it interesting, we test something interesting, like cable direction or fluoridated water. Whoever gets the most positives wins the test.

6 and 7 are pretty silly IMO. But it's the body and intent of the article I find most silly. Not necessarily every single sentence, but taken as a whole it shows a lack of basic audio knowledge. Here are a few howlers:

"I

"When you Jan (and others - including the many journalists) can hear "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity", has it really 'not much to do with audio' as suggested by dbowker quoted below ?"

Well, from all of what you stated above, your products don't have anything to do with audio, in that they would be equally applied to any experience in their vicinity. Applying the cream , or strips to your tea set should give a better experience of afternoon tea. Or to your wine bottle, better definition of taste and complexity. If it's really just to make you feel more at ease in your local environment, if it works then wouldn't it work for anything?

The "audio" part I am referring to would be a tweak or device that directly influences audio equipment or room acoustics, not enhancing the feeling of ease of human beings. Drugs do that too, but I wouldn't call it an audio tweak.

Quote:
don't buy into most of Mr. Frog's testing protocols, but he is correct in highlighting that it takes effort to appreciate small changes.

However the assertion:

"You did hear it. I say that, because I know that every idea works (I

Quote:
Rather than react to your bellicosity in the manner you desire, I will just remind you that I am probably several millenia or more ahead of you on this topic and move forward with enjoying this thread.

Hey, that cartoon is eerily familiar!

It's a bummer that there are people I like on both sides of this contentious debate.

I was trying to stay out of this...

Quote:
I've never had anyone tell me they were surprised that I actually wrote the articles on my own site. I don't know who you think wrote them, but that's usually the way it works. "Michigan's site", Michigan's articles.

I just visited ten or so pages on that site and found no occurrence of "michigan." The first time I visited I looked at the About Me page and saw only a picture of Wallace and Gromit. So it's not like I didn't try. Now please explain how I was supposed to know it's your site.

Quote:
<snip huge amounts of unbelievable BS>

Great. Well, best way I know how, is you come to my place, and we arrange a third party to administer a blind test (whom we do not see setting up the trials, before or during the trials). To make it interesting, we test something interesting, like cable direction or fluoridated water. Whoever gets the most positives wins the test.

Where do you live? And why your place? Why not mine? Based on your, er "writings," I'm certain my playback system and room are much better than yours. But where do you live anyway? There's no way for us to do a test without you revealing who you are.

--Ethan

Quote:
I was trying to stay out of this...

Quote:
What I don't know is how many other people have understood the concept I have been trying to explain. I don't mean how many people have BELIEVED it, I mean how many people have understood it. You don't have to believe the concept in order to understand it.

May, you have done a good job explaining your concepts although it did a bit of effort to trim them down into the outline I created some time back. Between this outline and your continued effort I hope everyone understands at this point.

As to DUP's actual understanding, who knows? He often appears to deliberately misinterpret.

Your use of believe above is accurate; to many these tweaks appear to depend on acceptance of a belief system. Thus, the references to magic and the like.

Quote:
So, is DUP serious in that he cannot understand or was he being facetious ?

Sorry to tell you, May, that dup was being as serious as he ever gets. In dup's world anything that doesn't fit into his notion of how things work is, as far as he is concerned, fair game for ridicule. dup is the high post count leader in a forum where more time is devoted to what cannot happen than what possibly could. (http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/dosearch.php?Cat=0&Searchpage=3&topic=).

On a different note, my friend the transcriptionist is enjoying the benefits of the foil and cream treatment to her playback system. We've done a few other treatments to her system and she is producing on average about 30-40% more lines of work than she had prior to the treatments. This is a definite advantage to her since she gets paid by the number of lines of dictation she transcribes each day. She is not fatigued at the end of the day as she had been prior to the treatments and no longer struggles with difficult dictation. I had placed a very small bit of foil on each of the cups to her earbuds and the other day one piece came loose when she adjusted the headband. She came running to find more foil claiming she noticed the difference in sound quality the moment the foil detached itself from the earbud. A new bit of foil and she is back in business producing more lines of work. She has shared the information with another transcriptionist and her friend is now looking forward to trying the treatments. I'll report on her findings when she has had time to work with the foil for a few days. My friend wants me to extend her thanks to you, May. She is quite pleased with the results.

The five pin hole paper is working nicely though the cat had to go as I don't think it sat well with my dogs.

Thanks for the feedback Jan. Does your transciptionist friend use battery powered equipment ?
Regards,
May Belt.

