| 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
Ew. I really didn't need that mental image.
Ew, ew, ew!
But, seriously, it's yet another "let's try to shift the burden" cheat.
I'm not the one claiming that scattered light from the CD laser affects the sound, he is. Until he actually shows it in a testable, falsifiable, measureable fashion, there's "there" there.
Fer shur.
Some other mobos had the same caps. Dunno the monitor fiasco, but it fails to stretch my imagination at all.
Another humorous capacitor story is somebody who picked a capacitor with a small ripple current rating, and put it in a power supply. I won't name names, (it's not an audiophile manufacturer in any case), but the boxes got named "kaboom boxes". I leave it as an exercise for the reader why that was.
Hmmmmmm. That is interesting since tube components have very very low distortion, .1% or less, in preamplifiers, and .2% in amplifiers, even at 90+ db spl. So where is all this distortion JJ?
Geof
JJ
That is quite a claim. Actually I have yet to see any "scientific" types on any forum who have ever proven to anyone, including the public, that measurements tell us everything about the sound. Since you made the claim maybe you can be the first to prove such.
Cheers.
LOL. Will do Buddha.
May, please dont take this as an insult, which it isn't, but I fel this is beginning to sound like Feng-Shui to me. Which I don't buy either as a matter of fact.
Only very, very expensive dedicated listening rooms can be claimed free of unwanted materials, and maybe not even 100%. What you are suggesting is, that not many of us should be able to enjoy music to the degree we do in our listening rooms.
Controversial tweaks and ideas are and will always be - controversial.
What are you going on about, now? You don't even know what an experiment is. Some scientist you are. We don't need two Mr. Dithers here, we've already got our hands full with bubbha.
That's a pretty standard Randi strawman argument - pick something like Feng Shui or flying saucers or ghosts and say that's a good comparison.
I don't know who Randi is, and he's not my strawman. I just feel there's a little too much hocus-pocus about some of the Belt thinking. I hope it's all right for me to express my feelings, Geoff?
There is nothing in what May has stated that suggests such an idea, Freako. If you feel there is, it would be to your advantage to point out exactly where she has made such a claim. B/Beck can't do it and I know you can't either because you aren't faithfully reading what May has posted. You are putting a spin on it that says you know what works and you know what doesn't. We've just proven that isn't always the case and that what you know is often in contradiction to what you say you believe. Therefore, you are reading into May's posts something that suits your opinion; or to put it more bluntly your prejudices, biases, and partisan strongholds regarding what you think you might know. Your perceptions of what you know and what (not to mention how) you think are being challenged and what May has said is you, like many others, are resisting any new process which conflicts with your rather firmly entrenched opinions. In doing so you are ignoring the actual words May uses.
What May has proposed is nothing more than common audio knowledge. What she has claimed is simply you don't realize what is obscuring your enjoyment until the obstruction is removed and the veil dropped or the window wiped clean. That really has been the process of improvement in most modern day audio components vs what was in favor when your tonearm was new. There are not many "J" shaped arms with detachable headshells on the market today. Why? because there are compromises to the sound quality in most "J" shaped arms with detachable headshells. Take those compromises away, say, with a one piece tapered arm like the Rega RB300 and it suddenly becomes clear what was being obscured by the "J" shape and the detachable headshell. What May is suggesting is not radical nor is it hokus-pokus. What she is suggesting is not that you shouldn't or cannot be enjoying your music. You are enjoying your music despite the "J" shaped arm with detachable headshell and neither May not I have said you aren't allowed to do so. She is doing nothing more than suggesting you could be enjoying your music to a greater extent by paying attention to certain advancements in understanding. This has nothing to do with how well your system would stack up against another system of higher cost. As Rega has proven and as May does suggest there are improvements to be had at moderate to sometimes no cost which have the ability to take a product such as a lowly Yamaha A400 amplifier to the point where it competes and tops a far more costly, highly regarded and exactingly built DNM product. It's not about the cost and it's not about hokumpokum. It is about dropping those veils which still exist at any price range. I can think of no one in this hobby, owning any system at any cost, who would think there can never be anything better than what they already have.
There's no problem with expressing your opinions. Just make certain you are consistent in those opinions and that you are responding to what is actually being said.
