Quote:
It seems to me that there is this idea with some folks that since we don't know "everything" about everything that somehow know nothing about anything. There also seems to be this idea that what we know is in the constant state of flux and is being tossed out in total on a weekly basis by science. Fact is we have a pretty good handle on electromagnetism. No new evidence has come along recently that would give cause for us to toss out everything or anything we think we know about it. No laws? Heck then why not run the system unplugged. I mean what is electricity anyway? However if you do get the system sounding really good wihout the components powered up by whatever that stuff is then, just then, you might step back and consider that it might actually be in your head. new scientific discoveries often don't make old principles obsolete. Just because Einstein's general relativity superceded Newton's laws of motion doesn't mean that Force no longer equals mass times speed squared. It may not be *quite* as exact as general relativity but it will give you a good enough answer if you are considering stepping in front of a truck doing 80 mph. My point being.... I don't need to preface my statement about no change in signal means no change in sound from speakers with "in my experience" because it has nothing to do with personal experience and everything to do with what we actually do know about how things work. Just like we know we have to plug the ****ing equipment in to make it work.

(sorry, away in the real world inventing something)

This is the fallacy of argument called "argumentum ad ignorantum".

It is a fallacy because one can discard some assertions on an affirmative basis, i.e. by showing that they lead to some kind of contradiction, etc.

Say we take the assertion "cell phones do not work". Since they do, we can indeed discard that assertion, even while not having full knowlege, for instance, of the RF path of the cell phone to the tower.

It is not necessary to know everything in order to discard premises or assertions that can be shown to be counter to experience. It is not necessary to show that some assertions are correct (i.e. "my cell phone works") similarly.

This is actually a rather powerful method, and reflects, for instance, on the debate about time resolution, because one can reduce the assertion about time resolution to the statement "cell phones do not work". On the other hand, having shown that one assertion in a syllogism is false does not necessarily reflect on any of the others (and those who bother to read will have realized that by now).

An appeal to ignorance is very common in fringe audiophilia, in creationism, in some forms of religion in general, psychic phenomina, and many other places, and is most often used in an incorrect, and sometimes deceptive fashion.

"This is the fallacy of argument called "argumentum ad ignorantum. An appeal to ignorance is very common in fringe audiophilia, in creationism, in some forms of religion in general, psychic phenomina, and many other places, and is most often used in an incorrect, and sometimes deceptive fashion."

The ugly cousin of Argument from Personal Incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, which refers to an assertion that, because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false. A false argument of choice, for some inexplicable reason, by some folk in the skeptical and scientific communities concerned with debunking audio tweaks.

Quote:
"This is the fallacy of argument called "argumentum ad ignorantum. An appeal to ignorance is very common in fringe audiophilia, in creationism, in some forms of religion in general, psychic phenomina, and many other places, and is most often used in an incorrect, and sometimes deceptive fashion."

The ugly cousin of Argument from Personal Incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, which refers to an assertion that, because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false. A false argument of choice, for some inexplicable reason, by some folk in the skeptical and scientific communities concerned with debunking audio tweaks.

You must be referring to things like "You know, Geoff, I simply can't conclude you're even a bit sincere"? That sort of thing? That kind of remark does spring from rather a bit of incredulity, I must say...

"You must be referring to things like "You know, Geoff, I simply can't conclude you're even a bit sincere"? That sort of thing? That kind of remark does spring from rather a bit of incredulity, I must say..."

I daresay, old bean, I've often thought the same of you.

Quote:
"You must be referring to things like "You know, Geoff, I simply can't conclude you're even a bit sincere"? That sort of thing? That kind of remark does spring from rather a bit of incredulity, I must say..."

I daresay, old bean, I've often thought the same of you.

Evidences? Is the Earth 6000 years old?

"Evidences? Is the Earth 6000 years old?"

j_j, have you misplaced your mojo again?

Quote:

Quote:
"You must be referring to things like "You know, Geoff, I simply can't conclude you're even a bit sincere"? That sort of thing? That kind of remark does spring from rather a bit of incredulity, I must say..."

I daresay, old bean, I've often thought the same of you.

Evidences? Is the Earth 6000 years old?

Oh at least.....

Quote:
"This is the fallacy of argument called "argumentum ad ignorantum. An appeal to ignorance is very common in fringe audiophilia, in creationism, in some forms of religion in general, psychic phenomina, and many other places, and is most often used in an incorrect, and sometimes deceptive fashion."

The ugly cousin of Argument from Personal Incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, which refers to an assertion that, because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false. A false argument of choice, for some inexplicable reason, by some folk in the skeptical and scientific communities concerned with debunking audio tweaks.

Are you suggesting that perhaps the laws of electromagnetism are *my* "personal" beliefs?

Yes they are your personal beliefs as they are not 'laws'.

They are theories.

They are also Newtonian and relativistic in connotation, not quantum. They begin to fail at that level.

For example, at the nano sized or single molecule size, Newtonian considerations do not work the same way, in many cases.

In dealing with transistors, for example, the noise considerations that ride along with the signal and are inseparable for us as we hear the whole package, the noise and the signal. That noise is quantum or individual to the given molecule within the semi-conductive material.

If we manged to remove all of the noise, the semiconductor would not function anymore. It would either be a perfect conductor....or a perfect insulator. So yeah, you deal with and listen to quantum effects, every day.

Point being, if one thinks that such (the idea of change and 'no laws') is not applicable to High End audio, you are in a for rude awakening. Perhaps not this day, but some day - you might 'make it there'.

Remove the confined frame of reference, the religious aspect of science that seems to desire things 'written in stone' (that monkey part of the brain that wants a mother) and people will get one hell of a lot farther down the road in scientific exploration.

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

I read and search out hundreds and hundreds of points that science does not allow for and in general, or tries to gloss over and not deal with. Just read this one, today:

"The Neutral Point discrepancy" is one of the glaring features of the Apollo program and their published data, and it raises a number of very important questions.

It was Sir Issac Newton who had first calculated the earth-moon Neutral point using his theory of gravitation. That theory gave him an average Earth-Moon distance of 238,900 miles, and the Neutral point Thus occurred at approximately 23,900 miles from the moon. This gave, of course, the now familiar figure that the Moon's gravitational attraction was about 1/6th that of earth.

