Quote:
This is going to be difficult to answer (or maybe difficult to understand).
I am of the opinion that there is a PHYSICAL effect - a (physical) change takes place to the information as it travels along the auditory nerve which, then, in turn, will affect how the working memory 'translates' that changed information !

You stated it clearly and this is easy to understand.

Quote:

Quote:
"Do the ART products affect "perception at the working memory?"

This is what I am suggesting could happen. Just taking the one suggestion by John A - microwave radiation . . .

I understand what you are purposing as a possible explanation.

Do you have any knowledge/reason to believe microwave radiation has any impact on our processing of audio information? Mr. Atkinson states that he just threw this out as a concept. I have looked and haven't found anything in the literature that such radiation affects any of our senses.

Quote:
That is right. I call it perception only when the working memory has to resolve the musical information of Dvorak's New World. Up to that point I see the information conveyed as electro-chemicals - analogous to the audio signal conveyed by the actual audio system.

Got it. Perfectly reasonable terminology.

Quote:
And WHERE exactly do YOU suggest that the chemical influence of the alcohol can affect the 'sound' if not where the information of Dvorak's New World is ACTUALLY conveyed by electro-chemicals. I.e. The auditory nerve.

Actually it is believed the alcohol affects central auditory processing; that is, the way the brain processes the information. I think this would be akin to changing "perception" using your terminology.

Quote:
Surely you have just made my point for me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep in mind that I never took the position that all changes to audio information must be before the ear drum.

The distinction however is that alcohol is well-known as a central nervous system depressant, is physically present in the body at the time it has an impact on the listener and this effect is fairly consistent across individuals. It's also easily demonstrable and repeatable.

Quote:
Do you have any knowledge/reason to believe microwave radiation has any impact on our processing of audio information? Mr. Atkinson states that he just threw this out as a concept. I have looked and haven't found anything in the literature that such radiation affects any of our senses.

If it is intense enough, you won't perceive anything - you'll be nicely cooked! But at the level typical of WiFi networks, well, I couldn't find anything about there being possible physiological effects. But it's hard to believe there would be none, eh?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:

Quote:
Do you have any knowledge/reason to believe microwave radiation has any impact on our processing of audio information? Mr. Atkinson states that he just threw this out as a concept. I have looked and haven't found anything in the literature that such radiation affects any of our senses.

If it is intense enough, you won't perceive anything - you'll be nicely cooked! But at the level typical of WiFi networks, well, I couldn't find anything about there being possible physiological effects. But it's hard to believe there would be none, eh?

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Believe me, if it is intense enough you will definitely perceive it. The heating effect from a high power microwave source is very noticable and very uncomfortable.

Quote:

Quote:
I think that one's perception of the sound, if I can be allowed to use that phrase, is a result of both the physical acoustic waves arriving at the outer ear from the speakers (the direct part) AND the conscious or unconscious interaction one's brain has with local environment, the indirect part -- can I call the subconscious component mind-matter interaction?

I understand what you are saying. And using your terminology is appropriate - it's your ideas after all that we are discussing.

So what are your thoughts specifically as to what the ART products do?

I suspect they act as broadband resonators (in the audio spectrum), like the Tchang bowls and Room Lens. I.e., "absorbers." Also like Mpingo disc and Brilliant Pebbles. I suspect the microwave angle is most likely a coincidence, a red herring. After all, microwave frequencies cover an enormous range, much, much larger than the range of audio frequencies -- certainly the ART bowls, according to their geometry, cannot absorb (or "deflect") them all. Which ones are the "bad" microwave frequencies, only the WiFi ones?

I can also imagine there could possibly be some secondary connection to WiFi frequencies as they might be applicable to PWB concepts in the sense that WiFi networks and frequencies carry information. Like telephones. Heh heh But what the actual mechanism would be for the ART bowls to (accidentally) produce a PWB type effect is far from clear.

I'd also like to modify my statement, "....is a result of both the physical acoustic waves arriving at the outer ear from the speakers (the direct part)...."

to, "... is a result of both the physical acoustic waves arriving at the outer ear from the speakers and the other sources of acoustic energy in the room such as first reflection points, standing waves, etc. (the direct part)..."

Quote:
I don't know any absolute answer. Nobody knows, that is why there is a controversy.

This is why I am asking. I think this discussion has been pretty productive, unlike past attempts.

