| 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 have none, Boooodha! I understand "credibility" is something that is only important when you demand it of others but this isn't the end of this.
To paraphrase Booodha!/Beck's own post to me...
God damn, you are a stupid little worm....just to be clear.
You've been doing this for years, you dope!
You've done it to May, Michigan, SAS, Clark and me, you ignorant slut.
You know it's true and you aren't even smart enough to cover your tracks, you cretin.
Hope that helps.
You didn't respond to this. Since you feel it is not being a troll to post the same demand or the same insult a thousand times over, maybe I'll just post this each time you ignore it until you decide to move on with the topic of the thread.
Just what will a listing of components accomplish in your view? Particularly from someone who might have numerous components which could be configured in absurdly high numbers of ways. Have you heard each component they might own in order to discern what you think of that component? In each system configuration?
Why do you want this so badly that you have been on this binge now for several years and always in threads which deal with untraditional thinking? Why do you only demand this of those members who are on the opposite side of the topic from you? What other reason could there be than it's just another naysayer demand (DBT's, ABX's, measurements, more measurements, specific measurements one individual demands, etc, etc, etc.) that stalls conversation on the real topic of the thread?
You been told "no" repeatedly, why persist? Why can't you accept that answer and move on with a discussion of the topic? Why? And, while we're on "why", why is it every weekend - every weekend! - during such threads you begin to insult every person who disagrees with you? What is it that gets into you or that you get into that makes you do this every time?
How about an honest answer this time? I'm hoping you might be able to squeeeze out a somewhat semi-honest answer if you try. C'mon, Booodha!, let's clear things up here and you don't weasel out of this too. The last vestige of your deflated credibility is on the line.
Let's actually try to discuss audio. Something you're not very good at, Booodha!, you prefer the insult and the accusation.
Prove you have superior abilites which allow you to hear what others cannot.
C'mon, Boooodha!, try to have a real audio discussion just once. No insults and no accusations. Just try it to see how far you cannot get.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Or of your words, ten thousand.
Ah, it's as though a full set of Tchang Resonators was placed in the forum...the noise level is greatly improved!
Geoff, ol' buddy. I'm sorry we fight so much. I do enjoy your sense of humor and one positive that came of having Jan off ignore is that it made me realize I didn't adequately appreciate you.
Cheers, man.
Detente.
I get ear fatigue just reading Jan's pablum.
Heh heh
Booodha!/Beck, you must feel quite proud announcing you've placed me on "ignore". But after being handed your hat by me and being shown to be a liar and a bigot (among other things that begin with "a" and end in "e") isn't your reaction a bit like Jim Cramer no longer wanting to talk to Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilly sadly shouting to Al Franken, "Shut up, just shut up"?
You are a sad little man who gets into things you ought not, B/Beck.
Geoff, did my attempts at engaging B/Beck in actual discussion interrupt your ... uh ... uh, your picture posting? Well, I'm sure now that you two have reached your "detente" you'll be quite happy together.
(Ooooooh, I see another picture coming.)
This is in response to those that indicate that knowledge of a developer's and reviewer's systems are needed to evaluate a tweak.
My thought is that knowledge of the developer's/reviewer's room is important when evaluating a tweak that changes room acoustics. Knowledge of the playback system is less important.
May,
I understand your position that people respond to Belt devices in different ways, and not all Belt devices work on everyone.
Taking this further, are there people that do not need and/or do not benefit from Belt devices at all?
Are there people who do not respond to any Belt devices?
(I'm not talking about people that reject all Belt devices and, in this way, refuse to experience them.)
Thanks!
Have you given any of the Belt devices or suggestions - freezing CD's - a try?
Would a home freezer do it? I have a copy of Mark Knopfler's "Kill to get crimson" which has a wonderful sound quality as it is. Perhaps it could get even better after a freeze?
Of course.
You already know this from a long thread on the Belt devices from over a year ago (in which you kindly compared me to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski).
