You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Frank S
Frank S's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 2 2009 - 2:01pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Many people know the true story I have told many times.
Peter would do numerous demonstrations to a group of reviewers, or to a group of audio equipment manufacturers, or to a group of audio equipment retailers. He would start by treating one thing in the room to be met by blank faces, no one heard any change in the sound. --- So much for auto-suggestion ---- !!!!! Peter would continue, gradually 'treating ' things, playing the music each time, until after (maybe) the 7th thing he treated, someone would say "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the telephone." That person replies "Oh, well THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"!!
Regards,
May Belt.

May, I've never heard that story until now. What did he treat the telephone with that "improved the sound"? I hope this question can be answered since I am at a loss how treating a telephone could "improve the sound".

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
That was pretty funny, though. "Buddha hates it when I smile...now look at me, I typed a whole bunch of smiles! Look at me! See? I said, 'Buddha hates it when I smile,' and then I posted a whole bunch. Get it?"

Glad you "got" it. I thought it might be too deep for you guys.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hey, since you're speaking of having nothing to say ...


Quote:
Hey, which BeltFrog tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system?

I told you I won't answer a question from someone who cannot be trusted to be honest with the answer I give them. You, Buddha, cannot be trusted, you've proven that too many times. Obviously, you can't even be trusted with that answer so, what do you expect?

As a matter of fact, the last few pages have reminded me that you guys sound alot like present day Republicans. You've been caught telling obvious lies innumerable times, you like invading someone's personal space, you've proven you have nothing of substance to offer other than more of the same and what that only promises is to drag us backwards instead of forward.

So, the only thing you guys can do is talk nasty about the "other side" trying to make yourself feel better about your "superior" plans and logic that got us into a mess in the first place. Most of you only listen to people who agree with what you already think so there's not much hope you'll ever think anything else and if someone comes along with fresh ideas you talk dirt about them.

And everyone outside of your small partisan group who can't let go of dried up, dishonest ideology and even more dishonest rhetoric that divides rather than unifies is ROTFLTAO at you. You guys are thirty years behind the times and you just don't want to see what's happened while you've had your head stuck some place dark.

Winer is Colter, Buddha is Rushbo and ncdrawl is Savage. What a group! Trying to prove they have any validity in a world that has said they don't want anymore of them. Hoping "the other side" fails just so they won't have to move forward.

Yep, just like them there "conservatives" who liked it better in the '50's, when things was plain and simple and you could measure THD and declare yourself smart.

(Insert a rolling motion here accompanied by hysterical laughter. You guys is funneeeeeeee!)

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Far from me to defend anyone, let alone Jan - who I am quite sure can look after himself - but the latest development looks quite ugly so I have decided to 'step in' with some of my (renowned) mature advice. (Smiley face) - I hope !!.

Quote by you, Buddha, on your light display at the CES 2008. :-

>>> "As I've mentioned in the past, the laser light makes the room sound better.

As you know, laser light is coherent and as it passes through the air, it makes the air molecule arrange themselves in a more coherent manner and more directly couples the air to the speaker, making for higher quality sound transmission to one's tympanic membranes.

You can actually turn them on and hear the room get quieter and the sound become more immediate and 'intimate.'

Works best with one unit in each opposing corner of the room.

Much better 'speed' and a more relaxed and natural presentation. The tweak helps get the room out of the sonic equation." <<<

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

Your bombardment of Jan is displacement tactics. You think you have found a stick with which to beat him about the head. It is like someone like Ethan repeatedly bombarding someone else who might know of your light display, with the demand "Name a room, or rooms where Buddha's light display DID NOT work when you tried it at different times and in different situations".

YOU would know Buddha, but Ethan would not, that if it is the human being's "tympanic membranes" being affected (and that was what was changing the sound) then different situations and different circumstances could cause different results FROM THE SAME LIGHTS !!!!!!!! EVEN, maybe, not working in some situations !!!

But, you know and I know Buddha, if such a non event happens, that it is not something to lose sleep over, nor is it something which becomes seared onto the heart like a scar to be permanently remembered !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It becomes something which one promises oneself to check out when one has time and (further) energy, but, when asked later, you are unable to remember WHICH room, WHICH situation, WHICH year, WHICH country even !!!!!!!!!

To the witness someone 'screaming' incessantly "Name a room, or rooms where it DID NOT work" shows something, in that person, more than curiosity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Similarly Ethan's constant "everything is bullshit" or "implying fraud" shows something, in that person, more than mere irritation !!!!!!!!!!!

