| 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
Please allow me to pop by for a few remarks. I like to think, I even enjoy it, and also enjoy learning new stuff every day. My problem is not that you were kind enough to send me free samples of the electret cream and foil, but that I couldn't - no matter what I did - make it work for me.
What to do in that situation? Suppose there's something wrong with me? With my equipment? Or think that these things just does not work with my equipment?
The tweaks that are controversial are all welcome in my world picture, but in order to be accepted, they must work. Since they didn't work on me, I cannot accept them. This has nothing to do with your person, only with what you promote. I have lots of respect for the way you handle the opposition, including myself.
If I can be so bold, here are some suggestions from an old PWB hand. You are not the first person to not get results the first time around, so these suggestions are meant to help for the second time around.
Assuming you have a few foils and some cream remaining:
1. Attach one foil to the telephone - out of the way so it won't be rubbed off accidentally when speaking on the phone. Even if telephone is in another room.
2. Attach one foil to the TV over the brand name, e.g. SONY, Panasonic, etc. Even if TV is in another room.
3. Same as above for the computer. Even if computer is in another room.
4. Rub very small coin size dab of cream on one corner of the TV screen. IMPORTANT - It is not necessary to apply cream to the entire surface of an object.
5. Apply a very small amount of cream to the jacket of each power cord, each speaker cable and each IC. Encircle a small length (about 2 cm) of each cord or cable with very thin layer of cream.
6. Use very small amount of the cream on all wood objects in the room - bookshelves, chest of drawers, etc. Only a very small coin sized smear of cream is necessary per each drawer or shelf. The cream layer need only be a molecule thick so use *sparingly*.
7. If you have any cream left apply a little bit to all electrical cords for any lamps and appliances like air purifiers in the room.
Complete these steps 1-7 before listening to the system again. Or until cream and foil are exhausted, whichever comes first.
Cheerio,
Thanks Geoff, I will try that.
I have done exactly what Geoff suggested. Afterwards I spinned a few of the cd's I know the best, and like the best.
It's not like the music sounded different in itself. It's not like the flaws of my equipment disappeared. Nothing of that sort happened. The very hard thing to explain is, that something was different altogether. My best explanation would be, that there was a very subtle increase of "calmness in the athmosphere" of my listening room. Subtle but noticeable. Almost as if the background "noise" was lowered. A sort of quietness maybe.
It may sound crazy, but that's what I feel right now.
Keld. My problem never has been with people who say they cannot hear our 'treatments' from the samples we send them.
I constantly struggle to try to get people to think 'around' a subject - to look at it from a different angle. Many of us are not trying to explain ONLY the 'usual', things which are 'already understood', we are struggling to try to understand things which are controversial. And, to make an obvious statement, "They would not be controversial if they were understood". So, Keld, so many of the things on the list I gave you earlier are as strange as our (PWB) devices and techniques but I am prepared to try to understand those as well as explain our own. If those are claimed to give improvements in the sound, then one has to try to understand WHY, HOW. And, when you look again at some of those on the list, my concepts can begin to cast a different way of looking and understanding them.
If, as I say, different chemicals can have an effect on the sound, then one looks again at such as Deiter Ennemoser's C 37 lacquer, at the lacquer which Sonus Faber apply to their speaker cabinets which they say 'is friendly to sound', at the Nordost ECO 3 chemical !!!!!!!!!!!!! And at WHY they have been described as 'improving the sound'.
If there ARE different things in the modern environment having an adverse effect, then one looks again at such as the Shakti Stone (claimed to be dealing with stray electro-magnetic energy), at the Schumann Resonance device etc, at the ART devices (and similar devices), at Harmonix Discs (and similar devices), applying a demagnetiser to cables, directionality in some cables - and so on, even why some cables sound different to others (but measure no differences in the signal).
Your comment, although you are obviously as entitled to your opinion as I am:-
Appeared far too dismissive from someone who does not seem to have had much experience at all of all those other (listed) devices and techniques. And, do you really think that all those other journalists would have risked their reputations writing about something (so many of the things on the list) which was 'hocus-pocus' ??? I repeat, I think you were far too dismissive because something did 'not fit your logic'. That is why I challenged your thinking, nothing to do with the fact that you had not experienced any changes after using some of the samples I sent you. I have EQUALLY challenged people who thought that applying a de-magnetiser to LPs and CDs was 'hocus-pocus', even though we do not market a de-magnetiser.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Geoff.