But then came a 1969 edition of Time magazine, an interview with Werner Von Braun himself, and the beginning of a persisting mathematical mystery concerning the Earth-Moon dual planetary system. Time reported that, "43,495 miles from the moon lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity from the earth, then some 200,000 miles distant. And that, notes Percy and Bennett, "gave a total distance to the moon of 243, 495 miles.. And it means something more, which Bennett and Percy do not mention, namely,if this neutral point figure is correct, then the moon is much more massive than any standard view of celestial mechanics will allow.

One of the most basic #'s in modern celestial mechanics is unavailable from NASA, in any form -as a clear answer. It has had about 6 (minimum) revisions from NASA, and is not properly recorded in their data available to the public. Riddle yourself that. They kept changing it, over the years. WTF?

Forget everything you've just read..and go back to sleep. Sleep... Sleep.......sleep....

Quote:
Yes they are your personal beliefs as they are not 'laws'.

Well, they are not laws, because laws are things originated, to date, by mankind.

They do appear to be rules that the universe doesn't seem much interested in violating under normal kinds of circumstances.

Quote:

They are theories.

They are accepted theories. This is not the same as "they are theories".

Quote:
Yes they are your personal beliefs as they are not 'laws'.

The laws of physics which include the laws of electromagnetism are laws regardless of what my beliefs may happen to be. they exist independentaly of any human opinion and have since the big bang.

Quote:
They are theories.

No. They are way beyond theories. The mountian of evidence in support is so vast that it moves them into the status of "scientific fact."

Quote:
They are also Newtonian and relativistic in connotation, not quantum. They begin to fail at that level.

That level is a level that is of no consequence to those interested in audio. Let's try to bring this back to the original point I was making. If the signal that reaches a speaker is exactly the same then the sound coming from the speaker is also exactly the same. Provided of course there is no change in the speaker itself. This is not a matter of my personal experience. This is a matter of reality as we know it. and reality as we know it on this level is remarkably consistant and varifiable. Has nothing to do with my beliefs or my experience.

"If the signal that reaches a speaker is exactly the same then the sound coming from the speaker is also exactly the same. This is a matter of reality as we know it. Has nothing to do with my beliefs or my experience."

Yes, it is reality as you know it. That is why I had said previously you should have prefaced your statement with, "In my experience..." Unfortuntely, for the case at hand, your experience doesn't include the Clever Little Clock which, as I pointed out earlier, disobeys the laws of physics as you know them, or at least as you assume them to be.

If you don't mind too much, I'll restate my case for the ordinary looking AAA battery powered alarm clock. With the Clever Little Clock in the room the sound will be markedly better in every way, as heard by any yutz with ears. The dynamic range and signal to noise ratio will be much improved; there will be distinct drop in the level of distortion and noise; there will be a wealth of information that was not present before; the soundstage will be larger in all dimensions; and the human voice will sound much more like a real person's, with the subtle, odd noises the throat and lips make in real life previously buried in the mix.

Take the clock out of the house and all of those special qualities disappear from the sound. Like tears in rain. The sound will revert to its previous relatively bland, two-dimensional and uninvolving state of affairs.

Now, if an attempt is made by an experienced person to measure the sound differences with and without the clock, say with an oscilloscope or sound pressure meter or some other method, no differences in the soundwave will be seen at any point in the system or in the room.

I think you'll agree, assuming what I said is not made up (it's not), this is what makes the CLC so intriguing. It disobeys all laws of physics and experience and reality one might wish to round up to prove the clock cannot possibly work OR that the clock's improvements to the sound can be measured.

Cheers

Quote:
"If the signal that reaches a speaker is exactly the same then the sound coming from the speaker is also exactly the same. This is a matter of reality as we know it. Has nothing to do with my beliefs or my experience."

Yes, it is reality as you know it.

No. It is reality as known by hundreds of thousands of people with a basic education in science and/or electronics based on a vast body of evidence that is varifiable and repeatable under controlled conditions. You may wish to dismiss that vast body of repeatable, varifiable information. I do not.

Quote:
That is why I had said previously you should have prefaced your statement with, "In my experience..."

Again it has nothing to do with my experience.

Quote:
Unfortuntely, for the case at hand, your experience doesn't include the Clever Little Clock which, as I pointed out earlier, disobeys the laws of physics as you know them, or at least as you assume them to be.

So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker. and OTOH we have you telling us you have a clock that debunks this body of research and you know this based on your perosnal anecodotal accounts of your personal experience. experience that lacked even the most basic controls.

I would be willing to bet that if we put this clock in the room and measure the signal and find no measurable difference in the signal that we will also find no measurable difference in the sound using mcirophones that are far more sensitive than any human ear. Of course we will never put thias to the test. You are free to believe that the clock has somehow doing something to the sound without doing something to the signal. But I think if you really understood what you are claiming to be true and it's implications you would opt for the obvious alternative that requires no rewrites in all the physics books. OTOH I think it is probably fair to say you have not actually done any meaningful measurements of the signal or the sound coming from the speaker with the clock in the room and without the clock in the room. If that is true. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. If that is true your whole argument is premised on wild assumptions about the signal and the sound.

Quote:
If you don't mind too much, I'll restate my case for the ordinary looking AAA battery powered alarm clock. With the Clever Little Clock in the room the sound will be markedly better in every way, as heard by any yutz with ears. The dynamic range and signal to noise ratio will be much improved; there will be distinct drop in the level of distortion and noise; there will be a wealth of information that was not present before; the soundstage will be larger in all dimensions; and the human voice will sound much more like a real person's, with the subtle, odd noises the throat and lips make in real life previously buried in the mix.

Take the clock out of the house and all of those special qualities disappear from the sound. Like tears in rain. The sound will revert to its previous relatively bland, two-dimensional and uninvolving state of affairs.

Look if you enjoy the sound more with the clock in the room fine. Enjoy. I don't mind anecdotes about personal experiences. But your assertions about the effects on speaker behavior sans a change in the signal feeding that speaker go way beyond that. You may as well be saying that the need to plug the components in to power them up has also been superceded by the clock's preesence in the room.

Quote:
Now, if an attempt is made by an experienced person to measure the sound differences with and without the clock, say with an oscilloscope or sound pressure meter or some other method, no differences in the soundwave will be seen at any point in the system or in the room.

Um, that isn't how you would do it. That aside..... you know this how?

Quote:
I think you'll agree, assuming what I said is not made up (it's not), this is what makes the CLC so intriguing. It disobeys all laws of physics and experience and reality one might wish to round up to prove the clock cannot possibly work OR that the clock's improvements to the sound can be measured.