Not everyone responds to everything in exactly the same way. Many people know the true story I have told many times.
Peter would do numerous demonstrations to a group of reviewers, or to a group of audio equipment manufacturers, or to a group of audio equipment retailers. He would start by treating one thing in the room to be met by blank faces, no one heard any change in the sound. --- So much for auto-suggestion ---- !!!!! Peter would continue, gradually 'treating ' things, playing the music each time, until after (maybe) the 7th thing he treated, someone would say "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the telephone." That person replies "Oh, well THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"!!

So, the next time Peter does a demonstration he STARTS by 'treating' the telephone as the FIRST thing. He is met with blank faces again. He continues - treating things further until he 'treats' (maybe) the 7th thing and someone says "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the equipment stand." That person replies "Oh well Peter, THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"

THAT is why we list many what we call 'free techniques' which people can experiment with. If they can hear one or more of those techniques give an improvement in the sound then they begin their journey already with a realisation of what COULD BE achieved in terms of improvements in the sound, of what improvements ARE available !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi, May.

Jan claimed "most" improved the sound of his system. I was merely asking, in his experience, which ones did not.

I am happy to dicscuss my own experiences, hence the existence of this thread.

I'm also happy to discuss which rooms I have tried with my 'light tweak.'

It doesn't work nearly as well with other lights on or rooms with high level of natural light as their source of illumination.

Rooms with ceiling vents for for forced air cooling or heating diminish its effect, as well.

Rooms with radiant heating seem to do best, then floor vented rooms after that.

I am pleased to talk about observations and describe "In which rooms doesn't it work."

Describing one's experience is the whole point of the forum and this thread! I notice you did not criticize the topic, yet looked at in the inverse, I was claiming that one interconnect did not work as well as others, and was free with the information.

Have you tried the light tweak, by the way?

I'm going to call it the "51st State" Tweak!

With regard to Jan...

What we end up with with people like Jan is "Omniauditurus Syndrome," and to mention a trial that he didn't notice and effect from would render him less than 'omni,' which would perhaps kill him.

Interestingly, you yourself mention that Belt tweaks may have a threshold of audibility. Now that Jan has an out, maybe he will share about his threshold - except then he pointed out that they ALL made a difference, it was just that some did not provide an 'improvement.'

So, even according to your apology for him, he did not have the 'correct' experience, as you describe it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Quote:
That was pretty funny, though. "Buddha hates it when I smile...now look at me, I typed a whole bunch of smiles! Look at me! See? I said, 'Buddha hates it when I smile,' and then I posted a whole bunch. Get it?"

Glad you "got" it. I thought it might be too deep for you guys.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Hey, since you're speaking of having nothing to say ...


Quote:
Hey, which BeltFrog tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system?

I told you I won't answer a question from someone who cannot be trusted to be honest with the answer I give them. You, Buddha, cannot be trusted, you've proven that too many times. Obviously, you can't even be trusted with that answer so, what do you expect?

As a matter of fact, the last few pages have reminded me that you guys sound alot like present day Republicans. You've been caught telling obvious lies innumerable times, you like invading someone's personal space, you've proven you have nothing of substance to offer other than more of the same and what that only promises is to drag us backwards instead of forward.

So, the only thing you guys can do is talk nasty about the "other side" trying to make yourself feel better about your "superior" plans and logic that got us into a mess in the first place. Most of you only listen to people who agree with what you already think so there's not much hope you'll ever think anything else and if someone comes along with fresh ideas you talk dirt about them.

And everyone outside of your small partisan group who can't let go of dried up, dishonest ideology and even more dishonest rhetoric that divides rather than unifies is ROTFLTAO at you. You guys are thirty years behind the times and you just don't want to see what's happened while you've had your head stuck some place dark.

Winer is Colter, Buddha is Rushbo and ncdrawl is Savage. What a group! Trying to prove they have any validity in a world that has said they don't want anymore of them. Hoping "the other side" fails just so they won't have to move forward.

Yep, just like them there "conservatives" who liked it better in the '50's, when things was plain and simple and you could measure THD and declare yourself smart.

(Insert a rolling motion here accompanied by hysterical laughter. You guys is funneeeeeeee!)

I guess that makes you Cheney, unwilling to share information.

Face it, Jan. You made that up and now you can't erase it.

You are congenitally unable to describe a tweak that didn't improve the sound of your system.

Come on, Jan. which Frogbelt tweaks didn't do it for you?

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Hey Buddha,

I'll share a tweak. I once cryogenically froze my finger and then I pulled it. Bass was much deeper and tighter, with greater resonances. I could hear much deeper into the sound and the cloud formation lent itself very nicely to the room laser tweak. Unfortunately, once my finger thawed out, the tweaks weren't nearly as dramatic.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Congenitally?!

You made that up!