Unfortunately my trying Belt devices and techniques does not answer the question I asked of May - one of universal application based upon her experiences and research.
Yes, a home deep freezer will do !!
As well as trying the freezing/slow defrost technique with a disc you like, why not try it with a disc you have NOT liked previously ? With a disc you have been disappointed with ever since you first bought it ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I'm sorry but this whole topic and the resulting "tweaks" are for people with WAY too much time on their hands. Honestly I'd rather be out doing something constructive, so pardon my absence from here for the next few "eons" For the rest of you please stay away from doing shrooms with May or you'll start up your own tweak business
No, no, I didn't, you read what you wanted to see into yet another of my posts. I do wish you'd stop telling me you know what I mean better than I do.
LOL!
Pot, meet kettle, kettle, pot.
Dude, it's Hi Fi.
You have too little time to worry about such nonsense, yet you can dedicate so much time to demands for measurements?
At this point, I gotta ask ya's....if JA produced measurements, would you go buy these babies?
From my own point of view, all of Hi Fi exists in the land of too much time on my hands....it's a leisure pursuit.
Leisure pursuit pic...
Here's hoping your spot on the ledge is still available.
I don't have too many of those, but I suppose any CD with George Michael will do. They all sound like the engineer fell asleep on top of the "extreme excess treble" button!
Just popping in to reply to you, then I promise no more from me in this thread. I was referring to May's "tweaks" that you seem to abhor, yet you got defensive? lol If you want to try her 'tweaks" then feel free
I find the whole Belt Tweako discussion laughable that anyone would even consider them 
The reason I keep asking JA and Ted for measurements is that Ted offered "proof" way back last year, produced bogus flawed results then turned tail and ran. JA said he was getting a third party to test the bowls and we wait and wait and wait THEN find out a "special" testing room has to be built first?
I will await the acoustic measurements and will make my decision dependent upon who did them and how they were carried out. If they show no measurable difference YET they claim to have heard a difference but do not do a DBT then it's still mumbo jumbo and dodging the issue and relying upon subjective "I know what I heard". Would I buy them if the prove to do anything? NO. Why place resonating( if they actually do resonate) vibrating objects in your listening room that would only provide unwanted reflections? if you want reflections then just cover your room in bathroom type tile and be done with it 
I won't hold my breath about the acoustic measurements showing any difference to be honest. A difference for the good that is.Any object that is placed at a main acoustic first reflection point would seem to have to effect it to a degree, no matter if it's a magic bowl, acoustic damping,a tea cup, a stuffed teddy bear or a signed picture of Howdy Doody behind a glass panel 
We now return to our regularly scheduled program of May's rebuttal tweaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have fun with THAT
toodles
Unlike Janis, I prefer you stay away forever.
Creative twist of your own previous words. Jan succinctly wrote:
[Elk comments on the contextual difference between himself and TK.] Jan responds:
etc.
But thanks for the apology!
With further thought, my being compared to David Henry Thoreau is apropos in this context given the Belt hypothesis that their tweaks work by calming internal demons.
The Belt devices do nothing for me. Perhaps I already perceive my environment as completely safe. Perhaps they similarly would have done nothing for Mr. Thoreau.
Poor Mr. Kaczynski on the other hand has plenty demons to calm - Belt devices may have wondrous affects on him.
May, any thoughts on these questions?
I think you have answered where you are in this discussion. I.e that you already perceive your environment as 'completely safe', as no problem, nothing to cause you to 'go under tension' !!
My answer to your other questions would have to have been along exactly the same lines I have been answering all along :-
>>> "that the modern environment is a "mess" for human beings living in it. Electronic equipment, transformers, capacitors, resistors, magnets, batteries, AC mains, RF, electro-magnetism, microwave radiation, numerous chemicals etc, etc, should not be there, in our environment !!! They present a problem for us (human beings). Yes, we (human beings) are managing to cope with them being there, in our environment, but coping at what COST ?? At a cost of being constantly under tension ??
