Quote:
"What do you know about the Belt Mechanisms?"

Seems a very simple, quite honest question to me.

Not the question you asked. Not a very good question either since it is overly vague. But anyhooo....

Quote:
You complain they are not to your liking,

I conplained that they were loaded and unreasonable.

Quote:
well, what do you know about them that is not to your liking????????

You presume they were "not to my liking" when in fact I simply could not discern any differences with the particular Belt tweeks in and out of my system. What I "did not like" about them was how they looked. Given that I could not detect any sonic improvement my only aesthetic opinion was they looked bad.

Quote:
What exactly are the mechanisms that you feel are "very, very unlikely"?

The one that can be found on the PWB website that I quoted in this thread.
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/faq/faq82000.html
"Question 1

Does it rely on autosuggestion for P.W.B. devices and techniques to work ?

Answer.

No - The devices are actually superimposing a 'friendly' energy pattern on any object which they are attached to.

Question 2

Have the P.W.B. devices had some special treatment ?

Answer.

Yes - The devices have been specially treated to provide 'friendly', 'relaxing' energy patterns."

Quote:
Those are your words, Scott, we can call them up again if need be. If you truly insist on weaseling out of another group of words you've strung together without basis for complaint, we can pull them up and show them to you again. You said them, now defend them.

Yeah. Consider them defended. I have cited the mechanisms that are claimed on the P.W.B. website that I believe to be very very unlikely actual mechanisms for the percieved improvements claimed in connection with P.W.B. tweeks. "Friendly energy patterns." WTF would that be?
Did a quick search...
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?s_it=ad...&as_rights=

Didn't see any references other than Belt related ones much less any scientific papers on "friendly energy patterns" or anything on the subject. It would seem that this is an invention of the Belts. So what is it? Is it energy? If so what sort of energy? Stored? Kinetic? What is it's source? Electromagnetism? Gravity? the weak force? the strong force?
WTF????

Quote:
They do exist, you know, the Belt mechanisms.

Yes I do know that the mechanisms for the perception of improved sound does exist with the P.W.B. tweeks. All such perceptions have mechanisms of cause. I have already clearly stated as much.

Quote:
All I'm trying to find out is whether you have any idea what it is you are complaining about. That is a perfectly fair question to ask any birther/deather and any good b/d'er can at least regurgitate the BS they have been provided. It appears you can't even do that much.

You have your answer now don't you. Consider the mechanisms as described on the P.W.B. website officially "regurgitated." Of course you already had that answer since I am now quoting the same bit from the P.W.B. website as I did earlier.

Quote:
To make anything more of my question than what it is is to be dishonest in the extreme. You like tossing around the word "bullshit". Well, bullshit is what I see coming from you with every post. Calling me an idiot only says you have no answer for a very, very simple question.

Who called you an idiot? I "presented" a question that was a parody of your questions. I even explained explicitly that it was a paradoy to make a point! Nothing more nothing less. It was to make a point about the nature of your questions. But if you didn't get that then......

Quote:
Calling me an idiot only proves you to be a dining room table.

OK........ yeah, you are arguing with a diningroom table. as would any sane person.....

Quote:
There is no "do you still beat your wife" aspect to it. I'm not asking you when you started learning about Belt or stopped learning about Belt or whether you continue to learn about Belt. There is nothing criminal or highly immoral about what you do or do not know when it comes to Belt - you've said so yourself.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it aint so. but anyway You have finally asked a reasonable question "What exactly are the mechanisms that you feel are "very, very unlikely"?" and you have your answer. The answer that had already been provided, but oh well.....

Quote:
And your response does nothing to satisfy me about a test. You demand May put forth a test that satisfies you.

Yes if she wants to convince me of her assertion about "happy energy patterns" she needs to explain WTF that means given the term is an apparent invention of the Belts with no mention I can find in any scientifi related literature and then show evidence that this is the mechanism by which people percieve an improvement in the sound. Of course the test I find painfully missing is a pretty simple one. The test that would eliminate bias as the cause.

Quote:
Well, in equal portion, I ask that you put forth a test that satisfies me. No beating anyone, no asking for personal data - just asking for a test. You say they are quite easy to construct.

They are. So first we have to get some explanation of what the alleged physical phenomenon "friendly energy patterns" is refering to. Then we can construct a test for it's presence with the Belt tweeks and their effect on the perceptions of those using them.

Quote:
You're so very good at insisting on answers to your demands and insisting those answers are easy to produce.

Let's get some answers here, Scott, before someone sets a hot dinner plate down on you.

You got your answer to your one reasonable question. Now we have to find out just WTF the Belts mean by "happey energy patterns." given it is a term they seem to have invented.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

1. you don't. that is why i keep saying that perceptions are inarguable and never wrong.
2. Who said they mess things up? If someone is getting greater listening pleasure with their Belt tweeks good for them. That is an improvement on the perception. Not sure how or why you would consider such improvements a form of messing things up.

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference ...

Well, I see the living room end table has joined the furniture group. Did you bring some chairs?

No, the question - significant or not - is not whether the Belt "devices" make any difference. That never has been the question of this thread and it will not be the question of this thread unless you do your best to derail the discussion and someone follows along - though I know it's difficult not to point out the obvious failure to think on your part.

If you, Xeno, care to begin a new thread that considers whether certain devices make a "difference", then go right ahead but when you do so please include;

Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Crystals and/or Brilliant pebbles.
Clever clocks.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.

and ...

The Schumann Resonance device.

Because if we are going to spit names and accusations at each other for the 1400 pages that discussion would take up, then we might as well get it all taken care of at once.

The "significant" issue here - on this thread and at this time - is Scott's statement, "These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions. So when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions."

So, you see, Scott (the antagonist in this little drama) doesn't care about perceptions - those are his words and I'm sure you'll have noticed Scott never backs out of what he has said .

jj (a minor supporting character at best) doesn't care about perceptions - he has stated so much several times (rather overplaying his part IMO).

Scott cares about proofs regarding "mechanisms".

Therefore, the significant issue of this thread has become "mechanisms".

If you are unable "to seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions" then you are, in Scott's estimation, gullibly unable to see the difference "when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms" and "it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions."

No perceptions are being discussed here.

'kay?!

That you, Xeno, would fail to see otherwise would place you squarely in the same round peg/square hole position that Scott feels all of the misguided subjectivists are in.

How's that make you feel?

And, of course, now Scott has moved in and claimed jj for his own little forum buddy.

How's that make you feel?

Unless you are purely attempting to either derail the conversation toward the Belt devices' audible successes - which would be the rabid partisan equivalent of discussing whether Bush really was the single worst President of the US - or you are trying to rescue the dining room table - who stole your forum buddy don't forget - the real issue of this thread is as Scott stated it.

Quote:
"These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable.

Therefore, let me repeat this one more time, the significant question of this thread at this time is what does Scott know about the Belt mechanisms and what does he know about their testing?

It would clearly be dishonest of him to make such a statement if he is not intimately familiar with the Belt mechanisms but proceeds to complain loudly they are "very, very unlikely".

Wouldn't you, Xeno, accuse Frog of the same had he made such an unwarranted claim?

And it is now his job to provide guidelines to determine those "very testable" mechanisms he has pointed a finger towards.

Wouldn't you, Xeno, agree that would be the case had jj made such a statement?