Hyyyyyysteeeeeeericalllllllllll!!!!

Keep it up, Buddha, this keeps you from making up crap about hifi.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

And in case you hadn't noticed over the last eight years, Cheney's a Republican. So I couldn't be Cheney. And I don't want anything to do with "that side". You guys are dying and you can't even recognize who to ask for a life line.

See, you can't even be trusted with something that simple. You have a "congenital" problem with facts, guy.

No wonder you like Winer so much.

Frank S
Frank S's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 2 2009 - 2:01pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Keep it up, Buddha, this keeps you from making up crap about hifi.

If I'm not mistaken, you're the one not answering the question to a statement you made regarding tweak(s) that did not work. So by NOT answering the question, would that not make you the subject of making "crap" up?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
And in case you hadn't noticed over the last eight years, Cheney's a Republican. So I couldn't be Cheney. And I don't want anything to do with "that side". You guys are dying and you can't even recognize who to ask for a life line.

See, you can't even be trusted with something that simple. You have a "congenital" problem with facts, guy.

No wonder you like Winer so much.

So, wrong again, liberal Democrat here, Mr. Cheney.

Live in a blue state, how about you?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Congenitally?!

You made that up!

Hyyyyyysteeeeeeericalllllllllll!!!!

Keep it up, Buddha, this keeps you from making up crap about hifi.

No, Jan. " Congenitally " is a real word.

As to making up crap about Hi Fi, do you now claim different interconnects don't sound different?

Hey, Jan. Tell us about those Beltfrog tweaks that had an effect on the sound, but didn't 'improve' the sound.

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Why is there such a big to do about answering a simple question over which of the tweaks didn't work? Unless one pushes his own sales agenda, there is no issue about what one heard.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Why is there such a big to do about answering a simple question over which of the tweaks didn't work? Unless one pushes his own sales agenda, there is no issue about what one heard.

You left out psych issues. It's not that he won't, he can't.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 10 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

>>> "Interestingly, you yourself mention that Belt tweaks may have a threshold of audibility." <<<

Don't twist the words I say. The Belt tweaks do not have a THRESHOLD of audibility - they are what they are and have their own CONSISTENT level of effectiveness !! However, each human being is different and will react differently to each environment and to each change which takes place in that environment.

Incidentally, we have investigated the effect of lights for over 25 years !! 'Treat' the lights you use Buddha and you will not listen again with the same pleasure to identical lights which have NOT been 'treated' !!!! It's your explanation

>>> "As you know, laser light is coherent and as it passes through the air, it makes the air molecule arrange themselves in a more coherent manner and more directly couples the air to the speaker, making for higher quality sound transmission to one's tympanic membranes." <<<

Which is not the correct one. It is not the air in the room that the lights are altering - the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment. The sound transmission to the tympanic membranes is exactly the same with or without the presence of the lights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But, the human being will react differently when the lights are present in the room and when they are not.

Regards,
May Belt.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 10 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

When all the demonstrations I have described were taking place (some 25 years ago) Peter will have been using various Foils and our Cream.

In Greg Weaver's articles in Soundstage he goes into some of our background.

Http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize041999.htm

Http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize071999.htm

Http://www.soundstage.com/synergize/synergize199912.htm

Regards,
May Belt.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

>>> "Interestingly, you yourself mention that Belt tweaks may have a threshold of audibility." <<<

Don't twist the words I say. The Belt tweaks do not have a THRESHOLD of audibility - they are what they are and have their own CONSISTENT level of effectiveness !! However, each human being is different and will react differently to each environment and to each change which takes place in that environment.

Incidentally, we have investigated the effect of lights for over 25 years !! 'Treat' the lights you use Buddha and you will not listen again with the same pleasure to identical lights which have NOT been 'treated' !!!! It's your explanation

>>> "As you know, laser light is coherent and as it passes through the air, it makes the air molecule arrange themselves in a more coherent manner and more directly couples the air to the speaker, making for higher quality sound transmission to one's tympanic membranes." <<<

Which is not the correct one. It is not the air in the room that the lights are altering - the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment. The sound transmission to the tympanic membranes is exactly the same with or without the presence of the lights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But, the human being will react differently when the lights are present in the room and when they are not.

Regards,
May Belt.

"However, each human being is different and will react differently to each environment and to each change which takes place in that environment."

Hence, the term 'threshold.'

What would you call the transition between audible and inaudible, as you decsirbe when Peter has to keep adding tweaks until some people notice?

Yes, "the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment"....by altering the speaker/air/ear coupling.

As Jan would say, prove it's wrong, or it's right! ROTFLMAO, smilie face, etc...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you're the one not answering the question to a statement you made regarding tweak(s) that did not work. So by NOT answering the question, would that not make you the subject of making "crap" up?

