FORUMS
So in summary is this correct?
Audible changes are because of one or more of the three following reasons.
1. Changes that we can measure.
2. Changes that we can't measure because we are measuring the wrong things.
3. Changes that are completely psycological but still just as real to the believer.
Quote:
I think the more important question is: If the thread did in fact stay on topic, who cares?
Everyone should care.
I know this will elicit a groan from the crowd but the question that still has not been answered is the one that spawned sixteen pages of thread. According to Ethan these discs are "too small to be effective". Effective at what? Ethan still seems to confuse these treatments with his methods of absorption when they are meant as an obvious rebuttal to his methods of absorption.
Quote:
Jan keeps trying to dismiss the very real and provable improvement from legitimate acoustic treatment, and claim it's no more effective than pretend treatment like magic dots and teensy wood disks. Which of course is preposterous. One is real, provable, and explainable by established science. The other is woo woo fantasy with no basis in anything other than the power of suggestion. Mind you, I'm not here to talk up my company's products. I'm here as Ethan Winer, an individual with a keen interest in the science of audio. However, putting on my RealTraps cap, if there really were a way to improve a room's acoustics with tiny WAF-acceptable devices, you can be sure I want to know about it so I can get in on the action too!
All Ethan has to do is buy some of his competitor's products to hear what they do. There's no reason for John to furher modify his B&W's just to satisfy Ethan's desire to remain convinced the discs are ineffective. Ethan wasn't intersted in these "silly" treatments before, maybe he will be now that he wants in on the action too.
However, Ethan will, I'm sure, continue to mischaracterize what these treatments do and how they work just as he has mischaracterized my words and my positions on this thread.
Quote:
How can this be? I tested the cathedral panels and proved they are ineffective. Yet some continue to hallucinate anyway.In another forum I recently posted graphs showing the response and ringing in a room with and without those panels, and there was no difference. That didn't stop a satisfied customer of those panels from replying that they made a real improvement in his listening room!
Perhaps Ethan will never get over the fact that some listeners prefer something other than what he wants. He is a true dup in that regard. He will never shift his position because he cannot shift his position. It would cause everything else to come into question if he found one thing not to his expectations. "How can this be?" is as much a cry of, "How can I not be right", as it is, "How can someone else not be wrong."
Personally, I don't really care how these devices operate. Listeners I trust have said they provide a benefit. I'll choose to ignore those who haven't bothered to even read the web pages of the devices let alone try any of the products before they make up their minds. "Woo woo science" is at times all we have to start with if you are looking for answers. Those people who rely on their test equipment for every answer have largely made up their minds and nothing new will be allowed to enter. "Perception" is what they already believe.
For the record, I am not against absorptive room treatments and I do not dismiss the physics of the method. I recently added two bass traps to the rear of my listening room and heard the improvement I expected. But I am against anyone who feels they have a lock on all the knowledge that is needed for this hobby. Squelching someone's curiousity simply because it would rock your world ("How can this be?") is bad for the hobby and bad for anyone coming along after us.
Think, try, listen.
If it doesn't work, figure out the possible reasons it didn't, file the information and move on. Just don't stop wanting to be surprised and believe things you don't understand are possible.
And, if JA is still around, I am still interested in his thoughts on perception.
Quote:
I recently added two bass traps to the rear of my listening room and heard the improvement I expected.
RG
Poor little rgibran. Three posts in this thread, none of which make sense, and he's still as confused as ever.
Quote:
According to Ethan these discs are "too small to be effective". Effective at what?
Effective at actually changing the sound in the room!
Sheesh! 
--Ethan
Quote:
Personally, I don't really care how these devices operate. Listeners I trust have said they provide a benefit.
After the mud slinging of last night, I was glad to see this thread resurrected this morning. Almost all the regulars to this forum have chimed in to this feud between Ethan and Jan at some point. Even JA offfered comments as his statement in a previous article was key testimony in the case for perception. Buddha's humor has been a great attempt to keep it light - I loved the microdots metaphor.