No, everything comes over the DSL line to her computer where she plugs her headphones. The transcription is done by the doctors at the hospital and she has no access to anything other than her headphones and computer as far as equipment is concerned on her end. She has a telephone on her desk coming in on another telephone line away from the DSL line. I treated the telephone along with her computer monitor and power cables. She froze her headphones and the five hole device is on her computer. She was about to give up on the poor quality of dictation the hospital was providing until she tried the various treatments. She is gradually trying other devices and treatments though none seem to have had the degree of benefit provided by the foil and cream directly on her headphones and cable. After her experience with the foil on her earbuds and the replacement of new foil she is thoroughly convinced this is not a placebo nor just a belief system since she didn't know the foil had fallen off until she tried to transcribe and the sound quality had deteriorated. Of the group who listened to music here last week she was the one who was the most tuned into the additional clarity and presence and the overall relaxed nature to the sound in the room when I introduced the foil and cream and she had the most relevant comments about the improvements in all areas of the presentation. In her work she says the sound is like the doctor is dictating from a chair at her side now where before it had been muffled and "canned". Just the fact she is no longer worn out at the end of the day is enough for her but the additional output she can now do on a daily schedule is putting money in her pocket. While she was always the top producer at the hospital where she works this week after the foils and cream she exceeded her coworkers' output by as much as 60% in some cases. This is literally someone who makes their living by listening carefully to what is in the room.

I am thinking she might benefit from the Heaven and Earth device and the reef knot tied in her headphone cable.

Good to see there is still some fun to had with the topic.

Some more stuff I find cool:

This first item is a rat study (rat is generally better than mouse, almost equivalent to "audiophile") that looked at the affect on "perception" of exogenous substances...

Alpha Lipoic Acid and Acetyl-L-Carnitine and hearing in rats.

"Aud-ition" is relatively under-studied, but here is another about vision...

Vision and Alpha Lipoic Acid

What's cool about that study is that long term glucose levels directly correlate with the accumulation and deposition of "glycation end products" and diminish neuron function. In the past, this phenomenon was regarded as pretty much "irrervsible." Now we are learning here and there that we can have an effect on someone's "perceptive" skills on new levels.

Here's one from a study on sheep, which should correlate well with either pure objectivists or subjectivists...

Glucose metabolism and otoacoustic effects in pure objectivists/subjectivists.

The study showed an alteration in distortion product thresholds associated with simultaneous (temporary) hypoglycemia and hyperinsulinemia.

Michigan's thoughts with regard to his "Rule #8" in "How to Listen" may have some physiologic background.

Other articles cite changes in hydration status and hearing, as well.

I've joked in the past about Big Mike and I's "System Enhancing Solution," but I have spent alot of time trying different "sugar"/other ingredient/alcohol mixtures and have then measured acoustic thresholds with some reproduceable results - so, I do think there are more things going on than are dreamt of in the "objectivist only" philosophy.

____

I do wonder how that transcriptionist would do with three pieces of thread in her windowsill.

The first time I visited I looked at the About Me page and saw only a picture of Wallace and Gromit.

Yeah, you know, that's really weird. A lot of people have said that me and my dog Grommophone, look a lot like these Wallace and Grommit guys. Frankly, I don't see much of any resemblance myself.

I just visited ten or so pages on that site and found no occurrence of "michigan." The first time I visited I looked at the About Me page and saw only a picture of Wallace and Gromit. So it's not like I didn't try. Now please explain how I was supposed to know it's your site.

Same way I knew the site for RealTraps was your site. Because you and others were talking about it, just as me and others were talking about my site in this thread. How else did you come across it, happenstance?

There's no way for us to do a test without you revealing who you are.

Stop talking rubbish, you already know who I am. All I ask is that you please try to not get all crazy, phobic and paranoid on me again. That's becoming a real turn-off....

Where do you live?

Canada.

And why your place? Why not mine?

Because you sounded so gung-ho to do this, I figured you wouldn't mind. And because due to the recent WHTI policy the US is administering, I can't enter your country, as I don't have all the necessary documentation customs agents now require (some of my documents were stolen a while back).

Based on your, er "writings," I'm certain my playback system and room are much better than yours.

Oh please. You're already making excuses for not being able to hear differences, before we've even set anything up? What based on my writings makes you "certain" your playback system and room is better than mine? Are you donning that tin foiled mind-reading cap of yours again? And anyway, I don't know about you, but I don't need the best system in the world to test easy stuff, like fluoridated water or cable direction. Or safety pins. The blind safety pin test I mentioned here recently was done entirely using a Sharp CD-C401. Its an all plastic mini-component shelf system (probably made out of recycled calculators), with carousel CD player, radio and even has dual tape cassettes. I think the remote can also open your garage door, so what more could you ask for? I don't know how much it costs, because it came free with a dresser I once bought from someone. No guff, I often do tests on this, or an mp4 player, for convenience' sake. So I'm perfectly happy using it for our test.