So, I assume Scotty thanks you for your timely diversion attempt but this is what Scott needs to address now. To do otherwise immediately labels him as; 1) arrogant for demanding of May "very testable" studies which he himself cannot outline, 2) dishonest for claiming something about which he has no proof or even extremely vague knowledge of and 3) a gadfly fraud for presuming to be a) in with jj on this scheme and b) in any way familiar with the Belt systems or auditory/perceptual mechanisms.

The thread awaits Scott's answers.

Quote:
You presume they were "not to my liking" when in fact I simply could not discern any differences ...

The mechanisms, Scotty, the mechanisms, stay with the conversation. Possibly, if you tried reading an entire sentence and then an entire paragraph and then the entire post for content, you might do somewhat better at this.

Here, once again is your statement, "These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions."

And, so, with your answer, even you cannot separate mechanisms from perceptions. You cannot even tell us what the mechanisms are. You cannot even understand simple words. What you go on to quote from the Belt web page are treatments - not mechanisms. You have no idea what the mechanisms are that Belt treats for. You do not even understand plain language. You confuse mechanisms/treatments/perceptions. Yet you know these (which?) are "very, very testable".

Good job, Scott!

Quote:
Who called you an idiot?

You did ...

Quote:
Re: A New Angle to an Old Discussion [Re: Jan Vigne] #73469 - 08/20/09 01:15 PM

Jan I have one question for you. Why are you such an idiot? If you do not answer this question it proves that you are an idiot.

You do not even qualify as a dining room table.

Quote:
I even explained explicitly that it was a paradoy to make a point!

and your brilliant ...

Quote:
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it aint so.

A "parody" must have some basis in reality, Scott, which you seriously lack.

Quote:
I have cited the mechanisms that are claimed on the P.W.B. website that I believe to be very very unlikely actual mechanisms for the percieved improvements claimed in connection with P.W.B. tweeks. "Friendly energy patterns." WTF would that be?

The answer to that would be your brilliant ...

Quote:
Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it aint so.

You've cited the treatments, Scott, just the treatments. You have no idea what the mechanisms are.

Clearly you have no idea of anything about the Belt devices or how they should be "very testable". You have no proof the mechanisms have "rarely been tested", but you complain as if you do. However, when asked to present such proof, you weasel on your own words. You are uniquely dishonest and you are a complete fraud.

Quote:
Well, now that gives you a conundrum, doesn't it?

No, not to me it doesn't. I already realize that perception is unavoidable when listening to audio, and so are "psychological factors". And I'm cool with that.

Quote:
But you are not stupid, so you must already know the way to get around the perceptual biases. It's called controlled blind testing!! Now, in a DBT, all those psychological factors are still present and active, but with proper controls, they don't affect the statistical results of a DBT!

I'm not sure you understood my point. "Psychological factors" are part of the human experience. Trying to pretend you can turn a human being into a measuring instrument with a so-called "audio DBT" doesn't actually change that. But yet in a later message, you wrote "So, you think you can just remove the factors that bias auditions? But some of them are built into your perceptual apparatus". So maybe you can understand my point. However I don't know where you get this idea that psychological (or other) factors can't affect a subjective listening test; ie. a DBT, when you can not remove all extraneous factors that can affect the test result, from the listening experience. Of course, there are some types that let "statistics" convince them of all kinds of silly things, so maybe that's where it comes from. As we witnessed first hand in the Furutech thread, there are many different conclusions that "DBTologists" can make over the same test.

An audio DBT is not going to tell you whether anything makes an audible difference. Only, perhaps, that the test(s) in particular didn't prove anything to you. But that could be as much a function of the test as anything else. All these tests test is the test. So you never really know. It all comes down to, as it always does, what you wish to believe. ie. Your personal biases in life. Which are also not so easy to remove. So of course you could always convince yourself that the audio DBT's you believe in are accurate, but that's no different than someone believing crop circles are made by aliens or that the government is planting thoughts in your brain.

BTW, I attended a jazz performance tonight at a church. I brought some PWB stuff to mess around with, and while listening to the concert, used the gear to improve the sound for everyone in the church (which isn't saying much actually, there were only like a dozen or two attendees!). Believe it or not, that's a part of everyday reality for me, while all of this is just intellectual distractions and diversions. Much less real. Anyway, the friend I was with was as certain as I was, that the sound had improved since the start of the show (it was just a pianist and a singer). And you could see that just by watching me, if you started taping me from the beginning of the show. Just for the sake of argument, let's say I regressed a century or two or was just really bored one day and decided I should care a lot about audio DBT's and that audio DBT's were a very meaningful pursuit in life, and something I needed to consider before assuming my tinkering in the church had any real effect. (Of course, we're pretending I didn't already know it does). What do you suppose would come of it?

After spending X amount of dollars and X amount of time on a (series of?) scientifically valid audio DBT's (whatever that may be, since even DBTologists can't agree on this much), what would I accomplish, other than spending a lot of time and money pursuing this to satisfy people who believe in the misguided notion that audio DBT's are necessarily meaningful? It wouldn't be to learn about anything I am researching, because I don't require DBT's to do that. It could only be used to convince others who demand proof be handed to them on a platter. But how naive do you have to be, to have gotten beyond the age of, say, 13, and yet believe that audio DBT's are going to change everyone's notion of things? How many audio components or products do you know of, that were sold by and large on the basis that they successfully passed a peer-reviewed series of DBT's? Or if there was a DBT that "proved" tube amps "inferior" to "regular amps", how many people would just stop using tube amps as a result of that?
No, if people don't think that a safety pin can improve sound quality, and they're almost hard-wired to believe that, then trust me, reading about a DBT that says otherwise, however statistically satisfying it may be to you, is not likely to convince them to change their belief systems to accomodate your nice little DBT. But reading about DBT's that say everything sounds the same so they can save money buy pretending its true and buying cheap audio gear in the mistaken belief it is every bit as good as high end gear? Well that will go a long way, for those who's belief system, or bank account at least, are eager to accomodate that idea.

"I simply could not discern any differences with the particular Belt tweeks in and out of my system."

I'm posting a portion of George Tice's reply to a certain Mr. Roberts, who had similar difficulties getting results with Tice's Clock, which of course is yet another controversial tweak of yore. This letter was printed in Stereophile Magazine 1991. Oddly, perhaps, some of these 4 reasons seem to be "overlooked" in these threads. One should feel free to substitute PWB device or Clever Little Clock or Mpingo Disc, or cable, amp or speaker, or whatever, in place of Tice Clock.

--------------------------
"Dear Mr. Roberts:

We received your letter today and, to say the least, found it quite insulting. I will, however, out of courtesy to you, respond to it.

From the opening of your letter it is obvious that the TPT Clock did improve your system. You feel, however, that the dollar investment did not match the performance you hoped to get. You should be aware that there are no scales by which an improvement-per-dollar assessment can be made. It is largely dependent upon your own personal taste, hearing ability, and the quality of your system.

There are four reasons why someone could not get the full potential from a TPT Clock. They are: 1) You did not follow the directions. 2) There are one or more choke points in your system (a choke point is a component which is significantly below the quality of the rest of the system). 3) Your audio system is not up to the standards by which anything can be accurately judged. (I noticed in your letter you never mentioned what components you use.) 4) Your hearing ability is not as refined as that of other music lovers and audiophiles."