But, different human beings react differently to different things." <<<
If you say, like Buddha, that YOU are not reacting to ANYTHING in your environment, then you and I can't discuss "devices", "techniques", other people's solutions (not just ours !!) any further !!
What other technique or techniques (this time NOT a Belt technique) have YOU tried Elk, which was effective for YOU ? If you have found one (or more) which were effective then ask YOURSELF the question "Is the technique I (and others) have found an effective one which can be regarded as "of universal application based on my experiences" ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Some people are immune to certain medication; maybe some people are immune to the environment, regarding safety etc?
Some don't feel unsafe sitting with their backs facing the doorway, some people don't care... some need to be able to view the whole room, some don't. Perhaps there's many degrees of the "feeling safe in an enviroment"? Some people are afraid of open spaces, spiders, small spaces, many people, being alone, heights, darkness etc. Maybe some people are unwillingly feeling "unsafe" and some aren't?
Since the Belt items are not operating at the conscious level, the effect (on the subconscious) is inevitible. Since the "Belt mechanisms" are (primarily) associated with man's evolution, all human brains are affected by the Belt tweaks, whether they realize it or not. And they can't be blocked.
What is not inevitable, is that the subject will hear the difference. Like the Tice Clock, or VPI Brick or Shakti Stone, or greening the edge of a CD, or exotic cables or power cords.
I'm afraid it comes down to the reasons why people sometimes don't hear tweaks, or think they're too subtle -- the same reasons George Tice identified in his letter to Stereophile, circa 1991. And we all know what those reasons are, don't we? cackle, cackle....
Since you insist on going into this ...
Those are some ... uh, ... "powerful" indictments you've found there, Elk. Yep, without a doubt they prove I compared you to TK. And without even a sniff of reference to where that famous "context" can be found. Do you have all of the imagined slights you've found in my posts listed?
Elk, ...
from "Can a listening room be overdamped?"
pg. 1
I know all the variations, Freako, I have been suggesting many of them, repeatedly !!!
What you are stating, Freako, is like saying that some people are immune to variations in a room's temperature !! No one can be immune to variations in a room's temperature !! Evolution will not allow immunity.
The sentence which, in my opinion, is the most correct and which I think is the nearest the truth is your :-
I would say "Not 'PERHAPS' - more Yes, absolutely"
If we then take that sentence "Perhaps there's many degrees of the "feeling safe in an enviroment"?, then your sentence "maybe some people are immune to the environment, regarding safety etc?" takes more of a back seat !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Surely it is the DEGREE of 'feeling safe' more than complete immunity.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Some of us engineer our surroundings to be as safe as humanly possible, aqnd sound as good as possible, and then we don't seem to need these little bits of reassurance.
Well, May's rain of bullshit certainly is inevitable. As inevitable as a sales scam rushing in to fill marketing void.
I for one is not in a position that I dare call those who actually hear an improvement with a Belt tweak a liar, if anything perhaps mistaken, but anything more than that? No.
The same goes for May, as I don't feel she is a hard-hearted saleswoman with $ signs instead of eyes. I would at least wait with explicit claims until I had tried some of their tweaks myself. But each to their own - not a bad word from me. I let May have the benfit of the doubt for now. Call me naive or even stupid, I'm ok.
That's nice. By the way, just curious, do you still wear a pocket protector?
Believe it now, Buddha? "David L" has clearly laid out his agenda against Synergistic Research for you in a neat bundle. Showing he doesn't care a plug about any "measurements", period. He demands accurate measurements, pretending to be sincerely interested in buying the product, but continues to complain after being told the delay is to ensure accurate measurements. Even complains he wasn't told early enough of the details of this one test of Stereophile's, as though his life depends on the measurements of a room treatment system. (More like his livelihood, by every indication).
No one ever stopped him from demoing the Acoustic ART product if he's that interested in it, that he would spend his life on an audio forum whinging about one test for a straight year. Yet when I asked him why he hasn't done that, predictably, he evaded the question. The obvious questions are always the hardest, aren't they?
