I only wish I knew the answers. What you describe has happened so many times throughout history.

Both Dr Richard Graham (a consultant psychiatrist who has taken it upon himself to prepare and edit our Newsletter) and another editor who has written about our devices and techniques have both described such people's reactions as Ethan's to me as Cognitive Dissonance. I, simplistically interpret it as follows. "The fear of having their beliefs challenged is greater than their desire for better sound. They cannot put aside their comfort blanket for one moment or they fear their guard will be down and they will be vulnerable"

That description fits quite well because the people who are primarily interested in having better and better sound will listen to other people's ideas. I say LISTEN to what other people are saying and describing. I do NOT mean believe implicitly everything everyone says.

The majority of people are sane, sensible, both feet on the ground, intelligent people and can take a look at other people's ideas without falling under any spell at the flick of a finger !!!

Yes, most people will take their lead from someone they trust, from someone whose judgement they value so are prepared to try things if those significant people suggest it. But, they can still form their own opinion from any (or no) results.

Before anyone reacts, I am not suggesting that people have to abandon their technical and scientific training. Peter has not had to abandon anything technical he ever learned. All one has to do is open one's mind, take off the blinkers and try to get a better understanding of what is going on around them.

One case in point is the Room Acoustic Panel which Ethan Winer designs and makes.
Has he ever tried one of the Harmonix Dots (which John Atkinson attached to his speakers and improved his sound) on one of his (Ethan's) Room Acoustic Panels ? If he did, he would most likely hear an improvement in his sound similar to the improvement which John Atkinson heard !!! Because the Harmonix Dot would be having the same effect on the sound when attached to Ethan's Room Acoustic Panel as it did when attached to John's speakers !!
If the Harmonix Dots can give improvements in the sound when attached to John's speakers in the listening room and give similar improvements in the sound when positioned on walls, ceiling, windows etc of the listening room, then they can give similar improvements in the sound when attached to such as Room Acoustic Panels in the listening room.

But, what this would mean is that anyone, any 'amateur in audio' could attach a Harmonix dot to one of Ethan's Room Acoustic Panels and improve the sound in the room - over and above what Ethan had achieved !!! AND, in addition, the measurements of the Room Acoustic Panel without Harmonix Dots and with Harmonix Dots would be exactly the same !!

Hence the fear of trying such things. No one wants their illusion of their expertise even dented !!

Everyone knows the story of how, 27 years ago, Peter was absolutely shattered when he discovered that he had achieved the best sound he had ever had in his life - AFTER 30 years of using all his expertise to achieve good sound - AFTER designing and manufacturing State of the Art Orthodynamic, actively driven loudspeakers - AFTER having his demonstration of those speakers described as the best sound of the Hi Fi show - by applying a particular chemical to the central heating radiator, to the piano in the corner of the room, to the wall lights, to the brick fireplace, to the perspex lid of the turntable !!!!!!!

But, if your desire is for good sound, then you pick yourself up and continue !!

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
This is not even close to what shade expressed.

In a sense it is. Leave out the reference to our ill managed economy and it certainly would be. The price of various devices has come up as a consistent objection to disprove their validity. Isn't that a constant gripe about tweaks? Ethan expressed it when he said, " ... it galls me to see people pay thousands of dollars for fancy looking wire that's no better than heavy lamp cord they can buy at any hardware store", and, "Isolation has no advantage for other electronic gear either. You can spend thousands of dollars on fancy isolation devices for preamps and receivers, yet they don't improve the sound even a tiny bit", along with, "FREE BUT STUPID ANYWAY
The key to identifying most audio scams is the very high prices charged. As an audio pro, I know that $1,000 can buy a state of the art power amplifier. So it makes no sense to pay, say, $17,000 for an amplifier that is no better and may well be worse."

In general this argument regarding tweaks and specifically the room device tweaks under consideration are about money. Someone is upset that someone else is spending money. You don't believe me? Ask dup.

The question must be asked if the tweak would be more accepted if the price were lower. The Mpingo discs were "duplicated" on another thread and their results were deemed positive. Yet at their going price - despite significant differences between the real thing and the DIY substitute - the value of such devices was called into question. I think too many times the price is what throws up brick walls to stop people's perception.

