Quote:

“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.

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.”

Here you go again, misrepresenting me and what I say yet again.

I HAVE NOT stated that ‘manufacturers make false claims’.   I think they believe the explanations they give because those explanations fit their experiences.  What I am saying is that there could be another explanation for the exactly the same effect !!!!    

Re the demagnetizing device.   They have tried applying a demagnetizer, they have found that it improves the sound, therefore by using a magnetizer they believe that it MUST BE demagnetizing something on (in) the vinyl material.   Just because there is another way of viewing something does not mean that by using the earlier explanation the manufacturer was “making false claims” !!!   They are making claims which fit in with their present knowledge !!   THAT is not false !!!

NOR are they resorting to “lies”.

The Doctors and Surgeons and their maggot breeding firms in my story believed that the destroying of the decaying flesh was the reason for the wounds being free from infection.   They were NOT making false claims, nor telling lies, they thought the evidence was there, in front of their eyes.   Pointers to something else going on did not come until many, many years later.

You just can’t resist bringing into discussions words like “false claims”, “lies”, “snakes in the grass”, can you ?

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Quote:

“4) He/she has done nothing, but knows everything.”

Absolutely UNBELIEVABLE !!

Where on earth have you been all these past years ?????????????????

I don’t think you have a clue, do you Buddha ?

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Quote:

“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.”

Jazzfan.  You could have given a similar link as to the PC link you gave but this time from a well respected magazine on Microwaves where two engineers could be debating that you can use an identical AC power cable for a microwave as you can for a washing machine – you DON’T need to pay any more for any other AC power cable.   That the “theories” are taken directly from science !!!

The engineers of the Microwave magazine would NOT be discussing HOW some AC cable SOUNDED !!!!!!!!!!!!!  

On the other hand, with audio, one HAS to take into account HOW something sounds – even HOW AC power cables SOUND !!!   Whatever the “theories” currently say !!!!!!

Let me show you the difference between the engineers talking in your ‘link’ re the PC magazine and how a well respected audio engineer talks !!!!!!!!!

Quote:

“Julian Vereker (of Naim Audio) who, in 1995 wrote :-

Everything that we do to our hi-fi systems affects the way that they sound;   Some of these things are simple to measure while others are not so straight forward.

When we were designing the Naim loudspeaker cable, we specified all the parameters that we thought were controllable in manufacture, but when we came to listen to some music on a system using the new cable, we were somewhat alarmed to note that the sound was rather ‘phasey’ - lacking in a coherent soundstage.

This was such an obvious characteristic we felt sure that we would be able to measure something.   But we looked from DC to 500kHz (down to -1440dBV) then up to 500 MHz and down to -100dBV at low currents, high currents, low voltage and high voltage and we could not find anything different in any respect between this new cable and the old design or in fact the new cable and our current loudspeaker cable, NACA5.

We also listen to mains cables of the same specification from different manufacturers for the same reasons.   We know they make a difference but have not yet been able to measure anything of consequence.   So we specify exactly which mains cable the moulded lead manufacturers may use when supplying us.

I feel that if one cannot be scientific it pays to be pragmatic.”

Jazzfan.   You are trying to take us right back 30 years !!!!  To :-

Quote:

“The engineers as just quoted by Soundmind  “To the electrical engineer who is far better informed than the "average" objectivist and who is an objectivist by training and must remain an objectivist to survive and who is NOT in this industry, audiophile wires are a joke. They shake their heads at the whole thing.”

OR

Such as Peter Baxandall (a very well respected UK audio guru during the mid 1990s) who said in 1985 

“I do not believe that the type or quality of dielectric used in LF coupling capacitors is of any significance whatsoever.”

 

“I do not believe that the use of expensive, special loudspeaker cable - no matter which way round they are connected - confers any sonic benefit whatever.”

“I believe that all this recent business about single-crystal, high purity, oxygen-free, connecting cable is just a load of absolute hogwash.”

The engineers of the PC magazine are NOT discussing HOW the HDMI and USB cables SOUND – however well respected you think the computer publication is!!   All it (they) are discussing is the transmission of data.   My computer does that to the printer !!

For anyone who has HEARD different cables sound different I would recommend that you look at the link provided earlier by jazzfan – at the two engineers discussing HDMI and USB cables !!!!!   And, then, decide who you are going to take notice of.   The PC engineers recommended by jazzfan or YOUR own listening experiences !!!!

Before people do the usual ‘knee jerk reaction’, I am NOT advocating more expensive cables per se, I am saying that IF some cables are reported (reported by significant audio people) to SOUND better, then such reports should not be dismissed.   I am NOT saying believe everything, everyone says about everything !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

Quote:

“It's gone so poorly for May she had to send out a morphic message for reinforcements.”

No, it has not gone so badly for me, Buddha, I have had to pause to weep buckets after looking at the link (and the video clip) given by jazzfan regarding HDMI and USB cables.

Jazzfan is talking about the “theories” and that the theories are taken directly from an understanding.   An UNDERSTANDING of what ?   On how the transmission of digital data works or on how something SOUNDS ??????????????????

Jazzfan has taken us directly back to the dark ages – to the controversy created 30 years ago when Jean Hiraga (Editor of the French Hi Fi magazine Revue du Son) first published that he could HEAR difference in the sound from different cables !!!!!!!!!!!

EXACTLY the same sentences (as described by jazzfan) were used against Jean Hiraga (and others who could hear similar differences) i.e that the “theories” showed that there should be no differences  !!!!

John Atkinson was in the middle of all this, 30 years ago when he was the editor of the British Hi Fi News.   He published Martin Colloms 6 page article on “The Cable Controversy” back in 1984. !!!

As Keith Howard said, the shocks to the audio industry were “eight-on-the-audio-Richter-scale”

Quote by Keith Howard in 2001.