On the contrary, please feel free to express your views. Of course, I should point out that you're not the first person to think there's too much hocus pocus going on. This goes waaay back. Geez, even Stereophile magazine, going back 20 years, has been outspoken regarding Belt products and ideas. And every audio forum in cyberspace...every well-meaning naysayer worth his salt, not to mention ones who aren't so well-meaning.
If it didn't seem so outlandish it wouldn't be so gosh darn controversial.
PS Randi is The Amazing Randi, former Las Vegas magican who runs an Educational Foundation the charter of which is to "investigate" and "expose" charlatans and hoaxsters who claim some special paranormal ability. You know, like Uri Geller, the spoon-bender of yore. For some bizzare reason he turned his attention to audiophile tweaks a number of years ago. There's even a Randi discussion forum. All sorts of topics come up, including controversial tweaks.
Better check with j_j or someone who lives in Vegas to make sure I said that correctly.
Stick with me, you'll come through this thing OK.
Jan.
I have just completed a long reply to Keld (on my computer) and I find that you have taken many of my words straight out of my mouth before I was able to publish !!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I get the feeling Freako believes you are here to convert him to something he doesn't understand and therefore resists. Is that what you're doing, May? Are you a covert evangelist?
Well, first, you're semantically confusing the lay meaning of "measurement" with the scientific version of "measurement", and then using that for rhetorical fallacy-building.
What part of "a proper DBT is a measurement of the listener's responses" did you miss?
You use the confusion between the lay version of "measurement", which usually means "one number off a meter", well, no, nobody claims that means much of anything and the meaning in the science, which does not mean "one number off a meter" to confuse the issue here.
When you realize that a proper DBT (or cognate) is, in fact, a MEASUREMENT of listener response, then you know how to measure an audio system.
Of course, such measurements are limited in their scope and applicability, something that everyone here needs to recall.
Geoff's arguement, which you have now moved outside the context of, in order to misrepresent what I've said, is rather different.
Why ask me?
Perhaps you could ask Ethan about that.
He doesn't live in Lost Wages, either.
Until you show some testable, verifiable, FALSIFIABLE results, and you actually define what your "null bits" are, I'm afraid your entire assertion about "stray light" has to be sent down the garbage disposal.
As usual, you're the one making claims, and you're the one who is illicitly demanding that somebody else disprove the negative. It's a simple, obvious rhetorical cheat, and one that you are most certainly aware is a cheat.
Now, who is trying to use a single value off a meter to represent the performance of something, Steve? Not me.
A general statement you can evade from. And an evasion of my question, where is all this huge tube preamplifier and amplifier distortion JJ? So where is it?
You get caught yet again "playing the numbers" to discredit manufacturers like you have in the past? I think you owe the public an apology.
Cheers.
First, I see you conveniently dodged or could not reply concerning your lack of basic electronics, lack of personal testing/measurements, and your false claim which manipulates/deceives the public. Why degrade an entire industry, for what reason? And no evidence to back you up.
1) First, basic electronics would have provided you the low distortion information and evidence I provided. And you have an EE degree. There are numerous books including 1st year University texts, classroom texts.
2) Lack of personal testing/measurements, since you would have such information if you had actually tested tube components. Beyond that simply using the plate curves would have also provided such information, and beyond even that, reading authoritative books would have accomplished such. (i.e. College classroom, 1st year University text books, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, 1960, written by 26 engineers, RCA Tube Manuals just to name a few.)
3) Based on the previous points leaves the conclusion that you defamed an entire industry, attempted to manipulate public opinion concerning tube Audio through deception with your comments. (See my previous post for my requests he avoided.)
Do you wish to respond in a responsible manner this time and actually provide evidence to back your claim, or personally attack me, ......... or apologize to the public?
What you did address about me is quite a personal and fabricated view.
We always hear a few "scientists"/marketers giving "general prepared responses" with catch phrases like "proper DBT test". I have yet to hear any detailed explanation to the public of how to perform a "proper subjective audio DBT test". Why don't you be the first to explain in detail, and also post a subjective audio DBT test that you approve of for all to read and examine?
Cheers.
>>>>>>>Yep, I am the one making the claims. And you're the one, for some peculiar reason, who reacts like a lassoed billy goat. I guess you must not like claims too much. Unless they're your claims, of course.
Like I said, I do my best. You try to communicate on this level in a foreign lingo. Good luck
No, Jan, but you would think from the way some people react that they must think I am trying to lead people into some weird cult !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Freako, from that post I'd say there's nothing more to discuss regarding anything outside your ability to already know it. You've convinced yourself.