You have shown even more patience than me !!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Was that a smack on the side of the head for me?
No, Keld. It was me actually acknowledging that someone had more patience than me on this occasion !! It doesn't happen often, but I am prepared to acknowledge it when it does. (Smiley face)
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
http://vimeo.com/1166968
Regards
Giuseppe Scardamaglia
Ever since the birth of audio discussion on Usenet (remember that?) & forums there's been an ongoing war between objectivists and subjectivists ( & those who imagine themselves to be either or both). I doubt anyone involved in these discussions has changed their fundamental belief system as a result.
Think about it kiddies.
There's one topic that's been largely avoided for decades, that is the variation in hearing acuity of those involved in such discussions. If you think that's unimportant imagine the implications if any audioporn magazine had the guts to publish the results of their reviewer's clinical hearing tests.
Well, the good news is that audiophiles' clinical hearing tests are about the same, for better or worse, as reviewers' tests. It all evens out. The bad news, of course, is that lots of folks have good clinical hearing tests but are lousy listeners and have no idea in the world what they are listening to. Conversely, some of the best listeners are really really old guys who have, one presumes, lost a good measure of their high frequency hearing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18novel.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
I think that is part of the problem that you identified; belief.
This just reinforces that a bias mechanism is in use, and I agree all of us are affected by biases every day and not just in audio.
An interesting test is to look back at when you (this means everyone) type a post and use the word believe in the discussion or argument.
It seems IMO we admit when we do not utilise a thorough methodology by even stating "I believe", sure it is a subconscious act by most of us.
And yes I have done that in the past; I have looked back sometimes proofing and had a smile on my face as I can clearly see that whenever I have used the word believe it is usually when I have not fully considered the topic and all angles/factors.
I feel this applies to all, and is surprising how often "I believe" is used even on this forum
Although that does not necessarily show those who are truly obstinate and feel they are always right.
Slightly different focus but still applicable and a good read:
Giving Debiasing Away
Can Psychological Research on Correcting Cognitive Errors Promote Human Welfare?
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pps/4_4_pdfs/lilienfeld.pdf
BTW what post of mine were you responding to, I swear I had not posted in many pages and could not find a post of mine in the last 5 lol.
I like their paragraph:
"I believe" and "imo" are also used for legal reasons as well.
Cheers.
I guess that not so many want to be seen as "know-it-all" types. And after all, none of us know what other people believe or what they opinions might be.
Also stating "I believe" or "IMO" can easily be seen as an invitation to a debate, where "I know" or "definitely" can be seen as an invitation to a flame war. Well, in my humble opinion anyway
I would reframe that statement with a significant change in attitude, there has been no "war" between those who encourage everyone to do some serious observation and then perform the simple act of thinking for oneself. I've never met anyone who encouraged thinking for yourself who cared whether the other person came to the same conclusion they had. The ongoing war is between those who encourage thinking for yourself and those who insist you do not think but just accept what they say as the truth - the only truth - and then procced to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.
Otherwise, ... http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index3.html
As geoff points out, I would most often rather have the experienced listener rather than the youngest listener or the one with the flattest measured hearing. I've sold to people who claimed to be hearing the high frequency signal of the store's alarm system yet they had no idea how to pick one speaker from the next. Why would I care how well their hearing measured?
If you think that's unimportant, imagine the implications should you have someone guiding you who doesn't have a clue about how to follow the path to the music, how it should be made or how to achieve the best results in reproducing it. I don't need any more charts and graphs to get in the way of the real issues I face when I am after musical involvement. I need someone who can hear mostly what I hear, who enjoys mostly what I enjoy, knows good music reproduction from bad and is willing to give up a little of what they know in order to make my life better. That leaves out all those who do not want me doing any thinking.
Otherwise ...http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/are_you_a_sharpener_or_a_leveler/index.html
Http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index3.html
That was a very good link you have given, Jan. Dating back to 1999 and still absolutely relevant !!!
Can someone tell me, is the Jim referred to in that article the j j who 'posts' regularly on this Stereophile Forum ?
One thing which, in my opinion, is not highlighted enough is that many of the "engineers skilled in audio" have ALSO heard this, that, that, and that give improvements in the sound. Things which other similarly 'skilled in audio engineers' have either not heard themselves or have not even tried for themselves !!!!!!!!!!