Being the pro tester you are, as I'm sure you already know, high-rez systems are only necessary for those who lack listening skills and need those kind of training wheels. Since you and me are pro's at this (so you claim for yourself), we don't need the baby monitors. I've done thousands of tests, blind and sighted, over decades of time, from systems costing 250 thousand dollars to others costing one dollar and twenty-five cents. So you needn't worry about whether the Sharp boom box is resolving enough for me. You might see it as a disadvantage, whereas I would see it as a challenge for you, to prove you can do what you claim you can do, on just about anything. The important point is, even if you feel its a disadvantage, then its an equal disadvantage for both of us, because I'm willing to be tested using a tool no more sophisticated than the Sharp carousel boom box. And you'd have to agree, it makes the test more challenging and interesting (I'm all for both).

As anyone who's ever worked a professional kitchen or called themselves a gourmet knows, a good chef doesn't need a set of hammer-clad tin-lined copper Mauviels to work his magic. He most often can and does, work with inexpensive beat-up alumi-scrap and can turn out culinary masterpieces all the same. However, if you're only accustomed to testing on multi kilobuck systems, and don't feel confident that your so-called "pro" skills are up to testing on an overgrown transistor radio, then a competitive test between us would not even be necessary, because you'd have already proved my point. That your "professional" expert listening skills are as imaginary as the placebos you keep seeing under every advanced tweak you deride, and don't understand anything about.

Quote:
Well, from all of what you stated above, your products don't have anything to do with audio, in that they would be equally applied to any experience in their vicinity. Applying the cream , or strips to your tea set should give a better experience of afternoon tea. Or to your wine bottle, better definition of taste and complexity. If it's really just to make you feel more at ease in your local environment, if it works then wouldn't it work for anything?

The "audio" part I am referring to would be a tweak or device that directly influences audio equipment or room acoustics, not enhancing the feeling of ease of human beings. Drugs do that too, but I wouldn't call it an audio tweak.

In my own experience, and theoretically speaking, perception-based tweaks could work for the things you describe. People have used them to improve the taste of water and wine, and others have noted they can bring about a sense of relaxation (e.g. from what I've read, Jan's friend noted this, and presumably, she has nothing to do with audio either). Some use them to improve the sound of live concerts, or to improve the sound of their car stereo, via the fuel line. Personally, I have conducted relatively few non-audio tests with them, because that's not where my interests lie. The PWB devices are created for audio use, so are designed around that. I imagine that if they were designed for other uses, they would be engineered differently for those specific uses, albeit using the same principles.

Likewise, the Stoplight green pen could improve sound, but could also be used to create artful drawings. The TICE clock was said to improve sound, but it could also be used to tell time. The Brilliant Pebbles have many relatively sober customers saying they improved the sound of their audio. But they could also be used to hurl at people you don't like. All are marketed as audio tweaks. I don't know of any rule, written or unwritten, that says an audio tweak couldn't have multiple applications. For example, if a dimebag of weed was placed atop a CD player, who here (besides EW), can say it couldn't improve or change their sound? And if it did, what would it be called; drugs or an audio tweak?

The whole point of the (relatively new) category of "perception-based audio tweaks" is that they don't influence audio equipment or room acoustics, but -genuinely- affect perception of sound nevertheless (not by any "placebo effect"), not unlike those other products that do work in more traditional ways. But they are not in the same category as narcotics. You simply need to update your understanding of what an audio tweak is, as you're using outdated definitions.

Quote:
The Brilliant Pebbles have many relatively sober customers saying they improved the sound of their audio. But they could also be used to hurl at people you don't like.

For the price of the pebbles, I would have to really not like these people.

Quote:
The whole point of the (relatively new) category of "perception-based audio tweaks" is that they don't influence audio equipment or room acoustics, but -genuinely- affect perception of sound nevertheless (not by any "placebo effect"),...

How do we know that they do not work as a placebo?

And a broader question: does it matter if they work by placebo? If the object makes one happier and allows you to enjoy your music more, it's a great object - placebo or not.

Quote:
For the price of the pebbles, I would have to really not like these people.

Pricey perhaps, but think of how it would serve to distinguish you from all the other stoners, employing whatever common rocks within their immediate scrounging. Even your victims would appreciate the difference. I wouildn't be surprised to hear them say "Wow, was that a milk quartz? Never been struck by a milk quartz before. Cool! Can I keep it?".