...or the sun, moon and stars had not aligned.

Quote:

Quote:
This, together with our behavioral results and the additional imaging results described below,
support the interpretation that, by modulating the activity in the mOFC, changes in the price of a wine might lead to a change in the actual EP derived from its consumption.

Bear with me because I'm under time constraints that don't allow me to read the entire article searching for an answer when you might be able to provide a shortcut.

Does the article also determine the negative expectations concerning higher priced wine? IOW, if the higher priced wine is not perceived to be sufficiently "better" than the lower priced wine to justify its higher price, is there data that suggests the opposite effect might occur? This would address the issue of "diminishing returns" and also be applicable to audio.

Quote:
It would also offer indirect support for the theory that musical experiences tend to produce non-specific affective arousal, which may or may not be interpreted as emotion, rather than directly communicating specific identifiable emotions[11].

Taken in conjunction with the first quote, does this imply that someone sitting in a higher priced seat at a concert will experience a superior (emotional) perception of the music based on expressive performance when compared to someone in a lower priced seat?

Heya Jan,
sorry for the delay responding but I have been mulling over bias and not reading the forum until today - only way not to be distracted by Scott or James

Yeah very interesting points, and really a heck of a lot more investigative research is required, however I would think that it would need to be collaborative work with those in audio industry such as Kal and JA (sorry to miss out you other Stereophile staff).
While we see measurements that correspond to an actual model/theory and behaviour, this needs to be expanded further.

But I believe part of your question can be answered.
Indeed it does seem that as you query; that part of the behaviour does involve diminishing returns that does/can effect chemical bias and expectation bias.

As part of the analysis with the data they went on to do:

Quote:
A comparison of SI Tables 2, upper, and 3, lower, or of the relevant figures, suggests there might be small differences on the areas of the medial prefrontal cortex activated by the two wines.
SI Fig. 5 shows that, as the statistical threshold is lowered, these differences disappear.
To investigate this further, we performed a conjunction analysis to identify areas in which brain activity was
higher on the high price condition for both wines.
As shown in Fig. 3A, bilateral mOFC and adjoining rACC exhibited this pattern.
To investigate whether the increase in price had a differential effect on the two wines, we performed an interaction analysis (see Materials and Methods and SI Text for details).

We found that the effect of price on mOFC activity was higher for the cheap $5 wine than for the expensive $90 wine.
This suggests that the effect of a price increase on mOFC activity might be larger at low than at high prices.

So to see the effect of diminishing returns in effect with expectation bias you need to look at the paper with regards to comparison of the support information/figure3 and the additional analysis they did.
Of course as I am not an expert I can only go by what they say and that the paper is peer reviewed.

And importantly this mechanism due to being expectation bias affects all aspects comparable to this (further research of course required but they do mention that its ongoing).

So regarding the concert and perception of better seats by price, yes you would expect mOFC/EP increase that would then chemically improve the enjoyment of the concert (but potentially with diminishing returns in effect due to their comment).

What is of interest though is that while enjoyment is increased the mechanisms actually involved with taste (going back to the research but should be applicable to other mechanisms such as those of audio) are not affected.
So this is very much like a rational bias where we receive the facts/information correctly but then do not analyse fully or correctly (IMO).
The question is can we control the chemical expectation bias in the same way as rationale biases with debiasing methods (this is not abx control/dbt)?
Again this would be interesting to see Stereophile contact the researchers to see if some collaboration can be done.

Thought I would also answer your other post with regards to proof/non-proof.
I must be honest that I am not sure what you mean, so the response I am giving could be way off.
Not directed at you (but obvious who I mean) this is a discussion that we cannot be conclusive on as we arent experts, including those who seem to think they are that post here (excluding Kal and any others at Stereophile that may have their background in this field).
They provide some validation with a seperate study, amongst modelling that is in their paper and matches the measured results, here is their quote about seperate study:

Quote:
A related study (13) provides additional supporting evidence for this point by showing that giving a cognitive label to an ambiguous odor (

Quote:
[Heya Jan,
sorry for the delay responding but I have been mulling over bias and not reading the forum until today - only way not to be distracted by Scott or James

So, then, you won't take responsibility for your malfeasance and creation of false positions?

Figures.

You're a troll.

Quote:

Quote:
[Heya Jan,
sorry for the delay responding but I have been mulling over bias and not reading the forum until today - only way not to be distracted by Scott or James

So, then, you won't take responsibility for your malfeasance and creation of false positions?

Figures.

You're a troll.

Actually it seems your the one baiting me, this time I have decided to explain the technique I am using so that others may decide whether they want to employ it themselves.

When an unruly child makes a fuss when adults have visitors, one technique is to talk about the kid as if they are not there.
Eventually the kid realises that to have a voice or be recognised they have to abide by certain rules, that being not to be unruly and disrupt conversations......

So any reference I have regarding you or Scott will not be directed at either of you for a response, but will at times mention whatever you say or take what you say and apply my own perception to your actions.
This way you do not get the opportunity to disrupt discussions, and maybe you will participate in a way that readers will enjoy.
By readers I mean those you have not continually having ding-dong arguments with, and was one reason I joined to try and raise the level of conversation, which I was hoping you and Scott would had participated in.
However so far it is not looking promising, hence my new approach.
Dont expect me to respond to you directly in future until a change occurs, and maybe others will take this tact as well, hopefully avoiding the last of the several 20 page war threads we have seen that seem to be initiated by you and friends, and then have something for us Stereophile subscribers finally getting something of worth and enjoyment from this forum with I hope eventually greater engagement of Stereophile staff.

I think I gave you plenty of opportunities to engage on what could had been a good discussion, even if I had made mistakes you could had contributed something/anything that would had been good for readers but you sadly did not, the response was confrontational and vague with nothing a reader could learn from, let alone enjoy.
So for now its end of story with trying to engage you in technical discussions, and any other discussion, until hopefully something positive is posted by you in these threads.

Orb

Quote:
When an unruly child makes a fuss when adults have visitors, one technique is to talk about the kid as if they are not there.

Ok, in other words, you made up something, tried to lay it at my feet, and now that you got caught, you're going to stand in the corner and pretend the elephant isn't there.

Yeah, I get it. I've seen it time and time again on audiophile boards in particular. You made something up, got caught, and now you won't deal with your malfeasance. You want me to "teach" to your straw men, in other words, you want me to do your homework as well as my own, so that you can continue to make things up. Yeah. I get it. Indeed. Now, since you got caught, you're trying to convince everyone else to join you with their head beneath the sand. You do know what is sticking up when your head is in a hole in the sand, don't you?

I would suggest that formal apology from you might start to mend the situation, and continued good behavior from you might possibly get you back into my good graces. But that's not what you want, you blew in here, made stuff up, and stood ready to feign insult when your made up positions blew up in your face. Your every article is a sham, a political ploy, and I must say the last couple are starting to look like outright word salad. Yeah, I really do get it.

So, I'm not holding my breath. A dialog is not what you want. You want the right to preach to the believer without being interrupted by facts, figures, and reality. Yep. I know that gambit, it's not exactly new.

Oh, by the way, what's "PCM Coding"? You claim I'm an expert in it, but you know, it seems like nobody around me knows what "PCM Coding" is. :rolls eyes:

Code:I would suggest that formal apology from you might start to mend the situation ...