Quote:
I now realize what a fool I've been to pass up a great marketing opportunity. So with that in mind, I am pleased to announce my newest room treatment product - the PicoTrap (tm).

Although this new product may appear to defy physics, in fact it is highly effective when placed behind a loudspeaker. At only $400 each, PicoTraps are a true a bargain! Expect to see dozens of favorable customer testimonials on my company's web site very soon. I probably won't show any performance data because, well, what this amazing new product does simply cannot be measured using standard acoustic tests. But believe me, it really works! I just tried it in my home studio, and the improvement in imaging, bass weight, and overall clarity was simply staggering.

The PicoTrap is the best tweak I've ever tried.

--Ethan

Ok, I'm not even going to ask you how it works, because that is of no relevance whatsoever, to an end-user audiophile. But don't try to convince my intellect that it works, you're going to have to work harder than that. I'm afraid your testimonials won't do it either, because I could care less what other people who aren't me, say they hear. They could be the same people who said CD's, mp3's, ipods and the Bose Acoustic Wave system was the shiznit. No, you're going to have to convince my own pair of hyper critical-listening ears. Not only that it works at all, but that it's worth $400 of my increasingly worthless dollars. Oh, and you're going to have to offer me a money-back guarantee on that tweak, 'cos my momma didn't raise no fools. Good luck, Winer.

Quote:
Someone is upset that someone else is spending money.

I promise you that I could not care less how Jan Vigne spends his money. The people I care about are those who genuinely want to know what's worth buying and what is not.

--Ethan

Quote:
But don't try to convince my intellect that it works, you're going to have to work harder than that. I'm afraid your testimonials won't do it either, because I could care less what other people who aren't me

Perhaps you failed to appreciate the humor in my post. Or maybe you started reading this thread at the last page?

Nice first post BTW.

--Ethan

PiccoTrap is a great name, but I suggest

I already have a product called MicroTrap.

A few months ago as a joke I invented a new oversized bass trap called the MegaMondoTrap, photo below. At ten feet high it kicks serious bass butt.

--Ethan

Quote:
I promise you that I could not care less how Jan Vigne spends his money. The people I care about are those who genuinely want to know what's worth buying and what is not.

Screw you, Ethan. You're down to personal insults and ill placed humor. That means you have no other defense of your position. That's kind of pathetic. After 25 pages you haven't come up with anything other than "no". You haven't provided one thing to prove these devices could not work other than you can't figure it out.

Why don't you market your new devices, Ethan? I've always said the market will find out what's of value and what's not - without being told by some guy who can't open his mind to anything not already in there. You might have a winner and you could "cash in" on this market. A few of the devices in this thread have had a lifespan of almost fifteen years on the market. Why don't we see how long your's lasts? But, if it failed, you'd just claim everyone was a lunatic, wouldn't you?

Why don't you try responding to a few posts instead of wasting our time.

COOL!

Nice Telecaster Custom, BTW. Is it an original?

Ethan

Those PicoTraps are still way too big. After 25 pages of proof haven

Quote:
At only $400 each, PicoTraps are a true a bargain!

I am truly shocked - shocked - Ethan that you would construct a sentence with a plural subject and verb but singular object. Even knowing you would contemplate such a mismatch irretrievably colors my expectations, invalidating any review I might wish to write praising the Pico Traps!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
- by applying a particular chemical to the central heating radiator, to the piano in the corner of the room, to the wall lights, to the brick fireplace, to the perspex lid of the turntable !!!!!!!

Ionic.

Perhaps you failed to appreciate the humor in my post.

No, I got that the "picotrap" is a joke tweak, and that you were "just" making fun of tweak merchants who make tweaks you dismiss because you don't understand them. The reason I did not fail to see the joke is because I had already seen this joke of yours one thousand times before, done in as many ways. By the same sort of folk who insist on denouncing things they don't understand. Rather, I think you may have failed to appreciate the humour in my post. But... as with all good humour, there was an important point being made, that it seems you may also have missed. In your crusades to protect the "innocent" audiophiles from what you think are evil or misguided snake oil merchants, you're overlooking the audiophile's two best methods of protection: their own ears, and a money back guarantee.

