| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
August 23, 2011 - 4:19pm
#1
“Stein Music Harmonizer and Magic Diamonds, Magic Stones and magic flutes”,
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2025 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
There are those who persist in buying the one true head of John the Baptist, too.
After 2,000 years, you'd think they'd learn.
Audiophiles are only 1,981 years behind idiot relic shoppers.
After thirty years, you'd think some of this bullshit would have leaked out of audio into actual utility, but no.
So long as there are charlatans who persist in confusing a home freezer with cryogenic treatment, there shall be no credibility for the snakes in the audio grass, May.
Couldn't satisfy the ego by posting a reply on the other thread, I see.
As to the "why" and "how." You first! Spare us the crap morphic resonance fakery, please.
For most, the "why" is cash, and the how is "alfalfa in, bullshit out."
I'm sure P.T. Kait will be along shortly....
I see you are back to responding to postings by me with the technique of insulting again, Buddha !!!
AND back to the technique of misrepresenting.
Is it REALLY not possible to have an intelligent and constructive discussion without some people resorting to insults ?
It should be obvious that I am perfectly capable of knowing the difference between a home freezer and cryogenic temperatures but you HAVE TO find something on which to hang the term “charlatan” don’t you ?. Oh, and to also introduce the expression ‘snakes in the grass’ as well !!
We can leave out the simpler technique of using a home freezer (introduced for people to try things for themselves quickly and easily) and concentrate instead on the implications to the audio industry and the buying public of the technique of cryogenic freezing if you would prefer, Buddha. That technique is just one of the techniques I listed.
I explained why I have ‘posted’ on the General section. I feel that the subject is too serious to fade quickly by being solely in the September issue section.
Or, we can stay with the subject matter of the heading. Because such as the Stein Music device (and the others) and the cryogenic freezing technique have implications for the world of audio.
Why on earth would you bring into this particular discussion the concept of Morphic resonance ? If not as an attempt at mockery ?
Are YOU really suggesting that all the people who have reported on all the techniques I have listed have done so for the “cash” ?????
Now, do you want to discuss seriously or do you want to continue with your snide remarks because your response to me certainly did not contribute to taking the subject any further ?
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Despite all your obfuscations, May, you can't escape the fact that without a DBT all your so called evidence may simply be the result of expectation bias.
So pretty much everything you say falls into the category of blah blah blah.
You might want to consider that the reason some people won't "discuss seriously" with you is because ,so far, you have had nothing serious to say.
...the last resot of the naysayer fraidy cats.
“Those who really desire to attain an independence, have only set their minds upon it, and adopt the proper means, as they do in regard to any other object which they wish to accomplish, and the thing is easily done.” - PT Barnum
If I shoot at the sun I may hit a star" - PT Barnum
I don' want to set the workl on fire, I jus ant to satrt a flame in a few hearts." Ed "Kookie" Burns
GC Kait
Macvhina Dynamica
Do those Mumbo-Jumbo magic devices always cost scores of times more than their cost of production...
I suspect the chance of simple scams rises with the cost of the device...
"There's a dufus windbag born every minute." - old audiophile axiom
:-)
GC Kait
Machina Dynamica
It would seem that if we accept much of what's advertised as "improvements", that absolutely everything affects the sounds we hear. "Dear, can you, possibly, blow on both speaker cables at the same time?"
One example: $35 for a pair of Cardas input jack caps? Even if they work, I've lost respect for those who royally rip-off their customers. Others may admire the same treachery. I refuse to buy anything from those who make good equipment if they also wade in the waters of unreasonable profit.
And, again, it may NOT simply be the result of expectation bias !! Have you considered that ?
As I have said before :-
“But what happens when there are yet no meaningful measurements available and there are yet no conclusive results from DB trials available ? Does Science STOP there ? “
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Bringing the cost of the devices into the discussion is a red herring. The COST of anything only comes into the equation at the very end, when the final decision has to be made whether to purchase something or not.
Earlier this year, in another reply, you suggested that people MIGHT hear a change in the sound after demagnetizing records :-
But now you have moved to referring to that technique as MAGIC !!!
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
"Bringing the cost of the devices into the discussion is a red herring. The COST of anything only comes into the equation at the very end, when the final decision has to be made whether to purchase something or not."
Yet I cannot think of a single one of these magic devices that are a really (as in cost to effect and cost of construction) cost effective. Should not some of these things be cost efective and have results that it does not take golden ears (and a lot of Cabernet Sauvignon) to hear?
Must they always be $50 in parts an $1000 in price?
I view this like I do Congressional Bills or Court Decisions...the bigger they are the more fraught with problems and flim flam.
I agree that these things might have an effect that can be heard, but most do not and all cost vastly more than the alleged change in the sound could possibly warrant.
Something happened at the end of my reply and I don’t know what caused it to appear as it did. It certainly made it difficult to read !!
Apologies.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
As we are discussing mumbo jumbo effects and magic, we need to note all the efects including evil spirits and the odd talisman.
"Yet I cannot think of a single one of these magic devices that are a really (as in cost to effect and cost of construction) cost effective.
Uh, just because you can't think of one doesn't mean there aren't any. Allow me to refresh your memory.