Uh-huh! Riiiiiiight!

(Another from "that side" that can't get this "logic" thing down.)

What'samatter, FS, you just don't get why I don't hand a dishonest person something of mine to hold?

NAH! Of course you don't!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
So, wrong again, liberal Democrat here, Mr. Cheney.

See? See what I mean? You cannot be given a simple sentence and be expected to get it right.

I'm beginning to wonder just what really happened at CES. With your loose grap on facts, I'm not certain you even had a CD player hooked up. Gim'me some names of people who were there. Names an' phones numbers and addresses

If you don't have them, Winer can get them for you, he's great at this Google thang. And he loves to invade people's privacy!


Quote:
Live in a blue state, how about you?

OK, I'll bite. What's that got to do with you being a dishonest person?

Ya'know, Buddha, you make my head hurt when I try to follow your convolutions.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Yes, discussing your tweak experience would violate confidentiality and it may fall into the wrong hands, Mr. Cheney.

Best keep it secret.

Come on, Jan, this isn't waterboarding or wiretaps like your idol was into.

We have established that "most" of the tweaks worked.

We have established that you heard an effect from all of them, it's just that some didn't improve the sound of your system.

So, why the mystery as to which ones didn't improve your sound?

I've already tried many of the Belt tweaks in the past, and have already stated they didn't work for me, so my disclosure conscience is clean.

Think about it, we'll be agreeing on something - some of the Belt tweaks didn't improve the sound of either system!

It's OK, we can always quote you as saying that some Beltfrog tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system and let people guess. Wouldn't want to be open about it, eh?

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 10 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

>>> "Yes, "the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment"....by altering the speaker/air/ear coupling." <<<

It has nothing to do with the air !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

>>> "Yes, "the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment"....by altering the speaker/air/ear coupling." <<<

It has nothing to do with the air !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Yes, it does.

The "51st State" tweak is air based.

You sound like Ethan. "It's not the air! It can't be the air! It works how I say it works!"

This tweak is completely air based.

Next are you going to demand measurements as proof?

I know my tweak. To steal from Mars Blackmon...


It's the air!

May, there is a strong evolutionary relationship between humans and the air. We have even evolved linguistic devices that allow us to describe various characteristics of the air. It is THAT important. If my tweak didn't work with the air, then it would work in a vacuum, which it does not; thereby proving my tweak is air based.

Frank S
Frank S's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 2 2009 - 2:01pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you're the one not answering the question to a statement you made regarding tweak(s) that did not work. So by NOT answering the question, would that not make you the subject of making "crap" up?

Uh-huh! Riiiiiiight!

(Another from "that side" that can't get this "logic" thing down.)

I'm not on any side, believe it or not.


Quote:
What'samatter, FS, you just don't get why I don't hand a dishonest person something of mine to hold?

NAH! Of course you don't!

Something to hold?????
You were simply asked to name the tweaks that did not work for you, that's all, nothing to hold, nothing at all, simply the tweaks that did not work. I'm really, really interested in hearing about those tweaks now, can't eat, sleep, or drink until I know.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Quote:
Far from me to defend anyone, let alone Jan - who I am quite sure can look after himself - but the latest development looks quite ugly so I have decided to 'step in' with some of my (renowned) mature advice. (Smiley face) - I hope !!.

Quote by you, Buddha, on your light display at the CES 2008. :-

>>> "As I've mentioned in the past, the laser light makes the room sound better.

As you know, laser light is coherent and as it passes through the air, it makes the air molecule arrange themselves in a more coherent manner and more directly couples the air to the speaker, making for higher quality sound transmission to one's tympanic membranes.

You can actually turn them on and hear the room get quieter and the sound become more immediate and 'intimate.'

Works best with one unit in each opposing corner of the room.

Much better 'speed' and a more relaxed and natural presentation. The tweak helps get the room out of the sonic equation." <<<

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

Your bombardment of Jan is displacement tactics. You think you have found a stick with which to beat him about the head. It is like someone like Ethan repeatedly bombarding someone else who might know of your light display, with the demand "Name a room, or rooms where Buddha's light display DID NOT work when you tried it at different times and in different situations".

YOU would know Buddha, but Ethan would not, that if it is the human being's "tympanic membranes" being affected (and that was what was changing the sound) then different situations and different circumstances could cause different results FROM THE SAME LIGHTS !!!!!!!! EVEN, maybe, not working in some situations !!!

But, you know and I know Buddha, if such a non event happens, that it is not something to lose sleep over, nor is it something which becomes seared onto the heart like a scar to be permanently remembered !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It becomes something which one promises oneself to check out when one has time and (further) energy, but, when asked later, you are unable to remember WHICH room, WHICH situation, WHICH year, WHICH country even !!!!!!!!!

