| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
You stated it clearly and this is easy to understand.
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.
Got it. Perfectly reasonable terminology.
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.
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.
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" !!
No, Buddha, I don't wear a hearing aid.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
.
As John A said. He was thinking about the subject and wondering - and wondered if the ART devices could be having an effect on the microwave radiation and in that way, altering the sound in the room. I have just added some ideas to that proposition.
I see you are now asking Geoff Kait what he thinks about what effect the ART devices are having.
I don't know any absolute answer. Nobody knows, that is why there is a controversy. I have put MY twopennysworth in, John A has put HIS twopennysworth in, why don't YOU put your twopennysworth in ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
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.
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)..."
This is why I am asking. I think this discussion has been pretty productive, unlike past attempts.
I did. Assuming that the Acoustic ART products are doing anything:
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.
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.
No problem. Thanks for acting as facilitator.
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.
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.
Surely this exercise (discussion) is about going through a 'thinking' process, trying to figure out why so many people can 'hear' such as the ART devices (and other similar devices) improve the sound ?
Surely you have to look at the whole scenario ? What you have is the whole listening environment, the human being in that environment doing the listening, everything in that modern environment including not only microwave radiation but RF, electromagnetism, the AC power, chemicals galore, plastics, etc. Etc is a problem for us (human beings) and within that environment we (human beings) are trying to concentrate on enjoying the intricacies of musical information. The microwave radiation is just THERE, present, along with everything else, and could be causing a problem !!!!! It does not have to be 'beaming into our brains' to be having an adverse effect, it can just 'be there' in the environment, just one of the multitude of adverse things in the modern environment we (human beings) are trying to cope with !!!!
But the very 'coping with' extracts a price !!
If the sound is suddenly improved i.e :-
>>> "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." <<<
Then 'something' has come along (been introduced) which has lessened that problem. We react less !! But that 'thing' may NOT be altering the acoustics of the room, we might not be able to measure any changes in the areas we choose to 'measure', but the fact still remains that 'improvements' were HEARD !!!!
There are two ways of looking at the descriptions of the improvements. Either something has been ADDED to what already exists or some existing adverse effect has been REDUCED !!
The words and sentences to describe the improvements could be EXACTLY the same words from either event.
You keep saying 'you understand what I am suggesting' Elk, but you then asked Geoff :-
Which one would NOT ask if one understood !!
The whole CRUX is that it is the LISTENER involved in the whole process. No listener - no problem - no change to the sound !!
Let me try to do it again, ever so simply !!!!
If I see a spider in the room, I freeze dead in my tracks. It does not matter whether the spider is on the wall next to me or on a wall 20 feet away, my reaction is the same !! The sight of the spider causes me to go under tension, this tension will create stress chemicals in my brain and if I am listening to the music of Dvorak's New World, I will not now like the music, I will describe it as harsh, aggressive and shouty. The spider, in the room, is not having any effect on the audio signal, is not having any effect on the acoustic air pressure waves, but is affecting ME - without touching me !! But the end result is that the sound is WORSE.
Take ME out of the room and there would be no problem regarding the sound continuing in the room exactly as it had been !! The sound would be neither better or worse, even with the spider still in the room !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now we can look at the subject of different people reacting to different things. Another person, listening to the music with me, might not be fazed out at all by the spider, so the sound may not be worse for them. But, alternatively, they COULD be fazed by the sight of a snake in the room. If not fazed by a spider and not fazed by a snake, they might go faint at the sight of blood - and the sound could then be worse, for them - but not necessarily for me, because I don't go faint at the sight of blood !! NONE of those things mentioned would be having any effect on the audio signal nor on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !! Take everyone out of the room and the sound would be exactly the same as it had always been.
Stumble on a device (or make a device) which sprays the spider, or which captures the snake, the tense situation is reduced or eliminated, the people in the room can relax, the sound of Dvorak's New World is no longer harsh, aggressive and shouty. In other words, the sound is now being described as "better" !!! AS :-
>>> "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." <<<
The spider in the room was PHYSICAL, my reaction to it was PHYSICAL because there had been produced PHYSICAL stress chemical reactions in my brain, therefore these stress chemicals had been having a PHYSICAL effect on the sound information of Dvorak's New World being conveyed to the working memory !!
Such a device does not have to be large. You don't need a sledge hammer to kill a spider, the smallest spray will do !!!
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. ?
Now, imagine the modern environment being full of (say hypothetically) 500 different things which can cause this tension (stress chemicals). Of all the different 'tweaks' which have puzzled people as to why they could be working, could each one be acting as a 'counter' to one problem or another (or many) ? Could one be acting as a 'counter' to the equivalent of a spider (where a person sensitive to that particular thing can then be more relaxed - but another person not sensitive to that thing will not appear to gain any benefit from that particular 'tweak') BUT a different 'tweak' could be a 'counter' to something which a different person IS sensitive to) ?