I don't believe that. I do not however understand that a person would do so much work for their findings, and still have nothing to speak for it, except a few who believe they can hear a difference. I can't say they don't hear a difference but I can't which is why I say there's a bit too much hocus-pocus, and it's beginning to sound like Feng-Shui to me.
It's like converting a non-ghost believer into a ghost believer. I am not a proof demanding psycho, but the whole deal with those controversial tweaks is too weird for me. Especially since I am feeling totally comfy in my environment.
I am not saying there ain't (controversial) tweaks that might work for me. It's just that I tried the reef knots, the foil and the cream, and they didn't convince me. On the other hand, the tweaks that I have added worked very fine for me, so I guess I stick to what makes sense to me.
I mostly deal with vibration, damping and isolation, which have brought me a long way. Who knows, perhaps one day...
Well, May, thinking about the unconventional doesn't appear to interest most folks around here. They know what they know and nothing's going to change what they think they know. If you challenge them to think of something new, they get defensive and sometimes they become quite offensive. But enough about them.
You mentioned awhile back we were just beginning to get to the next level. How do we get there and what's there to find?
Hey, me too! For many years my company's sub-title was Vibration Isolation and Resonance Control. Almost all of my more than 11 products are "resonators" in one form or another. If you count atomic resonators, electromagnetic resonators and morphic resonators.
Once the Clever Clock, artificial atoms thinggie and Teleportation whatsit were on board changing the sub-title to Advanced Audio Concepts seemed like the right thing to do.
Please remember Jan, that we are all at different places. Placing stone slabs under my speakers and adding expensive cables was perhaps unconventional to me?
Once again, I require that you retract the utterly false, deliberately defamatory statement made above.
Did someone say cult? We're not a cult!!
Freako, you're seeing something that isn't there. When I earlier asked if you had interpreted my point, you said you had. Then you say I have not proven anything of the sort. So, I guess I hadn't proven anything to you and you didn't get my point. Otherwise, I can only conclude you have a very short memory.
You seem to me to be, at most, defensive about and, at least, reluctant to even discussing anything outside of what you know, what you assume you know and what you see as logical.
You're entitled to your opinion and from what I see your opinion is you're not interested in the most unconventional ideas about audio. Fine, no one is forcing you to think about the unconventional but I would like to hear more from May. If that's OK with you, that is. You don't have to think about it or join in the dicsussion if it makes you uncomfortable. I only ask that you not become another shouter from the peanut gallery.
I don't really understand how concrete and cables can be considered "controversial" though. Care to explain?
Is that you, geoff, standing behind the column on the left?
You mean the one in the shadows? It's possible.
Indeed, we are not...
I'm not on your back, Freako. You're the one who made the comment that cement and cables were unconventional thinking for you. I simply asked how that could be.
This is a forum, Freako. Look up there, it says so at the top of the page. And the thread topic is "Controversial discussions". Things could get controversial.
In reply to an earlier comment of yours, Keld. :-
Surely your comments below were regarding 'treatments' done in your listening ROOM ?:-
So you were not ONLY discussing 'tweaks' to your turntable as you claim. If all you HAD been discussing were 'tweaks' to your turntable, then I would not have raised the subject of room treatments !!
The point I am trying to make is that it is NOT out of anyone's league !! For DISCUSSION purposes I mean. And then actual cost doesn't come into it. If one is 'into audio' then curiosity should be sufficient, especially if 'improvements in the sound' have been experienced by quite a number of people. People's experiences with those particular devices raises the question HOW ?? And, if the question HOW is raised, then one should be interested in all proposed answers.
You are still emphasising the theme "the listener's mood and psychic well-being". Can't you get away from that theme ??? To get people away from "a listener's MOOD" is why I introduced my 'temperature' story. To try to emphasise times when the person does NOT change until something in the environment changes to make the person change !!!!! You would not describe it as a 'person changing their MOOD' when the external room temperature changes !! It is a PHYSICAL thing which happens in the environment and it is a PHYSICAL reaction the person then makes !!! Nothing to do with a MOOD !!
There is a difference between actually FEELING 'unsafe' in your environment and not realising that you cannot 'sign off your environment as safe' because of what is going on in the modern environment.
I don't say you ARE FEELING 'unsafe', I say it differently because it has to be seen and understood differently.
