Quote:

And wonderful questions they are once, and if, there is a common starting point that the the Schumann resonance device is actually doing something. (I take no position on this - I was not even aware of the device until you mentioned it.)

(Just grabbing the comment Elk, nothing in the following is meant as direct)

I have a friend who runs an audio shop out of a large downtown apartment. Nice place. He's been experimenting with that type of device. He says it works, with regards to creating a more calm and coherent listening experience. This is in the downtown core of a city of, oh, 3 mil in the core area. So, based on a direct face to face question and answer, I'm inclined to look into it - considerably deeper. That resonance is one that the very idea of DNA was created under. It's a fundamentally important field, to the life on this planet.

As for electromagnetic manipulation, this can be done to the human brain and body---in just about any way you care to imagine. And matter..as well. Just because it's a difficult emotional hurdle--that has nothing to do with reality, or perception of it.

In my estimation...dismissing the resonance devices(if anyone is foolish enough to do so)...

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

...is a fools game, in the best of circumstances. Electromagnetics are critical to human function. Cities and urban life disrupt that to a very serious degree. You could not pay me enough to live in a giant pollution and electricity filled city, as I have far too much respect for my life to do that. To top it off..59.xHz..is the PERFECT frequency for stopping the human heart.

It's interesting that NTSC used almost exactly that number. and that 667hz,as an electromagnetic frequency to excite the human mind directly..is known as the 'God Frequency'.

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

I know a bit about that one too, as I had a friend, Andrew, who was right there at Laurentian University in Sudbury through that entire sequence of events and was also a test bunny. Andrew talked about the spooks and military that monitored the classes and experiments.

And guys like Troy Hurtubise, with the 'God light' and 'Angel Light'. Troy does not scare; He's been shot twice and stabbed 6 times. This shit is 100% for real. I've met the man-spoken directly with him. Have you? I'm from Northern Ontario, I go by Troy's place every time I visit my family. These are two examples out of a minimum 1000. Likely more.

http://www.baytoday.ca/content/news/details.asp?c=6657

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

Happens all the time, out there in the big wide world, and you might notice that it stays completely out of mainstream media. Even the scientific crowd has their little cliques and limits on reality that they will accept. Human, like everyone else. As screwed up as anyone.

All you need to do..is 'get it' once..and the rest will follow..as they say. Free your mind..and your ass will follow.

This

Quote:
One of Buddha

Quote:

Quote:
One of Buddha

That Angel Light article is the most poorly written and unsubstantiated article I've ever read! That thing is at best an old prop from a 60's sci-fi movie- not even- a movie prop would be better built! He's got that thing in his particle board basement with other vintage props lying around, and somebody who had way too much fun in the Age of Aquarius was invited in to write all about his "discovery!" LOL!

I mean- really... you don't take those pictures seriously do you? It's not even a well made prop, let alone a real device that is going to "re-write the laws of physics." If I didn't know better I'd say you put that link in just to see how many people actually bought into it...

Then there are Schumann frequency CDs that one can pick up from any number of web sites that sell them to the health/new age community. NB - the Schumann frequency CDs generate an acoustic wave vice an electromagnetic one.

I learned quite some time ago to not check on KBK's "scientific" assertions - they don't hold up.

However, I enjoy his approach and openness. Thus, the journey is fun.

Quote:
Not inferior, just "catching up."

Or perhaps, in the context of this discussion, finally creating a listening environment that is comfortable and "feels safe" to them - where others for whom the tweaks do not work already felt safe.

OK. let's get a little more serious.

Read this one page.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthrea...;pagenumber=248

However, one finally comes to the realization that serious can be an issue all on it's own. Ie, it's all fun and games until one realizes how serious things are and how deep the issues go. High end physics and science does not have to look like a multi-billion $ experiment encased in shiny stainless steel buildings with 100's of scientists walking around in lab coats with clipboards. Ignorance can be a self-created bliss..and it can also cause one to blunder about like a bull in a china shop and endanger people's lives..through that ignorance.

I could be making superconducting carbon nanotubes in my kitchen by the end of the week with a bit of time and about $1000. It's the knowledge of what to do and what is going on, that counts. You can now buy 5 grams of superconducting carbon nanotubes from about 20-30 places, on the net..for about $100.

Edit: As for actually making carbon nanotubes and beyond, I could tell you everything you need to know on how to get started-in as little as three sentences. Hell, I could even condense it down to one sentence. However, that tiny bit of information is highly valued, and I'd be swatted sideways from about 3 different directions for such an innocent seeming utterance. In the same way, many of the tweaks considered here can be scientifically and logically explained in similar short sentences, that would be easily decipherable to those who know what they are reading.

MJF:

Quote:
I'm willing to be tested using a tool no more sophisticated than the Sharp carousel boom box.

EW:

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

Bump.

We used to have a saying in a university division I used to work in: "Situation hopeless...not serious."

(Stolen from an old movie title.)

I like to think of that quote when faced with "problems" like the subjectivist/objectivist impasse.

I also like, "We fight so intensely because the stakes are so low."

I'd love to hear about Ethan visiting Michigan in Canada. That could usher in a new era of subjectivist/objectivist detente!

We gotta have an Objectivist-Subjectivist Summit.

Probably wouldn't ever get past the planning stage...both sides would insist on being listed first!

OK, is it happy hour yet?

Quote:
OK, is it happy hour yet?

HeHe...

It's five o'clock somewhere!

RG

4:20?

>>> "And wonderful questions they are once, and if, there is a common starting point that the the Schumann resonance device is actually doing something. (I take no position on this - I was not even aware of the device until you mentioned it.)" <<<

Yes, they ARE interesting questions - that is why I am asking them !!!!

I led my first two articles in Positive Feedback Online on the Franck Resonators and the Schumann resonance device for two specific reasons.

1) Because of the absolute surprise described by the reviewers of the effects they heard from both products.
2) And because, at long last, some people were beginning to challenge the 'traditional' viewpoint i.e that 'sound' can only be changed by either the audio signal being affected or the acoustic air pressure waves in the room being affected. They were beginning to ask the question "could it be us (human beings) who were the ones being affected ?