Audiophilia is a very interesting and quixotic hobby. We're trying to achieve an elusive musical experience through our perception of reproduced recordings of past events. That experience, as described in the the "Listening While Not Listening" thread, can be very Zen.
The systems we employ to render these recordings (including acoustic treatments) often involve very sophisticated engineering based on a wide range of physical principals. The process for engineering these systems involves:
The mechanisms of audio perception, however, are extremely complex and are far from completely understood. In many cases, it's very difficult to predict how a change to some physical parameter of a rendering system will be perceived by most listenters. This opens the realm of "tweaks". If some change in the system (e.g. adding ebony hockey pucks - or Buddha Motes) somehow improves what we perceive, it can become a valued part of our system despite not having a clue for the physical reason for that improvement. If some tweak is validated by someone whose perception we trust, its market value greatly increases.
Without a method for accurately and repeatedly quantizing the physical behavior of these tweaks though, the only method for optimizing their performance is trial and error through listening tests. Without a solid understanding of the reason for their improvement, there is no way to accurately define how they should be applied (Does that hockey puck sound better glued to my speaker or under my seat cushion?). If JA says that his B&W Silver Signatures sound better with ebony disks glued to their backs, I believe him. But, personally, I'd never buy them - at least not until this behavior could be explained and measured.
Quote:
Effective at actually changing the sound in the room!Sheesh!
Changing the sound in the room through what method? Absorption? Name the method through which you feel these discs operate - or do not operate in your opinion.
Sheesh!!!
I'm not interested in this back and forth, Ethan, when you can't seem to figure out the treatments aren't meant to operate in the same fashion as your products. But you seem to be clinging to the hope that JA is still mistaken. Or else you've just closed your mind to someone who says he has heard the benefits of several of these products.
Quote:
If JA says that his B&W Silver Signatures sound better with ebony disks glued to their backs, I believe him. But, personally, I'd never buy them - at least not until this behavior could be explained and measured.
Does this mean you own no "tweaks" or accessories that haven't been lab tested? You know the measurements of all your components and devices? No isolation feet or TipToes? No spikes? Never treated a CD with anything? No rack or stand that hasn't been tested and measured? Do you ask for charts and graphs before you will buy a speaker? Do you not trust your own perception enough to rely on what you know? Ever use a Discwasher?
Is that the next thread? "Did you ever buy something that had not been tested?"
Quote:Is that the next thread? "Did you ever buy something that had not been tested?"
Weed.
Acid..we found a 'mikey' to try it out. In the old days, anyway.
As for explanations..I get irritated on that one at times. Folks will test drive $70,000 car for 20 minutes.... and buy it. But I get 400 questions and need to deliver a effing thesis on the offering of a $50 retail tweak. I wish folks would gain a bit of balance in their lives.
Quote:
Is that the next thread? "Did you ever buy something that had not been tested?"-------
Weed
The U.S. government tested that. Got to know, ya know.
And the CIA tested the other one.
Quote:
And the CIA tested the other one.
Heh, I tested them both. Many times. The results are sometimes inconclusive, so I just keep testing. And testing. 
--Ethan
Quote:Quote:
And the CIA tested the other one.
Heh, I tested them both. Many times. The results are sometimes inconclusive, so I just keep testing. And testing.--Ethan
And you are still an atheist? You didn't do enough.
For those that seem to care desperately about these Mpingo thingys, I have posted a thread with my experience fabricating my own (to spec. with real Mpingo wood) and my impressions. Sorry, no measurements but my ears. I do have a massively parallel processing computer between them though, and it works pretty well IMO!
Enjoy... or not. 
I did not start out to prove anything one way or the other BTW- I just got curious, and realized I could go ahead and try them for about $15 and a couple hours of shop time- so I did. Hopefully it will be somewhat educational to others as well.
DIY Mpingo Disc thread
Quote:
And you are still an atheist? You didn't do enough.
LOL - actually, the closest I ever came to a religious experience was indeed while on acid. Not really religious as much as empathy toward fellow man kind of stuff.