To the witness someone 'screaming' incessantly "Name a room, or rooms where it DID NOT work" shows something, in that person, more than curiosity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Similarly Ethan's constant "everything is bullshit" or "implying fraud" shows something, in that person, more than mere irritation !!!!!!!!!!!

Not everyone responds to everything in exactly the same way. Many people know the true story I have told many times.
Peter would do numerous demonstrations to a group of reviewers, or to a group of audio equipment manufacturers, or to a group of audio equipment retailers. He would start by treating one thing in the room to be met by blank faces, no one heard any change in the sound. --- So much for auto-suggestion ---- !!!!! Peter would continue, gradually 'treating ' things, playing the music each time, until after (maybe) the 7th thing he treated, someone would say "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the telephone." That person replies "Oh, well THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"!!

So, the next time Peter does a demonstration he STARTS by 'treating' the telephone as the FIRST thing. He is met with blank faces again. He continues - treating things further until he 'treats' (maybe) the 7th thing and someone says "Oh what did you do then Peter, I heard THAT improve the sound ?" Peter would answer something like "Oh I 'treated' the equipment stand." That person replies "Oh well Peter, THAT is obviously an important thing, why didn't you 'treat' that FIRST ?"

THAT is why we list many what we call 'free techniques' which people can experiment with. If they can hear one or more of those techniques give an improvement in the sound then they begin their journey already with a realisation of what COULD BE achieved in terms of improvements in the sound, of what improvements ARE available !!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Hi, May.

Jan claimed "most" improved the sound of his system. I was merely asking, in his experience, which ones did not.

I am happy to dicscuss my own experiences, hence the existence of this thread.

I'm also happy to discuss which rooms I have tried with my 'light tweak.'

It doesn't work nearly as well with other lights on or rooms with high level of natural light as their source of illumination.

Rooms with ceiling vents for for forced air cooling or heating diminish its effect, as well.

Rooms with radiant heating seem to do best, then floor vented rooms after that.

I am pleased to talk about observations and describe "In which rooms doesn't it work."

Describing one's experience is the whole point of the forum and this thread! I notice you did not criticize the topic, yet looked at in the inverse, I was claiming that one interconnect did not work as well as others, and was free with the information.

Have you tried the light tweak, by the way?

I'm going to call it the "51st State" Tweak!

With regard to Jan...

What we end up with with people like Jan is "Omniauditurus Syndrome," and to mention a trial that he didn't notice and effect from would render him less than 'omni,' which would perhaps kill him.

Interestingly, you yourself mention that Belt tweaks may have a threshold of audibility. Now that Jan has an out, maybe he will share about his threshold - except then he pointed out that they ALL made a difference, it was just that some did not provide an 'improvement.'

So, even according to your apology for him, he did not have the 'correct' experience, as you describe it.

Hey there, boooodd, why ya copy/pasting all of May's post into your's? What? You can't remember what you're supposed to make up if you don't copy/paste the entire thing? Are ya just trying to pad your posts so they look as smart as our's?

ROTFL at my own fuuuuuunnnnneeeeee!

Hey, look, guy, I like you - I get to stretch the truth every now and then too, OK? - so I'm gonna help you out here. It works a lot better when you copy/paste something that supports your own "side". Like when Winer says something and I copy/paste the stuff you said that proves him wrong.

Like this ...


Quote:
Ahem ...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observational trials can be quite objective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ethan, I think you should make some room for people having certain preferences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It's not a matter of opinion. One side is right and the other is wrong. One group understands how stuff works and the other side does not....it really is black and white."

That's what the phrenologists used to say about head bumps and racial inferiority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Objective" science is all about trial and error.

Even the staunchest objectivist should be quick to agree about that.

"Science" is just trying to be systematic and repeatable with its trials and errors.

"Science" also has a very big subjective component, hence the emphasis on repeatbility.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is probably more non-blinded science done than DBT.

Examples are limitless.

See what I mean? That makes it look like you're really supporting "our side" and Winer's out there twisting in the wind. Cool, huh? And it's even "ironic" when two guys from the same "side" can't agree and I can use your posts to prove Winer's just a winer.

I find that hyyyyyyysterrrrrrrical!

I'd say try that yourself, but "my side" pretty much agrees about this stuff, so you're kinda out'o'luck there. boooooooddd!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:


Quote:

Congenitally?!

You made that up!

Hyyyyyysteeeeeeericalllllllllll!!!!

Keep it up, Buddha, this keeps you from making up crap about hifi.