To say someone FEELS unsafe means that they actually FEEL something distinct - that they FEEL fearful, frightened !! Saying that 'because of what is happening in the modern environment we (human beings) are not able to sign off our environment as safe' is something different. It means that we are not feeling anything one can definitely pinpoint as 'unsafe' (as fearful, frightening as if there was a predator) - more that Nature dictates that if we cannot sign off our environment as 'safe', then we must remain under tension until we can. And, if we can't, then remaining under tension it has to be !!
Sorry, Sir, in my opinion you don't !!!! You only think you have control. Evolution will have the last word !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
One gets occasional glimpses of people on the Stereophile Forum who have been prepared to describe their experiences with the "unconventional" but so many of the threads containing those have usually ended up being closed down without getting much further in the process of understanding. Closed because of reactions of 'aggression', 'abuse', 'ridicule' etc from the ones not interested (or, as you say, challenged !!).
When people like Keld say "I don't buy into it" because they haven't ACTUALLY heard anything is a valid as you (and others) maybe saying "I DO 'buy into it' because I HAVE actually heard my sound improve". What some people's responses DO show, however, is when they resist, even aggressively resist even "thinking about" certain things, when there has been shown to be an increasing awareness that things are not as orderly (and already known) as conventional electronic and acoustic theories have been suggesting !!
As evidenced by such as the quote by Freako (on the ART devices)
And as evidenced by so many earlier (dismissive and aggressive) quotes by EW that they are too numerous to give !!
I had recounted my 'temperature' story in order to FIRST establish an 'idea', a 'concept' as a basis on which to go forward.
The concept that we (human beings) are programmed, by evolution to read/sense/monitor our environment constantly.
That in order to do that monitoring correctly it cannot (logically) ONLY be done every hour, on the hour !! Common sense makes us ask "If that was so, then what about all the time in between, because danger can happen randomly, at any time". So, logically, to be successful for survival purposes, the monitoring must be constant !
In order to register when any changes take place, there has to be previous 'readings', each with their associated memories, so that the latest 'reading' can be compared with previous 'readings' (memories) and judgements made as to what is happening, what has caused the change and what action to take i.e. Flight, fight or freeze OR just remaining under tension (on the alert) not taking any particular action !! When the situation (whatever) is resolved and the danger has gone away, then normal 'readings' (monitoring) continues as before.
However, if nothing is resolved, then surely the state of 'remaining under tension' still applies ? In other words, if there were still changes continuing, above, below, to the left, to the right, in front and behind, then the state of 'remaining under tension' would apply !!
Which brings me back to my normal sentence of "If we cannot 'sign off our environment as safe', then Nature (evolution) dictates that we remain under tension." !!!!!
And, it was that concept of 'not being able to 'sign off our environment as safe' and remaining under tension' which I was trying to establish before moving on to the 'next bit' !!
The 'next bit being, that because of this 'tension', our brain will be creating 'stress chemicals'.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
It's probably time to leave Freako out of the discussion, May. I get the feeling the more he sees any suggestion he is not playing in the league of the unconventional the more he'll resist being a part of any discussion of anything controversial. That's his choice and his right. I know you are not trying to discourage discussion so let's move on.
Sress chemicals? Do we need to know specifically which chemicals? Or, is it enough to say this is what you suppose and move on from there? If what you suggest is true, how do these chemicals and their resultant "stress" affect our perception of other events such as engaging in a musical performance? Then, if we are challenged in our perception of music, are we also challenged in other ways relating to our other senses? I know you claim improved video performance but, what about something more germane such as taste or smell? Smell would appear to me to be an important part of reducing stress should we feel the environment to be unfreindly. If this isn't depleting some amount of energy on our part to deal with these stress chemicals, just what are they doing other than, as you say, putting us "under tension"? What finally ceases production of these chemicals other than, say, tying a reef knot in a cable so we can "sign off"? I know you believe in your suggestions but you also realize a photo in the freezer doesn't seem capable, (as Freako put it) to "other sane people", of changing anything outside the freezer.
Correct I guess. I don't have the language skills, the necessary understanding or adequate beliefs to participate further in the debate.
I will have to take it 'stepping stone by stepping stone', Jan - not because I think you might be 'slow on the uptake' but merely as a means of guidance !! Nor do I wish to 'talk down to you' !!
1) The stress chemicals.