Quote:
How do we know that they do not work as a placebo?

Ahhh, the $64,000 question. Science is usually too busy working on genomes and cancer, to be piddling about figuring out how green pens work, and put funds behind that. So its left to internetties on the audio forums to debate or argue over, and play jr. scientist. And let me say from deep personal experience and observation, that judgements made in the court of public opinion are not particularly fair, just or correct ones. Even less so than the real courts, if that's possible.

So its a question that everyone has to answer for themselves. Especially if they need to be convinced by what "authorities" say, before they can determine if something like this is of merit. My hope would be that they don't even attempt to answer that, before they've actually tested it! Throwing all your prejudices at something is usually not the way to understanding it. It's a good way to have a regrouping and reaffirmation with all your prejudices, though.

How do we know that anything works in audio, and not as placebo? For as long as I've been an audiophile, there's been controversy in just about every facet of audio one can name. The conservative audiophile (or publication) is always going to deny that this or that audio component or device makes any measured difference, or any audible difference. For nearly every product out there, there is a naysayer. Or many. Cables, amps, preamps, cd players, turntables, stands, isolation feet, etc., there's always someone claiming if you think you're hearing it, you're only hearing it by the will and grace of the omnipotent placebo effect. But yet anyone, and I mean anyone, who isn't overloaded on dogma, can walk into a high end shop and easily hear all kinds of differences between cheap and expensive systems playing the same media, even if the speakers remain the same. Those differences are as real as anything seen, and evident by all in the room. That wouldn't be possible, if all the pseudo-scientific reductionists in this hobby were right. If everyone listened to them instead of their ears, there'd be no high end, no Stereophile.

Of course, if you do listen with your ears, will you hear a difference and if you don't hear any, does that mean there isn't one to be heard? And if you do hear the difference, you might still (rightfully) wonder whether its a placebo. Here's a few ways to be sure:

* Don't just do one A/B test. If you've heard differences, repeat the tests or the tweak to see if those differences predominate over a series of trials.

* Listen to the same test track numerous times in an unchanged system, before testing it on the audio device. This will help eliminate the criticism that you are hearing differences because you are more focused when you start doing critical listening tests.

* Go back and listen to the device a few times after a good period of time has elapsed. Real placebos dont last.

If the audio device behaves more like an audio device you believe isn't a placebo, and less like a placebo, then it is for all intents and purposes, not a placebo. When I'm doing research on an audio phenomenon, I don't have 6 weeks to spend worrying about whether its a placebo or not. I have more like 6 seconds! There are too many variables to test, and I wouldnt get far if I had to research it, argue about it for a few months on forums, find out whether current science allows for it, take out a research grant so I could try to test it under wholly objective means.... Instead, I let the 'tweak' talk to me.

In seconds, it tells me who it is, and what its about. You just have to listen to it (and listen good...). I listen to it telling me what its adding and what its taking away, and take an aural snapshot of its signature. When I repeat that test, if the next snapshot (or next few) has a similar signature, then I can understand that its doing something, and what its doing. Each positively identified 'tweak' (or "change in the status of the sound" if you will), carries its own signature, and each is repeatable. The signatures are complex, and not something I could just imagine out of thin air. Even if I could, I wouldn't begin to know how to keep track of them all. How to repeat the exact same one 3 months later, when the exact same change was made. If placebos worked that way, we'd all be working geniuses. But then, by the same token, there'd also be a whole hell of a lot of "universal laws" that wouldn't look the same anymore, either. e.g. Maybe you'd be able to enter a wormhole just by munching on a Clark bar. The right one, of course.

Quote:
And a broader question: does it matter if they work by placebo?

Not at all, I don't believe it does. As I say above, if a placebo behaves indistinguishably from whatever is believed to be a "real" change, then there's no longer an issue about whether it may be a placebo or not; it becomes purely philosophical at that point.

And if you still insist on continuing the debate at that point, then like so many, you are at battle with your own ears. Your ears are telling you its not a placebo, while your mind is trying to convince your ears that it is. How silly is that?

Quote:

Quote:
And a broader question: does it matter if they work by placebo?

Not at all, I don't believe it does. As I say above, if a placebo behaves indistinguishably from whatever is believed to be a "real" change, then there's no longer an issue about whether it may be a placebo or not; it becomes purely philosophical at that point.

Agreed.

This is why I asked the question. I don't see substantial value in arguing whether the effect is "real" or is a placebo - if it is agreed that the effect is on the listener and not on the sound as acoustical phenomena.