The ears in particular protects them from the fools who in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary, still think you can measure all that you can perceive. As well as those who would use their "credentials" to prop up their misguided beliefs. It protects them from the "professional reviewer" who has so many doberman's barking outside of his window every day, he couldn't tell the difference between a tympani and a foghorn. It protects them from those with an agenda, and even those without. Equally, it protects them from the so-called "snake oil merchant", and the Bose Corporation. And even if they're wrong, it protects them from being wrong. And it teaches them how to get it right. That's why you needn't try so hard. If you really have it as your goal to help the young bucks in this business, don't tell them what to think. Teach them how to listen. Critically. You may need to first learn to do so yourself, of course, if you only taught yourself what to think.

Or maybe you started reading this thread at the last page?

Ok, you got me. I admit it, I'm a "last-pager". I only read the last page of a thread. But that's because I've already read this thread, a thousand times before, and more. It's always the same story played out. Good v. Evil. Light v. Dark. Protestantism v. Catholicism. Black spy v. White spy. The only thing that ever changes are the names. And sometimes, it's even the same people with different names... ;-)

Nice first post BTW.

Thanks. Been working on it for a year.

Geoff, is that you?

Welcome.

Quote:
Nice Telecaster Custom, BTW. Is it an original?

It's pretty old. I forget the year I bought it, but it missed being "pre-CBS" by one year. Back then the only pick guard color was white, so my friend and master craftsman Phil Cramer made the black pick guard for me. I forget if it was Phil or I that replaced the stock rhythm pickup with a Gibson humbucker, but that was done at the same time, soon after I bought it. I also designed and built in a compressor which is enabled at the third pickup switch position. But the 9V battery died 20 years ago and I never bothered to replace it.

--Ethan

Quote:
Those PicoTraps are still way too big. After 25 pages of proof haven

Quote:
I am truly shocked - shocked - Ethan that you would construct a sentence with a plural subject and verb but singular object.

Yeah, my wife the editor usually checks my grammar and finds a lot of that. If only I could have her proof all my forum posts!

Quote:
Even knowing you would contemplate such a mismatch irretrievably colors my expectations, invalidating any review I might wish to write praising the Pico Traps!

Hopefully, once you actually HEAR the enormous improvement in fullness and clarity from PicoTraps, you'll review them favorably anyway. Despite my appalling grammar.

--Ethan

Quote:
the audiophile's two best methods of protection: their own ears, and a money back guarantee.

Heh, all of my real products have an unconditional money back guarantee. Not even a restocking fee. It is very rare for us to get a return.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
the audiophile's two best methods of protection: their own ears, and a money back guarantee.

Heh, all of my real products have an unconditional money back guarantee. Not even a restocking fee. It is very rare for us to get a return.

--Ethan

Wheelie? You know who else says just that? Machina Dynamica. Are you saying that tweaks like the Clever Little Clock, Intelligent Chip and Teleportation Tweak are just as viable as your room acoustic tweaks? But you just seemed to argue against such tweaks for the last 26 pages? What oh what is a poor confused audiophile to think....

Excellent point, Mr. Frog.

I think your analysis ends the debate.

I vaguely recall however that you can't return the teleportation tweak.

Quote:
I think your analysis ends the debate.

Yes, but was there ever really much of a debate?

I don't know Geoff. From the writing style I'm guessing this is Joel. Joel, is that you? Again?

Gotta love guys who hurl accusations while hiding behind a bogus screen name. Whatever differences Jan and I may have, at least Jan uses a real name. I respect that.

--Ethan

Quote:
If you really have it as your goal to help the young bucks in this business, don't tell them what to think. Teach them how to listen.

That is an excellent return to the topic of this thread.

Quote:
Rather, I think you may have failed to appreciate the humour in my post.