--Ethan
Quote:Quote:
And you are still an atheist? You didn't do enough.
LOL - actually, the closest I ever came to a religious experience was indeed while on acid. Not really religious as much as empathy toward fellow man kind of stuff.--Ethan
So, one time when you were high on acid, you felt empathy toward your fellow man.
You sound like Dick Cheney!
(Kidding around only.)
Quote:Quote:
And you are still an atheist? You didn't do enough.
LOL - actually, the closest I ever came to a religious experience was indeed while on acid. Not really religious as much as empathy toward fellow man kind of stuff.
--Ethan
This is a good beginning! You were experiencing your "God consciousness" which begets empathy. Then you can see God in others, which is a spiritual breakthrough. It's not about religion. We can have our heaven on earth. Or, we can create our own hell. And if we don't, DUP will help us.
Quote:
LOL - actually, the closest I ever came to a religious experience was indeed while on acid. Not really religious as much as empathy toward fellow man kind of stuff.
OHMYGOD!!!
Quote:
So, one time when you were high on acid, you felt empathy toward your fellow man.You sound like Dick Cheney!
If Cheney ever did acid, he'd shoot himself in the face.
Quote:
So, one time when you were high on acid, you felt empathy toward your fellow man.
In the mid-1970s I owned a pro recording studio with two partners. One partner rented the building for his wanna-be ad agency, and the studio paid part of the rent for our portion of the space. The ad guy partner also dealt with some of the business stuff, such as paying the electric and ordering supplies. So he handled that and billed us. One month he presented a bill for $400 or whatever from Ampex for blank recording tape, which we paid. Next month he presented a bill for $750 or whatever for tape. Turns out he never paid the previous bill, and was scamming us. So the other partner and I packed up our gear and left.
Said acid experience was a year or so later when I realized the slimy partner wasn't really a bad guy at heart. He was just misguided, and wrongly thought he had to do crap like that to get ahead. I still believe that. Very few people are truly evil. Maybe none.
And that, folks, is as close as I get to religious belief.
--Ethan
PS: So do we now all agree that three half-inch long sewing threads taped to the outside of a window will have no effect inside the room? 
Quote:
PS: So do we now all agree that three half-inch long sewing threads taped to the outside of a window will have no effect inside the room?
I'm in!
I'll even go so far as to say it will not make any difference (other than aesthetic) if taped on the inside.
Quote:Quote:
PS: So do we now all agree that three half-inch long sewing threads taped to the outside of a window will have no effect inside the room?
I'm in!I'll even go so far as to say it will not make any difference (other than aesthetic) if taped on the inside.
Well. Now you guys are just "Jan baiting."
Although, I'll be curious as to his opinion!
Quote:
Now you guys are just "Jan baiting."
Not so! Really. I asked very early on how small something has to be before we all agree it cannot possibly change the sound. This is the key point of this entire thread. If we all - and this includes Jan - agree that three half inch long threads cannot make an audible change, we're most of the way toward universal agreement.
I have to say that if Jan agrees three sewing threads can't make a difference, we need to ask him to clarify why he believes that. Once we understand that, we'll be all the way there.
--Ethan
Etahn, I asked early on - and repeatedly - how you believe these various devices work since you are convinced they are too small to change the sound in a room. You have repeatedly avoided that question. By what method are these devices, the Shunmook, Harmonix and Shakti devices - all different in their approach as I see it - all too small to change the sound in a room?
You first.
Quote:
Said acid experience was a year or so later when I realized the slimy partner wasn't really a bad guy at heart. He was just misguided, and wrongly thought he had to do crap like that to get ahead.
I almost would like to have been there for that decision making process.
Quote:
Etahn, I asked early on - and repeatedly - how you believe these various devices work since you are convinced they are too small to change the sound in a room. You have repeatedly avoided that question.
I answered that question very directly! I said they work on placebo effect.
However, you have repeatedly ducked my question as to how small something must be before you'll agree it cannot possibly change the sound.
So?
--Ethan
Quote:
I answered that question very directly! I said they work on placebo effect.