The only time the distinction appears to matter in this context is if one can perceive a difference without knowing that the tweak is present; a placebo has no power if it is unknown to the subject.

(You are also right that throwing bright pebbles does create a certain exclusivity in both the thrower and the throwee.)

Quote:
This is why I asked the question. I don't see substantial value in arguing whether the effect is "real" or is a placebo - if it is agreed that the effect is on the listener and not on the sound as acoustical phenomena.

I argue the point, when people confuse the concept of perception-based audio tweaks with placebos; thinking that if its claimed to work on the listener, it must be a placebo; ie. its not anything real. Even if one does know the tweak is present, that doesn't make it the equivalent of a placebo. If we agree the PBT (perception-based tweak) is real, then you can say its having an effect on the listener's perception, like a placebo would, except it isn't an imaginary effect, like the traditional idea of a placebo implies. Since they may not be measurable to stringent scientific standards, whether the PBT tweak is real comes down to who is perceiving it, how they are trying to perceive it, and which tweak(s) they are trying to perceive. Among other factors.

But this is not much different to how a conventional audio phenomenon or component works, for what makes conventional audio "real" is how it is pereceived. If theories and measurements were all you had, but no one could perceive anything from audio devices, then they'd just be a 'working theory', hardly real. In audio engineering or reviews, sometimes measurements find a correlation in hearing, sometimes not. But the data is usually recognized, in both cases. Perception plays the biggest role in all of the audio domain, from conception to consumerism. The difference in how a $50 cd player and a $5,000 cd player looks on paper may not differ much at all, by their measurements. The perception in how they sound is where the difference in price will figure. And the way that works is no different than in PBT's. So I'd say PBT's are more closely related to conventional audio devices than they are to placebos.

Maybe someone can answer me this: What's the difference between a placebo, and a mistaken reckoning? They seem to be the same thing, to the skeptics.

Quote:
The only time the distinction appears to matter in this context is if one can perceive a difference without knowing that the tweak is present; a placebo has no power if it is unknown to the subject.

Or better still, knowing when the tweak is not present. As Jan's friend knew when the PWB SR foil had fallen off her earpiece, by the reduction in sound quality of the transcription, before knowing why the SQ dropped.

Quote:
Even if one does know the tweak is present, that doesn't make it the equivalent of a placebo.

True.

At this point one doesn't know whether the tweak has an actual affect or an affect caused solely by the listener's desire that it have an effect.

I agree sometimes we expect the tweak to work or have heard so much about it a priori we *assume* it's going to work. But what of the tweaks that seem so far out - isn't that really what we're talking about? Seems to me these are a different kettle of fish in terms of expectations. "Far out" tweaks typically don't have the buzz going for them in terms of reported results as the mainstream tweaks.

Audiophiles who get around to trying the "far out" tweaks are set up psychologically for the tweak NOT to work, it seems to me. So, can't be a placebo at work, more like an anti-placebo - the listener's desire for the tweak NOT to work.

Take the Teleportation Tweak, for example - now, who would assume that tweak could possibly work, even having read the testimonials? "Placebo" just doesn't compute in this context, IMO.

~ Cheers

Quote:
Same way I knew the site for RealTraps was your site. Because you and others were talking about it, just as me and others were talking about my site in this thread. How else did you come across it, happenstance?

I came across the site because it was linked here. It's easy to know who I am with three seconds at Google. Versus Googling you which shows nothing relevant.

Quote:
Stop talking rubbish, you already know who I am.

That's news to me!

Quote:
Canada.

Sheesh...

Where in Canada? I often visit a friend in Canada, so maybe we can really do this.

Quote:
I can't enter your country

Makes perfect sense. I don't blame Customs one bit.

--Ethan

Quote:
Those (mainstream) audiophiles who get around to trying the far out tweaks are set up psychologically for the tweak NOT to work, to do nothing, it seems to me. So, can't be a placebo at work, more like an anti-placebo...

Certainly not wanting something to work is as powerful as wanting it to work.

As a matter of terminology, this is still a placebo affect; it pleases the expectations of the subject.

I think what I'm trying to say is what if the tweak does work for the person who's expecting nothing? This turns the placebo effect on its head.

Got it.

If it works for the person expecting nothing this is, as Martha would say, a Good Thing.

Is there such a thing as an audiophile who places a tweak with "no expectations?"

No fair using old Rolling Stones song titles in your questions.

Of course, I didn't mean he has "no expectations." This is my point: He has a strong bias toward the tweak doing nothing (because the tweak is far out)...so he has very definite expectations. You know, like the Teleportation Tweak or the chip.