Quote:
I have put MY twopennysworth in, John A has put HIS twopennysworth in, why don't YOU put your twopennysworth in ?

I did. Assuming that the Acoustic ART products are doing anything:

Quote:
In the fourth post of this thread, Elk wrote:

3) May's thought that that they affect the listener and/or listener's perception (perception = listener's experience of playback).

So far number 3 makes the most sense to me as a possibility.

Quote:
Buddha added:

4) The bowls ring at certain ferquencies in response to acoustic stimulation and this ringing may be perceived by some as adding to the sound in such a way that it is a pleasant phenomenon.

And Elk responded:

I like 4 a lot, especially in the context of Tibetan prayer bowls.

I am exceedingly skeptical that the Acoustic ART products do anything other than to create expectation bias and a self-created emotional response.

However, I posited that we assume that the products work so that we can have a productive discussion. Regardless of any personal opinion I may have, I enjoy exploring the world and others' reactions to it.

It's a great way to learn.

Thank you again for your willingness to share and to discuss your ideas.

Quote:

Quote:
I have looked and haven't found anything in the literature that such radiation affects any of our senses.

If it is intense enough, you won't perceive anything - you'll be nicely cooked! But at the level typical of WiFi networks, well, I couldn't find anything about there being possible physiological effects. But it's hard to believe there would be none, eh?

I did consider the pleasant crackling sounds of Elk cooking to a nice golden brown . . .

I suspect that there are some effects on the body of all forms of energy radiation, even if benign; mass responds to energy and vice versa.

I'm glad you also checked the literature. I had hoped to find something addressing the question.

Thanks, Geoff!

Very interesting thoughts.

Quote:
Thanks, Geoff!

Very interesting thoughts.

No problem. Thanks for acting as facilitator.

Quote:
But at the level typical of WiFi networks, well, I couldn't find anything about there being possible physiological effects. But it's hard to believe there would be none, eh?

Quote:
Statistical analysis didn't reveal significant effect of microwave for the whole group. The reason is very high variability among individual EEG signals as well as different individual sensitivity to microwave. Differences between the microwave stimulation and sham were statistically insignificant for the whole group also in our previous study at 7 Hz modulation frequency [17]. However, there were significant differences in some channels within individual subjects.

From Tables 1 and 2, it can be seen that the subjects having significant results overlap. On the other hand, with the LDLVP method, there are 4 significant results compared to 2 with the S-parameter method. This indicates that microwave stimulation causes different effects for different subjects and there is an obvious need for various methods to detect those effects.
http://www.nonlinearbiomedphys.com/content/1/1/9

I suppose, like anything else, it depends on who and what you care to accept.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&...abase&type=

http://www.rense.com/general78/rad.htm

Certainly industry is going to try their best to keep any such information from reaching broad acceptance and assigning those who do question the ideas to the kook bin.

Quote:

Quote:
I don't know any absolute answer. Nobody knows, that is why there is a controversy.

This is why I am asking. I think this discussion has been pretty productive, unlike past attempts.

Quote:
I have put MY twopennysworth in, John A has put HIS twopennysworth in, why don't YOU put your twopennysworth in ?

I did. Assuming that the Acoustic ART products are doing anything:

Quote:
In the fourth post of this thread, Elk wrote:

3) May's thought that that they affect the listener and/or listener's perception (perception = listener's experience of playback).

So far number 3 makes the most sense to me as a possibility.

Quote:
Buddha added:

4) The bowls ring at certain ferquencies in response to acoustic stimulation and this ringing may be perceived by some as adding to the sound in such a way that it is a pleasant phenomenon.

And Elk responded:

I like 4 a lot, especially in the context of Tibetan prayer bowls.

I am exceedingly skeptical that the Acoustic ART products do anything other than to create expectation bias and a self-created emotional response.

However, I posited that we assume that the products work so that we can have a productive discussion. Regardless of any personal opinion I may have, I enjoy exploring the world and others' reactions to it.

It's a great way to learn.

Thank you again for your willingness to share and to discuss your ideas.

Here is some additional information.

Metal alloys, shapes affect the FR and Q of metal. FR and Q can be manipulated in helmholtz resonators as well. The metal in the bowls can be much smaller for the same mass etc, and is directly exposed to the air/bass power. I think the big question is whether proper Q can be obtained with metal.