Cheers

I really have no problem with you and others enjoying such things. But when you start trying to explain them by saying they are defying the laws of physics....well you lose credibility. All credibility as far as I am concerned. I suggest you steer clear of the explanations and just enjoy the clock.

"It is reality as known by hundreds of thousands of people with a basic education in science and/or electronics based on a vast body of evidence that is varifiable and repeatable under controlled conditions. You may wish to dismiss that vast body of repeatable, varifiable information. I do not."

I'm thinking I probably want to dismiss that vast body of repeatable, verifiable evidence. Can I get back to you on that?

"Again it has nothing to do with my experience."

That line of argument doesn't exactly bolster your case.

"So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker. and OTOH we have you telling us you have a clock that debunks this body of research and you know this based on your perosnal anecodotal accounts of your personal experience. experience that lacked even the most basic controls."

I'm not sure I like the tone of that. In any case, I never said the clock wouldn't make some people a little upset.

"I would be willing to bet that if we put this clock in the room and measure the signal and find no measurable difference in the signal that we will also find no measurable difference in the sound using mcirophones that are far more sensitive than any human ear."

My advice is don't bet more than you can afford to lose.

"You are free to believe that the clock has somehow doing something to the sound without doing something to the signal."

That's mighty white of you.

"But I think if you really understood what you are claiming to be true and it's implications you would opt for the obvious alternative that requires no rewrites in all the physics books."

I'm kind of leaning towards the rewrites thing to tell you the truth.

"I think it is probably fair to say you have not actually done any meaningful measurements of the signal or the sound coming from the speaker with the clock in the room and without the clock in the room. If that is true. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here."

Ok, no problem. You're wrong.

"I really have no problem with you and others enjoying such things."

Actually, it kind of seems like you do.

"But when you start trying to explain them by saying they are defying the laws of physics....well you lose credibility. All credibility as far as I am concerned. I suggest you steer clear of the explanations and just enjoy the clock."

Thanks for the sage advice. I will try to steer clear of the explanations and just enjoy the clock.

Cheerio

Quote:
"I would be willing to bet that if we put this clock in the room and measure the signal and find no measurable difference in the signal that we will also find no measurable difference in the sound using mcirophones that are far more sensitive than any human ear."

My advice is don't bet more than you can afford to lose.

Oh I would bet the house on that one. but I know how these things go. I doubt any bets will actually be taken.

Quote:
"But I think if you really understood what you are claiming to be true and it's implications you would opt for the obvious alternative that requires no rewrites in all the physics books."

I'm kind of leaning towards the rewrites thing to tell you the truth.

How's that workin out for ya? Any takers on publication?

Quote:
"I think it is probably fair to say you have not actually done any meaningful measurements of the signal or the sound coming from the speaker with the clock in the room and without the clock in the room. If that is true. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong here."

Ok, no problem. You're wrong.

Well then do tell. Give us the details. This ought to shed far more light on the situation.

Quote:
"I really have no problem with you and others enjoying such things."

Actually, it kind of seems like you do.

No, honest engine. I really really don't. Note that I have not once challenged your perceptions only your claims about physics. I say with all sincerity if you like what you are hearing more with the clock keep the clock.

Quote:
So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Quote:

Quote:
So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yep.

Scott said :-
>>> "It just means we don't know everything about how the brain takes the information and puts it all together. We do know alot actually just not everything.

But that doesn't mean we hear things that can't be measured." <<<

To which you, WTL, replied :-
>>> "It seems you are dividing between hearing (the organ or mechanism) and perceiving (the integration of the auditory signals into soundstage, imaging, etc.).

I think most of us not directly working in the audio research field take the hearing and perceiving as one thing as "that's what I'm hearing". There does not appear an easy way for use as listeners to separate it," <<<

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

THIS is the crutch of the whole matter. The majority of us DO take the hearing and perceiving as one thing !! We CAN hear things change which do not match with the 'measurements', but Scott (and so many others) believe not !!!
The problem we have is when some people saying the words 'what we hear', they MEAN what the signal is doing - i.e what is travelling through the audio system, being presented into the room by the loudspeakers and reaching the ear drum as acoustic information. That, yes, can usually be measured by measuring instruments. Other people, when saying the words 'what we hear' MEAN the end result - i.e what eventually reaches our working memory, to be resolved by the working memory so that it can present a sound picture to the brain.

So, we have some people who say "If it can be heard, then it can be measured. If it can't be measured, then it can't be heard." And, others saying "But I HEARD it, whether you can measure it or not"

When we are discussing audio and music, do we actually have to qualify, each time, with each mention of the word "hearing' as either 'hearing/signal' or 'hearing/perception' ??

I like you wording WTL - i.e "that's what I'm hearing". Meaning "that is what I am experiencing" - just as Geoff Kait suggested to Scott when Scott said "If there is no difference in the signal then there is no difference in the sound coming out of the speakers. so unless the clever little clock is affecting the room acoustics it is not making a difference in the sound."

Scott was adamant that if it was not affecting the signal and was not affecting the acoustics, it could not be having any effect on the sound. Which sound ? The 'hearing/signal' sound or the 'hearing/perception' sound ? Whereas Scott, as Geoff suggested, SHOULD have qualified that by starting his sentence with "In my experience..."

John Atkinson has put it extremely well in his article in 1992 and in his recent reply :-

>>> "But it (measurements) cannot tell you the kind of soundstaging details I described in my earlier posting. For that you have to use your ears and the brain that lies, one would hope, between them." <<<

As John says, you have to use your ears and brain to understand.

For example. If one actually 'heard' what the measurements (of the actual sound) would show, one would be reeling from the noise of the sound of high heels and stiletto heels on the tile floor of indoor food markets - crack, crack, crack - like gun shots !! THAT is the sound which (acoustically) would be received by your ear drum !! BUT, it is not the 'sound' which is eventually resolved by the working memory.

Walking down a busy high street, with horrendous traffic noise, one would never be able to pick out, from all that noise, the shriek from someone, in the distance, who had just had their handbag snatched !! From a (sound) measurement point of view, the traffic noise would be at (say) number 20 on the volume scale (THAT is the sound which (acoustically) would be reaching your ear drum) whereas a shriek from a distance would be only at (say) volume number 3 !!

The (sound) measurements do not correlate with what our working memory actually presents to the brain as a 'sound picture' !!