And that is an excellent example of Ethan's defense during the course of this thread. Whenever the thread steers too much toward the real issues of this thread, Ethan's defense is to attack his attackers. His "humor" extends to ridicule and trying to lower the opponent to a dismissive level by suggesting no one but Ethan has the ability to know "what's worth buying and what is not." Ethan repeatedly suggests I am incapable of learning and that it would be impossible for me to put together a competent system that would meet Ethan's taste. These are all tactics I expect when I confront dup, who I see has rushed to congratulate Ethan on his ingenuity. Good company you're keeping there Ethan, you two fit hand in glove. But now it does appear you are going to have to insult quite a few more people in order to avoid the issues of the thread.

So let's return to the matters of this thread. They are "perception" and who gets to decide what perception is real to someone else.

Quote:
Opposing viewpoints in exactly the same way that Ethan Winer is telling John Atkinson, over and over again, that he (John) is 'mistaken', that 'what he hears is not real' when John describes experiencing an improvement in his sound after attaching some Harmonix Dots to his B & W speakers.

Quote:
Ethan appears to wish to look at the acoustics of a room, measure those acoustics, manipulate those acoustics to change the sound - and in his world there might or might not be a human being doing the listening - the human being is not really necessary for him to do his work. For HIS work, he does not actually need a human being listening, he appears to rely on measurements to tell him when he is right. If, in Ethan's acoustic room there IS a living, breathing, coughing, sneezing human being, then that human being is merely receiving the acoustic information via their ear drum !!

I do think you owe May a reply, Ethan. She raises excellent points whether you would prefer to ignore them or not. Don't be hurt that her experts believe you suffer from Cognitive Dissonance. There are tests for that. However, you should easily be able to fend off her logic if your's is truly the stronger force. If not, you loose.

Before Ethan realized what he had done he posted;

Quote:
Hell, play the same track four times in a row and you'll hear different things with successive plays, and most likely perceive the same things differently. However, I'm quite certain that the differences are entirely perception, and not the result of something physically changing.

This is where you got scared, isn't it, Ethan? You came too close to admitting that perception is malleable, that it is capable of adaptive change without a physical, measureable change and that we all perceive things differently. This is no longer your error riddled engineer who raised the wrong slider by mistake due to inattention. This is precisely what this thread should have been discussing all along - if only you hadn't continually attempted to drag it back to the first page of the thread. What you are describing is perception based upon intention and attention not on mistakes.

But you're quick to CYA. "However, I'm quite certain that the differences are entirely perception, and not the result of something physically changing." I'll grant you your comb filtering if we move our head about just to make you happy but I will not let you ignore that fact you can play the same piece of music several times and, with nothing physically changing, you can perceive things not heard in each preceding or successive listen.

None of us are tied to your perceptions, Ethan. None of us share your perceptions. To paraphrase JA, if we did we would have no more reason to live.

Please address the issues of the thread, Ethan. And lay off the insults. Keep the thread on track and we'll get this whole thing over with. Continue to ignore or attempt to halt the discussion and we'll know you have nothing to add. Your defense of, "It cannot happen", will degenerate into, "I will not allow it to happen." That will be as peevishly childish as the insults.

Quote:
Are you saying that tweaks like the Clever Little Clock, Intelligent Chip and Teleportation Tweak are just as viable as your room acoustic tweaks?

This is the idea I brought into the discussion pages and pages ago. None of Ethan's products operate without perception, it is his essential reliance upon the client's perception which literally sells his products and avoids returns.

At this point Ethan must either; 1) acknowledge the contradiction, 2) deny the contradiction and explain why the contradiction does not exist or 3) ignore the question and ridicule the questioner as trying to refute the laws of modern physics. So far Ethan has relied strictly upon #3. Now there are more questioners.

I notice in the Real Traps advertisement in the current issue of Stereophile the quote from the satisfied client says, " ... what I got was an impressive improvement in stereo imaging, sound stage and overall clarity of sound. Even my wife - who hates my stereo - noticed that the sound has really improved."

So here is Ethan trading on subjective perception while denying it's real world value! Certainly there are no more measurements in Ethan's products than there are in source components or loudspeakers which would indicate even the presence of "sound stage" or "imaging" let alone a "real improvement". But Ethan slyly plies the subjective value of perception in his Stereophile ads while ignoring and denying its value on the Stereophile forum.