I don't know the specific chemicals only that there must be 'something' causing a problem and a concept like "not being able to sign off our environment as safe" COULD be one cause of a problem (one cause of creating stress chemicals).
I might have to untangle one of your sentences. I.e. >>> "If this isn't depleting some amount of energy on our part to deal with these stress chemicals, just what are they doing other than, as you say, putting us "under tension"? " <<<
FIRST comes the tension (unable to sign off the environment as safe), creating stress chemicals. It is not that we use energy to overcome that tension or those stress chemicals it is that those stress chemicals could actually affect other chemicals which are carrying the (musical) information !!!!!!!!!!!
I don't know which to try to explain first !! Either what I think the stress chemicals are doing or what created the stress chemicals in the first place. I will try:-
1) "What I think the stress chemicals are doing".
OK, so what people often say is "So, stress chemicals might be created in the brain. Surely we have merely learnt to live with them ?" The brief answer would be, "Yes, of course we are living with them - but at a cost !!"
I would now like to go back to a technique I often use - my use of the letters of the alphabet - ABC onwards - to denote information.
Let us say the the musical information Dvorak's New World is on the disc. All that information we can describe using the letters of the alphabet - just like we can in Algebra and work with letters denoting information, providing we all understand what those letters mean !!
That the musical information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO (Dvorak's New World) is handled by the audio system, is presented into the room by the speakers and reaches the ear drum. And is handled perfectly OK by the hearing mechanism up to the junction of the inner and outer hair cells (deep in the inner ear) and the auditory nerve.
So, we have information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO now starting it's journey along the auditory nerve.
Let me make it clear. I am NOT discounting any earlier effect which COULD happen to the audio signal travelling through the audio system or to the acoustic air pressure waves in the room - I am trying to look at other possibilities which can affect the actual 'musical information' we are trying to resolve !!!
So, we are now looking at a situation of audio information ABC through to MNO encoded on the disc. Audio information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO is handled perfectly well by the audio equipment and is presented into the room by the speakers as acoustic information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO. This information reaches the ear drum, travels through the hearing mechanism until it starts it's journey along the auditory nerve.
This information begins to be conveyed along the auditory nerve by electro chemicals (positive and negative ions). The scientists believe some of the chemicals (ions) involved in this process are Calcium, Sodium and Potassium.
If, as the scientists also believe, that information travels across a cell, through the cell membrane to the next cell, across that cell, through the next cell membrane to the next cell by dilution and concentration of those chemicals, then there is a strong possibility that the chemicals carrying the audio information (and their subsequent dilution and concentration) can be affected by other stress chemicals being produced by the brain.
To put some bones now on that concept.
Information ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO 'STARTS' it's journey along the auditory nerve (as electro-chemicals) completely intact but, there is a strong possibility that this dilution and concentration of those chemicals can be so affected (by other stress chemicals in the brain) that the information which eventually reaches the working memory (at the end of the auditory nerve) is somewhat changed - i.e (say) ABC gets through intact, D is intact but E is missing and F gets through ok. GHI is mixed up to become HIG, J is missing but KL get through ok and MNO is mixed up to become ONM.
So, it is the CHANGED (ABC + DF + HIG + KL + ONM) information which the working memory ends up attempting to resolve !!
Yes, the working memory gets enough of the original information to identify the music as Dvorak's New World but as (say) a "harsh, aggressive, tinny, shouty, or "sat on, thin, boring", Dvorak's New World !!
Make changes in the environment which could reduce the production of 'stress chemicals' which in turn therefore will have less of an effect on the chemicals carrying the musical information along the auditory nerve, so more of the information can get through to the working memory intact !!
The result is Dvorak's New World now being described with :-
>>> "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.e Back closer to the original ABC + DEF + GHI + JKL + MNO !!!!!!! Which now fits in with the descriptions given of 'improvements in the sound'.
There is a postscript to all that :-
Professor Richard Darwin Keynes has just died (June 2010).
Richard Keynes, as a physiologist, carried out important research on the movement of ions in living cells.
Among his resulting contributions to biology, one of the most important was the direct demonstration that the electrical nerve impulse is accompanied by a movement of Sodium ions into the nerve and the outward movement of Potassium ions.
At about this time he started the experiments which helped to prove nerves maintain their ionic concentration gradients by a biochemical process known as the sodium pump.