Shun Mook Mpingo Disc $75
Holographic Foils $50/pack of hundreds
Mikro Brilliant Pebbles $39
CD treatments most under $100, many under $50
Nordost Anti-static Spray $50
Mapleshade Anti-static gun $50
Cryogenic freezing less than $10 per pound
C37 Lacquer around $50 per bottle
Teleportation Tweak $60
Schumann Frequency Generator - prices start around $125
Colored Pen - Sharpie Green Pen $3
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not tweaks....though some on that list are most assuredly snake oil.
How would you differentiate a tweak from magic, or snakeoil, for that matter. Do you go by smell or the name?
LOL
A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
By a combination of exorbitant price and common sense. If it is more expensive than actual gear (like the $1000 power cord into the $800 component) , it is probably priced way, way ,way too high for its effect...
If it claimes to turn basemetal (poor sound) into gold (must have sound) I also am skeptical.
If it sounds like voodoo, I need a good argument to convince me (and that is more than the rally round the flag effect found in Audio magazines)
**the 'Rally Round the Flag' effect - the tendency of audio reviewers of the same magazine to support just about any claim made by any other reviewer in the magazine even when it is laughable on its face. This is often carried to an extreme...for example, a voodoo product blessed by a reviewer often has a high chance of making 'Buyers guides', Editors lists, 'Golden Ear' awards, etc (depending on the magazine). The chance of its making the list of recommended components seems to be directly proportional to the laughter evidenced by readers in letters or on forums like this t the reviewers claim. It is a refusal to admit error or even the possiblity of error.**
Whilst you are concentrating on ‘dishing’ the actual devices, the various devices are not in isolation from everything else !! They are inclusive within the world of audio and in ‘dishing’ the devices you are also therefore ‘dishing’ the many reviewers who have reported that these devices can and do improve the sound.
Reviewers such as Martin Colloms, Keith Howard, Paul Messenger, John Atkinson, Greg Weaver, Carol Clark, Russell Lichter, Michael Fremer, Robert Harley and many others.
These people are not likely to put themselves in the firing line of abuse and ridicule without they thought it of significant interest to people who are interested in getting the best pleasure possible from listening to music.
Are you really suggesting that all these people have come under the influence of and been sprinkled with fairy dust to make them hear the improvements in the sound they have so clearly heard and described ?
I repeat. Concentrating on the price of the devices and rubbishing the devices is just ignoring the reality of what has happened – in the hope that the reality will go away.
They HEARD improvements in the sound. And, if they heard improvements in the sound from devices and techniques which should not have had any effect at all (from a technical electronic or acoustic point of view), then in the area of audio this IS significant.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
"But why
Posted: August 24, 2011 - 3:00pm
Do those Mumbo-Jumbo magic devices always cost scores of times more than their cost of production?"
Because they don't, is why. Key word: Always. Next key word: Scores.
You can buy yourself a green or black magic marker for short cash. You can buy (or borrow) a tape demagnetiser for very little and apply it to CDs and cables. You can use household Armor-All on a CD, although I'd wipe that particular fluid off after the experiment. You can elevate wires off the floor on cardboard tubes for free. And you can put a photo of yourself in the freezer for free!
Tell us when you've availed yourself of these mooted remedies, or quitcher bitchin.
Have you not ever gone to a movie or play that 'the reviewers' loved and discovered it was simply pretentious dung? Reviewers are right 90% of the time (IMHO), a very good track record, but that does not mean that any individual reviewer cannot fall for the grift, the Hoodoo, the Magic or just simple polished sales pitch now and again. I own a lot of 'tweaks' that I am sure others would laugh at. That neither makes me right or them wrong...
The problem arises whan the particular bit of shamanism is way pricey or the claim is way oversold.
Perhaps this bit of magic does work as claimed...Is the result worth the very high cost for very few bits and pieces?
I believe cables DO have an effect on a system but I would consider 4 and 5 figure cables simply a scam. I do not believe vinyl demagnetizers or these particular devices or magic hockey pucks can possibly produce a change sufficient to warrnt their cost...
That the actual change cannot even be described without reference to audio alchemy (apologies to that fine company) is in itself enough to warrant wary skepticism.
I do not doubt 'they heard' (well mostly) but I do doubt that what they heard is comenserate with the price. I am especially skeptical when so many others simply do not hear the effect claimed.
I would love to read a review of one of these devices that simply said something like this...
"This gadget costs $$$$. It is well built and easy to instal. I can hear (whatever) in my system. I have no idea why as the manufacturers explanation is simply gibberish. If you are in the market for something to do (whatever) and are willing to spend a lot of money for something I cannot explain, go for it. It worked in my system'...moving on.
No, the problem has nothing to do with the PRICE of the device !! The problem is as I stated in an earlier reply.
i.e. the problem written on the blackboard !!
“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?”
Which you are choosing not to address.
You say you own a lot of tweaks that others would laugh at. If they are ‘tweaks’ which should not be expected to give improvements in the sound – and THAT is why others would laugh at them (or dismiss or ridicule them), then YOU should have been knocked back on your heels. And, if you are in the world of audio and something has improved the sound which should not have had any effect whatsoever, then this is significant !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To audio !!!!!
Back again arguing about the price. Read the descriptions of the effect of applying a demagnetizer to vinyl discs and if the improvements described ARE as described then what is important (in the world of audio) is WHY and HOW and not how much it costs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Of course you would like to read a simple review like that. Such simplicity would allow you not to have to think more seriously as to what might be going on.