I don't know if the bowls work or not, but the art bowls do have multiple times the surface area compared to the opening area of the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/aco...absorber-page-2

It would be interesting to compare a 3" dia bowl to a helmholtz resonator, same frequency, Q etc and see how the measurements differ. Also interesting was how the Audioholics 71hz helmholtz resonator measured since its opening area is only a tiny 5.75 square inches.

Cheers.

Quote:

I am exceedingly skeptical that the Acoustic ART products do anything other than to create expectation bias and a self-created emotional response.

And yet I walked in on a just-begun demo without any expectation bias, and without a clue as to what would be going on. And heard the effect quite distinctly.

I do admit to having an expectation bias on tweaks. I keep hoping they won't work so A) I won't have to spend the money and B) I won't be writing them up and subjecting myself to insults. (I'm not speaking of yourself.)

Quote:
Why can't such as microwave radiation be regarded as an UNSEEN spider or an UNSEEN snake - causing an effect, causing a problem, causing tension, but NOT affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio system and not affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room ?

That's easy! Because we're not used to thinking that way, and it's not in any textbook.

First time I hear of a spider who likes Dvorak!

Quote:
Excellent sentiments but does that take the world any further forward. Surely people have to ADD something to the process take things forward?

Looks like the final exam will have to be graded on a curve.

Quote:

Quote:
"More enjoyment does not necassarily mean that more information is present."

But, surely, far more logically, one cannot get the wealth of improvement in the sound being described :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

Without it being provided by MORE actual information.

Again, logically, if one heard those very improvement in the sound being described by people who had substituted better toleranced components in equipment, one would immediately assign those improvements to being because the new components were 'handling the signal better' - i.e allowing more information through than before !! One would never just automatically presume it was only because "more enjoyment was provided" !!

There are plenty of potentially euphonic or dysphonic changes that certainly affect one's "enjoyment" of a sonic experience.

Absolutely no pre-existing requirement that this association being associated with more information.

Even simple equalization with emphasis added to certain frequencies can be euphonic to some and dysphonic to others.

May, you need to acknowledge person to person variation and preference.

If someone enjoys the effect of ringing bowls in his room, that should be enough. Why the need to say that adding a ringing frequency is the equivalent of adding "information?"

Quote:
"I have asked you before, do you wear a hearing aid,"

No, Buddha, I don't wear a hearing aid.

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

You do not wear a hearing aid?

But whyever not?

I belive some of what is said here may (!!!!!!!) well be right, but IMO a lot of improvements can come from removing unwanted elements from the signal, thus making the music sound cleaner, more crisp, less smeared, less "rumbly", less muddy etc.

Given people's different taste in sound philosophies, the conditions of the listening room, the quality of the whole reproduction chain, not to mention our different hearing abilities, much can be said about what is high fidelity and what is not.

Do we experience (hear) a live concert exactly the same way? I don't think so. Do we believe our systems are capable of reproducing music in hifi? And to what degree? These things can't be measured, will never be, and thus there will always be disagreements in this area.

Some tweaks are - as said previously - sane and sound enough to make most people believe that they actually provide improvements, even if not measurable. Other tweaks are in many people's perception so "far out" that it almost feels like we'd be insane to trust them to work. Not to mention the impossible task it would be to measure them. Not a bad word about Geoff, but the cell phone tweak, I'd only try if I got paid $60 for it. Same with acoustic bowls, Mpingo discs, pebbles, hand-written labels on/under/inside any equipment, demagnetizing CD's, etc. I'd not try them under any circumstances. This is my philosophy, and I just can't convince my conscience that they may (???????) work one way or another.

I believe in diffraction, absorption, decoupling, vibration damping, isolation, different size/shape material in cables, stronger magnets in speakers, solid placement of equipment, and the like.

The funny thing is, I can't claim that any of those tweaks do not work. Dilemma? Not for me. Same way with the creational vs Darwinist theories. I stick in the middle, with the risk of being seen as a "under the fence" type, not able to make a decision for myself. But this keeps me in an area I can understand.

The fact that I can easily play CD's 10-20 dB louder than before tells me, that it's the right path for me.

Quote:

The fact that I can easily play CD's 10-20 dB louder than before tells me, that it's the right path for me.

Stop tweaking, right now!

Two more tweaks and you'll be up near 130 dB!

I still have neighbours...

10-20 dB louder? Hmmmm...let me guess, you had ear wax the size of Matzah balls?