Hmmm, are we chatting or is this just product placement?

Passing over the TELEPORTATION TWEAK or the INTELLIGENT CHIP as specific examples, I am starting to think what we have is not so much objectivists and subjectivists as listeners, but also as some sort of psychological profile.

When an objectivist says he applied a so called "out there" tweak with no expectations, it means something entirely different than when a subjectivist says the same thing.

Example: Have you ever heard/read Mike Fremer not hear the effect of a tweak? However, he often prefaces this month's new incredible tweak with commentary about having no expectation that a tweak will work.

When he says, "I put this tweak through its paces with no expectations..." it universally means the tweak "worked" for him, and he's either fooling us or himself when he says that he had no preconceived expectation. He should just skip the preamble, at this point.

A subjectivist puts a tweak in place "hoping" it will work, and is often rewarded accordingly. (Which is fine.)

An objectivist places a tweak "hoping" it won't work. (Which is less fine, to me, but it is what it is.)

Both the INTELLIGENT CHIP and TELEPORTATION TWEAK can be found at www.machinadynamica.com, by the way.

For many/most audiophiles, a tweak's success or failure is predetermined.

That's hard to argue around for either side.

I'd be interested in seeing lists of what things people have and haven't heard work.

For those of you unfamiliar with the TELEPORTATION TWEAK AND INTELLIGENT CHIP, that's www.machinadynamica.com.

Why pass over the Teleportation Tweak and the Intelligent Chip? They are actually excellent examples of tweaks that audiophiles refer to as "too preposterous" or "too far out" -- ones most would probably expect *not* to work if they obtained them. So, I'm distinguishing tweaks that most audiophiles would be "neutral" or open-minded toward ("no expectations," in your terms) to tweaks toward which most audiophiles would have a strongly negative predisposition. Ergo, the anti placebo argument.

With many/most tweaks - e.g., Shakti Stone or Shun Mook discs or Schumann Frequency resonators - there's at least something to grab onto so one can say, "Ah, I can see how this might improve the sound."

These days I'm not sure I like the categories "subjectivist and objectivist" as much as "conservative and experimentalist."

Quote:
These days I'm not sure I like the categories "subjectivist and objectivist" as much as "conservative and experimentalist."

While subjectivist and objectivist carry a good deal of baggage as labels, conservative and experimentalist are highly inaccurate.

There are many subjectivists that are experimental and others that are conservative. Same with objectivists.

I'm still waiting for the purveyors to come up with a way that the Teleportation Tweak can be returned if one is not impressed. Why not just teleport back?

Quote:
For many/most audiophiles, a tweak's success or failure is predetermined.

That's hard to argue around for either side.

I don't see why you think it's so hard to argue around that statement. I would say the application of any enhancement whether we are talking cables or clocks is no more predetermined than whether someone might find a particular amplifier or turntable attractive. If all treatments and devices accomplished the same effect then possibly we could say the benefit is predetermined simply because we all know what to expect and we can accept the benefit as easily as we would "deeper bass". However, I don't hear the same benefits from each and every trick or treat I try out. Sometimes I hear little to nothing from a particular treatment while a friend might find the same treatment beneficial to what she/he considers a priority. It's just that I pay less attention to those qualities which are enhanced by that specific treatment or device. And the opposite is certainly true when I hear a benefit while my friend does not. We all bring our own menu to the table and only those items which suit our own taste are the ones we will find appealing. Unless a treatment or device plays to what any one person finds important its success or failure is hardly predetermined, unless, that is, you wish to speak only of those naysayers who have made up their mind in advance there will be no benefit whatsoever. I am finding many treatments which have similar effects - if that effect is greater transparency - but I would say that is because I have specific qualities that make up what transparency means to me. I don't expect everyone to have those same priorities. It is when those qualities are fulfilled that one device becomes more effective than another for my system. Selecting the appropiate treatments is no more a matter of taste in system building than choosing the proper cables or isolation devices. If you don't know what you want to have when all is said and done, then you might not have anything when a conglomeration of treatments meld together to provide no specific benefit.

Quote:
I do wonder how that transcriptionist would do with three pieces of thread in her windowsill.

At this point she is a convinced of the efficacy of the foils and creams to say nothing of the lesser treatments which have made her life much more pleasant and efficient. So while she might be willing to try threads on a windowsill I have no idea why I would suggest something that was meant as a put down of alternative treatments when there are so many truly effective devices available for her use.