George Reiss outlines examples of (more or less) opposites i.e.
Physicists and theoretical physicists.
Experimentalists and theorists.
Audiophiles and pro audio engineers.
But what about the ones who are both Pro audio engineers (steeped in conventional theory) AND Experimentalists ??
Are they to be ignored or disregarded or is there a third category ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
That was a very good link you have given, Jan. Dating back to 1999 and still absolutely relevant !!!
Alas, Jim is merely a pro audio engineer, as revealed in the original letter, link at bottom of page. Is it possible j j is channeling a pro audio personality? Hmmmmm.
Character assassination, now? You know better, Mr. Kait.
By the by, what's the "mere" bit?
It's too easy to get to be a suspect here!
OOOOOOOh, OOOOOOOh, I know, I know!
It's the amount of attention we pay to jj.
Having just read the last fifteen or so pages as I catch up with the forum I can conclude only that this is a very sorry thread.
The majority of posts that appeared since I was last here consist primarily of name calling, ridicule of users' names, accusations, calling anyone that does not agree close-minded, etc.
Sad behavior from literate adults.
May, thank you again for graciously engaging my questions and discussing your ideas. While I don't necessarily agree with you I enjoy exploring the concepts you espose.
Eric also did a nice job describing his experience with the Acoustic ART products. I enjoyed our exchanges and learned quite a bit. Thanks.
Go suck a lemon, Elk.
That is very hurtful and immature.
Yes.
It is a devastating retort. Pithy, yet near brilliant.
I may never recover.
And another illustration of my point; this is the thread's current level of discourse.
Some people have no respect
They say the evolution of humans have gone on more recently than we thought.
Studies: Human evolution still going on
BEIJING (UPI) -- Humans may have made significant evolutionary changes much more recently than previously thought, as little as 3,000 years ago, researchers say.
Scientists from the Beijing Genomics Institute found among Tibetans a set of genes showing they evolved to deal with low oxygen levels just 30 centuries ago, The New York Times reported Monday.
The spread of the new gene is just one instance of recent human evolution and of a specific group changing genetically in response to local conditions, researchers say.
Many scientists once thought humans ceased to evolve in the distant past after people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine and other harsh agents of natural selection.
But research into human genome sequences around the world has shown increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, suggesting human evolution is still in progress, the Times said.
Seems some people still have not developed genes for dealing with other audiophiles
Cool tidbit, Keld!
And nicely applied to the current thread.
Did not your parents ever tell you it is up to you to decide how to respond to someone? If you find that immature, it only reflects on your own immaturity in such matters.
Your bad and your turn.
Does that mean that YOU have some different concepts with which to explain many of the different things being reported to be capable of changing the sound. Which you can share with us ??
Maybe starting with some on the list I gave to Keld ?
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.
You must have some ideas of your own !!
After all, this thread IS entitled "Controversial discussions"
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
That is the only level at which I am acquainted with when discussing the more "interesting" claims for tweaks.
I just wrote 100 times on the blackboard, "I will not make rude and immature jokes on audio forums."
Are we square, now?
Polygonic fer'sure, dude!
I have. A number of times.
As I indicated in the first few pages of the thread, "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."
We did very well for the first seven pages. The discussion started to seriously fall apart on page 8.
Thank you once again for your wonderful demeanor.
~E
Just to join in (as I have been slacking from the forum doh) I enjoyed the discussion more on methodology and when the different hypothesis were thrown around.
Who cares who is right or wrong within the context of the tweak discussion, I get the feeling some only argue as it seems a competition to win the argument at all costs.
Not directing that at you Elk or May.
I feel maybe there should be more focus on the approach to both subjective and scientific listening, and whether someone wants to apply that to themselves and how.
Hardly ever (in fact never I would say on any of the forums I have read including AH and AVS) is there a discussion about how to cope with bias (debiasing and its potential/limitations), or more generally the issue with picking up tells from a 3rd person/expectation bias mechanism combined with mOFC,etc.
All of this would help most listeners, well if they are interested in applying some methodology or looking at theory and various hypothesis that are part of discussions.
Cheers
Orb
Orb, your comments about novelty in the listening environment were excellent.
I had not come across this idea before.
Thanks Elk,
and likewise I have enjoyed the diverse discussions from many in the early pages as you mentioned, including from yourself and others.