Might I suggest, Elk, that you read the review in 6moons (April 2006 issue) of the Franck resonators by Marja and Henk.

(Extracts from the April 2006 issue - 6 moons review:- >>> "But the strangest

After the mention of the Schumann resonance device I did some digging. It was great fun to prowl and learn of yet another device with another claimed mode of operation. We humans are creative.

The language used by the reviewers is of no use in determining whether a tweak or component works or not.

The is a hobby with its own overused jargon. For example, how many veils have been lifted already and how many are there left?

Quote:
After the mention of the Schumann resonance device I did some digging. It was great fun to prowl and learn of yet another device with another claimed mode of operation. We humans are creative.

The language used by the reviewers is of no use in determining whether a tweak or component works or not.

The is a hobby with its own overused jargon. For example, how many veils have been lifted already and how many are there left?

I think as many veils as you think need be lifted. Like Doritos, relax, lift all you want....we'll always make more veils for you.

Quote:
The language used by the reviewers is of no use in determining whether a tweak or component works or not.

What language would be of use to you? The one that states categorically the device is snake oil? That seems to the the only language accepted by anyone unwilling to simply try the devices because they already know they will not work and unecessary since their superior hearing and knowledge of everything renders such treatements foolish - not to mention dangerous to their ego should they prove of value. If someone is unwilling to try the treatments and cannot accept the words of others who have utilized the devices, what would be convincing to such a person?

Quote:
Like Doritos, relax, lift all you want....we'll always make more veils for you.

Quote:
What language would be of use to you? The one that states categorically the device is snake oil? That seems to the the only language accepted by anyone unwilling to simply try the devices because they already know they will not work and unecessary since their superior hearing and knowledge of everything renders such treatements foolish - not to mention dangerous to their ego should they prove of value. If someone is unwilling to try the treatments and cannot accept the words of others who have utilized the devices, what would be convincing to such a person?

Gee, Jan, Breathe . . .

In . . . out . . . in . . .

You completely misunderstood the discussion. And why the never-ending unpleasant and gratuitous characterizations of those that do not agree with you?

My ego is far from threatened by a Bright Pebble or a bit of foil; elks maintain their self-possession in the presence of shiny objects.

May is positing that there is, perforce, at least some validity to tweaks when reviewers use the same language to describe their affects:

So, when the same words and sentences are used to describe experiences with other (unorthodox) devices, why would anyone want to jump straight in and dismiss those experiences with "Oh, it's the placebo effect."

My simple point is that the words chosen by the reviewers is of no consequence; this is a hobby replete with over-used jargon. The specific use of shared nomenclature neither proves nor disproves the validity of any tweak. It demonstrates only that the writer is comfortable with the language of hi-fi audio.

Also, as a reminder, I happily tried a number of May's suggested tweaks. They didn't do a thing for me - neither good nor bad.

If May's concept of "signing off" on the environment as safe is correct, this may make sense. I probably already feel very safe in my elk den. It's deep in the woods, incredibly quiet, right off of a spring fed stream populated with four kinds of trout, restored native prairie on one side of the woods, no city lights, wood burning fireplaces, cute and articulate art historian girlfriend, even my own electrical transformer - at least for me it is an environment hard to improve. Perhaps it cannot be made more "safe".

Quote:
If someone is unwilling to try the treatments and cannot accept the words of others who have utilized the devices, what would be convincing to such a person?

A plausible explanation of what the device does would be a fine start.

Not even how it works. Just what it does. If a tweak's proponent can't even describe that - and they never can - then why should we bother?

--Ethan

Quote:
Gee, Jan, Breathe . . .

In . . . out . . . in . . .

You completely misunderstood the discussion. And why the never-ending unpleasant and gratuitous characterizations of those that do not agree with you?

My ego is far from threatened by a Bright Pebble or a bit of foil; elks maintain their self-possession in the presence of shiny objects.

Elk, I'm really tired of this approach you've taken where any question or disagreement I post is portrayed as a hyperventilation induced hysteria aimed at infuriating you or starting a fight in general. This seems to be such a childish game you are playing. I respond to insults when I have been insulted, I thought I had made that clear already.

You, Elk, are not the only person on this thread to whom "dangers to their ego" might mean something personal. Unless you missed it Buddha has just stated that all "tweakers" (not to mention all those "subjective" listeners who trust their ears - you know, like JGH, AD and JA) are weakminded noobs in desperate need to "catch up" to the more intellectually brilliant and aurally talented and advanced listeners who are smart enough to remain "objective" in these areas. Demanding charts and graphs to prove the efficacy of any claim the objectivists do not succumb to the temptations of the stones, foils or discs which constantly bedevil those witless sops who fall prey to the snake oil being sold. And these superior, "objective" folk therefore never try any devices or treatments because they, of course, understand such devices simply cannot operate under any prinicples with which they are familiar. And, naturally, being superior intellects they thoroughly understand all aspects of all principles. I can only imagine how much fun Buddha and all these other advanced people are at a dinner party as they explain to the wine and food lovers that they cannot possibly detect the aftertaste of leather in their Cabernet nor the East to West breezes of San Danielle in their proscuito wrapped asparagus and that they are only weakminded fools who read too many magazines and can only wish for a better life than they presently possess. I'm sure he (Buddha) is gracious enough to allow that he does still respect them and wishes to remain their friend and truly wishes them only the best as they come to realize they must eventually grow up enough to become cognizant of just how misguided they are at this moment in time (which is actually more than most others with similar attitudes of superiority appear willing to admit).

How would someone know their ego is far from being threatened? Wouldn't their ego actually not allow them to admit it was interferring with their greater enjoyment of music and other pursuits of the senses by not allowing them the freedom to experiment with products and methods which might endanger it's continued existence in comfort? Isn't this is the same as believing you are "the sane one" in the bunch? And how would someone know that it was when they and their ego are so dedicated to believing it is not? You can say your ego is not threatened but that would certainly be difficult to prove without actually putting your ego on the line by trying such devices. Yes, I remember you "happily" tried several of May's treatments and you had "fun". "Fun" seems to be high on the list of what you get from this thread and how it operates - unless, that is, you read one of my posts at which point you feel threatened by something that does not exist anywhere other than in your own interpretation of words on a page. At that point your ego becomes quite actively annoyed. Well, you are the sane one here.