There was such a review as you outlined. It was by John Atkinson on colouring the edge of CDs. Very basically he said :-
A review worded just as you would like but it STILL leaves the problem on the blackboard – unanswered !!
JIMV, the reality is the problem on the blackboard. The descriptions ACTUALLY given (and HEARD) for (whatever device) are as I have outlined previously. One, more or all of the following :-
>> “Reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.
While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.
More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” <<
Those are meaningful descriptions for anyone interested in seriously listening to music and if ANY ‘tweak’ or technique can affect the sound as much as is being described, then the implications for audio are serious. THAT is the point I am trying to make. All you seem to want to do is to discuss the price of something.
You are also keeping up your theme of dismissal and ridicule by using the term MAGIC or VOODOO but if the devices can give the improvements in the sound as described, then they can hardly be simply caused by MAGIC or VOODOO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I repeat. If the devices were free, the basic problem would STILL be written on the blackboard, unsolved.
Basically. If the descriptions I have copied (from reviewers own words) faithfully describe the improvement in the sound that they heard AFTER installing/positioning/using the (whatever) device, then that means that they had NOT been hearing that additional information PRIOR to using the device i.e they had not been hearing it the day before, the week before, the month before. Even though they had, most likely, been listening to the exactly same discs, through exactly the same equipment, in exactly the same room. Raising the questions WHY ? and WHERE had that additional information been before ? and WHAT was the device now doing which could allow them to hear the additional information as described ?
>> “Reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.
While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.
More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” <<
The $$$$ only comes into the equation at the very end, when the person has tried the (whatever) device, heard the improvements in the sound as described and then has to decide if they want to pay the $$$$ to retain those improvements.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
The enterprising audiophile can obtain a Radio Shack tape eraser on eBay any day of the week for around 20 bucks. Where's the beef? As was pointed out earlier, many of the tweaks that produce heartburn in the died in the wool naysayer are actually very inexpensive. So, where's the beef? Do you think that I am not skeptical of these tweaks, too, do you think you are the only one? There is a fine line between real skepticism and an overly suspicious nature.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Our hobby is ALL about price....If one could get class A performance on a system that costs $1K everyone would...the problem is, great sound seems to always require pretty big bucks. Recommending gear of dubious effect but with an undoubted high price is simply a subset of the bigger 'price' problem.
Not everyone is George Soros to whom spending a grand or so on a whim is about the same as most of us buying a coke when thirsty. In the real world, we look for guidance from reviewers as to what IS worth the high cost of admission....HooDoo is not in that category.
As to CD Spotlight...I agree, a valid review of a very inexpensive tweak....If the same item cost $1K, was packaged in a metal container and had exactly the same effect, came with gibberish claims and magic sounding explanation, and perhaps had a light that lit readomly so as to scare audio gremlins off the laser, I would call it way, way overpriced for the effect and put it in the snake oil category. Where the manufacturer went right was in price. As I have said repeatedly and as you have rejected, the ratio of price to effect is THE issue.
Let me, 'for instance'...Lets say I produce a cube about 4"x2"x8"...it is a sealed metal container. It can be placed on top of speakers so as to better the connection between the speaker and its stand or the floor. It will reduce cabinet vibrations, guaranteed. It can be placed on any piece of audio gear so as to do the same. It comes with felt pads the user can position so as to vary the result...on some gear the small end down sounds better than the broad end down and precise location is vital....The price for this wonder is only a budget $500, though you do need at least one for every speaker. My claims read like yours exactly..
"More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.”
Is it a good value? Would it be a good value if I told you is is simply a standard sized brick wrapped in metal with $3 felt pads?
THAT is the point about price...
Reading this discussion really makes me sad. Sad because shows just how little audiophiles know about basic science. Putting a small cube with a small battery inside it on top of a loudspeaker along with a several other mystery devices placed within the can not possibly have any effect on the air molecules within the room.
Any sonic improvements heard as a result of installing these devices is just wishful thinking. Period. If I want to spend my time believing in things which can't and haven't ever been proven there are plenty of religions to choose from. However, unlike religion, high end is based on scientific principles and not on mere belief.
Now one should bear in mind that just as one is free to practice and give money to any religion one chooses so is one entitled to believe in and spend money on any audio tweak.
No insults are necessary or called for.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts
I am fully aware of how things are made and the cost of basic materials. What I am saying is that the actual price of something comes in at the end of the equation, within the final decision making, not at the very beginning. You are making it ALL about the price – at the beginning !!
I am fully aware of all the examples of the initial cost of basic materials versus the final selling price !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will turn the discussion on it’s head. I will take the PRICE out of the discussion altogether.
Your first responses to this discussion was the following :-
And you also then referred to the technique of demagnetizing vinyl discs :-
So, I will take PRICE out of the discussion and say “The demagnetising device is FREE !!
So now we have the descriptions from numerous people who have actually tried the demagnetizing device and found that they experienced improvements in the sound set against your dismissal of the whole thing as MAGIC, VOODOO, mumbo jumbo ! Which presumably means that you see NO problem which needs discussing if the price is zero.