Take a ticket on that one, Orb. You'll be about the 5, 000th in line who have an apology demanded by jj.

I wouldn't feel successful though until he's told you at least a dozen times that you are stalking him.

Quote:
"I simply could not discern any differences with the particular Belt tweeks in and out of my system."

I'm posting a portion of George Tice's reply to a certain Mr. Roberts, who had similar difficulties getting results with Tice's Clock, which of course is yet another controversial tweak of yore. This letter was printed in Stereophile Magazine 1991. Oddly, perhaps, some of these 4 reasons seem to be "overlooked" in these threads. One should feel free to substitute PWB device or Clever Little Clock or Mpingo Disc, or cable, amp or speaker, or whatever, in place of Tice Clock.

--------------------------
"Dear Mr. Roberts:

We received your letter today and, to say the least, found it quite insulting. I will, however, out of courtesy to you, respond to it.

From the opening of your letter it is obvious that the TPT Clock did improve your system. You feel, however, that the dollar investment did not match the performance you hoped to get. You should be aware that there are no scales by which an improvement-per-dollar assessment can be made. It is largely dependent upon your own personal taste, hearing ability, and the quality of your system.

There are four reasons why someone could not get the full potential from a TPT Clock. They are: 1) You did not follow the directions. 2) There are one or more choke points in your system (a choke point is a component which is significantly below the quality of the rest of the system). 3) Your audio system is not up to the standards by which anything can be accurately judged. (I noticed in your letter you never mentioned what components you use.) 4) Your hearing ability is not as refined as that of other music lovers and audiophiles."

Great letter from Tice.

Hey, Geoff, you and May should heed his call to list components to be sure you have gear capable of producing the proper results.

Maybe pictures of your listening rooms and where you rub your grease and tape your foil. The spots where the safety pins work best for you, etc. You know, what an actual enthusiast might want to provide as part of his/her excitement over the astounding benefits his/her 'products' provide!

Customers need to know at what point their gear qualifies as being "good enough" for aquarium rocks and lampshade grease!

I take it you agree with Mr. Tice, after all.

Hmmm, only four reasons. I take it your list is all inclusive as to why a clock dipped in special sauce does not produce an effect. Yeah, no other reasons possible, y'all covered 'em all!

Impugning the customer's hearing ability is a good one, too. Well, the long term success of his company and the Tice Clock stand as endorsements of his product, eh?

Geoff, he didn't come after you for picking up on his clock grift, eh?

Run along and cut and paste a picture for us now. You've trolled yourself into a corner with this 'gear is insufficiently good to hear the improvement' crap.

Tice was great. "No benefit, eh? Well your gear must suck and you're deaf."

He leaped right on board the subjectivist's lament train. I can see why you would want to quote him - sort of an elder statesman for you to emulate!

Gotta work on the watch, though. "Can be worn in listening room, in the car, at Hi Fi shows, movies, etc."

You obviously, and tellingly, say that "it can be worn..." but not that it will do anything. Good move. Keeps it honest. But the implication is there would be utility achieved by wearing it in these locations - which George would have to discount, based on the quality of the system being used. Works in the car, but if you don't hear it at home, your system must not be up to the task.

Sales 101.

Quote:

Quote:
Orb wrote: When an unruly child makes a fuss when adults have visitors, one technique is to talk about the kid as if they are not there.

Quote:
I would suggest that formal apology from you might start to mend the situation, and continued good behavior from you might possibly get you back into my good graces. But that's not what you want, you blew in here, made stuff up, and stood ready to feign insult when your made up positions blew up in your face. Your every article is a sham, a political ploy, and I must say the last couple are starting to look like outright word salad. Yeah, I really do get it. A fresh piece of humanity you are. Well, yer not gonna make a chump out of ol' j.j. curmudgeoneister, you're not. I can smell what you're cookin' and I ain't gonna be no patsy to no set-up, no siree Bob. You'll have to get up earlier than that if you wanna hook this worm, fella. My mother didn't raise no hamsters, and if that ain't the end all be all, I don't know what is. This June bug don't dance for no ducks, so fiddle me a cornstorm, it just isn't gonna happen that way. Not even if it rains possum frogs. So you can chew on that tobacco, and if it doesn't swerve, then get out of its way, because this is one dog that don't lie down so easy. Rambling old fool? Who you calling a rambling old fool? You're the rambler here, the one who his rambling. I'm not rambling about nothing, and I never did. So don't try to pee on my parade and tell me it's raining, see. Are you talking to me? Are you talking to me?? I don't see nobody else here that you could be talking to? Ramble yourself, yeah, that's what you are now. Two bits and a slice of cheese. And furthermoreover, you're so stooped, you don't even know anything about anything, and since I'm the only one ranting about it, I'm obvious the smartest person in the room because I'm the only one here who cares about the FACT (reg. tm.) that you don't say "PCM coding", snicker snicker geek cough snicker, because you are being in the REDUNDANT, hoyvin glayvin rolling eyes gleibinkoop!

Oh good grief. Who's responsible for getting jj up this morning? I swear I can not turn my back for 2 seconds on this forum, without having to watch jj put the feather boa on and perform his "precious dandy" act, and demand yet another apology from yet another member. (sigh) I am sorry Orb that you had to be subjected to this. Someone really should have warned you about our own Granpa Fester. No one knows where he came from or what he's doing here. He was just there one day. And then the other kooks started marching in like ants, following their leader. Next thing you know, we had an all out x-forum battle in our midst. You are right to treat him like an unruly child, after seeing you can't engage him in a serious conversation without getting hit by the phony indignation act and trolling bit he is famous for on all the audio forums.

I hope you get something out of that; and you may because as much as jj hates audiophiles, he hates being ignored by them even more. Some folks are just not happy unless they're miserable. Know what I mean? So don't for a second take his apology demands seriously, because as Jan duly pointed out, jj has a very fragile ego and treats everyone who doesn't appear to worship him, (<cough>, Scott, <cough>), in the same way. That is, you will be called a "troll", a "stalker", loudly accused of permanently damaging his professional reputation (which, you may note he is in fact too scared to reveal in his sig, but don't talk about that...), and have, oh, various apologies demanded from you. Soon he will announce with great fanfare, that he's "plonked" you or put you on "ignore", whilst only pretending to do so and continuing to read your messages. This is known as "pulling an Ethan", and it simply means you've embarassed him a bit too much.

If you want an idea of what I mean, here's a few hits from the "J_J Hit List of Grovelling Apology Demands". See if you can detect a pattern.... :

Quote:

To JAN: "I REQUIRE a complete, grovelling, abject apology from you for all of this ludicrous harrassment. Until I receive it, I shall treat you like a deliberate, malicious, and thoroughly dishonest troll."

To SAS: "I would suggest that as of right now, today, you fully retract your accusations of misconduct, apologize for making them, and never EVER make another such response. "

SAS again: "I would suggest that a sincere apology should be forthcoming from you."

SAS yet again: "AFTER that, you might come back and apologize. It would be much more professional of you than these repeated, unwarranted professional attacks."