Quote:

“I still recall the impact of that Jean Hiraga piece from the French Hi Fi magazine La Nouvelle Revue du Son.   So-called subjectivism was still a relatively young hi-fi movement at the time, albeit one which had already shaken the foundations of audio orthodoxy with it’s exposition of ‘turntable sound’ and ‘amplifier sound’.   But these were mere pre-shocks ahead of the eight-on-the-Richter-scale upheaval triggered by the Hiraga article.   If even connecting cables sounded different, I remember thinking, then nothing of the old view could be taken for granted any longer.   Intellectually, the earth had moved.

 

The difference between the non frozen and the cryogenically frozen cables continues to astound me.”

Having heard for myself the astonishing effect of cryogenically treating the copper in speaker and interconnect cables, I cannot imagine how this process and its benefits could fade into obscurity.”

One can imagine the PC engineers referred to by jazzfan ‘throwing the biggest wobbly ever’ if anyone ever suggested that the HDMI and USB cables MIGHT SOUND better if they had been put through the cryogenic freezing process !!!!!

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Quote:

“Which is why one must suspect that such reactions are precisely gauged to discourage investigations that might threaten a settled mind.”

I also think there is a strong element of that. 

As evidenced by one earlier demand to me by Buddha.

Quote:

“Can you quit it with the "cryogenically frozen" stuff?”

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Quote:

“May, you think placing something in a home freezer is 'cryogenics.'

My request was that you cease and desist the coupling of your bogus charlatanism to real world terms.

I have nothing against the term or the process when used correctly.

Your fallacious associations are to worst in the hobby.

The cryogenic industry should sue you for misuse of the term.

Google the word, check several places for verification. You show an utter and complete disregard for proper use of terminology - yet another sign of a fake.”

I see you are back again responding with attacks as your response ?

I REPEAT what I have said in the past to you :-

“It should be obvious that I am perfectly capable of knowing the difference between a home freezer and cryogenic temperatures”

I make myself clear, each time, whether I am referring to freezing at cryogenic temperatures or explaining how one can do simple experiments for oneself, using a domestic deep freezer.

I repeat, YET AGAIN.

“I know the difference in the different freezing temperatures between cryogenic freezing and domestic deep freezing”.   Now can you absorb that answer ?

It is YOU who confused the term “cryogenic freezing” when you instructed me to

Quote:

“Can you quit it with the "cryogenically frozen" stuff?”

Quote:

“I have nothing against the term or the process when used correctly.”

You must have something against that term or process or you would not keep telling me to “quit talking about that (cryogenic freezing) process” !!

So, Buddha, for your benefit, yet again, I will repeat, yet again.

I KNOW the difference between freezing at cryogenic temperatures and freezing at domestic home freezer temperatures !!!!   And, I DO NOT refer to something as “cryogenic freezing” if what I happen to be describing is the technique of freezing using a domestic home freezer !!!!!!

Now, back to the original subject of the Stein Music Harmonizer etc.

I responded to some people’s blanket reaction of:-

Quote:

“Stein Music Harmonizer and Magic Diamonds, Magic Stones and magic flutes

Of all the things under the audio sun that Sam could write about, he chooses to devote most of a month's column to this voodoo doo-doo.  Is it any wonder normal people think audiophiles have a screw loose?  Was it all a joke?  Er, I'm sorry...a yoke? 

I put it right up there with magic vinyl demagnetizers”

to the subject of the Stein Music device etc by suggesting that “I think the subject is important enough for a serious discussion”.

But, unfortunately, it has descended into the usual “attack mode” – which seemingly happens whenever something controversial (shall we say ‘challenging’) is referred to.   As evidenced fairly recently with reports of the (observed effect) of demagnetizing LPs and with the (observed effect) of the tiny ART devices.

Is it not possible for you, Buddha (to name but one person) to discuss such as the Stein Music device without resorting to personal attacks ?   Particularly personal attacks on me whenever I choose to post, presumably because I have had the temerity to enter the discussion. ?  

Some people have the blanket response “It (such as improving the sound by demagnetizing LPs or using the ART devices or using the Stein Music device etc) cannot happen therefore it does not  happen.   Others, (me as one) say “We know it should not happen, but it does, so one has to deal with the fact that it happens.   Which means that we have to investigate why, how.”   That is, if one is seriously interested in obtaining good sound.

Regards,

May Belt,

PWB Electronics.

Quote:

“So, May. We need to proceed with 'investigating' on two fronts:

1) Is the sales-speak for a device accurate? Does this Stein device alter the 'fluidity of the air in the room?' Other than the typical Belt/Kait bullshit answer, "Prove it doesn't," I ask you how you would investigate and verify such a claim?”

What follows, at great length !! Buddha, may point some way to answering your questions.

The sales-speak for the Stein device may be the very best the engineers can reach !   As Mark Bryston has just said :-

Quote:

“ in fact when it comes to tweaks I have said, pretty consistently I might add. that just because we don't(yet) know why something changes or improves the sound of our audio gear doesn't mean that it doesn't. And I fully understand that in our gotta know why right society/buying public that manufacturers cant just say "we don't know why it works it just does trust us and buy and see for yourself"...they couldn't sell a damn thing that way. So yes claims need to be made..”

Some sort of explanation has to be given.   And, the 'fluidity of the air in the room’ might have been altered but as I will try to explain later in my answers, THAT alteration might not be the actual reason why the sound has improved !!!   It might just be the nearest that the Stein people can get to with their existing knowledge.   As per my examples given later, it happens throughout history !!

Quote:

“Lots of questions to answer, May,”

You are correct.   Lots of answers to give !!   So, I will have to do them in many parts.   You DID ask, Buddha !!!!

Part One.

Quote:

“In all your "I am like Lister" examples, how was the idea 'investigated?' Were people just expected to take the word of some guru? Perhaps, were data involved?”