I chose to bring Richard Feynman into the discussion earlier because I have read many of his books and therefore am aware that he was interested in anything and everything. I have also seen film of him writing various problems on a blackboard – for discussion !!
So, hypothetically, I have Richard Feynman writing the following problem on the blackboard :-
“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices ARE giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?”
Now I have taken the price out of the discussion which is it ? That the devices under discussion are MAGIC, VOODOO, mumbo jumbo or that there IS a problem, written on the blackboard, waiting to be answered ?
On concentrating your response around PRICE you seem to be accepting such as the CD spotlight as OK, providing it has a low price.
MY point is that, as so many others, including you, will know, painting the edge of a CD SHOULD NOT have had the effect of producing an improvement in the sound as described by John A and others.
YOU will be as aware as I am of the numerous people – people skilled in electronics – who have had near heart attacks at the suggestion that ‘digits’ (encoded information as 0s and 1s) could be affected by colouring the edge of CDs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that the sound could be improved by doing so.
Now you seem to be implying that it is OK to think about such a device providing it is cheap !! Whereas MY point is that if the technique DOES give improvements in the sound, then we should be looking at the implications – TO AUDIO – seriously – leaving the price of something ‘on the shelf’ to be discussed at the end !!!!!
Are you now saying that you are not classing the CD stoplight device as MAGIC or VOODOO – that that particular thing is acceptable to you but some other things are not acceptable ?
Is the CD stoplight a Mumbo-Jumbo magic device or not, in your opinion, or is it OK because the manufacturer has pitched it at a price acceptable to you ?
There are completely separate things going on here. Things being described (dismissed) as Mumbo-Jumbo, Magic or Voodoo, things being dismissed as being too expensive, or things being acceptable providing they are cheap.
I made it quite clear at the beginning that my interest is in looking seriously (from an audio point of view) at the implications of the improvements in the sound claimed for such devices as the Stein Music device, the Schumann resonance device, the Less Loss Blackbody device and such as the tiny ART devices – ALL devices which have been introduced as solutions on how to ‘deal with’ the listening environment !
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
It is BECAUSE I and so many of the reviewers KNOW about basic science that I raised the issue of the implications to audio when the devices referred to and ridiculed at the start of this discussion could be described as giving such improvements in the sound as I have quoted earlier.
Of course !!!! putting a small cube etc. etc, etc would not be expected to give the improvements in the sound – THAT is the point of my initial response. But it DOES do so, as do other devices !! And because it and they DO, then further investigations have to follow !! THAT is what I keep saying.
You are dismissing their effect because the explanation put forward was ‘something to do with affecting air molecules’. I am saying that whatever it IS that they (the devices) are doing (improving the sound), then the problem remains on the blackboard – unanswered !!
Are you REALLY saying that the people (many of them significant in the world of audio and experienced listeners with a lifetime in audio and listening to music), giving the descriptions I have quoted, are only experiencing those improvements because of “wishful thinking” and that they also lack knowledge of basic science??
There are two things going on here. There are the observations that the sound is improved and there is the explanation put forward. Why is it not possible for you to deal with the things separately ? Why can’t some significant people’s observations (that the sound improved) be taken as possibly acceptable (i.e. Clues to work on) but the explanation as not so easily acceptable (and therefore has to be explored further) ?
In which case we come back to the problem written on the blackboard !!!
“WHY are such devices being reported as improving the sound when no improvements would have been expected and if the devices are giving improvements in the sound HOW are they doing so ?”
Are you, sir, really suggesting that numerous well respected journalists and engineers – well versed in basic science, electronics and acoustics - have reported on certain unusual things giving improvements in the sound for over 30 years BECAUSE of “wishful thinking”, or because of “auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, bias, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing”, or as has been suggested by Buddha “that they needed such devices as a ‘prop’, a ‘potion’, an ‘elixir’, as a ‘ritual’ to ‘correct a defect which requires ‘remedial action’ “ or as suggested by Steve Eddy that “tweaking has more and more become a symptom of an underlying mental illness,”, or as opined by Jim Austin in a previous article in Stereophile that the reviewers have “prostituted themselves for the latest preposterous product” ???
I would repeat again, that does not mean that everything everyone says HAS TO IMMEDIATELY and WITHOUT QUESTION be believed, but equally their experiences should not be summarily dismissed out of hand. Their experiences/observations are valid and are clues which add to the whole picture.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
The device is total nonsense. However there are still plenty of fools around to keep these quacks in business regardless of price. What I don't like is when these mystery devices are given the same claims to legitimacy as a well built and designed piece of less mysterious audio equipment as such as a speaker or power amp. Doing so makes audiophiles into audiofools.
It's not the money or the magic I object to, it's being told that I'm somehow close minded because I refuse to believe in something that isn't there and can NEVER be proven to be there. In other words, I'm not drinking the kool-aid.
Where would we be if it weren't for brave, forward thinking pioneers willing to go where no man has gone before. We would not have discovered new lands, Pilgrims would have been content with their lot and no ventured forth, there would have been no pioneers daring to go west, no denunciation of the old Newtonion physics, no relativity theory, no quantum physics, no space exploration, no black hole physics, no peering into the vast unknown with "magical" telescopes and microscopes.