So now the person we're supposed to believe has no ulterior motives behind his 165+ attacks here against Synergistic, says that when the measurements come, he will post his "unbiased assessment". Not on the data itself, but on "who did them and how they were carried out". Which means he will later tell you the test is "bogus" because he thinks Stereophile rigged it toward's Synergistic's favor. Or the conductor is a "woo woo" engineer, with a bias. Unlike him of course, who is merely a disinterested observer of the acoustic art, and clearly not here shilling on behalf of a competitor in the acoustics industry. 
Furthermore, he states if the ARTs do not show changes via these measurements, but people nevertheless report hearing differences, he tosses all empirical evidence out if it doesn't include DBT. Yet he completely failed to refute peer-reviewed evidence against DBT's posted by sasaudio, and accepted DBT evidence on Sean Olive's tests. Even though they did not adhere to unrefuted scientific evidence against Olive's methodology. So much for "David L"'s lip service to science in audio. I've seen my share of quasi-religious scientific hypocrites who pretend to speak in the regard of science, but pick and choose which part of "science" they wish to believe in. Nothing has stopped the troll from paying $3k to demo the product and conduct any test he wishes on them, has it? But yet he doesn't, in favor of making demands that others do the testing for him.
He questions whether they are even resonators, and then states he has a problem with their basic operation. Writing "Why place resonating ( if they actually do resonate) vibrating objects in your listening room that would only provide unwanted reflections?". That is of course another misrepresentation of the ARTs by David L, as they are not part of any "unwanted" type of reflections. Not any more than a violin creates unwanted resonances. In fact, they are designed to cancel unwanted resonances. His comments equating these highly tuned metal resonators with "bathroom ceramic tile" shows the depth of the man's ignorance. But fine, if one believes that, then why pretend you're interested in measurements of such a device in the first place? The measurements are never really going to tell you whether the reflections are "wanted" or "unwanted".
He also says "Why place resonating vibrating objects in your listening room?". Well, beside the fact that "resonating" and "vibrating" are the same thing, the statement shows he doesn't even understand that all objects in a listening room, including the floor and walls, the chair you're sitting on and your head, resonate. This is clearly not someone who has even a basic understanding of the principles of acoustics. Besides not knowing much of anything about acoustic theory and DBT's, he's also proven here recently that he doesn't understand Electronics 101, ie. how a power cord works, nor the fundamental principle of radio waves. And this is someone we're supposed to believe is qualified to read acoustic measurement data??
Then the ultimate reveal comes after this 7 month long tirade against Synergistic and its measurement test, where he hits us with the clincher: even if the test shows a positive outcome, even if the engineer passes his "woo woo" standard, even if he doesn't blame the positive outcome on Stereophile, David will still reject the acoustic ART system. Not on the basis that he could never afford it even if he was sincerely interested. He's ready to reject any future test data on the basis that "any object that is placed at a main acoustic first reflection point would seem to have to effect it to a degree". So much for his "they are the size of golf balls and nothing that small will have any effect" argument. Or the one about your teacups, as he chops that down as well.
All that proves resolutely that David L's one and only intention here is to use the forum to troll against Synergistic. I rest my case.
I admit to leaning your way about David L's intransigence regarding the bowls.
First, he wanted measurements....fair.
Now, it's conceptual upset even if there were measurements.
He thought I was being defensive when I commented on his "too much time on our hands" stuff, which I hope to convince him is not the case...as I feel the mere fact that audiophiles exist is proof of that concept!
How about we ask David L: If there were measurements and people have made positive comments about the devices, and could identify their presence under blind listening conditions, then would you buy/try them?
Keld, it's not that May or others say they get off on any of her product, it's the....yes, I will say it....the religiosity of the their cult of imaginary "inevitable" magic forces they have 'declared' out of the vapors to define our state of existence and their completely circular illogic.