It gets all of us thinking.
Cheers
Orb
Exactly!
Good stuff.
It's possible that listening methodologies might have some use in audio, but I'm not convinced that's true and haven't seen any evidence of it among audiophiles, including audio insiders. What does seem to be the trend is that these listening and test methodologies are promulgated by anti-tweakers, anti-audiophiles and "skeptics" who consider themselves debunkers of paranormal or "unscientific" phenomena. There may be some exceptions, I'm saying this does appear to be the trend.
The screeds of The Amazing Randi spawned a generation of pseudo-skeptics, intent on ridding the world of spoon-benders, dowsers, ghost whisperers, remote reviewers, but also such audiophile tweakery such as expensive cables, intelligent chips, clocks, what have you.
I can't recall ever meeting an audio insider who gave much credence to double blind testing, the hunt for expectation bias, the placebo effect, the nocebo effect, or psychological effects. Would it be unfair to conclude that listening methodology is nothing more than a Red Herring? Doesn't the world of high end audio pretty much continue to evolve and improve without it?
Cheers
Yes, expectation bias and a self-created emotional response is a view held by many. I don't doubt that there is such a thing as 'expectation bias etc' but what I think is that it is NOT as generalised and as powerful with regard to audio matters as is so often claimed.
But, Elk, when you read the fairly detailed description given by Eric (which you describe as a 'nice job'), re the improvements in the sound he obtained from the ART devices then, to me, it seems quite irrational that someone (you in this instance) would still actually believe that the descriptions of the improvements in the sound given by Eric could have COME SOLELY from "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response" !!
Thinking rationally. If you take out the words "ART devices" from Eric's descriptions of the improvements he heard and substitute the brand name (or description) of an expensive piece of audio equipment you, Elk, would quite readily accept Eric's descriptions as ACTUAL improvements to the ACTUAL musical information !! And yet, when you put back the words "ART devices" (or other devices you yourself can't come to terms with) then you are quite prepared to discount Eric's (and numerous other peoples) IDENTICAL experiences and descriptions as "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response". AND, you are doing it again with such as the Stereo Times reviewer's descriptions with the SteinMusic Harmonizer. You are not prepared to consider IDENTICAL words and descriptions to suggest that it MIGHT also be describing ACTUAL improvements to the musical information.
I don't think the logic has been thought through !! If it had been an item of audio equipment and Eric had given identical descriptions of improvements in the sound from actual audio equipment, you would not have regarded his descriptions as having come from 'expectation bias etc' !! Descriptions would be the same in both instances, but, from your point of view, you are prepared to create a different belief from exactly the same descriptions!!
Exactly as I replied to Keld when he added the word Feng Shui to the usual list :-
30 years of people (numerous people) describing a variety of 'devices' giving them improvements in their sound and yet, Elk, your belief that it is caused by "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response" does not seem to have 'wobbled' one bit !! I am NOT suggesting that people believe everything anyone ever says but I would have thought that after 30 years and numerous reports from extremely intelligent people that there would have, by now, have been a 'wobble' in your belief that ALL their experiences have been created by "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response". Surely, by now, there would have been some doubt creeping into your thoughts that there MIGHT be something else happening other than the simplistic "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response" ?
You constantly say "Oh that is interesting, please tell me more. Oh that is interesting, please tell me more."
Well Elk, Eric HAS told you more re the ART devices !! Clement Perry, the reviewer in Stereo Times HAS told you more re the SteinMusic Harmonizer !! I suggest you take up Geoff's suggestion and read the Stereo Times review !!!!!! And other reviews on the ART devices. And also reviews on the Schumann Resonance device. And see just how coincidental are all these people's descriptions of the improvements in the sound they can hear !!
Yet, Elk, you still choose to repeat and agree with what you say Buddha believes :-
Surely the people who created and produce the devices mentioned ARE intelligent people, and intelligent enough to recognise the effect of those devices on the 'sound' ?? As are the people who have written about such devices ?? Surely, as intelligent people, they would not risk their reputations if it WAS as simple as the effect being only because of "expectation bias and a self-created emotional response". Or, as Buddha likes to describe it :-
That these people NEED them (the devices) as a "prop", as a "potion"., as an "elixir", as a ritual" in order to correct a defect (within these people) which requires 'remedial action' !!!