In audio, we have come a long way from the rather absurd position that speakers and amplifiers are the only things that matter. We've seen advancements in wire technology, room tuning, vibration isolation, not to mention digital technology and turntable technology, to name a few. Anyone who refuses to believe huge strides in audio reproduction have been made in the last 20 years, irrespective of speaker and amplifier design, either has his head in the sand or is afraid of accepting history. Time for all the Rip Van Winkles to wake up and smell the coffee.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
You wrote....
"So, I will take PRICE out of the discussion and say “The demagnetising device is FREE !!"
Woud that it was true. The sad reality is that this thing is NOT free but very, very expensive and that it might (or might not) have the claimed effect on very expensive systems...Do we have any suggestion that it works on modest systems? Do we have any suggestion that it will work for most peple regardless?
If you are saying that folk with a few grand to throw away might find this device amusing to play with and might hear some change in their system, fine. I do not see anyone being able to say more than that.
Regardless of what anyone says, one simply cannot 'demagnetize' a non magnetic item. There might be some other unknown process at work but if that is the case, perhaps the manufacturers should begin removing bits and pieces of their device until the effect goes away, than put that bit back and optimize for the effect leaving imaginary demagnetizing alone. I suspect they could make the thing for a LOT less.
As to 'the problem on the backboard', it assumes the effect heard by some is real. What if it is not? Then all you have a chalk on the blackboard and wishful thinking.
You note the CD tweak as having a similar inexplicable effect. OK, it is a magic tweak that may or may not do anything BUT, it is a magic tweak that costs about 100 times LESS than the magic demagnetizer, bringing us back to the 'fool and his money'.
You simply cannot remove money from the equation as it is the money that separates the foolish audiophile from the wise one.
Put very simply, it is perhaps a foolish person who spends $30 on magic which might do something and an idiot who spends $2000 for magic which MIGHT do something.
Are you a gambler? I would be willing to bet $30 for the possibility that the thing does what it says. I would not make the same bet with $2K...Gambeler v sucker. Think lottery. One might buy a dozen lottery tickets knowing the odds of it hitting are very very low but 'what if'...A sentient being might think twice before buying a thousand tickets (knowing the odds of winning are actually only slightly increased by the additional tickets) for that very, very slight chance of winning...the 'what if ' remains a constant.
You might have wanted to discuss the effect of such devices in a room. Such a discussion assumes the effects are real. I add in a far more real issue, the cost of the things.
Is is ratioal to spend a LOT of money on devices that may or may not work at all and that cannot be explained? I contend it might make sense to spend small bucks on magic but big bucks is another issue entirely.
Why do I think you have a home full of magic gizmo's?
More of the schism later.
Bubbha, no need to yell. Controversial tweaks are the sport of kings, and requires big cojones. Isn't it about time you stopped being a wuss and grow a pair?
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
I wasn't yelling.
Funny you mention kings.
More like the sport of naked emperors.
These tweaks consist primarily of said naked emperors sitting around telling each other what impeccable taste they have in clothing.
I'll give you cojone credits for being so comfortable with fraud.
"And then I simply faxed him a tweak over the phone. In conjunction with my genius level clockware, I have the finest tuned system in the land. It's all due to my unique insight into true physics, and amazingly, it only applies to Hi Fi, you lucky rascals."
"Indubitably, sire."
Hi Buddha,
I second just about everything you've written. I only wish that I could have stated these things as well as you did.
What Geoff somehow manages not to mention are all the countless tweaks and pieces of audio mumbo jumbo which turned out to be, well, pure BS.
We don’t know do we, because we can’t get the debate even started because of the immediate and constant knee jerk reactions of ridicule and abuse.
The money (cost), yes, comes into the equation at the end, when the device has been tried, found to improve the sound by the person trying it, and the decision has to be made whether to actually buy the device or not. If it does not work for the person, then the price is irrelevant because they would not want to buy it at any price.
But, so as not to block any investigation (even thought investigations !!) by concentrating solely on the price, I chose to take out the price from the discussion, which would then leave space for discussing HOW (IF) the device might be working i.e HOW it MIGHT be improving the sound !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It IS allowable to remove the price from the discussion in order to facilitate ongoing discussion providing one brings it back in, later !!!
As W Scott Murray used to say in the magazine Wireless World. “You can explore down different paths, providing you remember to put up a marker flag at the point where you diverted so that you can always return back to the original place where you started from if you wish !!!”
Exactly – there MIGHT be some other unknown (at the moment) process at work but without any investigations (discussions) as to what those processes might be, we won’t be any further along in our knowledge. Or are you suggesting that we don’t want any further knowledge because the price of the device, at present, is too high ? If we could work out what might be going on, then another way of doing (whatever it is) could present itself – with a more economical outcome !! But we won’t know, will we, unless we investigate, discuss, debate ?
Although, if some people are of the opinion that there IS NO problem written on the blackboard then, for them, there is nothing to debate.
Let me describe a part true, part hypothetical story to illustrate what I mean. I will tell you which part is true and which part is hypothetical.
True part :-
During the great wars (such as the Battle of Waterloo and the Crimea war) the doctors and surgeons attending the wounded soldiers OBSERVED that if some of the wounded soldiers had had to be left out on the battlefields for quite some time and had not been brought in to the casualty field stations quickly, and maggots had got into their open wounds, then those soldiers appeared to have a better chance of survival than some of the wounded soldiers who had actually been brought in early to the casualty stations. The doctors and surgeons found that with the (delayed wounded soldiers) the maggots had eaten the decaying flesh and left the wound clean and free from infection !!!!!!!!!!!!!