Scott says :-

>>> "Fact is we have a pretty good handle on electromagnetism. No new evidence has come along recently that would give cause for us to toss out everything or anything we think we know about it." <<<

No one is asking Scott, or anyone else, to 'toss out everything or anything we think we know about it'. This is the usual 'throwaway' sentence which people use so that they don't actually have to 'think' any further !!!!! This is also a problem with many audio and acoustic engineers. THEIR expertise is in audio engineering and acoustic engineering and as soon as they are asked to venture out of their comfort zone, out of their expertise, and join in the struggle of trying to understand what else is happening, they would need to step out of being an 'expert' !!

I have seen this manifest itself on numerous occasions on other audio forums, particularly amongst audio engineers. They discuss technical aspects to their hearts content and then the discussion gets around to how something 'sounds'. Other, non technical people, then join in the discussion and the engineers resent that intrusion - although the engineers, as soon as they change the discussion to how something 'sounds' are actually opening the discussion to everyone, because everyone has an opinion (and is entitled to an opinion) on how something 'sounds'. And, everyone's perception of sound is relevant - not just an audio engineer's perception of sound !!

To quote KBK :-

>>> "The basic reality is that the audiophiles, who number in the millions, do actually hear what they say they hear.

It is up to a real scientist or honest investigator (not dumbass screechy pundits like Arny or similar) who are on forums..to investigate and if the result is in the negative, to not dismiss the millions of audiophiles..but to re consider the test applied and possibly re-invent the testing regimen.
The point being that the measurement has to work like the ear and linear weighted simple tests are wholly inadequate.

New methods need be devised that mimic the way the ear hears. then some testing may be done that might show these differences that the millions of people say they hear. (yes the wives and children, and the friends of audiophiles. hell I can train a man off the street to hear the differences in cables in hours, most likely. A few days at most.) Those millions are not wrong.

The test is." <<<

I am in total agreement with KBK. Those numerous people are not wrong !!!!!!!!!!!

To KBK's sentence "Some refuse to consider that science cannot measure what the audiophiles say they hear.", Scott replied "Count me in that camp. We *can* measure anything we can hear and more."

No, Scott, we cannot measure exactly anything we can hear. You cannot 'measure' exactly "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on. You cannot 'measure' the effect on the sound of applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs (or, logically, any such measurements would have already been shouted from the rooftops) !! You cannot 'measure' the effect on the sound of applying a colour to the edge of CDs (or, logically, any such measurements would have already been shouted from the rooftops) !! You cannot 'measure' the effect on the sound of applying a chemical to the outer insulation of cables (or, logically, any such measurements would have already been shouted from the rooftops) !! And so on and so on !!!

To go back to the qualifications I suggested at the beginning. Do we have to have two separate debating sections ? One discussing audio as 'hearing/signal' and one discussing audio as 'hearing/perception' ? If we are going to use the word "hearing", then we are obviously going to have to qualify which discussion group we are in.

Many of us can be in both groups - we don't have to take sides - because many of us know that both 'hearing/signal' AND 'hearing/perception' are involved in listening to music !!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.

"Oh I would bet the house on that one. but I know how these things go. I doubt any bets will actually be taken."

Backing out already? Can't say as I blame you.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"But I think if you really understood what you are claiming to be true and it's implications you would opt for the obvious alternative that requires no rewrites in all the physics books."

I'm kind of leaning towards the rewrites thing to tell you the truth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How's that workin out for ya? Any takers on publication?"

I'm kind of leaning towards AES, NASA and New Scientist. Maybe Journal of Acoustical Society of America. They seem like an open minded bunch and wouldn't consider Their Laws of Physics sacrosanct.

"Note that I have not once challenged your perceptions only your claims about physics."

What claims about physics? I only made claims regarding effects of the clock. You brought up the laws of physics, remember? Something to the effect I am disobeying them. What are the charges against me, your honor? What laws have I broken? All of them?

"I say with all sincerity if you like what you are hearing more with the clock keep the clock."

Again, that's mighty white of you. Sincerely,

Quote:
"Oh I would bet the house on that one. but I know how these things go. I doubt any bets will actually be taken."

Backing out already? Can't say as I blame you.

No just predicting that no bets will ultimately be made. But if you are interested maybe we can work something out. I'm just speaking from experience here. Usually nothing gets worked out. I suspect you will not submit to any test that prevents you from knowing whether or not the clock is in play. (IOW a blind test) But if you are willing we could go forward with some sort of wager. The conditions are quite simple. The clock must have no measerable effect on the signal. It must have no measurable effect on the speaker. And it must not have any measurable effect on the room acoustics. Then you must show you can reliably hear it under double blind conditions. I must show that the test is sensitive to real yet subtle audible differences that are actually hard to identify under sighted conditions to show the test is not masking audible differences. How does that sound (pun intended) to you?

Quote:
"But I think if you really understood what you are claiming to be true and it's implications you would opt for the obvious alternative that requires no rewrites in all the physics books."

I'm kind of leaning towards the rewrites thing to tell you the truth.

"How's that workin out for ya? Any takers on publication?"

I'm kind of leaning towards AES, NASA and New Scientist. Maybe Journal of Acoustical Society of America. They seem like an open minded bunch and wouldn't consider Their Laws of Physics sacrosanct.

IOW so far no takers? Let us Know if your luck changes.

Quote:
"Note that I have not once challenged your perceptions only your claims about physics."

What claims about physics? I only made claims regarding effects of the clock. You brought up the laws of physics, remember? Something to the effect I am disobeying them. What are the charges against me, your honor? What laws have I broken? All of them?

Hmmm weren't you the one who was going to rewrite the physics books? You know where you want to publish but now you can't remember what you were claiming? You might want to work that out before you submit anything.

Quote:
"I say with all sincerity if you like what you are hearing more with the clock keep the clock."

Again, that's mighty white of you. Sincerely,

Are you suggesting that if I were black or Asian or something I would be going against my racial characteristics? Do you realize how incredibly offensive you are being when you say that? I'm not personally hurt by it but this is a public forum. you might want to think before saying that kind of stuff. I say that with all sincerity.

My god May, that was one of the most long winded purely semantical arguments I have ever read (well mostly read, couldn't get all the way through it). "sound" "hearing" "percieving" all have very specific meanings in the context of this discussion. What next May? debate over what the meaing of "is" is? Humpty Dumpty never lost an argument but he never got off the wall either without falling apart. You can't go anywhere in a discussion if you can't use the words the way they are meant to be used.

It now becomes obvious that Scott has given into actually showing the emotion that drives his logical proclamations, and is now blatantly in fault.

The end.