However, you - or your ego - have not tried Belt's foil or cream. If you are to start anywhere with the Belt devices, these would be the most logical points since these are the actual Belt devices - provided free of cost. The Belt's do have a great amount of belief in the foils since they provide them to sceptics and interested parties - free of charge. The foils are free of monetary cost and they are the among most powerful of the Belt devices in affecting change - according to the Belt literature. If you are truly unencumbered by your ego, these are the devices to try rather than a glass of water or a piece of paper under the chair leg. How much is your ego willing to try?

I've provided yet more proof of the ability of the Belt foil to affect a positive improvement in perceived sound quality. Even if you choose not to believe hifi jargon posted by reviewers too familiar with the language of audio, how else would you account for the response by the two transcriptionists I've cited? The one example is a hard fact of increased production measured by monetary reward due to the user of the foil treated earphones when no one else transcribing similar material had any improvement in their production. Is this all so easily dismissed as something other than verification of some change in the quality of the sound coming through the treated earphones? With evidence provided by someone who has no reason to not believe what she hears and sees as a result, why would you not try the foil? With no real cost to you it would appear to be a no-brainer.

Quote:
My simple point is that the words chosen by the reviewers is of no consequence; this is a hobby replete with over-used jargon. The specific use of shared nomenclature neither proves nor disproves the validity of any tweak. It demonstrates only that the writer is comfortable with the language of hi-fi audio.

Then I would say your point is too simple. The next logical process would be to say, "The specific use of shared nomenclature neither proves nor disproves the validity of any product. It demonstrates only that the writer is comfortable with the language of hi-fi audio." By that logic Stereophile and all other audio related magazines providing anything more than technical specifications should close their doors and cease repeating the same language of audio used by those who are reviewing treatments, devices and tweaks. All audio related language must be suspect since it is all repetitive. So would be all food related language, automotive language, photographic language or language in general since we all share a common vocabulary. No one can actually mean anything they say or write or think since they use words which are common to everyone else. I can't mean what I say any more than you can mean what you say since we both share common words. Now that's an interesting proposition! We can close the forum now, Stephen.

You still have not told me what language would be acceptable to you to describe the effects of such treatments. What exactly is wrong with "greater clarity", "more separation of instrumental lines" and "a true to life timbre from each instrument" if those are what the listener experienced? In your opinion should the reviewer of a "tweak" be under the obligation to invent a totally new vocabulary reserved just for the discussion of tweaks? If we came up with a new language just for tweaks, how do you envision it sounding? What are some phrases a tweak reviewer might employ to get their point across to the reader? Can all tweak reviewers share the same vocabulary or must they all invent a new word usage for each new tweak so as to further obfuscate the benefits and drawbacks of each device? That sounds as if the tweak reviewer would not be allowed to drink from the same water fountain as the more advanced and intellectually honest non-tweak reviewer and the tweaker must ride in the back of the bus to any audio conventions while entering and leaving by the back doorway under cover of darkness - their own mental darkness and dullness that is. And all of this would be instituted just to keep someone out there from even thinking about the efficacy of a treatment or device which might produce results by a method someone does not understand? And you would encourage those individuals who might be wavering in their determination to remain superior listeners to not try any treatments since you are not going to try any serious treatments. You would with all of this appear to be attempting a construction of circular logic whereby you cannot accept the language of those who have tried the devices and you are unwilling to accept the words of those who market such devices therefore the only logical thing to do would be - nothing. If that applies to "tweaks", then should it also apply equally to all audio equipment and everything sold everywhere? Therefore we should all move to the woods and live more like Ted Kacynski.

Quote:
A plausible explanation of what the device does would be a fine start.

Not even how it works. Just what it does. If a tweak's proponent can't even describe that - and they never can - then why should we bother?

Ethan, I've tried not to respond to your posts since they are largely nonsensical and mostly insulting but this one crosses into new territory. You are now at odds with Elk who claims all reviews of any treatment or device read just like all others. Elk claims all tweak reviewers use the same words repetitively to describe what the tweak "does". By this I assume he means "more separation of instrumental lines" is read in too many reviews of treatments and devices. Isn't that, in your opinion, describing something the product under review does? What do you want them to say? What vocabulary do you require so that you can understand what is happening? Is "the whitish noise that had represented cymbals and hi-hats has been replaced by a more metalic sound with greater attack and longer decay" all that confusing to you?

I have no idea why you would suggest those who use the treatments do not know what the treatments actually accomplish. Well, I can suppose you would say that because you do not read anything that isn't accompanied by charts and graphs but that would be ignoring the fact you are merely trying to be insulting once more and doing a good job of showing your ignorance while you are here. Read, Ethan, and you will find what Elk refers to as all tweaks resulting in improvements which are too alike on a desirability scale. (How that can be an insult I'm still trying to figure out.) Let your ego drop a notch and read a few reviews, Ethan.

Quote Jan:

Dr Marja Vanderloo & Dr Henk 'Longbeard' Boot

Anyone know what discipline their 'Dr's in?

RG

My friend is quite aware of HIPPA, therefore she didn't allow us to listen to any portion of the dictation which could be considered private nor any amount which included private information regarding the patient. Actually, even if she had played that portion of the dictation, none of us could have made out anything relevant to the procedure described - which was a simple discharge summary. This doctor's dictation was extremely poor even when pronouncing his own name which is not out of bounds under HIPPA. Sorry, Buddha, you don't win the microwave with that answer. My friend is neither "fictitous" nor "callous" so go on thinking of some new way to attack the messenger by association. Why would I make up a transcriptionist? Good Lord!!! You are really reaching for that one, Buddha. Are you so petty and so tied up in being right that you cannot make a case for your own stance and must resort to insults and innuendo?