After the end of the wars, the doctors and surgeons wrote about their experiences and what they had observed and (this next part is hypothetical) from the information they published there mushroomed up various firms dealing with breeding different sized maggots. Some firms concentrated on breeding large maggots, some on breeding medium sized maggots and some on breeding tiny maggots. If those firms did any research at all, the research was centred around the breeding of different maggots. Everyone believed that the open wounds were clean and free from infection because of the maggots eating and therefore getting rid of the DECAYING flesh. The breeding of the maggots was an expensive business so this technique was costly. (End of the hypothetical bit.)
True part :-
I think it was during the 1950s that researchers discovered that AS the maggots ate the decaying flesh, they secreted an antibacterial chemical and it became obvious that IT WAS THE ANTIBACTERIAL CHEMICAL which left the open wound free from infection !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The mere destroying of the decaying flesh alone did not leave the open wound free from infection, it only left it clean from the decaying flesh !!!!!!!!!!!!! It was the secreted antibacterial chemical which left the open wound free from infection.
So, from that research, all you then need is to isolate and then produce the antibacterial chemical. You don’t necessarily need the maggots anymore but they can still be useful if the wound (or problem) is difficult to treat or is inaccessible to standard procedures.
If the researchers (thinkers) had got stuck with the high cost of the maggots and not investigated any further, new knowledge would not have been gained !!!!!
So, using that example, there HAD BEEN “some other process at work” all those years ago which had left the open wounds free from infection. When people had sat and thought about it further, it became possible to produce a jar or a tube or a bottle of antibacterial chemical !!! Because they understood more of what was going on.
In audio we now have such as large acoustic tube traps, or large acoustic panels as attempts to ‘deal with’ problems of acoustics. But, whilst most people’s attention is focused on the actual acoustics, there “might be other problems” at large in the listening room which people are not even discussing (let alone addressing) because of the knee jerk reactions (and abuse) from the naysayers !!!!!
You only have to read the quite lengthy ‘postings’ about the use of crystals in the listening room to realise that there is more ‘going on’ in the listening room and affecting the sound than mere acoustics !!!!!
Have the Stein Music device people, the Schumann resonance device people, the Less Loss Blackbody device people, the tiny ART resonance device people etc. etc stumbled on some of these “other problems”.
We won’t know, will we if there are constant ‘knee jerk’ reactions of MAGIC, VOODOO, BULLSHIT and the clues galore being reported are dismissed, attacked, ridiculed ?
It is obvious that one cannot continue investigative discussions with jazzfan because everything to him is Bullshit and it is also obvious that one cannot hold investigative discussions with Buddha because all he wants to do is to attack.
Coming back to the subject of demagnetizing a non magnetic item such as a plastic (vinyl) disc. Looking at it from a different angle – from our own experience with electrets (i.e polarized plastic material !!).
Could a polarised pattern be created (over time – over a period of regular playing) on the surface of the vinyl disc ? The cartridge (containing a magnet or a magnetic field) is tracked across the surface of the vinyl disc continuously in ONE direction only – from the outer edge to the inner hole. Could we (human beings) be reacting (adversely) to particular polarization patterns ? Could applying a contra polarization (a magnet or a magnetic field has a polarization pattern) alleviate the created adverse polarization on (in) the vinyl disc so that the human being is no longer reacting so adversely ? Could that be why the sound is described as having improved ? Could the polarized pattern then appear again over extended playing of the vinyl disc ? Is this why the makers of the demagnetizer recommend re-applying the demagnetizing process at repeated intervals ? Worth a thought. And NOTHING to do with price of the demagnetizer !!!
Could the producers of the Stein Music device, the Schumann resonance device, the Less Loss Blackbody device, the tiny ART devices etc. etc, have stumbled on other things, within the listening environment, which create problems ? Other than already known acoustic problems.
What if the effect heard IS real ?
Who on earth is suggesting spending a lot of money on devices that may or may not work. ? Certainly not me. Please allow me the respect of having intelligence !!
We don’t have a home full of maggots but, having acquired glimpses of what is really going on, we DO have the equivalent of various antibacterial chemicals !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Uh, can you name just two "tweaks or pieces of audio mumbo jumbo" that turned out to be pure BS? Provide proof of your assertion, not just more idle chit chat. Betcha can't.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
You have to be joking. Either that or you did drink the kool-aid.
Here are two easy ones for you:
1) The Infamous Tice Magic Clock
2) Each and every HDMI or USB costing over $25 per meter
Both of these have been conclusive proven to be 100% pure bullsh*t.
Now please stop your nonsense. Thanks
If one CAN hear the difference in the sound, if the differences WERE present, then surely any thinking person would try to find an explanation of their own if they did not like the explanation given ???????????? Surely THAT is how science works ???
That view is not a million miles away from Jim Austin’s “the reviewers have prostituted themselves for the latest preposterous product”.