An invented universal force, with matching tweaks that offer believers a higher plane of enjoyment.
Have you noticed, they can abide no one saying he is already where they wanna go?
Guru bullshit, 101.
If one states he is a perfectly contented audiophile who welcomes them into this diverse world that he already exists in, they start squealing like Jonestown citizens about the disbelieving "skeptics."
beltism is Scientology writ small.
Keld, ask May if there could be any type of evidence or experience that would not fit her definition of the universe.
There is no condition her religion cannot bullshit its way through. None. She's no different than an inverse Amazing Randi.
I'm all in favor of talismans and ceremony if someone likes the result. But the bullshit line lies where the same practioners insist they have uncovered a universal truth vs. a personal truth.
May can play with her imaginary friends all she likes, but when it ventures into the realm of everyone having to accomodate Lars and his mannequin girlfriend, and send money....nope.
Compare anything May claims to what cults preach and see if you can find a difference!
Cheers.
Not angry, being iconoclastic.
Your call, and you are of course free to make it. I just want to try out some of the tweaks before I make a judgement, so May has sent me some electret creme and a strip of rainbow foil. When I receive it, I will test it. But don't expect me to join the band.
Angry, no. Ready to have a nervous breakdown, yes. You have raised the bar for all scolds and pathological anti-tweak jahadists. You go, girl! Hopefully you've got some Zoloft samples handy. Remediate, remediate!
Get well soon,
Woot, glad my word of the week is making its way into posts
I think more should use intransigent and its noun/adverb, fits so well with recent posts for quite a few in those two threads
BTW look back at my comments on blind testing, how would you propose to do a DBT without it being invasive/unusual listening behaviour to the listener while ensuring the wotsits are in the right spot, and what is the right spot if any?
Preference behaviour is tricky to monitor on short trials, and trying to identify installed/removed would be even more difficult for a listener - just my take on it reinforcing the need of an identical duplicate/s and hence why this testing/measuring requires a careful and scientific/engineering approach that takes time IMO.
Cheers
Orb
Or ...
How about we ask B/Beck: If there were measurements and people have made positive comments about the Belt devices, and could identify their presence under blind listening conditions, then would you stop harassing May and stop lying about her posts?
Now that's the answer I would love to hear. Do not establish conditions for others if you are not willing to accept the same yourself, B/Beck. That you cannot hear is no indication others also suffer from your malady.
It's the weekend, B/Beck, what are you getting into?
B/Beck, we've already proven you have no legs to stand on in this regard, you are harrassing May and impuning her reputation. You are telling lies and falsehoods and doing so repeatedly. Now you are cowardly hiding behind an "ignore" function so you don't have to see anyone who cares to challenge you on this. Brave man, B/Beck, brave indeed!
Provide proof of your statements or, as you put it ... "Criticize, but not disclose. Yeah, that's credible."
Credibility? you have none, B/Beck.
Stop being an asshole, B/Beck.
No offense, but regarding the difficulties you apparently perceive with respect to placement and testing of the tiny doo-dads, I suspect you haven't yet seen the diagrams for set up and the apparent ease with which the doo-dads are set up in the right spots that are plastered all over this thread. Even a caveman can do it.
Maybe not intransigence exactly, more like overlooking or ignoring the obvious.
This is a case for SBT.
I'm not intransigent about insistence on DBT.
So then you are happy if they are setup behind a listener only, even if it turns out the result is negative for them perceiving improvement?
My point being that someone and possibly rightly so could argue the case that the correct position is in sight of the listener, however the simplest test would be to just set them up behind the listener and install/remove while they remain sitting but the downside is that this leaves caveat as I mention.
Cheers
Orb
My point is still very relevant to SBT, the placebo/duplicate is the only true complete testing procedure for these wotsits IF the products must be installed within the peripheral vision of the listener (allowing for movement of head but restricting looking behind).
If they must be installed in a visual spot, then any other sbt mechanism becomes invasive in terms of listener behaviour.