No, Jan. " Congenitally " is a real word.

Oh, geez!

Aw, geeeeez!!!!

Yeah, guy, I know that, I went to Catholic high school.

You don't "get it", do you?

You don't get the joke, do you?

You don't realize how ROTFL funny you are right now, do you?

Hey, booooodddd, where'd ya buy your sense of humor?

Ya still got the receipt?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Your skills are jaw dropping, Jan. You are up there with those bone throwers at the start of 2001: A Space Odyssey!

I'll leave aside the fact that you didn't/can't understand the conversation you are cutting and pasting and just sit here admiring your second grade level mastery! (Yeah, I'm being generous.)

You forgot Al Gore, Dick Cheney!

Now, just type in which Frogbelt tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system.

Bet ya can't, your "Omniauditurus Syndrome" would make your head 'splode.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 11 years 4 weeks ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Buddha, where is the info on the laser experiment? did you mention it in a thread? I did a search, didnt see it.

Curious!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
As Jan would say, prove it's wrong, or it's right!

No, guy, no.

That's Winer's line.

Try to keep the players straight in your mind, if you're going to play this game.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
As Jan would say, prove it's wrong, or it's right!

Oh, I get it now! You just made up more crap.

See what happens when I think for a minute you might be honest?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Think about it, we'll be agreeing on something

I can't tell you how many things I'd do before that would happen.

So why are you beatin' up on May now? What's that go to do with your CES cables?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Yeah, guy, I know that, I went to Catholic high school.

Then why did you ask if I made it up?

I can tell you are typing lies, Jan. The sound on the computer got worse when you posted, and May says that when you think lies, the sound gets worse. She can't be wrong.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Then why did you ask if I made it up?

Awwwwww, geeeeez!

Would someone please explain it to this guy?

LOL! Just LOL! You is one fuuuuuunnnneeeeeeeee dooooooooooooood!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:


Quote:
>>> "Yes, "the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment"....by altering the speaker/air/ear coupling."

It has nothing to do with the air !!!!!

C'mon, guy, May is treating you right. Don't make up crap jus' to mess with her.

judicata
judicata's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 26 2008 - 11:55am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Wow, this thread is insane. We lapped Goodwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) on page 11 and here we are God knows how many posts later...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
I'm not on any side, believe it or not.

Let's see ... uh,


Quote:
If I'm not mistaken, you're the one not answering the question to a statement you made regarding tweak(s) that did not work. So by NOT answering the question, would that not make you the subject of making "crap" up?


Quote:
Ha, Ha Geoff. Very funny, definitely not frustrating for me since I have satisfaction in knowing that the "Teleportation tweak" is complete utter nonsence, frustrating, na, I just have a good laugh reading the testimonials. I defy you to come up with a tweak more "looney" than that one.


Quote:
Why is it that the "major" tweakers are so evasive in answering to their claims? I just don't see how they can be taken seriously when they avoid answering to "said" claims.


Quote:
HA, HA, you really do your best to try to be humorous but you failed to answer how the "teleportation tweak" improves what you say it improves and just because people buy it doesn't mean it works. Snake oil to be sure.
Thanks for verifying what I already knew to be true. I also realize I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know.

etc., etc., etc.

OK, I've made up my mind.

I don't believe you.

Now you're making up crap too! What is it? Some kind of initiation rite into "the other side"? You guys all do this with such ease it's scary.

Do you really think we aren't paying attention?

Hey, we're Sharpeners over here, dude! Don't you mess with us!

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Something to hold?????
You were simply asked to name the tweaks that did not work for you, that's all, nothing to hold, nothing at all, simply the tweaks that did not work.

I can't decide. This is either ROTFLMF'ingAO hyyyyyyyysterrrrricalllll ...

... or it's just pathetic, just patently pathetic.

I am, however, beginning to see a pattern from "the other side".

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at



Quote:
Buddha, where is the info on the laser experiment? did you mention it in a thread? I did a search, didnt see it.

Curious!

?!

BREAK TIME!

You guys just carry on making crap up. I just gotta take a break. My sides are killin' me.

Frank S
Frank S's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 2 2009 - 2:01pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Do you really think we aren't paying attention?

Hey, we're Sharpeners over here, dude! Don't you mess with us!

Ha, Ha, love your comedy. Who's we? Is this some cult I'm being observed by?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Quote:


Quote:
>>> "Yes, "the lights are altering how the human being is reacting to that particular environment"....by altering the speaker/air/ear coupling."

It has nothing to do with the air !!!!!

C'mon, guy, May is treating you right. Don't make up crap jus' to mess with her.

I'm not bustin' on my main man May, I was just talking about my tweak and she charged in like Ethan in full pedant mode!