So what's with the utterly personal attack? That's really all your side of this argument has to work with, isn't it? It must be since that's all your side has come up with since the start of the previous thread. No facts, facts just get in the way of what you already know. Of course you can only resort to attacks since none of you have even considered trying the free devices provided by May and the only thing you can do is ridicule without proof those things you choose to not understand. Well, my respected friend, that truly is your loss. Those of us who don't allow ego to hold them back are quite happy with the better sound quality we now enjoy and my friend is quite happy with the additional pay she is earning. That's a fact you can take to the bank!

Speaking of facts, unfortunately, you didn't get any facts straight in your screed - which a quick read of my post will prove. You spent all that time insulting me after telling me you respect me and want to remain friends. What sort of pyschotropic drugs are you taking right now? None?! Oh my! That really presents a problem then.

Are you so obssessed with this topic that you must attack anyone and everyone who disagrees with you without checking for the truth before you let fly with all of your lies? I pointed to JA as a "subjective" listener not as a Belt adherent, so the only thing done in vain is your absurd exptrapolation of the facts and your twisting of the truth to suit your needs.

I have never claimed anyone was close minded if they had actually tried anything we have discussed. But as is typical of these debates the loudest and most insulting naysayers are the ones who wouldn't even consider trying any of the devices. I will admit to thinking of anyone who just "knows" a tweak can't work as extremely close minded and believing they probably intend to stay that way for reasons they don't want to consider. But even at that I have not stooped so low as to suggest they are inferior beings. It does take quite a mind set to come up with that one and to say it with such conviction of superiority. That was a script right out of a comic book! Congratulations on winning that prize but you will have to share it with Ethan and dup. Elk is breathing down your neck for the next event but fortunately for you the rest of this crowd is just pathetically jumping in when they see an opportunity.

You make wild assumptions and leaps of reality which only prove you to be an ass about all of this. I would be just as happy to have someone say they heard no improvement as to say they did. I'm not as fanatical about this stuff as you seem to be, Buddha. But then you wouldn't even let anyone try any of the tweaks, would you? Yep! That's open minded and not caught up in being right.

Everyone I ask to listen is free to say whatever they wish concerning anything I introduce to them. But on that day no one said they did not hear an improvement when the foil was introduced. So, that rather stands your assumption on its ear, doesn't it? Though you so desperately want your opinion to be dominant here, so much so that you refuse to try any of the devices we've discussed, what you believe is simply not the truth. Why don't we deal in reality and the facts on the ground? That's what everyone with no experience with the devices keeps stating they believe in - as ridiculous as that sounds.

Everything I've said here is an honest appraisal of what I've heard and been told by those who participated in the experiment. The fact is my friend has increased her line count each day after applying the foil to her earphones. She has told her friend of her findings without any prompting on my part. Her friend placed two small foil bits on her phones and she is also convinced the foil is effective and both are turning out more work and being paid for their production. Tell me, Buddha, can you put away your "cannot happen" attitude long enough to explain away how this is happening if neither person had been told what they would hear when the foil was applied to their earphones? Neither individual was provided any information regarding the Belts nor their devices and neither was aware of this thread nor any similar to it. They only knew that two tiny bits of foil were the singular change made to their transcription system. How do you explain that anyone would expect better sound quality from two small bits of foil - less than a 1mm X 5mm piece in total - attached to the outside of their earphones? Or do you simply not explain it? Do you simply ignore it because acknowledging that fact would be very uncomfortable to your ego? Do you really believe my friend suddenly became a better transcriptionist after more than 25 years of doing the job? What sort of magical theory do you have that ignores the real facts on the ground?

Tell me again how you can be so certain none of this can do what is claimed despite the numerous proofs offered which dispute your opinion. What sort of interests do you have in all of this being snake oil? Tell me again why you will not simply try the free foil offer. Is it that you wouldn't be all that "advanced" if this really worked for you? You would then be mortal like the rest of us. That would be uncomfortable for someone who sees themself as so terribly far advanced. Try the foil, Buddha. Since you are certain it cannot work, what have you got to loose? Is your advanced ego so terribly fragile that you won't even try?

Oh, Jan, poor Jan.

It's not that these tweaks cannot work, we just happen to disagree on the "superiority" factor.

I say that most likely you are finally entering a realm that the rest of us occupy, and you insist that you are somehow surpassing the realm of normal listening.

We are so close. You declare youself to be a special listener, and I declare you to be a 'special' listener, as well! I think normal is what you seek, you think that supra-normal is where is where you listen. You are Narscissus, we are every man.

No way to prove who hears what, eh?

At least I don't make people up.

I do admit to your ouvre not rising to the level at which I believe the claims you make. You doth protest too much.

Next time you fabricate a transcriptionist story, add the HIPAA disclaimer in advance.

I welcome you and your tweaks into the realm of what many of us already hear.

I do see you run instantly away from the wine analogy once the utility of blind experience is added, which is telling, but not surprising...you are of the kind that think that if you experience something, it must be surpass all that came before it.

You climb to the top of the bell curve and declare youself to be atop the peak. I see you reaching the mean. (See Wikipedia for definition of terms and pictures you can understand.)

I do welcome you aboard, though. Welcome to what many of us already hear!

(Golf clap for Jan.)

By the way, why does that upset you so much? We should be sharing high fives, not listening to you crow about your self-proclaimed superiority.

I have been in the room for the cream, the foil, and many other things...I have watched snails crawl along the edge of straight razors...if it gets you to what many of us already hear, then you go, girl!

But, please, quite with the "I am special" bullshit. You demean audiophilia with that crap. We are all pretty damn good listeners. Your "revelation" may be another audiophile's "mundanity." (Made up word.)

Do you declare your listening skills to be superior to Elk's and then denigrate his opinion? Yes, you do.

I think you may be so desperate to set yourself above your fellow audiophiles that you stoop to making up both people and experiences.

Sorry if I am being under-charitable.

Geez, looks like I accidentally stumbled onto a site of contented audiophiles. Content in their sound, content in their knowledge, with a air of superior, uh, contentment. Heh heh

Quote:
Elk claims all tweak reviewers use the same words repetitively to describe what the tweak "does".