We are all at that position, Scott..but when push comes to shove, even though the emotion of any side of this discussion, there is an underlying logic which can be extrapolated further, with regard to making sense of the situation.

The so-called side that has decided that audiophiles are foolish for hearing things that others cannot, has fallen off the table, as their argument has run aground. No more logical extrapolation to be found there.

On the other hand, the 'side' that considers the more open context of proper scientific protocol, which is 'if there be human observation of difference, then a test must be found that can prove it, to illustrate it clearly', well that 'side' is still open to discussion and is still sitting at the table.

However, logical discourse demands that scientific methodology take place. Anyone who feels that science exists only in that which exists NOW and in the PAST..is a fool. A fool of the worst kind. One that is also very dangerous to the rest of us. That is the same mentality that goes to Church and demands the death of scientists for looking at the stars and heavens in a logical manner. The same mentality that lives in a world of hard-set dogma, that will kill anyone who goes against 'the word'. In this case, 'the word' is the science that came before, identical in the most reviling sense as any religious dogma that promotes hatred and violence toward change/new and vigorously promotes societal/psychological/human stagnation-as a form of sameness for comfort of the masses, but most specifically-comfort them in the face of their intrinsic deep fear and mistrust of change.

They thing that they and others will not tolerate is being told the truth, which is: the creation of thought in their minds..is based on their hindbrain running the show, their hindbrain forcing an emotional origin in every interanlly voiced and sub-vocallized creation of thought.