Just think! On this thread, May said she's down with blind listening trials and she's now acting like Ethan telling people how everything has to work her way.

Were she and Ethan seperated at birth?

Hey, Jan, tell us which of her tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system.

You are just dissimulating at this juncture.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Quote:

Do you really think we aren't paying attention?

Hey, we're Sharpeners over here, dude! Don't you mess with us!

Ha, Ha, love your comedy. Who's we? Is this some cult I'm being observed by?

By 'sharpener,' he must mean 'distorts reality in an exagerated fashion.'

Hey, Jan, about those tweaks that don't improve the sound of your system...

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Who's we? Is this some cult I'm being observed by?

Awww, no, you're not getting me to fall for that one!

Hey, ever see "The DaVinci Code"? The really, really pissed off monk?

Now, let your mind Sharpen that for awhile.

(I'm not saying any of this, but don't bring this up with geoff. Got it?)

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
You are just dissimulating at this juncture.

Yeah, I'm the elder Winer's smart, good looking, reasonable child.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!!!!!

Frank S
Frank S's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jan 2 2009 - 2:01pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Hey, ever see "The DaVinci Code"? The really, really pissed off monk?

Unfortunately not, I avoid movies with pissed off monks.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

That's good.

(Don't mention this to geoff either.)

bifcake
bifcake's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 27 2005 - 2:27am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Hey, Jan. Tell us about those Beltfrog tweaks that had an effect on the sound, but didn't 'improve' the sound.

If I were Jan (I shudder at the thought and I speak strictly hypothetically knowing full well there wouldn't be even a remote possibility of that actually occurring even in parallel universes), I would just make some shit up at this point. Just to save face. I would just say something. I'd pick a tweak. Just to stop the hemorrhoidal pain that's the inevitable consequence of being an asshole.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

Good point, just pick a tweak at random and say it doesn't work. Any tweak will do. It would be very difficult to be wrong! I'll go first (being totally honest for a change):

The tweak that didn't work for me was spiking my speakers. I got much better results with isolation pads instead.

Okay, now that I broke the ice, what are the chances her highness will finally come through?

--Ethan

________________________
"Power Cords do make a difference! I can definitely hear a difference when I remove my power cord." --ncdrawl

geoffkait
geoffkait's picture
Offline
Last seen: 24 min 32 sec ago
Joined: Apr 29 2008 - 5:10am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

"The tweak that didn't work for me was spiking my speakers. I got much better results with isolation pads instead."

So daring. No, brazen.

May Belt
May Belt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 10 months ago
Joined: May 8 2006 - 1:51am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

>>> "Next are you going to demand measurements as proof?" <<<

Don't even go there - not even in jest !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>> "You sound like Ethan. "It's not the air! It can't be the air! It works how I say it works!" <<<

Don't twist my words. I didn't say it works how I say it works - I said it doesn't work how YOU say it works. Do the experiments !!!!!!!!!!!

>>> "May, there is a strong evolutionary relationship between humans and the air. We have even evolved linguistic devices that allow us to describe various characteristics of the air. It is THAT important. If my tweak didn't work with the air, then it would work in a vacuum, which it does not; thereby proving my tweak is air based." <<<

>>>"May, there is a strong evolutionary relationship between humans and the air. We have even evolved linguistic devices that allow us to describe various characteristics of the air."<<<

Of course there is a strong evolutionary relationship between humans and the air. What has that got to do with the price of potatoes ??

>>> "If my tweak didn't work with the air, then it would work in a vacuum, which it does not; thereby proving my tweak is air based." <<<

Come off it !!!! You would not be listening to music in a VACUUM. YOU were talking about the human tympanic membranes as the receptor of those 'air' changes so you can't bring a vacuum into the discussion when you would not be listening to music in a vacuum. I think you are forgetting that it was YOU who brought the human tympanic membranes into the discussion about the effect of lights on sound !!!

I repeat. Do the experiments !!!

I could NEVER sound like Ethan because I am suggesting that you do experiments !!!

Get two sets of lights, identical to the ones used in your room at CES 2008. Have one set put through the cryogenic freezing process followed by a very, very slow defrost and keep the other set of lights untreated as the control set.

Position the 'frozen' set of lights in the best sounding position in the room and listen to some music. Listen for a suitable period of time to get used to that good sound then remove the 'frozen' set of lights from the room and install the untreated set in exactly the same position. When you listen with the identical but untreated set of lights in exactly the same physical position as the 'frozen' lights, the sound will not be as good !! And you will not get the better sound back again until you replace the untreated lights with the 'frozen' lights again.