So far so good. Meaning I agree.

Quote:
... "more separation of instrumental lines" is read in too many reviews of treatments and devices. Isn't that, in your opinion, describing something the product under review does?

No, it's too vague. That says nothing at all. Sorry. The reason such words are inadequate is because they make sense to the writer only. To be useful to others the words have to be specific enough to be understood universally. For example:

Quote:
What vocabulary do you require so that you can understand what is happening?

The only vocabulary that makes sense when describing audio gear and the sound it produces are words that relate to real and physical properties. Now, the words don't have to define one of the four audio parameters. I'm okay with "harsh" which means a boost at high frequencies, or "muffled" which means too little HF content. "Fuzzy" is okay too because that describes distortion. Even "open" or "revealing" are acceptable because they too imply HF content. But - and here's the key - the words used must ultimately relate to an actual audio parameter. Then, and only then, can a description by one person be understood by others and have the same meaning. And guess what? Once appropriate words are used, it's then simple to verify them with measurements. The sound is strident? Let's see a graph. You think a tweak makes the bass fuller? Proof please.

So now lets get back to the original quote, "more separation of instrumental lines." This could be due to either lower distortion or a flatter (or exaggerated) high end. Either can increase clarity. So again, let's see some real evidence. This is so simple I'm amazed that tweak proponents don't even attempt to define what the tweaks do using proper wording. But they don't use proper wording because they know they can't back it up. So all they can do is cover their asses by using vague descriptions that can be interpreted in endless ways. And then nobody can say they're full of crap because they never actually said anything of substance.

Quote:
I have no idea why you would suggest those who use the treatments do not know what the treatments actually accomplish.

Oh, that's easy - because when I talk to these people it's clear they have absolutely no clue how audio actually works.

--Ethan

So, this clearly is all about preserving your ego.

I've never claimed any of the "special" qualities for myself that you say I now possess. You are the one claiming superiority; well, you and Ethan and dup. The Three Amigos of Stereophile forums! Look at you! Still relying on personal attacks to get you by here. You've reached a new low in discourse over these two threads, Buddha. You were at one time a forum member with good common sense who brought some reason and sanity to the forum. Now you insult and demean with the worst of them. I even expect more insults to come in response to this post - like dup you can no longer help yourself. No facts, facts get in the way of insults.

You have ignored questions to get in more insults. You have ignored answering how my friend could experience the improved sound she now hears by suggesting she is a fabrication of my imagination, made up just to violate HIPPA rules. She is not a fabrication I assure you and no rules were violated as I have explained. If you would answer the question as it does exist however, you would not have much of any argument, filled with insults as it is, to use against any of these treatments. Why not answer the question, Buddha? I think it's a fair question to ask and I would very much like to hear your explanation of what is happening. Give it a try. Without simply dismissing the results as a fabrication or a placebo, tell me how what is occurring can be. This is not about her suddenly becoming aware of sounds which superiors such as yourself have always heard. This is not the tale of an inferior listener suddenly stepping up a notch in her skills. This is someone who has been doing transcription for most of her adult life. This is someone who has for decades been listening as a profession. The foil went on and she made more money because of the better sound quality. How does that happen to someone who has been the top producer in every hospital she has worked in? Please, Buddha, drop the insults and the condescension for just one post and explain that as you see it.

The wine analogy wasn't mentioned since you yourself demonstrated that once enough users experience and report heightened perception of already existing qualities, the "objectivists" feel obliged to rush in to come up with an explanation that suits their taste but not necessarily the reality of the user. Optimum stemware for the most pleasureable wine experience but not optimum audio playback? There's the superiority of the market for you! Where does perception fit into high end audio? It doesn't because the objectivists must always have their way and they refuse to be as accepting in audio as they are in other fields. Listening is not what they are about. This has become not at all about audio or music, it has become all about shouting down anyone with a different opinion. Thank you very much, I'll drink my Chianti from a fruit jar!

What would it take to make such a change in audio as the wine market has seen? What would have to take place to allow the audio objectivists to put down their charts and graphs long enough to come to an acceptance of what is happening in audio? Surely when the reported perception of a wine drinker can rise to the level of molecular studies just to satisfy the objectivists the small jump required to logically say the perception of the music listener is equally valid is not that far away despite the numbing cries of "cannot happen" and "we are the superior all knowing humans" coming from the likes of you and Ethan. That day would actually be welcome even if the objectivists come up with wrong conclusions about what others do perceive.

Buddha, you've sunk to the point of having nothing to say and you fill space with insults and lies. You won't answer questions that would put a nick in your ego. You have merged with Ethan and dup. Too bad. This forum will forever be a less welcome place now that you have become just another rant waiting to be proven wrong.

Quote:
Oh, that's easy - because when I talk to these people it's clear they have absolutely no clue how audio actually works.

I bet when you travel you shout at people so they can better understand English.

Maybe this will help you out when you speak to someone who knows a language you do not understand; http://www.stereophile.com/reference/50/index.html

BTW, what is the measurement for "transparency", soundstage "width" and "depth"?

Actually I agree with some of the points you make. It does seem that folks have either run out of words to describe sound or find it necessary to resort to the same cliches we've been hearing since audiophile jargon was invented. But my least favorite editorial comment is, "I don't know how it works, but it does."

Quote:
The only vocabulary that makes sense when describing audio gear and the sound it produces are words that relate to real and physical properties. Now, the words don't have to define one of the four audio parameters. I'm okay with "harsh" which means a boost at high frequencies, or "muffled" which means too little HF content.

Let's ignore for the moment the fact you want only your interpretation of words to have any meaning. "Fuzzy" is not a descriptive term to which everyone can relate and has nothing to do with the physical nature of the sound within the room. By your defintion we can add and subtract "fuzzy" elements from the sound by working with the equipment and not the room or the listener. We have not been discusing modifcations to the equipment for the last 90 pages. Keep up with the group, Ethan. You still refuse to acknowledge the listener's role in the perception of such sounds and you cling to the idea everything comes down to what you wish to believe. Your world is poplulated by Ethan and all those "fans of Ethan" on your web page. Step over here and see another view of the world.