I DO NOT say “I am like Lister” .   AGAIN you are distorting my words !!

Regarding the Lister story.   No, people were not just expected to take the word of some guru – as you well know !!   Again, as you well know there was a battle royal, lasting well over a decade, between the majority of the medical profession who believed (and had been taught) that the microorganism which caused septicaemia was ‘in the patient’s own bad blood’ and it was therefore pure chance whether the patient developed septicaemia after an operation or not.

Data only became available (by virtue of enough people (doctors and surgeons) being prepared to try the new technique of antiseptics) when the statistics began to show many decades later, that more patients survived with than without the technique !!

I use such as the Lister story as an example of how something – leads to something – which leads to something – which leads to something - which leads…. !!!!!   And that such a thing CAN happen in the world of audio !!!

The Lister story starts NOT with Lister, NOT with the medical profession but with Louis Pasteur (the famous French chemist) who made his own wine.   But as Pasteur left the bottles of his fermenting wine open to let the bubbles out, he found that his wine “went off”.   So, he devised a contraption to fit over the tops of the bottles to let the fermentation bubbles escape but which would also keep the outside air from getting in.   From then on his wine was OK.   From that OBSERVATION he concluded that “there must be something in the air” which had been getting at his wine – what he called “vibrios”.

Either Dr Joseph Lister was told about Pasteur’s findings or read about them, but Dr Lister already knew he (and other doctors and surgeons) had problems with many of their patients developing septicaemia after an operation.   The conventional belief THEN was that the microorganisms which caused septicaemia were in the patient’s own ‘bad blood’ and could erupt spontaneously – in other words – there was nothing the doctors and surgeons were doing which caused the problem – it was completely a ‘chance/random thing’!

From the clues coming from Pasteur’s findings, Lister said “I wonder if the ‘things in the air’ which had been getting to Pasteur’s wine could actually be getting into my patients open wounds ?”  Lister began to experiment, starting with a carbolic spray, to be sprayed around the patient whilst they were being operated on !

The majority of the medical profession refused to believe Lister and refused to believe that there could be ‘microorganisms in the air’, demanding proof, and, even after ten years had gone by, with report after report in the British Medical Journal of success from some doctors and surgeons using antiseptic techniques devised by Lister, the majority of the medical profession in the USA were still decidedly ANTI Lister. !!!!

Over many years Lister had experimented with numerous different techniques for antiseptic gauzes, so he had a wealth of expertise – far more expertise than many of the other fellow doctors and surgeons (who could be called his ‘peer group’) who steadfastly refused to try any of them!!!!!!!   Yet all were skilled doctors and surgeons !!

Some eminent surgeons who tried Lister’s antiseptic gauzes reported that they had no success.

One, a James Paget of Bart’s Hospital found in the few cases where carbolic acid had been used “It had been useless”.   However, many years later, Sir Henry Butlin who had been Paget’s house surgeon admitted “Our technique was so indifferently applied that the dressing was constantly slipping down and the bed was bathed in pus until the usual shiver occurred and the patient went the way of all flesh”.

Others, including D. Campbell Black, referred to Lister’s technique as “the latest toy in medical science” and “the Carbolic mania”.

Methinks those very same attitudes are as prevalent in audio now as they were back then !!!

Lister’s trials of different antiseptic gauzes included :-

Early ‘antiseptic’ pads were – a piece of calico dipped in a solution of one part carbolic acid in four parts of Linseed oil.

Then a mixture of carbolic acid, linseed oil and common whitening – antiseptic putty, spread on tinfoil.

Then oiled silk, coated with copal varnish.

In 1868 he tried a mixture or carbolic acid and shellac, spread on calico and coated with a solution of gutta-percha.

Then he tried a complex combination of paraffin, wax, olive oil and carbolic acid.

Then he tried Chloride of Zinc, Boracic acid and salicylic acid.

In 1878, Charles Darwin suggested Benzoic acid.

In 1881, Lister became interested in oil of eucalyptus and also tested oxidized oil of turpentine.

In 1882, he tried iodoform.

In 1883, he tried gauze containing corrosive sublimate beneath which he used a rubber protective.

In 1885, he used gauze impregnated by Sal Alembroth, the double cyanide of mercury and zinc.

Then he tried various zinc and mercury compounds, often in combination with the new aniline dyes.

In 1887, Lister dropped the carbolic spray and experimented with various dressings to replace carbolic acid.   All these experimental dressings were coloured with different dyes, as a King’s student put it, in a Ditty :-

“There is a worthy Baronet who once took up the cause,

Of Antiseptic surgery and Antiseptic Gauze,

First there was a yellow one, then there was a blue,

Then there was a red one, and a white one too.

Next there was a violet one, so we thought he’d go,

Right through all the colours of the bright rainbow.”

The Violet gauze was the last one to be produced.   It was muslin gauze covered with a fine white powder, the double cyanide of zinc and mercury.   Lister found that this powder would not stay on the gauze unless it was moistened.   He first tried a solution of chloride of mercury, but it proved too irritating to the skin.   Then he found a dye called “rosanilin” would fix the powder. So he had a very satisfactory dressing which was coloured a beautiful shade of heliotrope.   This cyanide gauze was used as a dressing for many years.

All THIS was going on at the same time as many other doctors and surgeons were continuing to walk straight from the mortuary after carrying out an autopsy, straight to the operating theatre – without washing their hands, without washing their medical instruments, and still wearing their dirty, filthy blood stained, pus stained frock coats.   In fact, they wore those frock coats with pride, even carrying the cat gut for stitches dangling from the buttonhole of the frock coat !!!

All the participants in the Joseph Lister story are long since dead –  now we can only shake our heads in dismay at so many of them having such a rigid and blinkered attitude !!!