(What I have always called "dilution and concentration of chemicals across cells and through cell membranes") - May.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I'm fine with most of that. Though I don't feel I understand the chain of events which allows "MNO" being changed to "ONM" or even "O*M", that process seems counter intuitive to me. I'm seeing the various ingredients, "ABC" and "GHI" as items we have little or no measurement tools to quantify such as pacing, ambience, nuance, etc. That makes it fairly easy to see "pacing" become diluted down to "p*cing" but less easy to see "ambience" become skewed into "biamence".
That is why I chose to use letters to denote information precisely because it IS difficult to describe how pacing can be more noticeable, or ambience more noticeable, or nuances more noticeable. And, using letters enables me to get ideas (of change) over more quickly than attempting to describe, with words, how the slow 'build up of tension' of the Prisoner's Chorus in Fidelio is so much better after certain 'techniques' have been used !! The actual notes connected with the music are only a tiny fraction of what we experience.
My use of the words of the alphabet are PUNY attempts to describe what I would like to describe.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Continued
2) What I think is causing the tension in the first place to produce the stress chemicals.
Using the concept that we (human beings) are programmed to read/sense/monitor our environment constantly, we would therefore need some stability as a reference point - some (safe, stable) memory against which to judge if and when any changes occur.
During an earlier 'tussle' with Buddha, he challenged me on my use of the word 'pulsating'. It was after he had been describing some experiments he had been conducting at a Hi Fi show where quite a number of people had heard different cables sound different. He was pondering what could be an explanation for this and I had suggested that the different cables, which were carrying a signal, could be (pulsating) differently and that it could be the actual person (human being) who had been reacting to that and not the audio signal being affected !!! Buddha replied "That he had been standing close to those cables and he had not been able to detect any 'pulsating' coming from them" !!!
So, now I don't know which is the best word to use to describe my concept. Taking such as the AC power - present and active constantly now in the environment. As I understand it, the AC is going through it's complete cycle 50 to 60 times per SECOND !! So, what word IS acceptable to people ?? "Fluctuating" ?? "Changing" ?? "Varying" ?? "Moving" ?? "Pulsating" ?? The energy certainly isn't stationary !!
So, if there are things such as the AC power, (plus such things as RF etc) "Varying" in our environment, then there does not seem to be any chance of now obtaining a 'stable' reference (memory) to know that we can 'sign off our environment as safe' !! So, as Nature dictates, we remain under tension until such time as we can. So, remaining under tension means that stress chemicals could be produced by the brain. And, with the modern environment as it is going, I don't think that time will come when we CAN 'sign off our environment as safe'!! All we can do, if we begin to realise what is happening, is try to alleviate problems as we discover them.
That is why much earlier, during the discussions on the effect of the ART devices, I was extremely intrigued when John A introduced the following idea :-
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
We also live in a world were we consume vast amounts of chemicals (most of which have only existed for the shortest amount of time relative to our evolution) in our diet and breathe polluted air into our lungs which then enters our bloodstream and infects every pore of our body. Most of us bathe in and drink water treated with chemicals - some meant to be there but some not. I would guess these must be accounted for also. The task eventually seems overwhelming.
I have always been leary of all the RF that we have had go through our bodies since the inception of radio and TV. I sold devices that could measure the EMF on the ground of power lines and somehow just always felt that it could not be a good thing what we were doing to ourselves.
I am not a scientist, but I do believe that we have created a bad environment and that much of our cancer is a result of it. I also believe that some cancers are genetic and that susceptability can become a generational thing as well.
It may be that science could or does refute some of what I believe, I do think that RF does have a part to play. And now we make it worse with many buildings having repeaters and BDAs installed to offer in-building wireless to customers. When I was in the wireless business we even sold a $1K home in-building BDA kit if you had limited coverage in your home from your wireless provider. I guess some of us just can't get enough RF.
3) How do we counter the adverse effects.
We have to go back to 29 years ago, to when Peter did something, in our environment, which spoilt the sound.
The story is well known so I will be brief. During a break in doing some listening experiments, Peter decided to deal with a stain on a coffee table in our listening room by applyng a chemical to that stain but had no success in removing the stain. He shrugged his shoulders and admitted that, unfortunately, we would have to live with the stain. We returned to carry on with the listening tests but the sound was now awful !!! Peter checked absolutely everything but could not get the good sound back. He knew that the only thing he had done, in the room, during that past half hour was to apply the chemical to the stain on the coffee table. He removed the table from the room and listened again. Back was the good sound !! Peter admitted that we could not continue doing listening tests with the coffee table still in the room, so the coffee table was then banished to the garage, but we remembered that incident because it had been so unusual and we had no explanation as to why the sound was spoilt.