Well, if they consistently work by way of placebo, they are capable of affecting a change.
If a test group is provided a placebo and sufficient numbers report the desired result has been achieved, has there not been a consistent and real change effected?
The results from all users who report benefits from the various devices have been consistent and those benefits disappear when the "placebo" is removed from the room.
Therefore, the devices achieve their desired effect on a real world schedule.
So what's the gripe? Aren't we right back to the very first page of this thread with that reply, Ethan?
No answer regarding the three threads?
What sort of answer would make you happy?
Ethan claims these devices are "too small" to be effective. Then he claims their effect is achieved through placebo. Obviously they are, in his mind, large enough to produce a placebo effect so that would mean they are not too small to be effective. As long as he believes anything and everything can be effective as a placebo he's very likely to believe your dust motes can be effective. There's logic in that. Not very good logic but enough to satisfy someone who only believes in placebos.
Quote:
What sort of answer would make you happy?
Your honest answer would make me happy.
Not answering for Ethan or anyone else, just what you honestly think.
This is a discussion in which I doubt any minds will be "open" enough to be changed. I'm mostly curious about what you'd say about the "three thread tweak."
We all seem to have our own idiosyncratic version of what is possible.
I'm not out to change your mind so much as see where your thinking on these things lies.
It is often at the limits of belief systems that the most fun conversations can be had.
I will admit to a bias leaning away from thinking three pieces of thread lying in a window sill would alter the sound of my system in a meaningful way.
On the other hand, I am old enough to remember the major effect of touching a TV antenna can have on the quality of the picture, so I do not have an ax to grind about small things we do in our rooms that we think have an effect on our listening experiences.
Quote:
just what you honestly think.
Right, I want to know that too. So far Jan has avoided a direct answer because he knows in his heart of hearts that a change in sound from three threads is preposterous. And as soon as he admits that, the rest of his argument crumbles because he then has to explain how small is too small and why. Never mind that he has also ducked explaining how magic dots can affects room acoustics if they don't use absorption or diffusion.
Quote:
the major effect of touching a TV antenna can have on the quality of the picture
Now hold on a minute there pal. If a rabbit ears antenna is 2 feet long and a person six feet tall touches it, you have increased its apparent size three-fold. That's no tiny proportion!
--Ethan
Quote:
...how magic dots can affects room acoustics if they don't use absorption or diffusion.
It's in the name, silly! It's magic!
Quote:
So far Jan has avoided a direct answer because he knows in his heart of hearts that a change in sound from three threads is preposterous.
I know that in my heart of hearts?!!!
Good Lord, Ethan, you are one arrogant soul!
I have some time to deal with this tonight. Ask the question as you wish it to be proposed.
Come on, Jan. Clip on a pair.
(Oops! I just realized that this comment begs the question of how big they need be to be effective.)
Golf ball-sized is normal, right?
The REAL question is: after 186 posts on really pretty much nothing, is anyone BIG enough to let the thread die?
I don't think anyone has actually died from not getting in the last word... this might be just the test case. 
Common, you can do it--- back AWAY from the keyboard...
ahhh, doesn't that feel better?
I thought so.
Or not?
Quote:
The crowning evidence was Venus. With his telescope, Galileo could barely see that it went through a full cycle of phases. Sometimes it was only barely illuminated, like a crescent moon. At other times, it was nearly full. But, since geocentric models traditionally positioned Venus below the sun, more or less between the sun and the earth, Venus should never appear full. Convinced that Copernicus was right, Galileo spend the last part of his life defending heliocentrism and getting into all kinds of trouble. Eventually, he was placed under house arrest by the Inquisition for his refusal to recant his Copernican beliefs.At one point, Galileo was in an audiophile's shoes. Here he was, claiming that his senses, aided by this new device, revealed startling features of the heavens that orthodox theories said should not
Quote:
The REAL question is: after 186 posts on really pretty much nothing, is anyone BIG enough to let the thread die?