SAS once more, and though it didn't work the first 15 times, maybe the 16th demand will?: "Now apologize. "

To Yours Truly: "It is time for you to acknowlege that you have falsely accused several experts in psychometrics of professional misconduct, and that your accusations are utterly, completely, and totally false. It is time for you to apologize sincerely, retract your accusations, and demonstrate an honest and civil face to this forum. "

After I got finished laughing my head off from reading that, I realized that this is the most bizarre thing I have ever been accused of. In fact, I seriously could not think of a more bizarre thing to accuse someone of. What... "I accuse your double head, the right one situated on your left shoulder, of giving me the stink eye?". I'm sorry, it still isn't in the realm of pissing off "experts in psychometrics".

And I have to admit, it was all pretty funny... UNTIL.... I found myself to face to face with a gang of bikers, led by none other than "j_j" himself. I could tell by the patches on their pleather jackets, which read "Francis Galton Forever", that they were ALL experts in psychometrics. And they didn't look like they had come to attend a symposium. More like a wake, perhaps. And I remember thinking to myself "Frog.... you've ticked off the wrong hombres this time....". But I just burned rubber, and sped away on my bike in the opposite direction as fast as I could. I might as well have been riding on sand, because let me tell you, experts in psychometrics are hard pedallers. Much more than you would think. What's worse is that THEY had those fancy derailleurs and shifter thingies (obviously, rich boys). I had to do with an old Sturmey-Archer, limited to 3 speeds. That's 3 speeds on a GOOD day. This wasn't a good day. The bike was stuck in low gear. So I was mostly pedalling air. That's when one of them cut me off, causing me to fall to the ground, and scrape my knee. Then they all gathered around while I was on the ground and started laughing and laughing, and mocking the color of my banana seat. (It's not like pink was my first choice in colours, you know).

So since you're new here, let me give you a bit of a warning: If you see this coming at you from behind, run. Pedal as fast as your legs will take you, because this is not just an evil garden gnome, this is worse. This is the terror they call "jj".

And if he's barelling down on you on an 18 speeder, with 12 guys in tow wearing velcro snaps on their shoes and what look like brass knuckles on their fingers (**look closely though), it isn't a social call. He means business:

**

"I take it you agree with Mr. Tice, after all."

He does make some good points. Especially the ones regarding those who can't hear and/or think their systems are all that. I take it you took those two kind of, uh, personally.

You do an excellent job of channeling Travis Bickle, by the way. Bad day at the office?

Ah, there you are, with cut and paste skills on display.

Yeah, if your tweak isn't appreciated, it's the user's fault.

Poor hearing, crap gear.

Tell us, what system do you have set up right now? Give us something to aspire to!

You will also note that Mr. Tice, ever the salesman, did not mention anything like, "I'm sorry you did not notice the benefit of my bullshit device. Perhaps your system is already well set up."

Nope, he went right for the, "Your system must be crap or you'd have noticed the effect of my gear."

I think you gave yourself away, yet again.

That gaff is so obvious, you could say Tice pulled a Kait!

Keep channeling George Tice, dude. After all, look how well it worked out for his company!

Good one..."think their systems are all that."

Tell me again about the Clever watch and using it at the movies or in the car to improve the sound!

Those movie and car systems must be all that!

You can't even keep your bullshit in one pile, amigo! Your April Fool agenda is starting to show.

Run along and go cut and paste a picture of a Target vase.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
[Heya Jan,
sorry for the delay responding but I have been mulling over bias and not reading the forum until today - only way not to be distracted by Scott or James

So, then, you won't take responsibility for your malfeasance and creation of false positions?

Figures.

You're a troll.

Actually it seems your the one baiting me, this time I have decided to explain the technique I am using so that others may decide whether they want to employ it themselves.

When an unruly child makes a fuss when adults have visitors, one technique is to talk about the kid as if they are not there.
Eventually the kid realises that to have a voice or be recognised they have to abide by certain rules, that being not to be unruly and disrupt conversations......

So any reference I have regarding you or Scott will not be directed at either of you for a response, but will at times mention whatever you say or take what you say and apply my own perception to your actions.
This way you do not get the opportunity to disrupt discussions, and maybe you will participate in a way that readers will enjoy.
By readers I mean those you have not continually having ding-dong arguments with, and was one reason I joined to try and raise the level of conversation, which I was hoping you and Scott would had participated in.
However so far it is not looking promising, hence my new approach.
Dont expect me to respond to you directly in future until a change occurs, and maybe others will take this tact as well, hopefully avoiding the last of the several 20 page war threads we have seen that seem to be initiated by you and friends, and then have something for us Stereophile subscribers finally getting something of worth and enjoyment from this forum with I hope eventually greater engagement of Stereophile staff.

I think I gave you plenty of opportunities to engage on what could had been a good discussion, even if I had made mistakes you could had contributed something/anything that would had been good for readers but you sadly did not, the response was confrontational and vague with nothing a reader could learn from, let alone enjoy.
So for now its end of story with trying to engage you in technical discussions, and any other discussion, until hopefully something positive is posted by you in these threads.

Orb

Ummm . . . you may not like j-j's style, but he is a real audio researcher, a real expert, world class. John Atkinson, Kal Rubinson, Wes Phillips, Stephen Mejias, and many others all know it. He is a Fellow of the AES and the IEEE. Take a look at his Profile and follow the link.

Here's a link to an article Wes Phillips wrote about some of the results of his research when he was still with AT & T:

http://www.onhifi.com/features/20010615.htm

Yep, everytime one of us catches J_J changing, even posting opposite positions, concealing critical information so as to push a different and false result, outright misinformation, attacking evidence because he personally disagrees, or the fact that he has multiple conflicts of interest; yep, we are accused of misconduct, told to apologize, put on ignore etc. Of course all he has to do is present evidence refuting our individual points, but he almost always simply sidesteps the points, issues.

One of the issues has been that of accuracy, whether of DBTs, components or systems for testing, which are never addressed let alone answered. Digital applications are also quite different than analog. So digital code/programmer is quite different than designing the rest of the analog system.

Now J_J posts this:

Quote:
I would suggest that formal apology from you might start to mend the situation, and continued good behavior from you might possibly get you back into my good graces.

Does not surprise me, but does sadden me.

Quote:
Ummm . . . you may not like j-j's style, but he is a real audio researcher, a real expert, world class. John Atkinson, Kal Rubinson, Wes Phillips, Stephen Mejias, and many others all know it. He is a Fellow of the AES and the IEEE. Take a look at his Profile and follow the link.

Yes, and George W. Bush was elected President of the United States of America twice - though the first time he won by only one vote.

John Atkinson, Kal Rubinson, Wes Phillips, Stephen Mejias, and many others all know it.

What's your point?!

Xeno, this continued sucking up to jj is worthless, Scotty has moved in as BFFF (Best Forum Friend Forever) and you have been moved out. That's the breaks, kid, maybe you can get one of the other cheerleaders to be your new best friend. Try Arnie, I hear he's not got a lot of friends.

("What's your point?" is a rhetorical question, Xeno. No answer is appreciated. And there's no need to copy/paste entire posts just to try to make your's look more important. There are a lot of readers here [cough>Scott<cough] who don't do well with large posts.

'kay?)

I'm just pointing out to Orb that j-j can offer a lot of good information.

You certainly cannot show otherwise.

Quote:
I'm just pointing out to Orb that j-j can offer a lot of good information.

You certainly cannot show otherwise.