Perhaps, but the sound has become much cleaner since tweaking, changing speakers, cables etc.

I am not going deaf LOL

Quote:

You do not wear a hearing aid?

But whyever not?

Quote:
Be mature, respectful, thoughtful. You know: Don't be an asshole.

Boooodha! isn't funny and he's been an asshole to May for years. Ya'll know it.

Why the hell don't some of you say something?

Quote:
I stick in the middle, with the risk of being seen as a "under the fence" type, not able to make a decision for myself. But this keeps me in an area I can understand.

Wouldn't you say, if you never get outside of your comfort zone, you'll never find anything you don't already know? Many musicians have the same problem, they only do what they have always done and soon they find themself recycling the same thoughts and techniques without ever stretching themself beyond their past limitations. In the end they never find anything new and exciting to keep their youthful drive alive. The same thing applies to all occupations and hobbies, you only get out you what you put in. You only learn when you allow yourself to think of something new and not at all familiar. You are no longer open to new thoughts if you do not allow something new to come to you.

What have you got to loose by trying a few of the free or low cost alternatives outside of your comfort zone? Possibly you'll find the challenge to be exciting. Possibly, you'll find your system or you require more thinking and more effort to become transparent to the unexpected results. Either way, you'll have pushed yourself off the fence and you'll have expended nothing but time, energy and thought in so doing.

Not able to make a decision? That's not going to get you anywhere, is it? For a start, try the free samples of foil or the freezing techniques; http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ They cost you nothing to try. No one is asking you to become a zealot, only to be open to possibilities.

What's the wildest thing you've ever thought of attempting with your system? What if the amount you would have spent on that was superceded by something free?

Quote:

Not able to make a decision? That's not going to get you anywhere, is it? For a start, try the free samples of foil or the freezing techniques; http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ They cost you nothing to try. No one is asking you to become a zealot, only to be open to possibilities.

In all probability I would have used a different example than PWB, even though the ones you mentioned are free, no offense to you or May. IMHO that might be interpreted as getting a little too close to promoting products of one of the primary combatants, as it were, on this forum. I would certainly feel a little uncomfortable if someone were to do it to me. It can tend to make even the most innocent of intentions appear like, what's the word? Oh, yeah, shilling.

Well then, geoff, make your sugestions. Don't just tell me I am shilling for the Belts.

Is it shilling if the issue of freezing CD's is covered by someone other than the participants here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn_Hj8-8tI4

Quote:

Quote:
"but IMO a lot of improvements can come from removing unwanted elements from the signal, thus making the music sound cleaner, more crisp, less smeared, less "rumbly", less muddy etc." {/quote]

Are you saying that there is information ABC + DEF on the disc and that "unwanted elements" affecting the signal then produce + GHI (muddiness), + JKL (smeariness), + MNO (rumbliness) ? And that when you remove those "unwanted elements", the information reverts back to ABC + DEF ? I.e. Less smearing, less, rumbliness, less muddiness ? That's what I meant, and I'm pretty sure that several problems got solved through removing GHI + JKL + MNO, at least in my case. Providing the best possible working conditions for the equipment under the circumstances that is.

OR, could it be that there is information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO on the actual disc. That "unwanted elements" (whether affecting the signal, affecting the acoustics, or whether they are just in and affecting the listening environment) create an inability to resolve the information GHI + JKL + MNO correctly and then, when those "unwanted elements" are removed or reduced, you are then able to resolve better the whole information ABC + DEF +GHI + JKL + MNO ??? This might easily be the case in many instances, but I don't think it is in my case. Read my tweak postings, and you'll understand what I mean.

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=81384&an=0&page=2#Post81384

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=82145&an=0&page=2#Post82145

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=82915&an=0&page=2#Post82915

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=84364&an=0&page=2#Post84364

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=85161&an=0&page=2#Post85161

Quote:
"I believe in diffraction, absorption, decoupling, vibration damping, isolation, different size/shape material in cables, stronger magnets in speakers, solid placement of equipment, and the like." [/quote}

Who doesn't ????????? You talk as though it is a case of believing one OR the other and not both !!! The problem occurs when something changes the sound which DOES NOT FIT any of those descriptions !!!!! As I have said before. Then what do you do ? Hide your head in your hands and weep ??? If you like the sound, I'd say you wonder, but keep the tweak!