Can you imagine, if there HAD BEEN the Internet and Chat Forums way back in Lister’s time, what the reaction would have been to Lister ???????   Judging from the present time’s (from the world of audio) example, it just does not bear thinking about !!!

Now, can people see why I use the Lister story. ?   In view of the past 30 years of reporting, in the world of audio, of  numerous things being described as ‘having an effect on the sound’ ???

By using the Lister story I am NOT comparing us (or anyone else) with the extensive benefits to human kind of Lister’s work (as you, Buddha, so often accuse me of doing).   What I use the Lister story for is to illustrate how sometimes chance events can lead to significant, seemingly unrelated progress or how one clue can lead to another clue which can lead to another …… !   And, it does not matter at what level (high or low) discoveries happen, many can follow exactly the SAME path as illustrated by the Lister story – even in audio !!!

There were no gurus telling Lister what to try, he had to figure it out for himself and he had to try for himself and he had to think for himself.   Only different people trying, in different situations, at different times, on different patients were results eventually collected and confirmed.   At least with patients, one could SEE the results.   With audio one cannot !!

To be continued.

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Part Two.

Quote:

“The onus is not on me, I was minding my own business and some marketing and sales person came up with this crap - so how does the seller back up the claim?”

I am not suggesting that the lay person investigates the claims made by the producer of the devices such as the Stein device before they determine whether to try the device or not.   I am suggesting that it is not dismissed because of the explanation.  I am suggesting that as it is reported as “giving an improvement in the sound” and that those reports, from quite experienced listeners, should be given far more consideration than a blanket dismissal of the device (devices) as VOODOO.

Quote:

”It might just be the nearest that the Stein people can get to with their existing knowledge."

So, May, making stuff up is OK.

Figures you'd say that. It's a sales thing, and thank you for even more insight into your process.”

You are back AGAIN distorting what I have said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suggested that the 'fluidity of the air in the room’ might quite well have been altered in exactly the same way that in your own experiences with the set of lights (which improved the sound in YOUR room) you say you measured the barometric pressure of the room alter “ a tidge” :-

Quote:

“With my laser tweak, after it has been on in the room for about 12 mintes, the barometric pressure goes up a tidge. A 'measurable' tidge!

 

If I go and listen in the room without the laser in place, the barometric pressure goes down a tidge after a while - by breathing, we introduce water vapor which lowers the barometric pressure.

 

If I have the laser tweak turned on and go in and listen, the barometric pressure will still go up a (smaller) tidge!

 

I can measure one of the effects of my laser tweak, and it is in keeping with my hypothesis of allowing the air to be more efficiently 'packed' in the room and enhance the coupling of the speaker to the air to the ear.”

Just because you were able to measure the barometric pressure alter “a tidge” does not mean that you would be “making it up” if you were ever to market the set of lights.   Your measurement was your measurement.  Whether that measurement was the actual reason why the sound had been improved could be argued over.   Your assessment was your assessment based on your personal experience !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Nor does the measurement fully explain WHY the sound was better.   The improvement in the sound which you experienced with the set of lights may, actually, be nothing whatsoever to do with a barometric pressure alteration !!   But, whatever the explanation, it does not alter one todd that you heard an improvement in the sound !!

I remember you writing quite enthusiastically about the good effect on the sound from your ‘set of lights’.

I am requesting that people investigate rather than outrightly dismissing things as VOODOO.   I think that such as the Stein Music device, the LessLoss Blackbody device, the Schumann resonance device, the tiny ART devices and other things are giving clues !   Clues to things ‘having an effect on the sound’ which are not in the electronic or acoustic text books !!

***************

Continued with PartTwo.

Quote:

“How were people able to discover that different Cuckoos lay different eggs in different nests”

By observation after observation after observation, Oh and curiosity, I e wanting to know  !!

And, Buddha, again as you well know, the example I used of the Cuckoo was that the Cuckoo only makes the decision which host bird’s nest it is going to lay it’s egg in about 24 hours before it actually does so but yet can lay an egg with an egg shell similar (not necessarily identical but similar enough to fool the host bird) in colour and pattern to the host bird’s own eggs !!!   I asked the question “Is that information (of the host bird’s eggshell colour and pattern) already within the Cuckoo or is it external to the Cuckoo, but can be accessed by the availability of some sensing mechanism within the Cuckoo ?”   Very similar to a radio which does not have all the radio stations of the world within it but has the necessary mechanism within it so that any particular broadcast can be accessed if required.   And I am not the ONLY one using the example of a radio and not the ONLY one pondering the question about the Cuckoo.

To be continued.

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Part Three.

Quote:

“You say we should investigate, so tell us how we can question and investigate these claims you automatically believe, every time.”

I DO NOT automatically believe everything, every time !!   You can only question from your own experience, from any additional clues you yourself might have gained during the course of your life (and work).

If I knew such as John Curl and John Curl said regarding PASSIVE components affecting the sound (as he did) :-

Quote:

“or using superior passive components, such as bypass caps, wire, and connectors. It works. Why it works, as an engineer is just as much a mystery to me, as it is to many others.”

And if my experiences had been identical to John Curl’s, then I could confirm that John’s experiences had been identical to ours and that “as a mystery to Peter as an engineer and I also” we had already investigated further.

Or ditto below :-

Quote by Charles Hansen (Manufacturer) General Asylum 16/01/10

Quote:

“Every time that I have decided a priori that something can't *possibly* have any effect, I have always been proven wrong by listening tests at a later date. So I end up deliberately not listening to some things because I'm not sure if I want to know the answer...

I have never listened for wire directionality. I have talked with enough people I trust to believe that it is real. Some of them think that it is part of the wire itself and is created as the wire is drawn to smaller gauges through the dies. Others think that it acquires its directionality by being played in the system.”

In other words, many people KNOW certain things happen, but do not know for sure WHY and HOW.