Is the following description plain enough for you? "When we sat down to listen to this configuration, it was apparent that another positive change had occurred. We were now about front row to the musicians, quite close but with an aural view deep into the soundstage."

Does this make sense to you? "We were amazed to be back at our original seats, yet farther back in this virtual venue. The venue had grown as it were. We were farther back, the side walls were further away yet the stage was just as wide as before."

Does this confuse you? "Space opened up in the recording acoustic, notes decayed in a much more natural fashion and what little edge, grit or glare I was hearing on lesser recordings over the review system became more tolerable."

If those are too "fuzzy", please explain why they are too oblique for your comprehension. All you need do, Ethan, is read. Not reading just to maintain your ego position is one thing. Making up lies to prop up faulty thinking is quite another.

Your bias is showing. Please post a photo of what reviewers are supposed to look like.

What was that photo in aid of ?

I quoted Marja and Henk from the 6 moons review as an example of people being taken by surprise by changes they heard to the sound.

Why would you ask what their doctorate is in ? What relevance is their discipline (doctorate) within the discussion taking place here ? Or what relevance is it in determining whether they can hear changes in the sound or not ?

Why did you publish their photograph ? What motive did you have for doing so ?

Would a photograph of me REALLY affect how people regard the words and sentences I use or any concept may I wish to convey ?

You must have some reason why you have gone to all the trouble to particularly find a photograph of Marja and Henk. I am afraid I am detecting a tone I don't like and will not be part of.

Regards,
May Belt.

>>> "For example, how many veils have been lifted already and how many are there left?" <<<

Regarding how many 'veils' are there left to be lifted, Elk, let me quote from some recent 'postings' on Audio Asylum.

Quote from Mmasztal - Isolation Ward section of Audio Asylum 12th May 2008.

>>> "A few weeks ago I posted about using some research grade quartz crystal as well as some "new age" small crystal pieces which I placed in a baggie and instaled in my audio and video systems.

The quartz crystal blocks from Prism Research were used on my new Leben CS300xs over the output transformers and IC inputs. A remarkable improvement.

I later picked up some loose crystals (quartz, amethyst, smoky quartz, tourmaline, hematite) put them in small plastic bags and added them to my video (52" Mits DLP) at the male end of the power cord and the cable input on the TV. This was even more remarkable than the quartz blocks I used on the amp. The picture became more detailed and the colors more vivid with a better sense of depth in the picture.

A couple days ago, I picked up 2 crystal necklaces. One was wrapped around the "wall-wart" cable booster and the other hung on the mains box. Again, more detail, etc.

These crystals are doing something right in my AV set-up. I'd recommend everyone to try it. Cost will be less than $20.00 for loose pieces. And try them on your video first as the changes in the picture are easy to see.

I also began reading some fairly scientific texts on biofields, energy, magnets, etc. Magnetic fields have long been used to facilitate fracture healing, I'm beginning to think the "new age" crystal healers are onto something." <<<

***************

Reply to Mmasztal by Enophile on 14th May 2008:-
>>> "Get yourself a glass jar, put in the crystals, and then toss in some oil - mineral oil is best. Big improvement over dry crystals." <<<

And again by Enophile on 15th May:-

>>> "Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear. Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.

The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.

The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.

With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.

I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

It may be something I listen for that others may not.

The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.

Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done." <<<

********************

I never thought I would see the words "Not to sound crazy" from someone like Enophile who has 'jousted' with me on Audio Asylum in the past. The pre-empting (deflecting any challenge before it happens) words "Not to sound crazy" from someone who has argued that anyone finding Belt 'tweaks' improve their sound obviously NEED such 'props', such 'talismans', such 'rituals' in order to be able to relax and 'hear' what he, Enophile, can already hear - but who then goes on to describe 'hearing' the following :-

"The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay."

"I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."

"The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were."

Either Enophile had ALREADY been hearing the 'better imaging and sonic decay' and 'less smearing of the end of the signal' before he used the crystals or not ? If he can now hear 'better imaging and sonic decay' and 'less smearing of the end of the signal' after using the crystals, then that means that he had NOT been hearing those things BEFORE !!!

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make repeatedly and have made in my articles in Positive Feedback Online. I.e. That there is a wealth of information, already in the room, which people are not resolving correctly - UNTIL (whatever it is they do which allows them to 'hear/resolve' it) !!!!!

WHATEVER IT IS !! Harmonix Discs, Mpingo Discs, Crystals, Franck (or other) resonators, Schumann resonance devices - WHATEVER !!!

Is Enophile (for one) finding that there are yet more 'veils' to be lifted ?

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
I have never claimed anyone was close minded if they had actually tried anything we have discussed.

Unfortunately you do. Repeatedly.

I have tried a number of the suggested tweaks - no joy. I have also expressly withheld judgment on tweaks with which I have no experience; see, e.g., my recent comments regarding resonance devices.

Yet you attack and disparage.

Jan, why is everything so personal that you need to resort to misguided armchair psychology and page long rants against me and others?

Particularly sad is your comparing me to Ted Kacynski (was he an audiophile?).

May theorizes that the Belt tweaks work because we can more easily sign off on the world as safe. I posit that perhaps the tweaks do not work for me as I already am in an environment I can sign off on as safe. That is, I take her position seriously and try to discuss it. Sadly, you use this as an opportunity to attack - this is how you "discuss" perception?

If you like these tweaks you should use them. No one is threatening to call the tweak police and seize your collection of shiny objects.

There are tweaks that make a tremendous improvement, such as speaker positioning and room treatments. These I keep.

I did indeed amuse myself trying May's suggest tweaks. They didn't work but this did not make it less diverting. It is also enjoyable discussing May's beliefs and experiences with her. Of course I do it because it is fun!

It's a hobby, Jan. It's supposed to be fun.