Quote:
"The funny thing is, I can't claim that any of those tweaks do not work. Dilemma? Not for me. Same way with the creational vs Darwinist theories. I stick in the middle, with the risk of being seen as a "under the fence" type, not able to make a decision for myself. But this keeps me in an area I can understand."

You have put it in a nutshell !!! However, it can be interpreted as either (what you said) "It keeps me in an area I can understand" OR, "I prefer to stick in the middle because the FEAR of having my beliefs challenged is greater than my desire to investigate further" Called Cognitive Dissonance !! I.e "What I understand is safe, what I don't understand is fearful." As an example, my family find me odd as it is, having little rubber thingies under my CDP, TT, AMP and speakers, small carpets on the doors, bass traps in the corners, etc. I can't agree that I am afraid of new things, I just find them far out. How I'd react if I found one of them working small wonders in my listening room, I'm not sure. I guess I'd give in and start to believe in things that's outside my "world view" as it presently is. Nobody's subconscious mind wants to allow changes into "their world", for the simple fact, that the subconscious tries to keep things "understandable" (fit the present world picture) to the conscious mind for any price, even insanity.

You can't dismiss those many peoples' experiences (many of them with a professional lifetime in audio), so yes, you have a dilemma !! Perhaps you're right. Nothing wrong with clinging to your "world view" as long as it isn't too narrow too provide great experiences for you

Regards
Keld

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

Quote:

Quote:
I stick in the middle, with the risk of being seen as a "under the fence" type, not able to make a decision for myself. But this keeps me in an area I can understand.

Wouldn't you say, if you never get outside of your comfort zone, you'll never find anything you don't already know? Many musicians have the same problem, they only do what they have always done and soon they find themself recycling the same thoughts and techniques without ever stretching themself beyond their past limitations. In the end they never find anything new and exciting to keep their youthful drive alive. The same thing applies to all occupations and hobbies, you only get out you what you put in. You only learn when you allow yourself to think of something new and not at all familiar. You are no longer open to new thoughts if you do not allow something new to come to you.
When speaking about weird tweaks, I stick in my comfort zone, well mostly. I HAVE filed the tip off my cantilever, and I DID try freezing my speaker cables!

When we speak of life in general, I have a very open mind, and accept whatever life offers to me with a healthy sceptical, but also very fluent mind

What have you got to loose by trying a few of the free or low cost alternatives outside of your comfort zone? Possibly you'll find the challenge to be exciting. Possibly, you'll find your system or you require more thinking and more effort to become transparent to the unexpected results. Either way, you'll have pushed yourself off the fence and you'll have expended nothing but time, energy and thought in so doing. Except for the fact that I am willing to try all free tweaks, but many tweaks are pretty damn expensive!

Not able to make a decision? That's not going to get you anywhere, is it? For a start, try the free samples of foil or the freezing techniques; http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/ They cost you nothing to try. No one is asking you to become a zealot, only to be open to possibilities. I will then, and with an open mind too.

What's the wildest thing you've ever thought of attempting with your system? What if the amount you would have spent on that was superceded by something free?

VERY hard to believe! I would feel the laughing stock having spent $8.000+ on my equipment!

Regards
Keld

Not trying to shill, just trying to introduce an idea.

May, do you have a link to Jimmy Hughes' article regarding his experiments with the Yamaha A400 amplifier?

I know Jan, ok.

I just tried a few of the tweaks from May & Peter's page.

1) Paper under one foot of a piece of equipment - no change
2) Pinning down a corner of a curtain - no curtains, so can't try it out
3) Blue paper under plant - no change
4) Reef knot on a set of adjacent interconnects - I can't be sure, but it seems I heard a change. Sounds like a slightly better perspective. I learned that I needed to remove my bass port plugs during this listening session.
5) Freezing a CD - not tried out yet, but I will
6) Wooden pieces of dowelling - I don't understand the tweak
7) Screw slot aligning - not possible to achieve

Just to show my good will

Quote:
Well then, geoff, make your sugestions. Don't just tell me I am shilling for the Belts.

Is it shilling if the issue of freezing CD's is covered by someone other than the participants here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn_Hj8-8tI4

I think you better re-read by post, again. I didn't accuse you of shilling.
Look before you leap.

Cheers

Quote:

Why would you say that ????

Hearing aids add information.

Is this a sensible discussion or not ?????

Up to you. You deny everything other than the universality of yours and others' tweaks. That is not sensible. I've been trying to give you the opportunity to be sensible.