And what does a typical generic, generalized statement mean? J_J has been corrected in string after string, changed positions several times, stated a definite position in one string and then just the opposite position in another. How about Dr. Kunchur's profile and correction of J_J as well. I would not call J_J that reliable and trustworthy for accurate information.

And just what, precisely, has j-j been shown to be wrong about? What happens when you try to record and ultrasonic pulses on a digital recorder? Nothing? Or something?

Quote:
And just what, precisely, has j-j been shown to be wrong about? What happens when you try to record and ultrasonic pulses on a digital recorder? Nothing? Or something?

That has already been discussed in the other string, and answered by Dr. Kunchur, peer reviews, 3 national organizations "blessing", anonymous referees, comments from the University of Illinois, Stanford University brought forth by me and Michigan all demonstrating J_J was wrong. Hiding it from the public seems to be your goal.

Next, I see you sidestepped my other previous posts asking for you and/or J_J to produce evidence etc. How forth coming and honest of you.

We also see J_J is a "Fellow" in AES. Of course financially backed by Audio manufacturers including J_J's own employer.

Next, you were in those strings Xenophanes, so now you going to mislead the public by sidestepping what you wish to hide. Afterall, the goal is to help the public, not to hide evidence from them. We sure cannot trust you to help the public can we.

"Tell us, what system do you have set up right now? Give us something to aspire to!"

Wouldn't you like to know?

"You will also note that Mr. Tice, ever the salesman, did not mention anything like, "I'm sorry you did not notice the benefit of my bullshit device. Perhaps your system is already well set up.""

Many had excellent results with Tice's clock. How many, who knows? Not to mention his power devices. So, why so glum, Bubbha?

"Nope, he went right for the, "Your system must be crap or you'd have noticed the effect of my gear.""

Well, he actually gave 4 reasons but "your system is crap" is good enough for now.

"Keep channeling George Tice, dude. After all, look how well it worked out for his company!"

As I recall Tice Audio was around for a relatively long time. Perhaps you will correct me if I'm wrong.

"Good one..."think their systems are all that.""

Still stinging from that one, eh? Sweet.

"Tell me again about the Clever watch and using it at the movies or in the car to improve the sound!"

OK. It improves the sound at the movies or in the car.

There you go! I knew you couldn't provide anything clear.

Lots of running backwards there, guy.

Too flustered for cut and paste?

Quote:
There you go! I knew you couldn't provide anything clear.

On the contrar, one has to simply read strings you participated in, such as "Please post your questions for Dr. Kuncher here..", "Interesting Papers", or the sticky "A Visit to Mikey's & the Furutech deMag" strings, all in this forum. Again you were posting so you know, but attempt to hide it. The public, anyone, who has already read those strings know of your deceit. Attempting to manipulate those who have not I see.

Again you sidestep my previous posts requesting evidence from you. It appears you are more concerned with an agenda rather than helping the public.

By the way, why does J_J sign his legal name at Hydrogen Audio but refuse, for months now, to sign his legal name here, on any of his posts. (There are legal and ethical considerations for this comment.)

Quote:
J. D. (jj) Johnston

What is your legal name anonymous? You always have to hide your legal names.

"Lots of running backwards there, guy."

I can run backwards faster than you can run forwards.

Run, Forrest, run!

Quote:
I'm just pointing out to Orb that j-j can offer a lot of good information.

Don't you suppose Orb has already determined jj's worth?

I'll bet Orb's quicker than you think he is.

Quote:

Quote:
I'm just pointing out to Orb that j-j can offer a lot of good information.

Don't you suppose Orb has already determined jj's worth?

I'll bet Orb's quicker than you think he is.

Maybe Xenophanes works with or under J_J, maybe a saleman for a company. Interesting that the "scientific" guys are the only ones who remain anonymous.

Geez, with a moniker like Xenophanes you'd think he be a righteous, hard core Skeptic. No such luck. I hereby christen him, Xenophobe.

Hey, maybe this thread is progressing, after all.

Learning lots from Geoff!

1) Geoff pointed out that some systems may not be 'good enough' to achieve results with his tweaks; and used an old Tice Clock lertter to point out the four reasons tweaks may not work; but claims his Walmart Watch will improve the sound of movies and car stereos.

2) Geoff and May, our two marketing mavens, refuse to list their own gear.

My hunch is that they have transcended equipment and listen directly to tweaks.

3) Geoff has thrown away millions...neh...billions of dollars in 'synthetic atom' expertise in order to provide plastic chip goodness to audiophiles. Altruism of the highest order.

Perhaps he is selling film rights to Mel Gibson who will play an unassuming 'synthetic atom' savant who the government discovers can package plastic 'synthetc atom' delivery devices that can penetrate layers of metal, polycarbonate, and metalic film in order to specially enhance the performance of electronic gear...so they plot to steal his zillion dollar world changing device before Danny Glover can save Mel.

Geoff, with devices like your clocks, aqauarium rocks, and vapor-chips, you're wasting your time on audio - you should be cashing in big time...if they did anything.

I eagerly await your Nobel!

Does anyone actually read any of Buddha's posts?

Bubbha, while not entirely original (ah, but who is these days?) at least you're a little more entertaining than Scott, bless his heart... he can be such a party pooper.

But, seriously, dude, you remind me of the girl in Audition. She waited for days and days by the phone, waiting for the phone to ring. (No, not the Teleportation Tweak, silly goose!). When the object of her current obsession finally calls and she picks up the phone, the big burlap bag in the back of the room jumps up and down and there's some muffled voice coming from inside the bag.

If this is all some sort of sophisticated head game to get some discounts on clocks and chips, you're on the right track. Let's do lunch!

I'd do lunch, but you'd have to somehow seperate Jan's lips from your rectum. On the plus side, you eating lunch appears to offer sustenance to your sycophant, as well! Bonus!

If you ever make it to Vegas, I'll buy.

I agree, it is more rare to come across oriniality these days, what with the history of all the Tice and ElectroTec clocks - it adds to the truism that those who forget the past are doomed to repurchase it!

Glad to see you got your cut and paste mojo back.

No worry about not having a Hi Fi system at home, it seems May and the other members of the Vaporwear Tweak Club have taken the same vows!

Wait...

Had to type this extra little bit to make sure the post had enough quantum dots, and string theory crossed "T's" to keep my Hi FI sounding spiffy.

So, when are you going to bag that endorsement from Tommy Flanagan?

Yeah, that's the ticket!

How do you say "PISS OFF" to someone who isn't even sober enough to spell "separate"?

Guess I just did.

Quote:
Maybe Xenophanes works with or under J_J, maybe a saleman for a company. Interesting that the "scientific" guys are the only ones who remain anonymous.

Pure speculation on your part. I don't know j-j personally. I never have worked with j-j nor have I ever been associated with any of his employers.

Oh, and I don't claim to be a scientist.

Quote:
Geez, with a moniker like Xenophanes you'd think he be a righteous, hard core Skeptic. No such luck. I hereby christen him, Xenophobe.

There's a reasonable article on my ancient views in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/

Here are some old quotations of mine that have been preserved.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/Xenophan.html

Quote:

Quote:
Geez, with a moniker like Xenophanes you'd think he be a righteous, hard core Skeptic. No such luck. I hereby christen him, Xenophobe.