Are the ART devices (and other such devices) somehow providing a 'counter effect', reducing the adverse effect, therefore reducing the tension created, therefore the sound is now described as 'better' ? Exactly as people have been describing !!
>>> "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." <<<
I think that is what such as the ART devices, similar devices, the Schumann resonance device, the Harmonix Discs, the Mpingo Dots, the Nordost ECO 3 chemical, Our devices etc are all doing, providing a 'counter' to many of the adverse conditions in the modern environment. As with a device for a spider - you don't need anything large to create an effect, you don't need a sledge hammer to provide a 'counter' to many adverse conditions. That is why some things can be the size of a dime (to use Ethan's description) and STILL be very effective !!!!!!!.
Buddha is wont to suggest that all such explanations are an elaborate "sales technique" on our behalf.
We are intelligent people. We could quite easily have thought of a better sales pitch than one like that which would give us so much grief !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think we were merely earlier than many others in having some realisation as to what must be 'going on'.
Your quote Elk :-
THAT is what so many people said about different wires sound different (and I might add many are STILL doing so) !! And look how long THAT has been a controversy.
You have to try SOMETHING for yourself, see what you experience, and then begin to find your own explanations. You might still end up with "I am exceedingly skeptical that the Acoustic ART products do anything other than to create expectation bias and a self-created emotional response." Or you might NOT. If that happens, then YOU might have the problem of finding some sort of explanation - in which case, join the club !!!!
Excellent sentiments but does that take the world any further forward. Surely people have to ADD something to the process take things forward ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
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.)
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!
Looks like the final exam will have to be graded on a curve.
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?"
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.
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
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?
Are you sure you read what I wrote or is this a 'knee jerk reaction' ?
There is person to person variation to WHAT people react to and there is person to person variation on HOW people react. With ANYTHING in life, including music !!!!! Where have I ever acknowledged otherwise ??
Again, did you not read what I wrote ? Where on earth did I say that adding a ringing frequency is the equivalent of adding "information ?"
What I DID say was that, in my opinion, you can only get the wealth of information described below :-
>>> "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." <<<
From being provided with more information (or being able to resolve the existing information better) - which amounts to the SAME way of describing it - which is what I said !!! THAT wealth of additional information described doesn't come from 'bias', 'auto-suggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'audio faith healing', 'effective marketing'. If it DID, there would be no reason for anyone to buy new equipment - all they would need to do is to "imagine" it and, hey presto, it would be there !!!!!!!!!!
THAT wealth of information doesn't come from "a ringing frequency" !!!!
If you are REALLY NOT understanding, Buddha, then let me give you another example.
If there is information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO presented into the room by the loudspeakers and you listen on the Sunday. At that time, you do not realise that all you are resolving correctly, on the Sunday, is information ABC + DEF + GHI. You do not realise it because that is all you have experienced. On the Monday someone comes and installs some room acoustic panels and you listen again. This time you describe the improvement in the sound as :-
>>> "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." <<<
THIS means that you are now able to hear the additional JKL + MNO - which has really been there, in the room, all the time, but because of the peaks and nulls of the room, you had not been resolving information JKL + MNO correctly !!! So, it is additional to what you were able to hear on the Sunday. It is not additional to what had been there, in the room, all the time, but it is additional to what you had heard on the Sunday !!
I repeat. You can only get that wealth of information
>>> "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." <<<
from being able to resolve more information. You cannot get it from "suggestion" !!!
Why would you say that ???? Is this a sensible discussion or not ????? .
Please explain why you would want to do make such a remark !!!!!
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 ????
Regards.
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
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?
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
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
I think you better re-read by post, again. I didn't accuse you of shilling.
Look before you leap.
Cheers
I will have a look for that article and, if I can find it, I will try to have it made accessible on the Internet. 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 ?
Regarding the ruling on manufacturers advertising their own products. I always follow the rule set by Audio Asylum. They state that a manufacturer may take part in general discussions, may answer questions regarding their own products or correct any errors regarding them but are not allowed to use that site for any advertising.
I AM wary of people, who might mention our techniques and devices, being suspected of being in some way commercially associated with us. If they mention, then they mention of their own accord !! The impetus has not come from us/me !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
With the current publisher's permission, yes.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
Sorry, Charlie, too many secrets and I prefer to keep them that way. Loose lips sink ships. Speaking only for myself.
Tootles!
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)
John, I don't think Hi Fi Answers, Audiophile, or Hi Fi Review are in existence any more. Then what ? One of the disadvantages of growing old ????? Magazines go out of print !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
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!
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.
Would it be easier to do this in a PM to Freako?
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.
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?
Uh, you've got that backwards, understandably.
Pages