Please explain why you would want to do make such a remark !!!!!

To try and open your mind, May.

Was it to re-inforce your usual theme - that people who can hear such 'tweaks' are doing so because they (the 'tweaks') are remedial, because they are correcting a deficiency in the person ????

Partly.

I'm exceedingly sick of you pathologizing all listeners.

It's a great sales pitch technique, trying to insinuate that your product is needed by everyone, but it is an obvious mis-statement.

Hearing aids add information, eyeglasses add information, medications are used to help people approximate a more phsyiologically normal state....yet you allow some people do not require those while you persist in berating those who have no need of your brand of remediation.

Have you even tried listening with a hearing aid?

(Helpful hint: You wonder why people get frustrated with your schtick and bring up 'religion.' The answer is because that's one of the few other sales pitches that make unblinking universal claims.)

I know, admitting that not everybody requires your product in order to hear things "better" would potentially limit your sale targets....

Belt World seems much like Tommy's Holiday Camp before the "clients" remove their blinfolds. Personally, I think the the idea of calling the tweaks remedial is being generous, but I'm trying to toss you a lifeline.

Put part of it down to bullshit fatigue, too.

May, do you even use gear any more, or just listen directly to the tweaks themselves?

Interestingly, those here with a financial stake in this type of sales pitch are the ones incapable of even describing their own systems. Do you guys have some secret pact or charter that forbids you disclosing that sort of thing or is it amazing coincidence that this retail triumverant are rendered mute at the same point in the conversation? Amazing!

How about it?

May, Geoff, even the gadfly Clark (Hell, Clark just mentioned getting his system ready for adding a set of bowls, so at least he implied that he uses actual kit, but on the other hand, he's maybe the only "reviewer" who refuses to list a reference system and has confessed his inability to encounter any tweak and report anything other positive sonic benefits. Never a one that did nothing or was not euphonic. Yeah, he's discriminating) tell us about your current gear and what tweaks are present.

A challenge!

Step up, kids!

Quote:
Please bear in mind that such a lot of the coverage regarding Peter's discoveries and techniques was published in Hi Fi magazines during the 1980s and early 1990s and are not therefore available to read, as such, on the Internet. I do have printed copies in the actual magazines. What is the (legal) situation ? Am I allowed to scan the/those Back article/s and allow the whole article to be viewed by a link ?

With the current publisher's permission, yes.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
Do you guys have some secret pact or charter that forbids you disclosing that sort of thing or is it amazing coincidence that this retail triumverant are rendered mute at the same point in the conversation?

Amazing!

How about it?

May, Geoff, even the gadfly Clark (Hell, Clark just mentioned getting his system ready for adding a set of bowls, so at least he implied that he uses actual kit, but on the other hand, he's maybe the only "reviewer" who refuses to list a reference system and has confessed his inability to encounter any tweak and report anything other positive sonic benefits. Never a one that did nothing or was not euphonic. Yeah, he's discriminating) tell us about your current gear and what tweaks are present.

A challenge!

Sorry, Charlie, too many secrets and I prefer to keep them that way. Loose lips sink ships. Speaking only for myself.

Tootles!

Quote:
...even the gadfly Clark (Hell, Clark just mentioned getting his system ready for adding a set of bowls, so at least he implied that he uses actual kit, but on the other hand, he's maybe the only "reviewer" who refuses to list a reference system and has confessed his inability to encounter any tweak and report anything other positive sonic benefits. Never a one that did nothing or was not euphonic. Yeah, he's discriminating) tell us about your current gear and what tweaks are present.

So much error, so little time.

A) Not getting my system "ready for adding a set of bowls". Just getting it ready.

B) "He's maybe the only 'reviewer' who..." Not a reviewer. There's a piece of mine in Positive Feedback called, "Why I do not review audio equipment". I leave that effort to my betters.

C) "...who refuses to list a reference system." Don't refuse. Simply never done it. Not a reviewer! So make me.

D)

More "can't and won't" from Clark.

In Clark's case, he knows the old addage is true...to be intelligible is to be found out.

Now, all we need is May to find a way to refuse to list her gear and the trio of refusniks will be complete.

I don't think they actually have any gear, they are just audio griefers.

"Top secret" bullshit, Clark.

Quote:
More "can't and won't" from Clark.

In Clark's case, he knows the old addage is true...to be intelligible is to be found out.