The incentive pay amounts were posted last Sunday for her first full week using the foil and cream. She has always been the top producer but last week her incentive check was $369 which is a substantial increase over her previous weeks of late. The next highest producer earned $136 in incentive over the same time period. Until now my friend had averaged about 20-25% higher incentives than the next highest producing co-worker. The transcriptionist who was second last week called to find out what had happened and my friend sent her two small strips of foil for her headphones. She gave no real explanations or instructions other than to securely place the strips on the headphones. Her co-worker received the strips in the mail today about 3/4 of the way through her workday so she had time to transcribe two reports with the foil in place. The email she sent after she had finished the reports read, "Holy Purple Cow!!!" I'll report more when she has had more time with the foil.

Quote:
Is there such a thing as an audiophile who places a tweak with "no expectations?"

in almost every audiophile house, the given audiophile who is a tweaker, will try out the tweaks on family members and friends, usually with zero preparation and planning, in order to try and garner a 'real' opinion. Ie, some semblance of blind testing.

Usually the tweak works well, in most cases.

As for getting through to folks, I tend to not bother too much about bruising egos, as egos should not exist, so stepping on them is no big deal. Sometimes I tell folks that the given post was literally meant to provoke, and I was not addressing the 98% who weren't paying attention and throwing rocks..I was addressing the two people who were pausing..and considering. I take the heat for THEM. For that is generally about the best that can be expected.

The esoteric arts and sciences, for example, are not for the average or unaware soul..they are for the aware or the ones who are becoming aware. Thus,the previous flag bearers..leave sign. Everywhere. And if your mind should begin to go clear one day..then you begin to see, to get the message. But it's not for everyone.

Thus the effect of where the entire flock of chickens peck to death the one chicken with the spot of blood on it. People are the same-in any group. Be they street kids..all the way up to and beyond the scientists at CERN. So the esoteric masters leave sign. Sign to follow.

So no Ethan(or whomever might think such tings are bogus), we don't fight you. We fight your ignorance, which is tied to the false edifice called your ego, which refuses to change, so it calls us ignorant-in a fit of it's own pique and need defend it's existence. We all go through this to one degree or another.

For example, the best way to 'go clear', so to speak, is to go sit on a mountain by oneself and fight with the ego and dissipate it and attempt to see reality for what it is. Or isn't - for that matter.

Staying amongst the 'monkey pack' is a good way to keep it solidly enforced via the daily communications and reflections of the basics of social interchange.

The problem,once again.. comes not with the tweaks, it comes with the ego. The psyche.

You will no more allow yourself (this deep identification with the self created edifice called the EGO) to die, than to give up the comfortable grasp and total entrenchment of the ego. That is the sad reality of such things.

Which is why this argument cannot be won with you. You have to make the effort. Not us. Stop externalizing the internal nightmare. Realize what it is.

And if you have no clue what I'm talking about-therein lies the whole heart of the matter itself.

Oh, there you are.

I was worried you had passed by a pool of still water and were drowned.

Quote:
Oh, there you are.

I was worried you had passed by a pool of still water and were drowned.

Not deep enough. I did catch a fever from kissing it, though.

Quote:
"Holy Purple Cow!!!"

These tweaks really do change one's perception of the world.

>>> "The "audio" part I am referring to would be a tweak or device that directly influences audio equipment or room acoustics, not enhancing the feeling of ease of human beings. Drugs do that too, but I wouldn't call it an audio tweak." <<<

Leaving aside your reference "having your local priest blessing your listening room" I would like to address the narrowness of your approach to 'audio' and to what is a 'tweak' which relates to 'audio' and what isn't.

Let me start with the descriptions "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".
Someone describing hearing all that must be 'hearing' additional information i.e more information than they had heard previously.

Ethan and I start from the same premise. That there is a wealth of information, already in the room, having already been presented into the room by the audio equipment but which people are not resolving correctly. So that means that there is additional information THERE, in the room already, waiting to be resolved. So, dbowker, either you believe that there is additional information, already in the room, waiting to be resolved, or you don't - IRRESPECTIVE of whether you believe any particular 'tweak' works or not.

Where Ethan and I part company is that Ethan believes that the 'blockage' to 'hearing' all this additional information in the room is 100% an ACOUSTIC problem !!! Whereas I say that the acoustic problem is only PART of the problem.

Now, dbowker, you say that you will only accept something as an AUDIO 'tweak' if it is having an effect on the audio signal or having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves !! Irrespective of people's descriptions of what they have done and what they 'hear' ?

Do you realise what you are dismissing and who you are dismissing ?

You are dismissing all the people who have tried the Harmonix Discs and describe their improvement to the sound as "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".

You are dismissing all the people who have tried the Mpingo discs and describe their improvement to the sound as "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".