There's a reasonable article on my ancient views in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/

Here are some old quotations of mine that have been preserved.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/Xenophan.html

#4!!: 'The Dude Abides'. (The Big Xenophanski?)

Xenophanes,
Thanks for the headsup, but I know who James is, however as I mentioned its not about the knowledge but a combination of factors and not just the attitude.
Go back and read the response to my posts, furthermore who so far has provided a theory/model and was looking for a discussion on the research papers?
Did I post as one who says they are an objectivist or subjectivist?
Did I use the papers to say some here are idiots?
Did I present an attitude and position that flatly refused to even deal with the topic at hand?
I would like to think I was pretty balanced in my approach until the end, which is more than can be said about the response I received.

And what gets me, who was the one who took the time and interest with regards to the research papers and wanted a discussion?

You would think it would be those who are strongly vocal on these forums about science/objectivity/their own knowledge.
And yet it was Jan who stepped up, not James or any others that want to fit into the "Myside" bias on science and objectivity.
From some research will post later on with regards to my mulling over bias (hopefully fun to chat about):

Quote:
Myside
Volume 4

Poor Linus.

He was wrong about Vitamin C oral dosing, but was actually closer than you might imagine.

Intavenous administration can achieve Vitamin C levels that actually do become active against cancer cells.

Many cancer cell lines are poorly able to handle oxidative stress, and at high doses, Vitamin C actually becomes a pro-oxidant...something the cells have to cope with rather than use, and this strategy shows up in many cancer cell line studies.

Vitamin C and Vitamin K can add to a cancer cells oxidative load and enhance tumor cell death.

Linus may get a second chance.

Showing that Linus was wrong about dietary supplement levels being adequate. However, IV is a different story.

So, Linus was wrong about eating it, but there is still interest in IV dosing to achieve adequate levels and experimenting with various tumor lines and types of therapies.

Kind of neat, a little Vitamin C is useless, but ALOT starts to have anti-tumor activity. Maybe.

Or, in keeping with some of the style of thinking on this thread - why insist on doing studies? Why not just believe the internet sales guy with the orange flavored pills that he SAYS will fight cancer?

Quote:
Xenophanes,
Thanks for the headsup, but I know who James is,

Well, if you do actually know who I am, you also know that your chosen form of address is insulting. Whoopsie. Which is it now?

Quote:

however as I mentioned its not about the knowledge but a combination of factors and not just the attitude.

Yes, you want us to put appearance before substance. That is quite obvious. What's also obvious is that you're a veritable champion of straw men, and full of false positions you either claim or insinuate that I hold.

Whoopsie, again.

Quote:

Go back and read the response to my posts, furthermore who so far has provided a theory/model and was looking for a discussion on the research papers?

When you post something actually relevant, rather than something that more or less says, in terms of auditory system sensitivity, that things above threshold are audible, well, then, maybe there is a discussion to be had.

Quote:

Did I post as one who says they are an objectivist or subjectivist?

You haven't taken a position on the false dichotomy you insinuate ("objectivist" and "subjectivist" are not mutually exclusive, to say the least).

Quote:

Did I use the papers to say some here are idiots?

An interesting insinuation, who here said "some here are idiots"? Sorry, nice try at insinuation of yet another false position into the discussion. You really do like to make things up left and right, don't you? When will your articles get back off the 'j' axis, pray tell?

Quote:

Did I present an attitude and position that flatly refused to even deal with the topic at hand?

Yes, you did. You attempted to lay false positions on others, but you haven't even taken a position on the OP beyond saying something as redundant as True equals True. That's hardly news, is it?

Quote:

I would like to think I was pretty balanced in my approach until the end, which is more than can be said about the response I received.

Your definition of "balance" is to make false claims, such as your claim that I said you can't measure (any) kind of bias, when I said no such thing? Really, now, it's an odd kind of dialog that addresses people in a way they dislike, quotes a bunch of papers that are mostly unrelated to anything, points out something about the basilar membrane that's been proposed, although not proven until now, since the 1950's, etc.

Frankly, I'm not sure you even understand the papers you cite. It's starting to look like you came here with an obvious intent, and that's to "win an argument by trying to sell appearance over substance". You cite a paper without any substantive comments of yours, presenting it like some miracle of modern science, but without bothering to explain the lot.

So, that's your idea of "balance"? Sorry, no, your intent is obvious, your disingenuity is obvious, and your intended insult is blindingly obvious. What's more, your feigned insult, insult you intended to feign from the start, and your fear to reply to me is just a way to avoid actually replying to your malfeasance and your outright whoppers like "PCM Coding". You throw words around. Do you really even know what they mean?

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe Xenophanes works with or under J_J, maybe a saleman for a company. Interesting that the "scientific" guys are the only ones who remain anonymous.

Pure speculation on your part. I don't know j-j personally. I never have worked with j-j nor have I ever been associated with any of his employers.

Oh, and I don't claim to be a scientist.

Was that sasaudio? He really IS paranoid, I think.

It's funny, anyone who actually bothers to attempt to explain the real thinking of mainstream science is somehow or other "contrary to mainstream science" and they all have to be some kind of silly plot among conspirators, according to sasaudio.

Well, this is the kind of company Orb is keeping, and the same kind of argument structure Orb uses.

There are some simple facts.

I am relating the mainstream scientific understanding. (Of course it's tentative, all science is tentative) Once again, having a paper published is not "approval" or "endorsement" by any professional society. The AES is not beholden to manufacturers. Neither is the IEEE. It is interesting that in all of sasaudio's defamation, he avoids discussing the IEEE in any meaningful fashion whatsoever. Curious, isn't it?

Any claims that the AES is controlled by a manufacturer is a LIE, because that has been debunked. Any claim that a publication of a paper constitutes endorsement is likewise a lie, because that has also been debunked.

This is the kind of "logic" and "ethics" that one sees from the voiciferous on this board.

Then there's orb, who would have me being an expert in a mythical subject called "PCM Coding". Right. Talk about showing your ignorance right up front...

You know, all of this really begs for some blind listening sessions come January.

Big Mike and I try some every year. I have four years worth of "you choose the speed" tests for LP listening to organize. My hypothesis was that people would set the turntable speed higher for dynamic than planar speakers.

Maybe we could all compare different sampling rates?

J_J could sample our Limoncello derived "System Enhancing Solution" and maybe graduate to the home brew Absinthe "Brain Enhancing Solution."

Quote:
Then there's orb, who would have me being an expert in a mythical subject called "PCM Coding". Right. Talk about showing your ignorance right up front...

Exactly. You're so right, it's not even funny. You certainly ARE showing your ignorance right up front. In post after post, where you have obsessed with the phrase "PCM coding", to the point where I'm starting to wonder if you are at all conscious of the fact that you're on a public forum, where other people can read your inane puerile rants? Or have you just been hanging around Arnold Kruger for so long, that you just don't care that you have no credibility whatsoever anymore, in your chosen milieu? You know, there's been a lot of speculation in the past about who you really are behind the handle, and why you won't sign your legal name and affiliation in your sig, if you really are an audio professional as you keep insisting; and a lot of that arose from the fact (reg. tm.) that any idiot on the net can "hijack" the home page of someone and pretend to be them. Say because they are insecure status seekers who think maybe a resum

Apparently, j_j is trying to be the spokesman for (or defender of) "... the real thinking of mainstream science."