Let me describe the story of one investigation we carried out nearly 30 years ago.

I see John A includes in the list from his article 20 years ago the claim that passive loudspeakers and passive telephones, when present in a room with other loudspeakers actively playing music, that the sound will be worse.

If any manufacturer of Hi End audio equipment, when hearing (from someone of significance) of something ‘having an effect on the sound’, then they should investigate further !!

Which is what Peter and I did after hearing of Ivor Teifenbrum’s description how, when there are passive loudspeakers present in the listening room, then they have an adverse effect on the sound of the actual loudspeakers being played (demonstrated if in a retailers showroom).   That was the start of Ivor’s campaign for ‘single speaker dem rooms in Hi Fi retailers’.

Ivor’s explanation was that the cones of the passive loudspeakers were being activated by the air pressure waves being generated by the active loudspeakers and causing additional and unwanted air movement – hence the worsening sound.

As we were manufacturers of loudspeakers we had plenty of speakers to experiment with and to destroy (if necessary) in the pursuit of answers !!!

We listened to music with passive loudspeakers in the room and, yes, confirmed what Ivor had been saying – the sound was worse.   But, then, to try to find out exactly what was causing the problem, Peter began to take, out of the room (listening between each experiment) systematic pieces of the passive loudspeakers.   Each time the sound was still worse until all that remained of the passive speaker was the speaker cone attached to the frame which was attached to the magnet assembly.  Again the sound still remained worse.   Then Peter cut away the cone and removed it from the room.   As we listened again, fully expecting the sound to be better – it was NOT, it was exactly the same as before – i.e. just as bad !!   Peter removed the metal frame, just leaving the passive speaker magnet assembly on the floor and we listened again.   The sound was just as bad !!   With NO CONE in the room, only the passive magnet assembly.   So, the explanation that it was the passive speaker cone which was the problem no longer held water – there WAS no passive cone in the room and yet the sound was just as bad !!   Leaving the magnet assembly as the culprit !!   WHY ?   HOW ?

Also, at a UK audio show, Ivor had given a demonstration to a room full of journalists of changing the sound in the room by manipulating the hotel room’s telephone !!

Again Ivor’s explanation was that the tiny diaphragm in the telephone was being activated by the active speakers being played in the room.   So we investigated this also.

Yes, bringing our house telephone into the listening room made the sound worse, exactly as Ivor had said.   But, when you investigate further something else appears.   We took one of our son’s ‘boy scout’ compass and moved it along the body of the telephone.   The needle moved from North to South, showing that there was also a magnetic field around the telephone.

Some time later, someone writing in a Hi Fi magazine claimed that when one of the newly available alarm watches had been brought into a listening room, it had an adverse effect on the sound.   The explanation they put forward was the same as Ivor’s, that the tiny diaphragm in the alarm watch was being activated by the working speakers in the room.

Peter pondered.   The alarm watch uses a chip and also uses a battery – another object (like a magnet) which was a polarized object !!

Peter said “What else do we have which uses a chip and a battery” as we did not have one of the newly available alarm watches.   A pocket calculator.   We brought a pocket calculator into the room and that ALSO had an adverse effect on the sound.

These investigations went on and on until the problem (of the worse sound) was narrowed down to a magnet (or a magnetic field) being a problem in the room (re sound) – even when just passive in the room and a battery being a problem (re sound) – even when just passive in the room.

Ivor’s observation had been correct – that the sound is worse with passive speakers present in the listening room – but his explanation (that it was the cone of the passive speaker which was causing the problem) no longer held water !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At that time we had not explanation either, only the OBSERVATION !!

Now, using one of your arguments, it would be quite possible for anyone (even many others) to verify, for themselves that, after placing passive speakers in a listening room,  that the sound deteriorated.  And, they could accept Ivor’s explanation that it was the cone of the passive speaker which was being activated by the working speakers – because there is some acoustic logic to that explanation.   But that does not, per se, prove that Ivor’s explanation is correct !!   In exactly the same way that anyone (even many others) could, as you say, confirm that placing your set of lights in a room could alter the barometric pressure “a tidge”.   But, if someone else continued investigating and discovered that if the wrong chemical was applied to the lights and the sound was now worse - BUT yet the barometric pressure was still exactly the same, then the original explanation would not hold water !!   The OBSERVATION would be showing something different from originally believed.

Quote:

“unless a manufacturer can demonstrate the basis of a claim, it is flat out lying to make a claim that cannot be shown to be true. Your forgivness regarding out and out "making stuff up" is duly noted.”

Not quite forgiveness, Buddha, more far more knowledgeable regarding reality.   I don’t think people “make stuff up”.   I think they give it their best shot based on their knowledge at any particular time.   Such as Unclestu, giving his explanation as to the effect on the sound of various crystals, gives it the best shot he can.   Who’se explanation are YOU going to believe when you position YOUR crystals around your room ?   I am sure you would not accuse him of “flat out lying”, or “making stuff up” and yet someone, somewhere has to present some explanation for what people are hearing – and that includes you.   I concur with most of what Unclestu can HEAR. I just don’t go along with his rigid explanations of “it must be affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment” or “it must be affecting the room acoustics”.

It was much later, after subsequent further discoveries, that allowed us to begin to realize that the human being can be “affected” by what is going on in their environment, that the human being is struggling to resolve complex musical information and that their very reaction to certain things (or energies) can change how the musical information is resolved !!!   Which takes us a distance AWAY from the rigid belief structure of the usual :-

“Sound can only be changed in TWO ways, either the signal travelling through the audio system is affected or the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room are affected.   NOTHING else can therefore change the sound – end of discussion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Let me explain the seriousness and implications for the audio industry (of just TWO aspects) and why I keep emphasizing the need to investigate !!