I have no vested interest in continuing this, Doug! Yet again Jan has refused to say whether he thinks the "three threads" can possibly make a real (not imagined) change in the sound. But he still manages to say a bunch of words while dancing all around the core issue. At least he didn't invoke the name of Al Gore! So it's Jan who keeps this going, not me.
I dismissed Jan weeks ago because he refuses to address the real issue, which is the thread subject of how small is too small. Indeed, my work is done here unless and until Jan answers the one question he has so far refused to answer.
BTW, as a professional recording engineer I can't believe I have to say this, but yes, of course I listen. I haven't owned an oscilloscope for 30 years, and so far my DVM hasn't been out of its case in this century. My ears are my primary "test gear," and my ears tell me very small devices are of no use acoustically.
--Ethan
Quote:
I dismissed Jan weeks ago because he refuses to address the real issue, which is the thread subject of how small is too small. Indeed, my work is done here unless and until Jan answers the one question he has so far refused to answer.
And that is how you go about dismissing anything that doesn't suit you. Everyone who doesn't agree with Ethan gets dismissed!
Quote:
I realize some people believe jitter is audible, but they would be wrong. http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...part=6&vc=1
And here I actually thought the other people on this thread were providing me the courtesy of not dismissing me completely. There is no limit to your arrogance, is there, Ethan?
Quote:
My ears are my primary "test gear,"
I know what your ears tell you but they are wrong.
Ask your question, Ethan. I have asked you to do so multiple times so I can answer the exact question to which you want a reply. You are so utterly dismissive of others you haven't even paid attention to my requests. You dismissed my previous responses because they didn't apply to a specific situation. If you want a specific answer, you'll have to ask a specific question. And you'll have to not dismiss anyone simply because I will disagree with you. If this truly is a one sided affair with you not listening to anything said, then there is no point is this thread.
Are you willing to listen to what I say, Ethan?
Quote:
Ask your question, Ethan. I have asked you to do so multiple times so I can answer the exact question to which you want a reply.
As you apparently cannot look yourself, I have done it for you.
Ethan's question:
Quote:
"Suppose a vendor announced an acoustic product that consists of three 1-inch long strands of cloth fiber the thickness of a human hair. Let's say it's three 1-inch pieces of sewing thread tied at one end with a tiny bead of glue, and the instructions are to tape it to the outside of one of the room's windows. Do you agree that any perceived improvement is purely placebo effect? Or do you still think this new product might actually make a real change to the sound inside the room?"
Post #37919 04/02/08 02:55 PM
page 6 of this thread
A straight forward yes/no to each question should result in some common ground between the two of you.
This is better than Hillary and Barack.
Jan, can three pieces of thread placed in the manner discussed affect the sound of the Hi Fi in the room?
You're more slippery than any politician I've ever seen.
Just answer the "three pieces of thread" question and we can all go home.
Come on, you can do it.
I'll send you a dollar if you answer that question!
Thnik of it, a free dollar just for answering a Hi Fi question.
Quote:
Audiophiles, take note. If they want to believe, people will believe anything, no matter how preposterous. And those who believe will talk others into believing. Once you
Quote:
As you apparently cannot look yourself, I have done it for you.
It seemed to be too much trouble for someone who has dismissed me several weeks ago. You must still feel a part of this discussion.
Quote:
Do you agree that any perceived improvement is purely placebo effect?
No, I agree that it is perception. As JA stated everything is perception. It might not be my perception and it might not be your perception, though I wince to think that my perception and your perception are the same, but the reality is something has been perceived. It would only be through arrogance and intentional ignorance that anyone would dismiss someone else's perception without proof. I leave that to others to accomplish. Ethan, you're on.
The story goes that when the Europeans first arrived on the shores of the New Land the native "Americans" perceived them to be Gods because they had no experience of travelling the oceans in ships larger than the native's canoe's. Some stories even have it that the natives could not see the large ships on the horizon because they had no concept of what they were perceiving and therefore blocked the reality of what was before them. Incorrect assumptions based on lack of knowledge, lack of imagination and inexperience with reality proved to be wrong. Dismissing the fact the Europeans looked like the natives did not make the newcomers Gods, it made the natives incorrect. When word got back to Europe of the Earth not being flat, the evidence was at first dismissed as a hoax because it went against accepted beliefs. Dismissing evidence proved to be wrong. But perception has proven to be what gets us from one place to the next. Therefore, I place my faith in perception - and then testing - and then thinking.