A few months later I was reading an article, it was an article on plants, and in the middle of that article it referred to a plant which, when under stress, produced the chemical (???) which was one of the ingredients of the chemical we had used on the stain on the coffee table. Here, suddenly, was a chemical we had used now being described as one of Nature's "stress chemicals". We suddenly realised that it must have been us (the human beings in the room) who had been reacting to the presence of a 'stress chemical'. Peter then began to ask himself "If a chemical I had used was one of Nature's 'stress chemicals', what other chemicals are similar and could cause us problems ??" He did what all good researchers do, he searched every shelf, every cupboard, every drawer and tried every chemical he could get his hands on, listening to the effect of each one. Some chemicals were not as bad (did not have the same adverse effect on the sound as the one we had originally used) but suddenly he found one which actually 'improved' the sound !!!!!
We then began to realise that Nature must use some chemicals as 'warning of danger' signals and use other chemicals as 'reassuring' signals i.e. "It's OK, the danger has gone away".
We have since discovered that Nature employs many 'ruses', has many 'techniques' to convey 'danger', or 'reasurance'. So, in answer to your question, Jan, "What finally ceases production of these chemicals". I don't think one can actually CEASE production of the 'stress chemicals' but one can use various techniques to 'lessen' them - and even 'slight lessening' can give beneficial results.
I believe that as well as being programmed to read/sense/monitor our environment for signs of danger, that we are also programmed to be looking for signs of 'reassurance'. If you can use some of Nature's 'reassuring techniques', you can 'pick up' those reassurance and lessen our reaction to the problems created in the environment.
The reef knot you mention is just one of the simple things we discovered which can have a beneficial effect. I had better explain 'a beneficial effect'. I mean 'lessening an adverse effect' (which actually gives the same 'good' result}.
I, personally, believe that other people (in audio) have also stumbled on some techniques which 'lessen' some of the adverse effects of the modern environment but with so many of them being engineers, are wont to struggle to push, pull, squeeze, stretch their experiences into explaining them from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!!
It was 29 years ago when Peter and I first discovered that different chemicals, in the room, had an effect on the sound. Just a few months ago someone sent me a copy of an article they thought I might be interested in and I have given below the gist of that article.
Make of it what you will !!!
Now, explaining the "photo in the freezer" effect is going to take even more explaining !!
You are wanting 30 years investigations condensed into a few pages, Jan !!!!!!!!!! Although much of it is already known to the people who have been interested.!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Take your time, May. I'm patient and there doesn't appear to be much to distract us at the moment.
I find the chronological order of memories absolutely fascinating.
Each 'reading' must have attached to it a specific time !!
I visualise the memory as though it was a photograph taken with one of the new cameras which can put the time at which each photo is taken onto the photo when it is printed out !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Jan, I have been re-reading EricArjes review of the ART devices with my attempt of trying to explain information (and changed information) with my 'letters of the alphabet' system in mind and wondering if there is a different way of explaining the concept I want to get over !! I have always said that some people do not take into consideration enough how other people describe the improvements they have gained from using different so called 'tweaks'.
EricArjes' REVIEW: Synergistic Research - Acoustic Art Room Treatment System 23rd June
(Earlier in this Tweaks'n'Tips section.)
An extract :-
EricArjes descriptions mirror so much other peoples descriptions from using other and completely different 'tweaks'. Surely those areas of the improvements in the sound being described cannot be MERELY from such as Feng Shui, Auto-suggestion, The placebo effect, Imagination, Audio faith healing or Effective marketing ?? Or from an 'illusion merely being created' ??
So, how can one effectively describe the music (information) BEFORE applying the ART devices and then HOW that music (information) has improved AFTER applying the ART devices and WHAT can actually have made those changes.?
Going on conventional theories, such devices as the ART devices cannot be 'having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the equipment' so one can only look at 'an effect on the listening room environment or the human being'.