Say a customer, interested in buying a loudspeaker system, goes into a Hi Fi Retailer for a demonstration.    Is Joe Bloggs the unlucky manufacturer because the customer was demonstrated his (Joe Bloggs) speakers in a demonstration room which had three pairs of passive loudspeakers in it, so the customer was disappointed with the sound ?   If the same customer goes into another Hi Fi Retailer and is demonstrated Bill Brown’s loudspeaker system, is Bill Brownmerely the lucky manufacturer because the customer was demonstrated his speaker system in a demonstration room with no passive speakers in it ?   Did the customer choose what WAS the best sounding, best made, best value speaker system ?   Or was their choice made when being completely unaware of any other governing factors ?   Was the choice made by the customer distorted by the presence (or not) of passive speakers ?

Similarly, was Joe Bloggs the unlucky manufacturer because the customer was demonstrated his (Joe Bloggs) speakers through an amplifier which had had no ‘cryogenic freezing treatment’ ?   Was Bill Brown the lucky manufacturer because his speakers were demonstrated through an amplifier which had had all it’s bits and pieces, components and wires put through the ‘cryogenic freezing treatment’ before it had been assembled ?   Therefore the sound of that amplifier was better than anything the customer had heard previously, allowing more of the capability of the Bill Brown speakers to be heard ?   But, unfortunately for Joe Bloggs, the capability of HIS loudspeakers were not given that same advantage.

Quite a large proportion of the world of audio is oblivious to what is really happening.   Like the example of a large proportion of an iceberg is there, below the water, unseen !!!!!

Quote:

“May, there is a built in circularity to the bullshit you and Geoff fling at the hobby. If someone doesn't hear what you want them to hear, the person lacks discernment, or their system is not resolving enough”

I have NEVER claimed that, as you well know Buddha.

Why do I get the impression you are waiting with bated breath for any opportunity to jump on words I say and attempt to distort them ?

I am getting to some of your other questions, have patience.

To be continued.

Regards.

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Mark said :-

Quote:

“I think your response above was very poignant and sincere...and quite accurate....Audio history really is full of example after example after example of unknowns being observed and discovered...many times through hypothesis testing.”

That is because I know my world.   But, believe me, Mark, one cannot get past first base with some people.

Quote:

“However..citing all of these wonderful examples doesn't mean that rainbow foil is one of them or that sugar bags and photosynthesis are one of them. The issue is not the past but the present.”

.

The issue IS, actually, so much in the present !!!!!!!!   All those examples apply NOW – and yes apply with our Rainbow Foil.

Quote:

“thus Peters testing..the solid explanation may have been wrong but it wasn't one based on faith or new age science..Peters own conclusions were again based on known and testable scientific principles of magnetics...again not faith...”

Neither are our explanations based on faith or new age science !!!!!!!!!!!

You say that Peter’s conclusions were based on known and testable scientific principles of magnetics.  Pray,  WHAT are those “known and testable scientific principles of magnetics” which would explain the adverse effect on the sound of the passive speaker magnet just laid on the carpet ???????   Or the effect of passive batteries, just by being in the room ?   Please, sir, tell us the “known and testable scientific principles of magnetics” which can explain how passive magnets and passive batteries, in a room, can have an effect on the sound !!

Don’t you think that a skilled electronics engineer such as Peter would have KNOWN of any “scientific principles of magnetics” which could have explained the effect on the sound ?????????   Why do you think we had to investigate and investigate and investigate if that KNOWLEDGE, of which you speak, had been staring him in the face all the time ?????

THAT is why I told the story of our experiences with the passive magnets and passive batteries etc ‘affecting the sound’.   Precisely because there IS no explanation from conventional electronic or acoustic theories !!

Quote:

“So how does one apply the principles of these examples you offer from history equate to your current products???”

I started responding to this thread because of the reaction to the reports of the effect on the sound of the Stein Music device.   Not about OUR products !!!   The story behind our own products is well known and I am sure Stereophile will not like me discussing our own products on their Forum.   The examples from the past are given because the discussion (and many past discussions including the ones regarding applying a demagnetizer to LPs and CDs and the tiny ART room devices) just CANNOT get past first post.   I try to remind people with examples of rigidity of thought, rigidity of thought, rigidity of thought !!

Quote:

“he (Ivor) said something is screwing with my speakers”

No, he didn’t say “something is screwing with my speakers”, he said “something is screwing with the SOUND” when the retailers are trying to demonstrate – whatever - whether that ‘whatever’ was his turntable or Naim amplifiers (I don’t think Ivor had his own amplifier at that time) !!!!!!!!!!!!   He was right with his observation but not with his explanation.   But, by using that example I was hoping to prod people into ‘pondering the thought’ – and I did say “pondering” –  that there could be, NOW, STILL, explanations being given which make ‘some sense’ from a technical point of view but on further investigation do not hold water and YET, the original observation and subsequent observations are CORRECT in that ‘whatever’ CAN and DOES change the sound !!

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer

Part Four.

Buddha said :-

Quote:

“Take my word for it" is not an investigation, May.”

I do NOT say “Take my word for it”.   

Quote:

“I mean, if the salesman can make the claim, that should imply some sort of actual knowledge regarding the claim.”

Let me extract a story (below) from the Lister story to illustrate further what I am attempting to get over.   One can have actual knowledge (in exactly the same way that you had actual knowledge of an altered barometer pressure with your set of lights) but the actual altered barometer pressure may have nothing to do with the improvement in the sound you heard !   You would have to find something else (other than a set of lights) which would give exactly the same altered barometer pressure and see if that gave the same improvement in the sound – to confirm that it WAS the altered barometer pressure which was the reason for the sound improvement you experienced.