Are you therefore including such as Martin Colloms, Paul Messenger, Keith Howard, John Atkinson, Greg Weaver, Dave and Carol Clark, Russell Lichter, Michael Fremer and other well respected journalists in your description of :-
What happens when these very same people actually write about their experiences with actual audio equipment ? Are they still to be dismissed as :-
If you have such disdain for these people, why do you then read such magazines as Stereophile enough to regularly comment on their opinions. I, for one, do not have such disdain !! I do not regard such as minor gods but I do have respect for their listening experience and their willingness to inform others of their experiences.
Regards,
May Belt,
PWB Electronics.
Actually, most reviews of the Tice Clock, many of which appeared in Stereophile Magazine, allow that something positive is going on when the clock is plugged into the system. Therefore, it seems only fair to dismiss any negative reviews of the clock in this light, laying the blame for such reviews on poor listening skills, an overly skeptical frame of mind and/or poorly resolving systems. With respect to your continued pseudo-skeptical attitude toward things you don't understand and have no experience with, I suspect you are most likely following the wrong sheep.
Tice R-4 TPT & Coherence ElectroTec EP-C "Clocks"
By Sam Tellig • Posted: May 28, 1995 • Published: May 28, 1990
Lars recently received a device that looks and works like a $25 digital alarm clock and is said to subtly improve the overall sound of one's system. It's the ElectroTec EP-C, from a company called Coherence Industries.
You plug it in and it's supposed to improve the conductivity of your household electrical system—have a "smoothing effect" on the motion of electrons so there is less chaos...less anarchy! More to come as I try to digest all of this. (As you can see, I'm getting into what seems to be Auntie Enid Lumley or Peter W. Belt territory, and over my head. Possibly out of my mind.)
Well, wouldn't you know? Lars had one of these "alarm clocks" sent to me, I plugged it in, and, of course, I didn't want to hear that the sound of my system has improved because I don't want to spend what would be $495 at retail for what is ostensibly nothing more than a $25 alarm clock. That's right—$5 short of $500 bucks retail. Isn't this technology grand? It lets you sell what seems to be a $25 digital alarm clock for 16 times more money? Of course, there's supposed to be a special, proprietary microprocessor inside.
Well, wouldn't you know it, my system never has sounded better. Is it because my AudioQuest Quartz Hyperlitz interconnect has been burning in? Because the Krell SBP-16X processor is sounding better and better? The Krell KSP-7B preamp? Or is the ElectroTec EP-C having some beneficial effect? Is this why I now find the music more natural, less artificial, more free of strain? The Swede is having his sweet revenge for all those yokes at his expense—yustice at last!—Sam Tellig
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." old audiophile axiom LOL
Geoff Kait
machina dynamica
First a review or even several reviews from appearing in a magazine which has shown time and time again that it exists solely to serve the advertisers and not the readers does not constitute proof that the TMC (Tice Magic Clock) was anything other than pure nonsense. The proof that the TMC was, is and forever will be nonsense is in the fact that these pieces of garbage are no longer available. The reason that they are no available is because people did not believe those ridiculous reviews and therefore did not waste their money on something that could not possibly work.
One thing I have come to understand is that arguing with you is a complete waste of my time and so I'm out of here.
“Regardless of what anyone says, one simply cannot 'demagnetize' a non magnetic item. There might be some other unknown process at work”
Quiote May: Exactly – "Exactly - there MIGHT be some other unknown (at the moment) process at work but without any investigations (discussions) as to what those processes might be, we won’t be any further along in our knowledge. "
Well, May, then why would a 'manufacturer' insist this claimed effect is the result of demagnetization? Bold faced, straight up claim.
I certainly didn't put the bullshit words in his mouth.
As you yourself know so well, May, every bullshit tweak artist spews in such a manner. From morphic resonance to 'quantum' devices. There must be some secret rule book for those people.
Take, for instance, the fraudulent science behind tweak 'manufacturers' who claim that their tweaks allow the listener to overcome evolutionary programming in order to 'sign off' on the safety of his listening environment so he can 'hear what's already in the room.'
Specific claims imply an actual understanding of a phenomenon. Are you, May, now claiming that all these tweak 'manufacturers' are simply misunderstood? They are saying, "Well, I don't really know how it works, but I think something good happened and I want your money so I'll toss of some bullshit about demagnetizing vinyl or cuckoo bird egg making?"
You, yourself operate at this sort of 'false claim' level. The fact that you just admitted that 'manufacturers' make false claims is actually the most open I've ever seen you!
Well done.
Trouble is, every single BS marketer in the BS tweak cabal has some code word type vocabulary maneuver to try to tie itself to an actual word from the world of science.
If the maker of said "LP Demagnetizer" has to resort to lies to make a claim for how a product works, then that does not bode well with regard to how he should be credited, in general.
Hell, now that we are finding out more about printed 'receipts' and the toxins they contain, it makes one wonder what the purveyors of such items sold as tweaks have been sniffing. Imagine, selling a pseudo cash register receipt with toxic ink as a tweak. Is there no shame? And....it was sold as an item that promoted a user's subconcious sense of safety within his environment.
We are surely surrounded by snakes in the grass, May.