This idea of "placebo efect" is absurd since placebo is not repeatable. Throughout this thread evidence has been provided to prove the benefit of the devices in question. It has been repeatable evidence which suggests the loss of benefits when devices are removed from the room. This argues against placebo. That is, unless you are more inclined to dismiss the evidence because it flies in the face of your present position. If your present position is based upon a lack of imagination, an unfamiliarity with what might be true and a lack of knowledge, then you have no evidence - you only have dismissal and a failure to think.
Quote:
Or do you still think this new product might actually make a real change to the sound inside the room?"
Is this a test of whether when I park my car in the detached garage where I have stored Ethan's products will I hear an improvement in my living room? It's rather difficult to rationalize the presence of an object in one space affecting the sound in another. Since this is not what we've been discussing in this thread, I fail to see how it affects the outcome of this thread. Every device we have disussed that actually exists has been placed in the room with the system and therefore has a much better chance of affecting what occurs within that room. However, the co-author of Chaos Theory did just pass away. Does the movement of a butterfly's wings in Peru affect a tornado in Texas? Well, it hasn't been proven but it is a scientific thoery.
Any other answer I could give would be based on what is "real". Perception is real. It might not be my perception, but it is real.
I would ask that you read this link and not simply dismiss what does not agree with your position. http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index.html
He can't do it. He just can't do it!
Quote:
He can't do it. He just can't do it!
LOL, no, he can't. And THAT'S why this thread keeps going on and on and...
Speaking of perception and $1 offers, I'll pay at least $1 to see a photo of Jan's stereo rig. I searched the galleries and came up empty. Jan, would you please post a photo of your gear, speakers, setup, room etc? I want to better understand the environment in which your perception exists.
--Ethan
Quote:
I would ask that you read this link and not simply dismiss what does not agree with your position.
http://www.stereophile.com/thinkpieces/165/index.html
Jan, I would ask that you read this link and not simply dismiss what does not agree with your position:
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audiophoolery.html
Here are a few more for good measure, and please don't dismiss what does not agree with your position!
http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html
http://www.ethanwiner.com/audibility.html
http://www.ethanwiner.com/dither.html
http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/index1.html
--Ethan
Quote:
He can't do it. He just can't do it!
Nope.
Amazing.
I was too optimistic in thinking that once it was spoon-fed to him that he might.
Quote:
You are offering absolutely nothing at all m'man. Any bozo can say "You're wrong," but it's quite another thing to explain how I'm wrong and why. You have done neither. http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/showf...=true#Post38968
Live by your own words, Ethan.
What part of "No" and "it's difficult to rationalize" are you guys having trouble with?
Quote:
Audiophiles, take note. If they want to believe, people will believe anything, no matter how preposterous. And those who believe will talk others into believing.
So very convenient;
Quote:
Then I had an inspiration: I took a Shun Mook Mpingo disc and put it atop each Optimus 990 cabinet. The treble smoothed out rather nicely (although the midrange was still recessed and the top rolled-off), and the bass took on a tightness and became more defined.Now I was getting somewhere. I tried three Shun Mook Mpingos per speaker---which is more money spent on the discs (retail) than I paid for each speaker on sale. Still further improvement. By messing with the Mpingos, I was able to adjust the depth and width of the soundstage, smooth out the treble even more, and pretty much stop the bass from booming (although it was still extended and powerful).
Then it hit me that Asian audiophiles tend to like big horn speakers. It stands to reason that Shun Mooking might make more of a difference on such speakers, since they have big cabinets. I can visualize the people from Shun Mook smiling as I write this.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/69/index12.html
Shall we now dismiss ST also - even after quoting him? This is becoming more dupian by the page.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2023 Stereophile