The depth of this point is so powerful, that there is not one of you that has so far, managed to make one observation of this point I mention,and have mentioned at least a dozen times on this forum, in various threads. THAT is how powerful the beast inside -actually is. That which is inside you-will not allow. It runs you. All of you. You can read this, but it is difficult to consciously realize on a moment to moment basis as it literally is, and will be a total war -of the self- with the self. To the point of death. The ego, the id.. will not let go - until the body is literally on the verge of dying. And it will now put you back to sleep so you will no longer remember what you just read here. Seriously. Maybe you are strong enough to watch it happen. But I doubt it.

~~~~~~~

The more interesting point is that this point in human psychology is well entrenched in science as it is in any given hard cast religious doctrine. A good scientist shuns that mindset as a man of good conscience and character would shun murder or war.

I really don't see the proper mindset of science coming from you (and that of some others in this thread). By all appearances, it is that particular foolishness (more correctly-a dangerous insanity) that you (and others) appear to be trying to wrap yourselves in.

We fight hard not due to what we know as being wrong, but that we see where you are clearly illiterate - and we cannot get you to look at it.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yep.

Sorry Charlie, wrong again. It only makes a vibration of air molecules. I suggest you educate yourself on sound, and the perception thereof, before you go any further with your arguments here.

Quote:
It now becomes obvious that Scott has given into actually showing the emotion that drives his logical proclamations, and is now blatantly in fault.

The end.

I am human and have emotions like anybody else. Not sure how showing some emotion somehow underminds anything I have said. By the way, I think the only emotion I have shown is some mild frustration.

Quote:
We are all at that position, Scott..but when push comes to shove, even though the emotion of any side of this discussion, there is an underlying logic which can be extrapolated further, with regard to making sense of the situation.

The so-called side that has decided that audiophiles are foolish for hearing things that others cannot, has fallen off the table, as their argument has run aground. No more logical extrapolation to be found there.

Not sure what the relevance of this assertion is in this discussion. You won't catch me calling anyone a fool for having their perceptions be what they are. That is in and of itself utterly foolish.

Quote:
On the other hand, the 'side' that considers the more open context of proper scientific protocol,

Huh? How is that "the" side? As opposed to the first "side" you presented? It looks like you are very close to making a false dichotomy here.

Quote:
which is 'if there be human observation of difference, then a test must be found that can prove it, to illustrate it clearly', well that 'side' is still open to discussion and is still sitting at the table.

Personally I see no such *need*. I am perfectly happy to let anecdotal perception stand in a hobby that is all about perceptions that will ultimately be anecdotal in nature should we choose to speak of them. Our hobby is driven by the desire for a better aesthetically subjective experenience based purely on human perception. We as consumers need not look any further than that to find our pot of gold

Quote:
However, logical discourse demands that scientific methodology take place. Anyone who feels that science exists only in that which exists NOW and in the PAST..is a fool.

I guess I am a fool by that definition. I haven't found a time machine that allows me to travel into the future and observe the state of science then. However I will venture a guess that certain principles will not ever change. 1. the laws of physics are now, always have been and always will be consistant throughout the universe. 2. That empirical evidence rules the day. 3. any rewrites of the science books will be preceded by careful execution of scientific protocols and will be based not only on hypothesis but on varifiable repetable scientific data that will fully support such rewrites. The thing with scientific evidence is that so long as it is repetable and/or varifiable it stands regardless of what theory explains it. You see when physicists were debating/transitioning from Newtonian laws of motion and gravity things didn't start floating off the ground and inetia didn't change in value. The evidence was constant. The problem one faces when claiming that one can get a different sound without changing the signal or the speaker or the room acoustics isn't so much a problem in that it challenges what is commonly believed about physics, human hearing, and electromagnetism but that it challenges the mountain of verifiable repetable evidence that supports those common scientific beliefs. Challenges it with anecdotes from uncontrolled home brewed "tests."

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So on the one hand we have this extraordinary body of research that tells us that if a signal that reaches a speaker is exaclty the same the sound coming from that speaker will in turn be exactly the same provided there have been no changes to the speaker.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yep.

Sorry Charlie, wrong again. It only makes a vibration of air molecules. I suggest you educate yourself on sound, and the perception thereof, before you go any further with your arguments here.

Yet another lame semantical argument that ignores the relevant meaning of words.

"Main Entry:3sound
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English soun, from Anglo-French son, sun, from Latin sonus, from sonare to sound; akin to Old English swinn melody, Sanskrit svanati it sounds
Date:13th century
1 : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing."

Now if you wish to take this definition taken from Websters dictionary to task knock yourself out. I'm sure they anxiously await your corrections. Till then I will consider myself already educated on the meaning of the word in the context of these discussions. If you wanna play Humpty Dumpty try it with someone who will fall for that nonsense.

"The problem one faces when claiming that one can get a different sound without changing the signal or the speaker or the room acoustics isn't so much a problem in that it challenges what is commonly believed about physics, human hearing, and electromagnetism but that it challenges the mountain of verifiable repetable evidence that supports those common scientific beliefs. Challenges it with anecdotes from uncontrolled home brewed "tests""

There you go again.

Scott: "I am not a scientist."

Then why, one might ask, are you defending "science" with such zeal? They're not YOUR laws, for crying out loud. Don't be such a baby. Laws are made to be broken.

If I've broken one of your sacred laws, I apologize. What am a looking at, here, your honor? A fine? 2-5, 3 off for good behavior?

Quote:
"The problem one faces when claiming that one can get a different sound without changing the signal or the speaker or the room acoustics isn't so much a problem in that it challenges what is commonly believed about physics, human hearing, and electromagnetism but that it challenges the mountain of verifiable repetable evidence that supports those common scientific beliefs. Challenges it with anecdotes from uncontrolled home brewed "tests""

There you go again.

Scott: "I am not a scientist."

Then why, one might ask, are you defending "science" with such zeal? They're not YOUR laws, for crying out loud. Don't be such a baby. Laws are made to be broken.

If I've broken one of your sacred laws, I apologize. What am a looking at, here, your honor? A fine? 2-5, 3 off for good behavior?

You could always put your ability to break the laws of physics to the test by taking a long walk off a short peer. Im sure every scientific journal will await your write up on that venture. So what's stoppin you from taking that long walk? I'm sure sales will boom after publication of your findings. I mean after all, Newton was wrong about gravity wasn't he? And heck we don't know EVERYTHING about physics do we? So why let a vast body of evidence get in your way this time? It doesn't seem to get in your way with hearing changes in sound from a speaker being fed exaclty the same signal. physics schmizicks. Go for it. Take that walk.

Gee Whiz, Scott, no need to get so feisty. Just keeping telling yourself, it's only a hobby...it's only a hobby. Geez, you're the one that brought up all this physics stuff, not me. Exactly which laws am I supposedly breaking here anyway?

Quote:
Gee Whiz, Scott, no need to get so feisty. Just keeping telling yourself, it's only a hobby...it's only a hobby.

Fiesty? Me? I was only offering some spectacularly dramatic suggestions. Heck if you are going to break the laws of physics may as well do it with flare. No?

Quote:
Geez, you're the one that brought up all this physics stuff, not me. Exactly which laws am I supposedly breaking here anyway?

The one's you were going to rewrite. Don't you remember them? Ya gotta remember them before you rewrite em. Don't ya think?

Well, you have to admit, discounting for the time being mass hallucination, mass placebo effect or some giant conspiracy, the Clever Little Clock deserves a new chapter in the standard physics textbook, at the very least. Wouldn't you agree? If it's not some giant hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting and gullible audiophiles, it's got to be the biggest news since they stopped putting toys in Crackerjacks. Am I right, or am I right, or am I right?

"No just predicting that no bets will ultimately be made. But if you are interested maybe we can work something out. I'm just speaking from experience here. Usually nothing gets worked out. I suspect you will not submit to any test that prevents you from knowing whether or not the clock is in play. (IOW a blind test) But if you are willing we could go forward with some sort of wager. The conditions are quite simple. The clock must have no measerable effect on the signal. It must have no measurable effect on the speaker. And it must not have any measurable effect on the room acoustics. Then you must show you can reliably hear it under double blind conditions. I must show that the test is sensitive to real yet subtle audible differences that are actually hard to identify under sighted conditions to show the test is not masking audible differences. How does that sound (pun intended) to you?"