Quick link to toxins contained in Belt type tweaks:
http://ecowomen.net/2010/02/22/bpa-risks-in-cash-register-receipts/
Your continued unwillingness to have an intelligent discussion on the subject only delineates your lack of experience in these matters and close-mindedness. Your failure to provide proof of your claim of BS is just another indication that you've got some sort of preordained distain for tweaks you find disturbing to you personally. Of course, the intelligent, and scientific, approach would be to investigate the Tice Clock yourself, then draw conclusions, rather than take someone's word for it, positive or negative. As it stands, your foregone conclusion, proclaiming BS, means absolutely zip. Self-proclaimed "skeptics" like yourself never investigate, only castigate. Isn't that what separates mice from men?
"One thing I have come to understand is that arguing with you is a complete waste of my time and so I'm out of here."
But you have demonstrated a decided inability to argue intelligently. I therefore claim victory in this debate.
Cheers,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica
Fine you win but it's people like you who give high end audio not only a bad name but go a long way in allowing so many people, who might otherwise be willing to spend their money on some decent audio equipment, to spend it middle level mass market junk.
There is no way "argue intelligently" with you since there is no basis or standard from which I am allowed to claim. Hard science you simply dismiss as not advanced enough to use. Market response, as in people refusing to buy into the wild claims made by many of the manufacturers of these "magic audio" products, you dismiss as just a bunch close minded individuals.
May I suggest that join forces with fellow forum member MarkBryston and start a company promoting and selling super high resolution digital recordings. By super high resolution I am referring to recordings having greater than 32 bit depth and sample rates in excess of 192 kHz since, after all, the science of digital recording and human hearing is not advanced enough to realize that anything less than super high resolution just doesn't work.
"What if the effect heard IS real ?"
Then we have a different set of questions...does it work in the far more modest systems most of us have? Is the effect common to all/most systems? Do more folk hear the change in the sound than do not? and....
Is it worth the big bucks being charged?
I am skeptical as to the actual effect and find the price hilarious. Again, it could be reviewed as I proposed earlier
"This very expensive device had a real effect in my system. I heard (whatever). The manufacturer explains what is causing the effect but, it reads like the claims in a shop selling magic crystals and does not seem to fit any known science. If you are in the market for the effect I have described, have the long green for the device and do not mind having no idea how the device works, by all means give it a try."
Tootles,
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
We do Artificial Atoms Right
Hey, Jazz!
I would add what I think is an important factor for people like Geoff and May's fear of science:
It isn't that it isn't advanced enough for them....it's that it is rigorous and lays their false claims out. Science to them is like sunlight to a vampire.
The method of honest 'science,' with the actual 'investigating' and 'repeating' and trying to limit the all important underpinnings of suggestion, talisman, or ritual renders their false tweaks ineffective. (Watch what they attack most vehemently and you'll get an idea of where they are obfuscating.)
Their voodoo can't stand up to any rigorous questioning, so they fall back on calling people who believe in honest investigation 'skeptics.'
It's pretty funny, we trust science and method and critical thinking. They disdain it, then call us the skeptics. They approach their craft with cynicism and salesbabble and identify others as skeptics for displaying any critical faculties.
All very old hat and automatic for them, at this point.
Watch May, she says she wants to dicuss and figure things out....see if she can step out of her dogma regarding her own tweaks.
Thanks Buddha!
Okay so here we go. Where exactly did I call anyone a name? I may have called a worthless piece of junk as worthless piece but I did not call anyone a name.
On the other hand, you have called me names several times:
"close-minded individual" because I want REAL proof that something works and a valid reason for how and why it works.
"You obviously have no idea what the heck you're talking about" because I call into question simply believing in something that cannot possibly be true.
Now I proved why the Tice Magic Clock was, is and will always a complete piece of BS: NO ONE BOUGHT THEM ONCE THEY REALIZED WHAT A BUNCH OF BULLSHIT THEY WERE.
And I'll prove to you why each and every HDMI and USB cable costing over $25 per meter is a waste of money (note: I did not say "total waste of money" since one still a functioning cable out of the deal): http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2147107,00.asp - a link to article from a magazine/website that does take advertising money from cable manufacturers.
It's about high time you came back Bro. We have missed your fun to read posts my friend.
Mark
Surprise, surprise, more ranting and raving. LOL Apparently, you've taken a page from Buddha, the lead huff and puffer around here, and commenced yelling. . Actually, you're dead wrong (as usual). Lots of folks bought Tice products, including the Tice Clock. That's why Tice stayed in business for such a long time, silly. Besides, the clock I sell is much more disturbing than the Tice ever thought of being. Trust me, you would break out in hives.
""close-minded individual" because I want REAL proof that something works and a valid reason for how and why it works?"
No, close-minded because you will not listen to reason.
Who cares about your wild theories regarding HDMI cables? Not I.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Not listen to reason. How dare you invoke reason went everything you sell absolutely defies reason.
Look, not wanting to take the claims the of some salesman, which, after all is exactly what you are, at face value is not being closed minded, rather it is being very, very sensible.
The "theories" regarding HDMI and USB cables are not mine, they are taken directly from a understanding of how the transmission of digital data works and from the test bench of a well respected computer publication.
Speaking of salesmen, I have a nice bridge available and if you act now I will throw in all the cars on the bridge at no extra charge.
All kidding aside, I'm going to strongly request that you and all the salesmen be limited to posting in the "Manufacturers' Showcase" section of this forum so as to not sully the waters of the rest of the forum. By the way, for those of you following along at home, please do a search on the term "Machina Dynamica fraud" and see what comes up.
Pages