IF it is the lights altering the AIR which reaches the human tympanic membranes (which was/is the reason you give why the sound was better in your room at CES 2008) then the sound with either set of lights (untreated or frozen) SHOULD be the same because the (altered) air is the same from both sets of lights in both cases.

I KNOW lights generate energy which disturbs the air molecules. The point I am trying to make is that BOTH sets of identical lights would generate the SAME energy which would be disturbing the SAME air molecules which should have the SAME effect on what reaches the SAME human tympanic membranes - so the sound SHOULD be the same from both sets of lights in the SAME position. But it is NOT !!!!!!!!!

So, you end up with an observation (the sound is better with the 'frozen' lights) but with no explanation. THIS is the point where you have to put on your thinking cap.

Now to put the cat amongst the pigeons. Because it would be similar with Ethan's Room Acoustic Panels !!!!!!!!!
If Ethan put all the bits and pieces of one of his room acoustic panels through the cryogenic freezing process followed by a very, very slow defrost before assembly and he then placed this 'frozen' room acoustic panel in the best sounding position in a room, giving the best measurements and listened to some music to acclimatise himself to that sound. If he then removed the 'frozen' acoustic panel from the room and replaced it with an identical but untreated panel, in EXACTLY the SAME spot, giving EXACTLY the SAME measurements and then listened to exactly the SAME disc, through exactly the SAME equipment, with exactly the SAME speakers presenting exactly the SAME acoustic information into exactly the SAME room, with him sitting in exactly the SAME listening position - the sound would not be as good as before - not as good as it was with the 'frozen' acoustic panels !!!!!!!!!!!

But Ethan does not do such experiments - and that is why he can describe the cryogenic freezing technique as "bullshit" !!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
Of course there is a strong evolutionary relationship between humans and the air. What has that got to do with the price of potatoes ??

My "51st State" tweak has as much to do with evolution as yours do. Maybe more so. What's more important from an evolutionary standpoint, air, or having a picture of yourself in the ice box?

I now have five sets and have done the experiments.

Getting the wavelength right is crucial.

The effect is not via "disturbing air," as you say. They work, to use a term that you might be able to relate to, by "calming down" the air.

Now, May, stop with the 'cryogenic' bullshit.

You remind me of the reviewer who thinks 'vacuum' is equal to 12,000 elevation.

It's the air.

They work without being tossed in the fridge - I've pretreated them to save people the bother and risk.

Have you tried these lasers out?

I think not.

Have you 'frozen' them?

I think not. (It doesn't affect their performance, anyway.)

I'd be happy to sell you one now that I have several more.

Depending on the exchange rate, they would set you back about the cost of only two Quantum Clips, and believe you me, my parts costs and R&D expenses are much higher than yours!

Otherwise, as you are wont to say..."If you haven't listened to it, then no whining."

So, experiments well done. They work via an effect on the air through which they travel.

I'm sure you will now cease and desist with telling us how a tweak you have never bothered with works.

Hmmm.....where's Jan?

Jan, those tweaks you tried of Mayfrog that didn't improve the sound of your system?

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:
I'd be happy to sell you one now that I have several more.

So you'll give cables to Winer but you'll sell lasers to May?!

Your partisan butt crack is showing again.


Quote:
If my tweak didn't work with the air, then it would work in a vacuum, which it does not; thereby proving my tweak is air based."

Hey, how do you know this won't work in a vacuum?


Quote:
Have you tried these lasers out?

I think not.

How does it sound in a vaccum? How long were you in the vacuum with the lasers? Did your head 'splode, Lucy?

Nevermind, I know, just more made up crap.

So don't even bother asking.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at

I wouldn't give them to him, I told him he could have measured them if I had kept them.

Besides, May knows ya gotta pay for some tweaks to be able to work!

Hey, Jan, I'll tell you how I know they don't work in a vacuum if you'll tell us which Frogbelt tweaks didn't improve the sound of your system.

Maybe you could just explain how they didn't.

As to keeping my head from exploding, how do you keep yours from imploding?

Nature abhors a vacuum.

Jan Vigne
Jan Vigne's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Mar 18 2006 - 12:57pm
Re: Well, this should be non-controversial: Cable experiment at


Quote:

Nature abhors a vacuum.

So you fill your head up with made up crap?

Yep, you just make up crap to keep your ears apart.

LOL!!!

Lend May your lasers.

And your vacuum, there's a lot of your crap to clean up.

Like ...


Quote:
... explain how they didn't.

LOL!!!!!

Brilliant, guy, just brilliant! Is that how you've spent your life? 'splainin' how you don't work?

Look, instead of screwing with May, why don't you try her suggestion? Afraid of what you might find? Don't worry, you're a leveler, remember?

Pages

  • X