Now, all we need is May to find a way to refuse to list her gear and the trio of refusniks will be complete.

I don't think they actually have any gear, they are just audio griefers.

"Top secret" bullshit, Clark.

Do you hear yourself? If anyone here is a griefer it's you.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

Quote:
I know Jan, ok.

I just tried a few of the tweaks from May & Peter's page.

1) Paper under one foot of a piece of equipment - no change
2) Pinning down a corner of a curtain - no curtains, so can't try it out
3) Blue paper under plant - no change
4) Reef knot on a set of adjacent interconnects - I can't be sure, but it seems I heard a change. Sounds like a slightly better perspective. I learned that I needed to remove my bass port plugs during this listening session.
5) Freezing a CD - not tried out yet, but I will
6) Wooden pieces of dowelling - I don't understand the tweak
7) Screw slot aligning - not possible to achieve

What to say? First, congratulations on trying something new. Second, wow! that was fast to try all of those. No! you only tried three out of seven so far. OK, you tried. Don't stop now, I'm sure May would be happy to provide instructions on those things you do not understand. Send her a PM.

Otherwise, don't immediately dismiss something that had no benefit for you the first time out. These are easy and free. Return to them on occasion as you progress through your thought process. If you don't have a thought process started, begin one now. An item such as the paper might require more transparency or might not be what you need at all. But why do you suppose it might be effective? Reading and thinking then trying something else are good ways to get your mind moving.

geoff, I looked several times but where I was going to land always seemed to be the same conclusion.

Quote:
E)

Quote:
Am I allowed to scan the/those Back article/s and allow the whole article to be viewed by a link ?

Would it be easier to do this in a PM to Freako?

Quote:

Quote:
More "can't and won't" from Clark.

In Clark's case, he knows the old addage is true...to be intelligible is to be found out.

Now, all we need is May to find a way to refuse to list her gear and the trio of refusniks will be complete.

I don't think they actually have any gear, they are just audio griefers.

"Top secret" bullshit, Clark.

Do you hear yourself? If anyone here is a griefer it's you.

Good grief, Charlie Brown!

Geoff, ya wanna know my listening conditions, gear I use, etc...? (Not that you'd care, it doesn't contain a Clever Clock or any aquarium rocks.)

Not a problem, it ain't top secret. hell, ask any audiphile here and you'd happily be given an answer and allowed to compare notes.

Not with you three. Again, quite an amazing coicidence.

Anywa, Clark....

Clark argues like a 6 year old, and I'm being forgiving.

Watch him, he lives only in tweak land, can't discuss any tweak he didn't think benefitted the sound of his mythical system, says he is not a reviewer but is certainly not up to buying the ART System and trying it - he "arranges an audition."

Think the thought of paying up front ever crossed Clark's mind? I'll give you long odds on that one!

If ya get it free and earn money to write about it, you are a reviewer. Mincing words like he's some audio dilletante makes him seem like a whore if he isn't a reviewer. Think JA would allow him to flaunt such a self-serving personal style? Hell, Audio Asylum had to make him list his dealer status before he got run off.

We have Clark, the un-reviewer, soliciting free samples and getting paid to write about a product, all while he refuses to disclose his reference gear.

Yeah, that's credible.

Page one of the Audio Charlatans' Guide must say....never let anyone know you don't actually own a Hi Fi.

Quote:
Geoff, ya wanna know my listening conditions, gear I use, etc...? (Not that you'd care, it doesn't contain a Clever Clock or any aquarium rocks.)

Not a problem, it ain't top secret. hell, ask any audiphile here and you'd happily be given an answer and allowed to compare notes.

Good grief, you must not have gotten the memo: whatever the system consists of is by no means a reliable indication of sound quality. I guess the memo only went out to industry insiders.

Besides, don't you find that it's surprisingly easy to figure out where a person's at, uh, sound wise, by what they say?

Quote:

Good grief, you must not have gotten the memo: whatever the system consists of is by no means a reliable indication of sound quality. I guess the memo only went out to industry insiders.

Besides, don't you find that it's surprisingly easy to figure out where a person's at, uh, sound wise, by what they say?

Yeah, wouldn't want to cloud the tweak worship with describing rooms or gear.

You bother with music or just sit and contemplate the tweak?

Quote:
Yeah, wouldn't want to cloud the tweak worship with describing rooms or gear.

Uh, you've got that backwards, understandably.