Elk: Have you tried some AC balancing transformers on your system yet? It's one of the most effective tweaks of all for US 'single sided' electrical AC supply. Many times noise masking can be an issue, with regards to tweaks. Like the stereo sounding better at night (when you live in the city) and the fridge finally shutting off, so the AC in the house is not as polluted.

A really nice unit:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Topaz-91005-11-Isola...1QQcmdZViewItem

And these are great too:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Signal-Transformer-D...1QQcmdZViewItem

I'd get two of those. Great prices.

I'd get one, but I've got my 50-75Kva unit (500lbs) already.

At 220-240 Volts, Europe inherently uses balanced AC, and thus has cleaner AC and far less AC pollution in their lives.

Hi, Jan.

Quote:

So, this clearly is all about preserving your ego.

No, I'm standing up for people you put down when they don't hear things your way. This question about what the tweak does is a paradox. Are you catching up with what others already hear, or are you moving forward into a "superior experience?"

Your "better delineation of musical lines" may just as easily be a situation where you are finally perceiving what others already hear.

Same subjective experience, two different views on how it was accomplished.

Nothing more.

I've never claimed any of the "special" qualities for myself that you say I now possess. You are the one claiming superiority; well, you and Ethan and dup. The Three Amigos of Stereophile forums! Look at you! Still relying on personal attacks to get you by here. You've reached a new low in discourse over these two threads, Buddha. You were at one time a forum member with good common sense who brought some reason and sanity to the forum. Now you insult and demean with the worst of them. I even expect more insults to come in response to this post - like dup you can no longer help yourself. No facts, facts get in the way of insults.

No questions there, so I'll leave it at "I love you, too."

You have ignored questions to get in more insults. You have ignored answering how my friend could experience the improved sound she now hears by suggesting she is a fabrication of my imagination, made up just to violate HIPPA rules. She is not a fabrication I assure you and no rules were violated as I have explained. If you would answer the question as it does exist however, you would not have much of any argument, filled with insults as it is, to use against any of these treatments. Why not answer the question, Buddha? I think it's a fair question to ask and I would very much like to hear your explanation of what is happening. Give it a try. Without simply dismissing the results as a fabrication or a placebo, tell me how what is occurring can be. This is not about her suddenly becoming aware of sounds which superiors such as yourself have always heard. This is not the tale of an inferior listener suddenly stepping up a notch in her skills. This is someone who has been doing transcription for most of her adult life. This is someone who has for decades been listening as a profession. The foil went on and she made more money because of the better sound quality. How does that happen to someone who has been the top producer in every hospital she has worked in? Please, Buddha, drop the insults and the condescension for just one post and explain that as you see it.

I am not saying that this 'transcriptionist' of yours did not hear something. I am basically saying that maybe now she is hearing things the same way some other transcritionists may already hear.

I have posted many different effects (that I find interesting) about subtle biological effects being generated from apparently far removed biological states.

I have nothing against how others perceive and what they report.

It is when they transition to "me, therefore, all of you," that I find their assertions to become dubious.

That's why I posted about what our reference points are.

The point is, one cannot be certain that you have elevated your listening to new heights, or merely joined the rest of us already in Sonic Bliss Land.

There may be many happy transcritionists who already hear things as your 'friend' does. Is that an impossibility to you?

The wine analogy wasn't mentioned since you yourself demonstrated that once enough users experience and report heightened perception of already existing qualities, the "objectivists" feel obliged to rush in to come up with an explanation that suits their taste but not necessarily the reality of the user. Optimum stemware for the most pleasureable wine experience but not optimum audio playback? There's the superiority of the market for you! Where does perception fit into high end audio? It doesn't because the objectivists must always have their way and they refuse to be as accepting in audio as they are in other fields. Listening is not what they are about. This has become not at all about audio or music, it has become all about shouting down anyone with a different opinion. Thank you very much, I'll drink my Chianti from a fruit jar!

I would expect no more of you than being a fruit jar kind of drinker. Maybe a little piece of foil on the bottom of the glass, though, as long as you know it's there.

"Objectivists" in wine are not obliged to do anything. They are interested in the phenomenon and explore

Quote:
>>> "For example, how many veils have been lifted already and how many are there left?" <<<

Regarding how many 'veils' are there left to be lifted, Elk, let me quote from some recent 'postings' on Audio Asylum.

I share your optimism than there are many improvements in audio yet to be realized.

My comment on "veils" however was to editorialize; audiophile jargon has become meaningless through over use and by using a word or phrase to mean just about anything.

Quote:
Elk: Have you tried some AC balancing transformers on your system yet?

Balanced power can indeed make quite an improvement! I have not tried the direct transformer approach but rather have tried units that regenerate AC with a balanced output and some other units with transformers incorporated in them. Good stuff.

I have also thought that balanced power coming in (such as in Europe) would be less noisy. Do you know that this is actually the case?

Common mode rejection would be helpful. On the other hand, power surges and other nasties put back on to the line by motors, ballasts, etc. would still be present I would suspect.

Quote:
"Fuzzy" is not a descriptive term to which everyone can relate and has nothing to do with the physical nature of the sound within the room.

Nonsense.

Fuzzy is a great way to describe the sound of distortion.

In fact, guitarists commonly employ a what is called, get this, a Fuzzbox. A fuzzbox distorts the input by clipping the signal - rendering the sound fuzzy.

I don't think anyone wonders why a fuzzbox is called a fuzzbox.

The fact that distortion sounds fuzzy is one of the easiest concepts in audio to describe and demonstrate for a new listener.

Quote:

Quote:
>>> "For example, how many veils have been lifted already and how many are there left?" <<<

Regarding how many 'veils' are there left to be lifted, Elk, let me quote from some recent 'postings' on Audio Asylum.

I share your optimism than there are many improvements in audio yet to be realized.

My comment on "veils" however was to editorialize; audiophile jargon has become meaningless through over use and by using a word or phrase to mean just about anything.

I think the veil thing may be in large part a symantic/syntactic/article thing.

It should be "as though a veil were lifted" rather than "as though the veil were lifted."

Did I use therm "were" correctly in that sentence?

Is it "was" lifted?

I went with "were."

Time to find my Strunk and White!