******

You have an eminent surgeon who claims to never have used Lister’s antiseptic techniques – not his carbolic spray nor any of his antiseptic gauzes but yet still has one of the best records for his patients surviving operations (especially amputations) carried out by this eminent surgeon i.e. his patients have the lowest incidence of developing septicaemia.  This surgeon regularly allows journalists to witness him doing operations and these journalists also confirm that the surgeon never uses Lister’s techniques.   The surgeon firmly believes that it is his insistence on using the sharpest surgical blade and also the speed with which he can do amputations as the reason for so many of his patients surviving.   If that is all he knows, then that belief is NOT a lie or a false claim, it is based on his own personal experience.

This surgeon however has one well known quirk.   He always has, in the operating theatre, one of the revolving stones for sharpening knives and, the last thing he always does just before making the first surgical incision, is to sharpen the blade of the surgical knife.

Because the surgeon has refused to pay much attention to the technique of using a carbolic spray or antiseptic gauzes, he has not taken on board the concept of “germs in the air”, or “germs on surgical instruments”.   So, he does not realize that the very process of sharpening the surgical blade ALSO creates sufficient heat on the surface of the cutting edge to provide some form of sterilisation on the blade of the knife !!!!!!!!!

Now, with this example I am not discounting the importance of the sharpest surgical knife or the importance of carrying out an amputation in the fastest time.   But, what I am trying to show is that whereas the surgeon believes – quite sensibly and logically - because that is the only information he has always had – that his patients survived SOLELY because of using the sharpest knife and doing the fastest amputation.   Once you know that there can be another concept – a sterilization of the surgical knife process, then the surgeon can be seen to have actually carried out a version of Lister’s antiseptic procedure by sterilizing the blade of the knife – without actually realizing it !!!!!   In other words, there CAN BE another explanation as to why that surgeon has a high patient survival rate, which is not the explanation always given by the surgeon.

The surgeon is genuinely believing what he believed from his own experiences but anyone who was knowledgeable about Lister’s concept of “germs in the air” could see that there is another explanation as to why more of that surgeon’s patients survived !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And, from that observation and from that knowledge, one can look forward.  One can then see that with the sterilization of surgical instruments, with the washing of the surgeons hands, with the wearing of clean surgical garments, with the use of antiseptic gauzes that possibly, more time could be taken in carrying out the operation (the amputation ?).  In other words, one can have progress !!   The introduction of anaesthetics would help to prolong operations, yes, but even with the use of anaesthetics to allow longer operations, if antiseptic procedures were not followed, the patient could still die from developing septicaemia !!

*****************************

Quote:

“Moving on, how has the terrifying information about toxic receipt printouts affected your own tweak theories?

You seem to skip right over that, every time.”

No, I don’t skip over things.   That information is in my “in tray”, to be picked up and looked at when the chance arises.   To be looked at in exactly the same way as all the other things which arrive in my “in tray” from other people – such as the one copied below which arrived just recently – from someone who thought I might find it interesting.   It happens regularly, Buddha – I have got quite a PILE in my ‘in tray’ !!

Quote:

“Noise and industrial chemicals : interaction effects on hearing and balance.

Prof. Deepak Prasher,

Insitute of Laryngology and Otology,

University College London,

330 Gray’s Inn Road,

London. UK.

 

From this article :-

 

It has been estimated that some 30 million people may work in environments where industrial chemicals may pose a serious hazard to hearing and balance.   The effect of solvents on hearing has largely gone unnoticed as hearing impairment has been attributed to exposure to noise, which coexists in industry and the possibility of potentiation by solvents remains unchecked.

 

Key findings and conclusions :-

 

1)  It was found that occupational exposure to organic solvents is associated with increased probability of developing hearing loss.

2)  A relationship was found between the concentration of the organic solvents and hearing threshold shift (at high frequencies).

3)  Current National Occupational Exposure Limit values (OEL) values for solvents do not account for possible solvent otoxicity and may thus not sufficnently protect exposed populations.

 

Toluene :-     Glues, Paints:

Xylene :-   Paints, degreasers, solvents for resins, gum and rubber medical and industrial applications.

Styrene :-  Plastics, Latex paints and coatings, polyesters, synthentic rubber.

Carbon disulfide :-  Pesticide, Fumigant.

Solvent Mixtures :- “

I really don’t know what to make of that one.   There is no mention as to what the effect on the hearing might be, whether any effect  on the hearing is permanent or whether the adverse effect goes once any offending chemical has been removed !!!!

Do you understand, Buddha, how I can be bombarded by articles and ‘links’ supplied by others, all the time  ??????    And, it is NOT a case of me “skipping right over that, every time.” !!!!!

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Mark, the examples I gave from the past are as pertinent Now, Today as they were then.   It is STILL happening !!

Quote:

“--that's even more funny because he SHOULD have known that the magnetic fields of one speaker in close proximity to another effected the magnet of the other speaker and thereby changing the sound....which is a hell of a lot more plausible than the magnet changing the air as an explanation”

Quote:

“Funny thing is I am pretty sure every person on this forum by now that has at least had stereo speakers hooked up near a television in the 80's and 90's  during the start of HT knows that magnetics from the speakers throw a strong enough field to adversely effect the TV.”

Quote:

“remind him NOT to use shielded speakers!!!)...seriously what sounds more plausible since we all have SEEN observational data with placing our speakers in 1992 next to our CRT television sets before they were shielded??? in fact WHY was shielded speakers so damn prevalent in the 90's marketed for HT????  ummm magnets!!!!!!  So at least we know the magnetic field extends out from the speaker enclosure and effects other electronics!!!! At least I have something to base my hypothesis on”

Mark, your whole reply has been about the effect of magnetic fields in CLOSE PROXIMITY !!

Everyone and his uncle knows about the effect of magnetic fields in close proximity !!   What I am talking about is the adverse effect on the sound of passive magnets some 20 feet away from influencing any audio equipment.  About the adverse effect on the sound of a weak magnetic field from a telephone some 20 feet away from any audio equipment.  And the adverse effect on the sound of batteries some 20 feet away from any audio equipment.