You are dismissing all the people who have tried such as the Franck resonators and describe their improvement to the sound as "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".

You are dismissing all the people who have tried various crystals in the room and describe their improvement to the sound as "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".

You are dismissing all the people who have tried the Schumann resonance devices and describe their improvement to the sound as "Presence", "immediacy", "improved timbre and tone", "more like the musicians were playing for me", "cleaner with more clarity".

ALL these people's experiences are dismissed by you. If it does not come within your narrow view of sound and audio then it has to be dismissed !!! ONLY if it DIRECTLY influences the udio equipment or the audio signal or room acoustics will it be considered by you as an AUDIO tweak !! Even though it will relate to a greater appreciation of the SOUND !! Which is surely what AUDIO is all about ?

So, that means that hundreds (if not thousands worldwide) of people's experiences amount to nought in your eyes - even though they give practically identical descriptions of what they are all 'hearing' !!! Which should be a clue in itself that there 'is something going on' which needs explaining !!

Yet another person (Dave Clark in Positive Feedback Online) has just described - in a similar way to others' descriptions - the effect of the Schumann RR-77 resonance device and the improvements in the sound he heard !! See below :-

Quote from Dave Clark Positive Feedback Online. 04/06/08

>>> "Yeah, they all seem to have a positive impact on the music allowing the system to breathe just that much more effortlessly.

Well, if you want the complete skinny on what is behind the RR-77, then go and do a search on AA or at the very least read Jeff's review as he has it all there in a few hundred words

What you, Geoff and MJFrog are discussing is a general term i.e a placebo effect or not a placebo effect. An all encompassing term. What you are not doing Elk is listening to (looking at) the actual words which people are using to describe the effect they are 'hearing'. They are not just simply saying "Oh it sounds better." They are all using similar descriptions of the various improvement in the sound they are hearing. See the reply I have just done to dbowker.

You don't get the detailed improvements in the sound as described below from mere "suggestion", "the placebo effect", "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", etc.

>>> "improved spatial ambiance, a bigger grander more holographic soundstage/soundfield, and a greater sense of ease or naturalness to the music

Well May- I'm frankly amazed that you would write so much in an effort to have me redefine my point, which I think you still have missed a bit. To me, if someone wants to use ANYTHING in their life to enhance their musical, visual or for that matter gastronomic experience, well then, "enjoy I say."

My real point is that I feel like the matter of discussing an "audio" tweak should, apparently in your mind "narrowly", be defined as something that affects either: the electricity, the system being played (vibrational, conductive, etc), the room, or any combination of the above. That's not that narrow really, but it all has specifically to do with audio. Many of the descriptions of the tweaks you and others have mentioned seem to be all about energy, internal perception, and general well-being. If they work for audio, they should work for ALL experiences in said room by your own definition: it's not about the room or equipment, it's about the person. That's fine as far as it goes, but it still doesn't appear to be an "audio" tweak even though that's the "experience" people apply it too.

Again- shouldn't dinner be better in the same room too? How come you can't put your strips on the outside of the oven and make your meal taste better- more flavors and levels of information from the foods? I think it's a vaild question, although honstly I'm really not that invested in changing anyone's mind. I just wanted to add a few observations into the conversation (which has gone on way longer than is probably productive anyway).

In the end, some dedicated meditation and a quiet mind will do everything I've seen posted about all these tweaks, and it has the benefit of not staying in one room, but comes with you everywhere. It's free too!

Quote:
You don't get the detailed improvements in the sound as described below from mere "suggestion", "the placebo effect" . . .

Actually, one can experience exactly these improvements - and many other things - through placebo effect. Our minds are extremely powerful; we can convince ourselves that we see, hear and otherwise experience what we believe and want to experience.

This alone neither proves nor disproves the efficacy of any tweak. However, we need ways to distinguish actual efficacy from placebo.

Quote:
"Turning it off and on when unsuspecting guests (audiophile-geeks of course

Quote:
Ethan believes that the 'blockage' to 'hearing' all this additional information in the room is 100% an ACOUSTIC problem !!!

Once the sound is in the room, and has passed through all of the electronics, then there's nothing other than "acoustics" between the sound and your ears. Now, we can argue all day long whether tiny pebbles are large enough to make an audible difference, or how small or large something must be to have an affect. But anything that goes in the room and is not in the signal path is by definition acoustic in nature.

Or placebo, of course, in which case I have no interest. I deal only with facts, not fancy.

--Ethan

Quote:

>>> "improved spatial ambiance, a bigger grander more holographic soundstage/soundfield, and a greater sense of ease or naturalness to the music