So, Elk, when you are agreeing with what Buddha believes, you are actually also implying that such as Eric and his friend NEED such as the ART devices as a "prop", as a "potion", as an "elixir", as a ritual" in order to correct a defect within them which requires 'remedial action' !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Have any of you heard of this one? It's called a "High Frequenzy Stabilizer" and the inventor can (as usual) not explain how it actually does what it does, or why. The inventor claims it stabilizes the treble, so less treble bounces of side walls, obstacles etc.
It is so new that it hasn't even been mentioned anywhere as of yet. I have it on loan, and the price has not yet been set on the product.
Looks rather like a Slinky with PTSD.
???
The thingy actually works like it's supposed to
Certainly a reasonable point; cries of DBT have been used to drown out discussion. Additionally debunking for debunking's sake has little value.
Yet there is a need for good listening practices. We all need to deal with expectation bias. Those I know that work with/design audio equipment each have a method for critical listening, often including specific tracks of music.
The same issues exist when mixing or mastering a track. One needs fresh ears and to rely on them- not the meters. It doesn't matter what the track looks like.
Personally, I like it. But I think the name should be changed to Crown of Thorns.
A flamboyantly gay Slinky...not that there's anything wrong with that.
A good issue to raise.
I think it is quite prevalent. Audiophiles are often hoping for minute changes with the addition of often expensive upgrades. This is a dangerous combination for objective determinations; we will often think we hear what we want to hear.
Additionally, changes made by a product are often described by both the press and individual enthusiasts as "astonishing," "amazing." Those that come next expect to hear at least "something," even if it is not "astounding."
No one wants to be the person with deficient ears and equipment that hears no change even after the "amazing" product is added.
Sadly, those that push such products often claim that those that do not experience an improvement are personally deficient, close-minded, and possess inadequate equipment to appreciate the finer aspects of music reproduction. We have witnessed these personal attacks often in these threads.
It is a difficult issue.
Eric did a great job. I also really appreciate the effort he put into his descriptions. Good stuff!
Recognizing this effort however does not mean that I accept that his experience is due to to the products at issue. I do give his efforts more credence than most however as he is specific in his descriptions and consistent.
No, I wouldn't. I have the same suspicion when someone claims massive improvements by a $20,000 amp over a competent $2,000 amp. I am prepared to accept that it may be better (not necessarily) but it is most likely subtly better, if at all - not "astounding." Also it may just be different.
These discussions intrigue me both becuase human behavior is fascination and becuase of the possibility that there is an objective actual improvement accompanying these devices.
I am not a disciple of Buddha.
He has a wicked sense of humor however and I suspect this is a dig rather than a serious observation.
I will note however that if what Buddha wrote was true this would be great - a device that helps anyone appreciate music better is a wonderful thing.
Again, if a product adds to the enjoyment of the buyer and the improvement is worth the price paid all is good.
It's this kind of counter-factual claim that creates so much hostility against the high-end audio person from people who actually DO participate in the science.
"Audio Insiders" use DBT's or cognates, pretty much exclusively. "High-end insiders" perhaps not, but I don't see a lot in the scientific literature from most.
Certainly some would-be scoffers have attempted to use DBT's, just like some individuals here have attempted to use anti-DBT rhetoric to justify their attack on the actual science behind human hearing, sampling, etc.
This does not show any problem with DBT's, rather it shows an attempt on the part of the writer to illicitly dismiss DBT's via utterly unethical emotional grounds.
The first claim, which is utterly counterfactual, regarding "audio insiders" is reprehensible, and is nothing more or less than sheer propaganda. I would suggest that you visit the actual scientific journals if you don't want to accept that the claim about insiders is completely bogus.
"Good listening practices" cuts two ways. A DBT must be run well, including training, selection of clips, etc, as well as just be a DBT. This is, perhaps, the worst part of some of the informal DBT's that have been run.
HOWEVER, claims that "this is obvious" or "plain as day", etc, from the audiophile side would seem to indicate that less training and material selection should be necessary. As we often see those words thrown around when a DBT comes up null, it is sometimes understandable why testers don't feel such a need to be rigorous.
It's "understandable" why some testers don't bother to do their job well? I bet that's when they start shouting about all those damned "audiophools" and their "soundstage", "PRaT" and "air"!
Thanks, jj, your comment explains quite a bit.
Pages