I have always understood that the magnetic field decays with distance (what word am I looking for – exponentially ?)

So, as I asked before.   Please enlighten us as to how passive magnets, some 20 feet away from any audio equipment, can have an adverse effect on the sound and explain it from “known and testable scientific principles of magnetics” which YOU claim will tell us !!

This discussion started regarding the Stein Music device.  Can we go back to that specific issue or I will end up having flouted the Stereophile “rules for manufacturers” !!

Can you Google and read the many reviews on such as the Stein Music device, the Less Loss Blackbody device, the Schumann resonance device, the tiny ART devices ?

You will see the improvements in the sound described variously as one, more or all of the following :-

Quote:

“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.”

You say you have studied Philosophy, so you should be able to follow a well reasoned set of questions.

Quote:

“Simply because I have (perhaps) a slightly more than a layman understanding of quantum physics because of my studies in Philosophy”

If one of the devices referred to was installed/fitted/positioned on a particular Monday and one, more or all of those improvements in the sound was heard, then WHY, on the Sunday (the previous day) or the Saturday (the day before that), or the week before that, or the month before that was that wealth of information NOT heard ?   WHAT was it that prevented that wealth of information being heard PRIOR to one of the devices mentioned being installed/fitted/positioned on the Monday ?   When, quite likely, the day before, the week before, the month before exactly the SAME music had been played, through exactly the SAME equipment, in exactly the SAME room, sitting in the SAME chair and probably sipping an identical drink !!!!

WHY wasn’t the new wealth of information which was heard on the Monday, heard previously ?   What was it that prevented it being heard previously ?

If the explanation given for any one of the devices referred to is not liked or is rejected – that becomes a secondary issue – not the primary issue.

If the price of any of the devices referred to is not liked or is rejected – that becomes a secondary issue – not the primary issue.

The primary thing is the basic, original question.   Why was the new wealth of information (as heard and described) not heard prior to installing/fitting/positioning one of the devices referred to ?

Now, just referring to something you brought up earlier.   So, YOU don’t think that anyone can hear the effect on the sound of ‘sugar’ in the listening room ???????????????   Below is from the Audio Asylum Forum - someone else’s description of what THEY heard.    Just where have you been, Mark, and what have you been doing these past 30 years and what have you been hearing ?   The person quoted below is/was the same as you – a supplier of audio equipment and looking after his customers for many years !!

So, yes, the 9 volt battery in your smoke alarm IS having an adverse effect on your sound, but you won’t know that without you remove the battery and take it out of the room and then listen – and find that the sound is better when the battery is not in the room!!!   Sugar and Salt can also have an effect because of how we react to them being in the room – even Unclestu on Audio Asylum could ‘hear’ the effect on the sound of a sugar cube in the room !!   My disagreement with him has purely been centred on the fact that he wants EVERY ‘effect on the sound’ he hears to be explained by ‘something having an effect on the signal travelling through the audio equipment’ – where I challenge his concept of EVERY !!!

Quote:

“we did coat some sugar balls with nail polish, both clear and a colored one. The sound got progressively worse, losing dynamics and transient attacks and generally increasing in muddiness as the colors darkened. The naked sugar cubes seemed to work best.

Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself.

The Japanese market a product called phiten which is claimed to help increase your body's circulation. They make it into bracelets, necklaces, elbow pads and such as well as adhesive tape. I've tried the tape on audio gear, like in my CD player tray and it does have a positive effect, although a relatively small one.”

Your latest :-

Quote:

“First, Kait said, batteries, like magnets, have positive and negative poles, which create a corresponding polarizing effect in a room. Kait feels that humans are unaware of the batteries’ audible effect in a room( geez i thought May says peter says we do percieve these batteries...trouble in paradise).”

NO trouble in paradise, Mark.   Geoff is correct in that humans are unaware that batteries can have an adverse effect on the sound.   YOU are not aware that the 9 volt battery in your smoke alarm is having an adverse effect on your sound and you will not be aware until you do something which changes the existing state of affairs (which makes a change in the environment) – i.e. actually remove the battery and then listen !!   It is the actual comparison of with or without which will trigger you noticing ‘an effect’ !!!!!   Then, Peter and I are correct.   If you now, suddenly change the environment and introduce another battery or a passive magnet into the room and listen, you will not like your sound as much as you did prior to introducing the new battery or magnet !!

You seem to want to ignore all the other people’s OBSERVATIONS regarding the other devices I have referred to.   Ignore observations after observations after observations and only concentrate on saying “it can’t happen, because conventional theory states it cannot happen, therefore it does not happen” and you don’t have to think more deeply as to what might be going on, do you ?

We know conventional electronic and acoustic theories forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down and they don’t fit (explain) everything we have heard !!!   So, something else “is going on”.

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.

Buddha said :-

Quote:

“I have provided links to the information, and included links to your own products. Is the fact that you print the word "danger" on them enough of a warning to unsuspecting tweak buyers?”

If you look above the word ‘danger’, you will see written the word “friendly”.

We are using the method of linking ‘friendly’ energy patterns and superimposing their meaning to reduce/negate any apprehensive feelings of danger.   As in the commonly used (by many people) sentence “It’s alright, you can relax now, the danger has gone away”.  -  a perfectly acceptable and relaxing sentence, it says what people want it to say but yet includes BOTH the words ‘alright’ and ‘danger’.   A perfectly acceptable form of speech !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Nothing to get ‘hot under the collar’ about, Buddha – interpreting it (and implying) as though people (us/we) are actually wishing ‘danger’ on others !!!!

Now, could we get back to the original ‘posting’ regarding the “effect on the sound” of the Stein Music device ?

Regards,

May Belt,

Manufacturer.