Sounds OK except for the part about me doing all the work. I do not get involved in those sorts of things. You can see why not, eh?

Quote:
... Remember that thing that separates engineers from the scientific explorers. Engineers are specifically trained to not tolerate variance in models or application. Part and parcel of the entire engineering training, world, clique, and shtick.

Scientists, Real Ones, that is...are quite the opposite. ...

KBK, I think these statements do not give proper due to those scientists and engineers out there who are not just a scientist or just an engineer. The concept of a division between science and engineering is outdated. It looks analogous to objectivist vs. subjectivist, to me.

Are you one of those who is both a scientist and an engineer, and more?

Quote:
... They thing that they and others will not tolerate is being told the truth, which is: the creation of thought in their minds..is based on their hindbrain running the show, their hindbrain forcing an emotional origin in every interanlly voiced and sub-vocallized creation of thought. ...

KBK, I've also thought about this. It lies in the creation of thought patterns, dependent on very primitive hindbrain influences, and also on the hormonal influences that affect emotions, among other things. However, much is controlled by higher thought centers. IMHO the other influences cannot be completely ignored. Those influences may be small or large. It probably is what makes us human vs. other life on this planet, and that other life have their own set of 'controls'.

Quote:
... So, we have some people who say "If it can be heard, then it can be measured. If it can't be measured, then it can't be heard." And, others saying "But I HEARD it, whether you can measure it or not" ...

May, Scott has made it clear (at least in his response to me) that the distinction between hearing and perceiving explain why we can measure what we hear and more. What appears to be more difficult is to correlate what we perceive with what the measurements show what the ear can sense and cannot sense. I understand his distinction and if we follow his thinking, his statements are fine.

Quote:
... I like you wording WTL - i.e "that's what I'm hearing". Meaning "that is what I am experiencing" - just as Geoff Kait suggested to Scott when Scott said "If there is no difference in the signal then there is no difference in the sound coming out of the speakers. so unless the clever little clock is affecting the room acoustics it is not making a difference in the sound."

Scott was adamant that if it was not affecting the signal and was not affecting the acoustics, it could not be having any effect on the sound. Which sound ? The 'hearing/signal' sound or the 'hearing/perception' sound ? Whereas Scott, as Geoff suggested, SHOULD have qualified that by starting his sentence with "In my experience..." ...

The problem with what Geoff claims is that he hears a difference, and he claims that others do too. Now no one can tell what Geoff hears or what others hear. But, without the clock in the room, I think one would agree that if there is no change in the signal applied to the speakers, and no change in the sound produced by the speakers, and no other environmental changes in the room, then the soundfield should be the same both times. If the same sound is output from the speakers (no change in signal or speaker output) adding the clock changes the environment. Then the question is how much does the clock change the environment.

If the clock does not influence the environment in a significant way, and the soundfield is unaffected, then there cannot be a change in what one hears. Since the controversy is whether one really is hearing it, a test to remove listener bias is proposed. If people still can identify a difference between the presence of the clock and its absence *without their knowledge of the clock's presence or absence* only then can we remove listener bias from the list of possible causes. I've left out the question of how many people can or cannot hear the clock's effect. What is most people cannot and only a few can?

"Now no one can tell what Geoff hears or what others hear. But, without the clock in the room, I think one would agree that if there is no change in the signal applied to the speakers, and no change in the sound produced by the speakers, and no other environmental changes in the room, then the soundfield should be the same both times. If the same sound is output from the speakers (no change in signal or speaker output) adding the clock changes the environment. Then the question is how much does the clock change the environment."

That's kind of the $64,000 question, isn't it? Now, this is a bit unfair of me and mysterious, but I don't divulge the mechanism by which the Clever Little Clock works.

"If the clock does not influence the environment in a significant way, and the soundfield is unaffected, then there cannot be a change in what one hears. Since the controversy is whether one really is hearing it, a test to remove listener bias is proposed. If people still can identify a difference between the presence of the clock and its absence *without their knowledge of the clock's presence or absence* only then can we remove listener bias from the list of possible causes. I've left out the question of how many people can or cannot hear the clock's effect. What if most people cannot and only a few can?

Well, that's not a very positive attitude...

A fairly significant number of clocks have been sold. They've been around now for about 4 years, how Time flies. The clock has been reviewed, been to CES a number of Times, you know, made the rounds. Some people couldn't hear the clock, about 4%. About 2% thought the clock made the sound worse (there's one in every crowd), the remaining 94% had positve results. Of those, many bought second and third clocks. Almost all were extremely skeptical about the clock intitially.

I have ____ customers with more than 3 clocks.

Quote:
Well, you have to admit, discounting for the time being mass hallucination, mass placebo effect or some giant conspiracy, the Clever Little Clock deserves a new chapter in the standard physics textbook, at the very least. Wouldn't you agree?

Who cares if I agree? When are you going to submit this for peer review in a scientific publication? That's the acid test.

Quote:
If it's not some giant hoax perpetrated on unsuspecting and gullible audiophiles, it's got to be the biggest news since they stopped putting toys in Crackerjacks. Am I right, or am I right, or am I right?

Gosh you are right. So what's stopping your from getting this published? Which reminds me. you said that you have actually measured the signal feeding the speakers and measured the speaker's output with and without the clock in play but you never gave us any details when I asked. So how about giving us the goods on those tests. I noticed also that you really don't have anything more to say on any wagers. Was it the idea of having to show you can hear it without seeing it that made you change your mind?

"When are you going to submit this for peer review in a scientific publication? That's the acid test."

How so? Do you think every manufacturer of audio tweaks and cables and electronics should submit to peer review? That would be ludicrous.

"So what's stopping your from getting this published? Which reminds me. you said that you have actually measured the signal feeding the speakers and measured the speaker's output with and without the clock in play but you never gave us any details when I asked."

Why would I give out details? As I've said, I don't give out details. And what would be the point of that?

"I noticed also that you really don't have anything more to say on any wagers. Was it the idea of having to show you can hear it without seeing it that made you change your mind?"

I do not get involved in tests of my products. What would be the point? To try to change your mind?

>>> "But, without the clock in the room, I think one would agree that if there is no change in the signal applied to the speakers, and no change in the sound produced by the speakers, and no other environmental changes in the room, then the soundfield should be the same both times. If the same sound is output from the speakers (no change in signal or speaker output) adding the clock changes the environment. Then the question is how much does the clock change the environment." <<<

Can I ask you to expand your thinking ? You have (in listening terms).
1) The information on the disc.
2) This information 'handled' by the audio system.
3) This information presented into the room by the speakers.
4) The acoustic information now in the room.
5) The actual environment in which we live (and listen).
6) The information reaching the human ear drum.
7) The information finally reaching the working memory.

You ask the $64,000 dollar question "How does the 'clever clock' change the environment ?"

Do you mean "How does the clock change the ACOUSTIC environment ?" Because you only use the one word 'environment'. Whereas there is the acoustic environment (associated with sound) and there is the actual environment in which we human beings live - which would still be there, which we would still have to live in, even if there was no sound whatsoever !!

You see, WTL, you can change the environment in which we live (and listen) without changing the acoustics of it one iota !!!!

And THIS is what such as Ethan could never understand. He would be able to do all his acoustic measurements, he would be able to install all his room treatment devices, he would get the best sound he could and then someone else could (say) change the COLOUR of his room treatment devices and either spoil his sound or improve his sound, depending upon the particular colour used !!!!!

The COLOUR used would NOT change the audio signal, would NOT change the information presented into the room by the speakers, would NOT change the room acoustics in any way but would change the 'sound' (perceived). The measurements would be exactly the same, different colour or not.

Exactly the same thing with different chemicals !!!

Exactly the same thing with different polarities (magnets, batteries etc).

If anyone in the room tells a lie, the sound will be worse for everyone in the room, not only for that person telling the lie. If anyone in the room THINKS a lie, the sound will be worse for everyone in the room, not only for the person thinking the lie.