1) Could the musical information in the form of acoustic information ABC through to MNO, on it's way to the ear drum be (somehow) adversely changed within the listening room and then the ART devices correct those changes to give the improvements EricArjes has described (and others have described similarly) ?? OR
2) Could the complete musical information ABC through to MNO not be changed on it's journey to the ear drum but, because of adverse conditions in the listening environment, tension (and associated stress chemicals) have been created within the human being, and therefore the musical information reaching the working memory cannot be resolved correctly ? UNTIL such as the ART devices have been introduced into the room ??? In which case, what then are the ART devices doing which could 'lessen' any adverse effect created within the environment
In (1) a change to the musical information taking place in the listening room poses the question "Therefore can those changes be measured ?" Which has been the main 'theme' (and demands) throughout the many discussions. AND, could account for the many challenges that SMALL (ridiculously small) devices could not possibly be having the effect on the (musical) information (room acoustics) which people have been describing !!
In the event of no conclusive measurements being available, does one decide that 'therefore the ART devices (and others similar) are not actually doing anything' or does one continue to "think" (to look for another explanation) ??? Because SOMETHING is surely happening - evidenced by the descriptions given by many people !!!
In (2) changes to the musical information taking place within the human being cannot be measured nor, necessarily, can any suggested adverse effects taking place within the listening environment be measured.
One comment by Jim Tavegia highlights a major problem in understanding. When referring to RF, then, yes, people can understand that RF can be penetrating the human brain. If RF can penetrate walls, then it can surely penetrate the human brain. The problem occurs when one wants to suggest that there can also be a problem (for human beings) from the mundane AC mains. Conventional theory suggests that electro-magnetism decays with distance, so any suggestion that the AC power energy could be having an effect re the human being is poo pooed by people claiming that X feet away from any AC power cable, the electro-magnetism will have decayed away so will no longer BE a problem !!!! Any suggestion that it COULD be a problem for human beings usually brings in the usual 'wearing a tin hat' mockery from such as Buddha.
During an exchange a few years back with Jim Austin on Audio Asylum, on this very subject, Jim's retort was that "If we, over millions of years of evolution, had never had cause to be afraid of the AC mains, then why would we be afraid of it now ???"
What Jim was not understanding (and this is my major problem and why I struggle to find ways to convey how I understand it) is that I am NOT saying that we (human beings) are AFRAID of the AC mains energy. What I am saying is that the AC mains energy is moving/ fluctuating/changing/varying in the ceiling above us, in the floor beneath us, in the wall to the left of us, in the wall to the right of us, in front of us and behind us - irrespective of the distance away from us !!!!! BUT is UNSEEN - so we are not aware of it happening !!!!! But the very fact that it is 'moving' (yet unseen) means that we are not able to 'sign off our environment as safe' - nothing to do with us 'actually being afraid of it' !!
Going back to the 'spider' example. But this example is a visual example.
It does not make any difference to me whether the spider is running up a wall right next to me OR running up a wall 20 feet away from me, I will 'freeze dead in my tracks'. If I was similarly afraid of snakes, it would make no difference to me if a snake was crawling around on the floor right next to me OR crawling around on the floor 20 feet away from me, I would 'freeze dead in my tracks' !!
In neither case would I 'be able to sign off my environment as safe' !!
Also, another problem with people describing improvements in their sound and considering concept (2) is that engineers would prefer changes in the sound to relate to changes in the audio signal which they are used to, but we have found that it does not follow like that. The changes in the sound I refer to is how the working memory interprets the information it receives - which may not follow what changes in the actual audio signal might be like.
One good example of how some (engineers??) think - which illustrates what I mean, is evidenced by an exchange between EW and others :-
To me, Jan, the WHOLE musical information of Dvorak's New World is just that - the whole musical information until it finally reaches the working memory - to be then resolved by the working memory so that it can present the best 'sound picture' to the brain.
To limit the world of musical information to a narrow "four parameters defining everything" is so unthinkable I am not surprised the exchanges which took place some time ago were SO heated !!!
But, the whole 'tweaks' controversy has been going on for over 30 years, to my knowledge. And with me involved in the middle of it that whole time !!
HOW does one explain the nearly unthinkable to people who, so obviously, don't want to think ???? And, what method would be the best ?? Such as your word "ambience" ? Would it be better to use the word "ambience" as indicating the FULL information available and then jumble the letters around (as if it was an anagram - where all the relevant letters are there but just mixed up) ? In other words, the full information is there, it just has to be resolved correctly.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Pages