Okay, okay, I won't nit-pick what is supposed to be "real," or what is the "real" importance of "mainstream science." Whatever THAT is.

Who speaks for the "real" importance of mainstream LISTENING? Who bothers to go to "real" concerts any more? Why should they, since the plethora of pseudo-scientific babble being splattered across the www is always in favor of numeric abstractions.

Look. You listen. If you like it, you keep on listening. If you don't, you either change the stuff in your room, or go elsewhere to find something you do like , in somebody else's room.

Sasaudio designs, for better or worse, equipment that, for HIM, sounds closer to the real thing. In other words, he lives in the real world of musical reproduction. You, j_j, do NOT. You live in the abstract world of verbal arguments.

You have come to the right place. Blather away.

Quote:
In other words, he lives in the real world of musical reproduction. You, j_j, do NOT. You live in the abstract world of verbal arguments.

So, you claim, then, that studying human hearing is "the abstract world of verbal arguments".

That is, frankly, quaint to say the least.

I suppose it's admirable in some sad, cliquish sense, that you stick with your buddy sasaudio, who has proposed an entirely insane world view in which those who disagree with him are part of an organized conspiracy, in which professional organizations are somehow indicted by the fact they have corporate members, that publishing a paper is an "endorsement", and so on, but frankly, you're just encouraging his delusions in this regard. I don't think you're doing him a favor.

As to what I do for a living, apparently studying human hearing (among other things) is something you just can't realize exists. Tsk.

Quote:
J_J could sample our Limoncello derived "System Enhancing Solution"

If we have to go that sweet I'd really rather prefer Dram Bui, if you don't mind. Limoncello is, well, err, I guess it's an acquired taste. I use a bit of it in lemon sorbet, but that's really about it.

Quote:

and maybe graduate to the home brew Absinthe "Brain Enhancing Solution."

Well, if it doesn't come in a lead-glazed bottle, but I'm not really very much into the taste of wormwood, really, either. The MacCallan, or Laphroig 15 year, maybe.

But thanks for the offer!

>>> "2) Geoff and May, our two marketing mavens, refuse to list their own gear.

My hunch is that they have transcended equipment and listen directly to tweaks.

No worry about not having a Hi Fi system at home, it seems May and the other members of the Vaporwear Tweak Club have taken the same vows!" <<<

Buddha, that is completely uncalled for !! That, in my opinion, is an example of "snide, throwaway remarks"

The Demands, and they were DEMANDS (continuous at one point, posting after posting) on a previous 'thread' for a listing of what audio equipment we use was a 'red herring' then and is a 'red herring' now.

What equipment we are using now, what equipment we were using one Tuesday in April in 2002, what equipment we were using one Friday in November 1997, what equipment we were using one Sunday in June in 1985 is completely irrelevant. You are not thinking it through, Buddha, you are just looking for an "angle" with which to carry on an attack. As evidenced with your reply to Scott :-

>>> "1) Ask them to list the equipment they listen to so we can better discuss certain tweaks." <<<

As I say, you just have not thought it through sufficiently. How can a list of what equipment we used in (say) 1985, the different equipment we (might) have used in (say) 1997, the different equipment we (might) have used in (say) 2002 and the equipment we (might) be using now form a better discussion regarding certain tweaks ???? The tweaks (ours or anyone else's) are surely (logically) for some people to try, for THEMSELVES, on THEIR equipment, in THEIR listening environments, because if they don't work with THEIR equipment in THEIR listening environment, then they won't want to buy them, will they - ours or anyone else's ????????????

Hypothetically, what knowledge of us using (say) a Pioneer amplifier in 1980, a Marantz CD player in 1985, a pair of borrowed Meridian Speakers in 1990, a pair of borrowed giant Yamaha speakers, a pair of borrowed Sony's flagship speakers in 1993 and so on, ad infinitum, got to do with what equipment people HAVE in THEIR room now, this month, when trying ours or anyone else's 'tweak', or when trying a 'tweak' 5 years ago, or 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, or 20 years ago ?????

It is because you have not thought it through that you can keep asking exactly the same question !!!

Let me see if I can give a reasoned explanation of what I mean.

If you discover a technique of freezing guitar strings and can improve the sound of a guitar by doing so, it is irrelevant whether you were playing a Gibson guitar at THAT particular time.
What is CRUCIAL is whether that "technique of freezing guitar strings to improve the sound" will work with a Joe Bloggs guitar, with a Jack Smith guitar, with a Bill Brown guitar, for different guitar players, playing different styles of music, in different rooms, in different countries. THAT is what is relevant !!

If Furutech, when discovering the technique of demagnetising a disc and getting an improvement in the sound, it is irrelevant whether they had initially been listening to a disc of the Berlin Philharmonic playing Dvorak's New World, on an Oracle TT.
What is CRUCIAL is whether the same technique of applying the demagnetising technique will work with other recordings, on other discs, with different styles of music, played on different TTs, with different pick up arms and cartridges, in different rooms, in different countries, by different people. THAT is what is relevant !!

If Ayre discovered that myrtle wood block devices with the golden-section ratio improves the sound when placed under their audio equipment, it is irrelevant which equipment they were using at that particular time.
What is CRUCIAL is whether the same myrtle wood block devices will give similar results when used under a Joe Bloggs amplifier/CD player, under a Jack Smith amplifier/CD player, under a Bill Brown amplifier/CD player, in different rooms, in different countries, and listened to by different people listening to different styles of music. THAT is what is relevant !!

I know the following was in a reply to Geoff so why the following when Geoff does not sell Cream or Foil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So obviously aimed at me, then !!!

>>> "Maybe pictures of your listening rooms and where you rub your grease and tape your foil. The spots where the safety pins work best for you, etc. You know, what an actual enthusiast might want to provide as part of his/her excitement over the astounding benefits his/her 'products' provide!" <<<

A knee jerk reaction Buddha !!

I personally think George Tice's original letter must have come out of the sheer frustration felt by George Tice.

MINE and Peter's attitude has always been that people don't have to have super duper listening skills, they don't have to have super duper audio equipment, they can try whatever technique they want on whatever equipment they already have, using whatever music they like, in their own listening environment. If they don't hear any particular 'technique' then they don't !!!! Others DO and are having a "ball" !!! THAT is what matters !!!

NOT. I repeat NOT what equipment Peter and I MIGHT be listening to at any given point !!!

If we recommended a specific 'technique' for a specific brand of speaker drive unit, for a specific brand of cable, for a specific recording, for a specific room configuration, for a specific this or a specific that then, yes, a description where to do it or a picture illustrating exactly where to position it would be helpful. But we don't. We give general guidelines and then recommend people try, for themselves.

If you read English then what DON'T you understand about the following general instructions ?

"A CCU Ring Tie on a safety pin should be attached to all curtains, all carpets and upholstery throughout a building. Another very advantage place to attach a CCU Ring Tie on a safety pin is to upholstery, particularly underneath the cushion of the chair you sit in to listen."

I would say that that is quite comprehensive (and even many people to whom English is not their first language can understand) and WHY would a photograph be of help as to what a cushion looks like or why would a list of the equipment we were using at the time we discovered this 'technique' be of any help ?

I repeat, Buddha. You have just not thought it through sufficiently or you would not be continually asking the same question.

I don't respond to irrationality.

Or, if I do, then I try to explain why I am responding.

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