All I know..is I sit here and constantly hear the distant sound of gunfire.

Oh wait. That's right.

I live in a house...... between two gun ranges.

Seriously.

Quote:
what is the measurement for "transparency", soundstage "width" and "depth"?

Frequency response, and lack of distortion. Easy, yes?

The only minor complication is that poor imaging is caused by comb filtering, which is generally different at each ear due to its root cause which is early reflections. But this is still easily measured either as errors in the frequency response, or by using software such as ETF that can show the magnitude of reflections directly. Either way the two are intimately related. If you can get all early reflections to 15 dB or more below the direct sound, the reflections will have a negligible effect on the response.

--Ethan

Quote:
It should be "as though a veil were lifted" rather than "as though the veil were lifted."

Veil is another word that is not needed because we already have a more accurate way to describe the effect - frequency response. If you're so inclined, measure the response of your loudspeaker with various types of cloth placed between the drivers and the measuring microphone. Whatever type of cloth you try, the net result will always be a change in response, and that's the only effect you'll measure. Thin cloth blocks only the highest frequencies, and thicker cloth blocks to lower frequencies. By the time you get to Naugahide you've blocked most of the stuff above a few KHz. So by definition this is what a "veil" does to sound.

--Ethan

Quote:
Frequency response, and lack of distortion. Easy, yes?

If only it were that easy we would all own what you own and not what dup wants us to buy. And once again with such a simplistic view of how it's done Stereophile could close down operations. Sorry, no microwave winner here.

Quote:

Quote:
what is the measurement for "transparency", soundstage "width" and "depth"?

Frequency response, and lack of distortion. Easy, yes?

The only minor complication is that poor imaging is caused by comb filtering, which is generally different at each ear due to its root cause which is early reflections. But this is still easily measured either as errors in the frequency response, or by using software such as ETF that can show the magnitude of reflections directly. Either way the two are intimately related. If you can get all early reflections to 15 dB or more below the direct sound, the reflections will have a negligible effect on the response.

--Ethan

that is true Ethan. But that only entails the more gross end of the spectrum of the limits of human hearing.

We're talking about the OTHER limit. The most extreme limit of hearing with regards to listening to things the OTHER WAY AROUND.

Listening INTO the noise floor. Not attempting to cure gross ills on the most gross level. the exact opposite-is the very point, here.

For example, my business partner, having done over 50 feature films, with regards to set and location acoustics, besides all his other projects..MUST respond immediately, to what the recording engineer is dealing with,. with regards to the NOISE FLOOR.. of the set and location. Not the 3-6-10-15 db below the immediate levels..but the -50 and the -70db issues.

Interestingly enough, he is the --one-- person who has allowed those absolutely excruciatingly SHIT film sets to pull off the Oscar for best sound (on more than one occasion)but has never received the slightest bit of credit or note for it.

The human brain and ear are designed to deal with the 3-6-10-xdb issues..and sort out signal from 'noise'..and we can do that spectacularly.

When you literally turn the tables on that and say..now...use that amazing machine to listen into the noise floor..what do you hear?

You hear incredible amounts of CRAP..is what you hear.

This is all about turning the perception wiring and methodology around..and listening for the absolute noise and distortion differentials.

In the same way we can learn to discern signal from noise when things are at a level of 1-3db below each other..and EVEN LESS!!!...we can also train the ear to hear things that are at the -60-70db level, with respects to signal. We hear it, there is no doubt about that.

The trick, or rub, is teaching the brain to figure that out, to sort it out..and hear it.

And then do something about it. Something useful.

For example, the recording engineers on the given film set, the good engineers, that is, can easily complete this task.

That is what they get paid for.

We here, n this thread, do this every day, with our audio systems.

We place value, a great amount of it..on being able to hear into the music. To gain a better knowledge of what the artist's intent was -and is.

So..15 db, I don't give a shit about. I have that already.

I want and will fight for the -50, the -70db.

As after all, that hearing mechanism is a device where the noise and signal are perceived as ONE..so the -70db is heard as a component of the signal that is just as important as the 0db components.

In this fundamental fact, this means that a linear logic interpretation of the distortion being at 0.00x% really does not mean a flying fornication-as a point of dismissal, with regards to 'importance'.

It's there-we hear it.

The top 20 dB matters the most, and stuff 40 dB down or lower hardly matters at all. I'm not talking about soft content. I'm talking about stuff x number of dB below currently-playing louder stuff. Don't believe me? Check out my Artifact Audibility Report.

--Ethan

I've measured the effect of capacitors at being -50 to -70 db down in crossovers on speakers.

I can hear a change in capacitors used in those locations, easily. Day in, day out.

So YEAH, it freaking means something. DEAL WITH IT!

Here. It's simple.

We hear the sum total of what makes up the transient. We hear the -50db, -70db, -90db, even -100db.

Why?

We, once again, hear the sum total that makes up the transient. We don't discern and separate like some guy with scope and calculator. We hear the SUM TOTAL..so, in essence, when discerning..the 0.1db vs the 85db signal is discernible..as the 0.1db is riding ON TOP of the 85db signal, according to the way the ear weighs it.

And like being able to separate/calculate/compute the given voice signal from noise in the excruciatingly loud room, over time, via the multipole filter, timing, level sensitive device, and decoding computer that the human hearing mechanism is..we can discern and understand and separate and evaluate the 0.1db that is riding in/on the 85db signal. The math does not mean SQUAT here-as it is improperly applied to the issue at hand.

All we have to do, is turn our minds toward it..and train that device, the same way we trained ourselves to hear that one voice in the busy room of 500 who are shouting.

If what I'm saying was not possible, the New York Stock Exchange Floor..would not function, not for one day, with regards to people being able to speak (or shout) in that case..and other people being able to make out what they are saying.

Quote:
I've measured the effect of capacitors at being -50 to -70 db down in crossovers on speakers.

I can hear a change in capacitors used in those locations, easily. Day in, day out.

So YEAH, it freaking means something. DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!

Dude, you do the best Roy Batty imitations, ever.

Kudos.

(Meant as a compliment.)