There is far more to 'sound' and the perception of 'sound' than merely the audio signal, the information presented into the room by the speakers and the room acoustics !!! That is why I ask you to expand your thinking.

Your quote WTL.:-

>>> "If the clock does not influence the environment in a significant way, and the soundfield is unaffected, then there cannot be a change in what one hears." <<<

It is this generalisation of the word 'environment' which causes problems. Presumably, in the sentence you have just used, you meant the 'acoustic environment' ? I.e that if the 'soundfield' is unaffected, therefore there cannot be a change in what one hears.

There is far, far more 'going on' with reference to 'sound' and what we hear/perceive. Hence all the numerous and varied so called 'tweaks', which people have been describing for at least the past 3 decades !!!!

Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.

Please find the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)preamble to their book, Margins of Reality, below. PEAR operated until 2007 for many years, around 28 IIRC, primarily studing anomalies associated with mind-matter interactions, or you could say mind-environment interactions. I realize this is a bit of a tease, since the connection between the Clever Little Clock and the PEAR premise described in the preamble is not obvious or easy to prove, but what the hell. I wish to illustrate the point May was making that the "environment" is not limited to the physical and acoustic surroundings we refer to in everyday speech. And if the environment is more than that, as PEAR indicates, how on Earth do we measure the interaction that PEAR is referring to?

http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/preamble.pdf

Quote:
"No just predicting that no bets will ultimately be made. But if you are interested maybe we can work something out. I'm just speaking from experience here. Usually nothing gets worked out. I suspect you will not submit to any test that prevents you from knowing whether or not the clock is in play. (IOW a blind test) But if you are willing we could go forward with some sort of wager. The conditions are quite simple. The clock must have no measerable effect on the signal. It must have no measurable effect on the speaker. And it must not have any measurable effect on the room acoustics. Then you must show you can reliably hear it under double blind conditions. I must show that the test is sensitive to real yet subtle audible differences that are actually hard to identify under sighted conditions to show the test is not masking audible differences. How does that sound (pun intended) to you?"

Sounds OK except for the part about me doing all the work. I do not get involved in those sorts of things. You can see why not, eh?

Awesome. Where do you live and what do you want to wager?

Like many audiophiles, I turn off the lights in my listening room when I'm having a serious listening session. Most times, everything sounds better with the lights off and the room dark: the imaging is more solid and larger, there is better inner detail and front to back layering of the sound is better. So what's going on here?

Do I believe that the extra photons that travel through my room with the lights on are interfering with the phase of my loudspeakers? No. Do I do this because I believe that my incandescent light bulbs are soiling the pure AC that my system desperately needs? No. Do even I believe that the sound of my system changes in any way with the lights off? No.

So why do I do it and why does it sound better to me, most of the time?

In turning off the lights it is not the sound of my system that changes, but me that changes. I become calmer yet more focused. I stop looking around the room and start listening. I simply am more mentally receptive to the music. Considering this is a tweak that actually saves me money each time I do it, I see no good reason not to do it.

I'm guessing that things like the little clock "work" in a similar sort of way - because we know they are there and we want them to work. In general I have no problem with low cost tweaks like this, as long as everyone realizes that clocks and the like don't really change the sound of the system (or fly in the face of physics) but change the listener instead. I mean heck, I'd dangle a monkey's paw around my neck if it consistently made my system sound better.

BTW, I've tried and it doesn't (at least for me).

For me, speaking of physics and little clocks in the same sentence seems odd. I think with these sorts of totemistic tweaks it would be more productive to quote Oliver Sacks than Neils Bohr.

Quote:
"When are you going to submit this for peer review in a scientific publication? That's the acid test."

How so? Do you think every manufacturer of audio tweaks and cables and electronics should submit to peer review? That would be ludicrous.

Indeed it would be. But you seem rather unique among such folks in that you are claiming that your work would rewrite the science books should it be considered. That would be a big deal and if nothing else a tremendous marketing point. So what is stopping you?

Quote:
"So what's stopping your from getting this published? Which reminds me. you said that you have actually measured the signal feeding the speakers and measured the speaker's output with and without the clock in play but you never gave us any details when I asked."

Why would I give out details?

To show you are not full of it. to show at least a modest level of competence.

Quote:
As I've said, I don't give out details. And what would be the point of that?

To show you are not full of it. What is the point of saying you have measured the signal feeding the speaker and the output of the speaker and found no differences bewtween them with the clock in play and not in play despite hearing a substantial difference and then not disclosing the actual meausrments and means by which you did them? That is the sort of thing that leads folks to believe you are simply full of it and never did any meaningful measurements.

Quote:
"I noticed also that you really don't have anything more to say on any wagers. Was it the idea of having to show you can hear it without seeing it that made you change your mind?"

I do not get involved in tests of my products. What would be the point? To try to change your mind?

Yes, isn't that the point if one is selling a product that is met with skepticism? To change peoples' minds? Are you suggesting as a person who would profit from changing minds that you are not interested in changing minds? If you are not interested in changing minds why are you arguing your position at all?

Quote:

>>> You ask the $64,000 dollar question "How does the 'clever clock' change the environment ?"

Do you mean "How does the clock change the ACOUSTIC environment ?" Because you only use the one word 'environment'. Whereas there is the acoustic environment (associated with sound) and there is the actual environment in which we human beings live - which would still be there, which we would still have to live in, even if there was no sound whatsoever !!

You see, WTL, you can change the environment in which we live (and listen) without changing the acoustics of it one iota !!!!

And THIS is what such as Ethan could never understand. He would be able to do all his acoustic measurements, he would be able to install all his room treatment devices, he would get the best sound he could and then someone else could (say) change the COLOUR of his room treatment devices and either spoil his sound or improve his sound, depending upon the particular colour used !!!!!

The COLOUR used would NOT change the audio signal, would NOT change the information presented into the room by the speakers, would NOT change the room acoustics in any way but would change the 'sound' (perceived). The measurements would be exactly the same, different colour or not.

Exactly the same thing with different chemicals !!!

Exactly the same thing with different polarities (magnets, batteries etc).

If anyone in the room tells a lie, the sound will be worse for everyone in the room, not only for that person telling the lie. If anyone in the room THINKS a lie, the sound will be worse for everyone in the room, not only for the person thinking the lie.

There is far more to 'sound' and the perception of 'sound' than merely the audio signal, the information presented into the room by the speakers and the room acoustics !!! That is why I ask you to expand your thinking.

OK May let me get this straight. You are saying that the clock does not affect anything with the actual sound (air molocules wiggling) but directly affects our perception of the sound as does the color of the room and chemicals? Do you mean chemicals in our system? These things have actually been studied and it si quite true. Various chemicals in our system can induce different states of mind that will affect our percpetions. Same of color. the color of a room can affect how we percieve things. That is why you will often find fast food joints with loud colors. often orange. That is why we have green rooms in theaters. Now as for polarity, clocks or told lies affecting the perception of what we hear my question is do we need to know it for it to affect us? This would to a large degree determine if the effect is from an external force or is purely internal. If you are claiming it is purely internal I assure you no one from the objectivist camp will argue against you.

"Yes, isn't that the point if one is selling a product that is met with skepticism? To change peoples' minds? Are you suggesting as a person who would profit from changing minds that you are not interested in changing minds? If you are not interested in changing minds why are you arguing your position at all?"

Your concern is touching (sniff, sniff) but we'll try to manage...

Your sarcasm does not really misdirect us effectively from your total lack of substance. It is pretty obvious at this point you never did any meaningful measurements despite claiming you did. I guess the sound just got worse for May.

That is so funny! You can be quite an emotional little troll when you want to be.

Thanks Divider,

Spelling has never been my forte. My first inclination was to spell Oliver Sacks last name S-A-C-H-S as in 5th Ave. I'm glad I didn't go with that!

Considering my last name is spelled LICHTE and is pronounced "light" its no wonder I'm so screwed up...

Cheers!

Quote:
That is so funny! You can be quite an emotional little troll when you want to be.

Well all you got now is 5th grade level ad hominem. And still no substance. Zero.