Furthermore 3rd party tells/signals (from the wotsit placer) must be removed
Cheers
Orb
Sorry, but I'm just not buying your argument that seeing the doo-dads somehow influences the listener's observations. In the first place, aren't we, as experienced listeners, above that sort of thing? You don't really think experienced listeners really jump to conclusions as quickly as you would have us believe. do you? We ARE talking about an experienced listener, aren't we, and not some homeless guy dragged in off the street? Second, for those listeners who could see them on the wall, wouldn't their reaction be that those tiny doo-dads couldn't possibly do anything, anyway? If they were floored by what they heard, wouldn't experienced listeners repeat the experiment to verify the results? Obviously, most of the preferred locations for the doo-dads will be in plain view of the listener.
How, on earth, can you possibly "engineer" your surroundings to eliminate ALL man made plastics (to name but one possible adverse area) ????????
How, on earth, can you possibly "engineer" your surroundings to eliminate ALL of the following ? :-
"Electronic equipment, transformers, capacitors, resistors, magnets, batteries, AC mains, RF, electro-magnetism, microwave radiation, numerous chemicals etc, etc,"
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I am mostly a subjectivist myself, but I do recognise that bias is one of those subjects that affects us in nearly everything we do in our daily lives, it is a way to shortcut the weighing up/modelling of many variables in our decision processing.
At times this is very handy but others it skews results, and this has been recorded in many studies.
Yes I agree it is very possible to overcome bias with debiasing techniques if you know what and how the bias is affecting you.
However, I also have experienced and read studies where perception related biases are pretty darn tough to overcome.
One simple example is imaging in my own experience; if one speaker is close to a wall the imaging moves subtly between having my eyes open or closed.
I know this is a phantom image, and yet I can hear the imaging subtly move in this test.
Other example is that by adding a noticable change, a cognition change occurs for the listener where we also expect a change in the music due to cause/effect.
One example is for normal resolution 16/44 CD music and Mac/iTunes, many of those using Amarra swear blind that this is improving even these better than iTunes when in reality its performance benefit is high resolution and on normal resolution both are bit perfect.
The comment about iTunes and Amarra both being identical for 16/44 was from Daniel Weiss as part of a review.
So this again suggests that a change has influenced listeners perception that the sound also changed for the 16/44 tracks when both are identical.
In reality its purpose is more for high resolution samples.
And an even simpler example is the study done by Sean Olive where also as part of their speaker study in to sighted/blind included two different speaker positions.
The result is that speaker position 1 and 2 changed noticably between sighted and blind and highlights an easy to spot anomaly.
Indicating as he says:
And you may also remember recently where I mentioned mOFC and how this changes on our expectation related to a product, this would also be applicable to testing wotsits and a nightmare for a listener to account for unless they were expecting a false duplicate within the testing or the wotsits can be added without the listener knowing they are there (that now sounds impossible as your pointing out they will be in line of sight).
Ideally this should also be monitored (and can be done as shown in the study) with a baseline reading without anything added and then when its the real product and also the placebo.
I could go on but there are many reasons why it MUST be done in a way to remove any caveat as I already outlined.
Going by what your defending, you very well could have a situation where no measurement changes occur (even if using WLAN scopes including power transmit signal strength over frequency and WLAN channels) but the listener remarks on an improvement.
This will cause the continual cycle that one side argues this proves the product works while others point to the case of psychoacoustics and cognition effect skewing.
Hence why the simplest approach due to you mentioning the product will be in the listeners view requiring placebo/duplicates as this then removes those arguments.
Thats my take on it, but I appreciate we all come from different views on what we want in such a test.
Thanks
Orb
For a DBT (let's say a very careful one, performed by an expert) when the result is No Difference, what does that really mean, if anything? I'm referring to tests of audio cables, amps, speakers, power cords, tweaks, etc.
By buying belt Tweaks, of course!
J-J said he did, and doesn't need certain listener directed tweaks.
Call the Sheldrake police!
Pages