Anyone have any idea just how many blatant contradictions Ethan has worked from both sides?

Quote:
Gotta love guys who hurl accusations while hiding behind a bogus screen name. Whatever differences Jan and I may have, at least Jan uses a real name. I respect that.

That's another cheap contradiction since you've spent the majority of this thread trying to knock me down by mischaracterization, liable and outright lies.

Quote:
The basis for a reductio ad absurdum is as follows;

1) a self-contradiction
2) a falsehood
3) an implausibility or anomaly.

Quote:
Gotta love guys who hurl accusations while hiding behind a bogus screen name

Gotta love guys who hurl accusations in order to avoid the real issues of the thread.

Deal with the issues, Ethan!

Quote:
I do think you owe May a reply, Ethan. She raises excellent points

I saw nothing to reply to. Really. It was a lot of words, but with no meaning I could find. If I missed a direct question or point to reply to, please show it to me.

Quote:
This is where you got scared, isn't it, Ethan? You came too close to admitting that perception is malleable, that it is capable of adaptive change without a physical, measureable change and that we all perceive things differently.

WTF?! This is the point I have been making over and over again in this thread! And you don't need to buy silly magic dots or exotic wood disks. Just hit Play again to hear nuances you never noticed before. Play once more and now all of a sudden the bass has more fullness. And so forth. Are you on crack? This has been MY MAIN POINT ALL ALONG! Sheesh!

Quote:
Please address the issues of the thread, Ethan. And lay off the insults.

LOL, I don't recall once saying "Screw you Jan" even if I may have thought it a few times. Speaking of addressing the issues, how about those three threads? Do you think it's possible they can physically change the sound in the room?

--Ethan

Heh, can't let this one pass unchallenged...

Quote:
Certainly there are no more measurements in Ethan's products than there are in source components or loudspeakers which would indicate even the presence of "sound stage" or "imaging" let alone a "real improvement".

In fact there are measurements all over my company's web site showing exactly that. Below are 1) the improvement in low frequency response and ringing after adding bass traps, and 2) the improvement in mid and high frequency response after adding absorption at the side-wall reflection points. If you know of any "tweak" product that can show such a profound and positive before / after change, or two competent components that differ this much, please show me.

Also, Jan, if I may offer an observation, your posts the last few days are becoming more and more angry and hostile. Are you so emotionally involved in your hi-fi that you get knots in your stomach? I talk about this stuff because it's fun, and hopefully at least some folks will find the discussion interesting whether they agree with me or agree with you. But you seem to be taking this really personally. Lighten up a bit, and try to enjoy your participation. This ain't about the Iraq war or poverty in Africa!

--Ethan

Quote:
I saw nothing to reply to. Really. It was a lot of words, but with no meaning I could find. If I missed a direct question or point to reply to, please show it to me.

Holy Illiteracy, Batman! This is part of your problem? Without a question mark you don't see the issues May raised? Or MJF?!

Really?!!! You don't see they knocked the legs out from under you? Laid you flat? Made you look like you don't have a clue?

Naw! I know you just have no answers so you just ignore them. It's what you do when you don't want to address an issue. You've done it to me over and over. You've been doing it so long you don't even realize you don't pay attention. How dupian!

Ya'know, I've never seen Ethan and dup together ...

Quote:
Just hit Play again to hear nuances you never noticed before. Play once more and now all of a sudden the bass has more fullness.

More bass is "nuance" to you? You really do want me to think your system's frequency response changes every few minutes, don't you? Geez, I though you meant "nuance". You know like instruments underneath the mix that you didn't notice before. The way a string is pulled, a touch of ambience that adds to the reality or how a vocalist hesitates and then adds a bit of humor ... Oh, that's right, you don't get humor unless it's at someone's expense.

But your system actually sounds that different from one play to the next? Oh, wow! And this is with you listening "critically"? Geez, guy, that's weird! Do you think it might be all those friggin' panels you got all over the damn room?

Anybody else's system change frequency response from moment to moment? John you ever heard of this?

Ethan, I gotta ask. Are you on crack?

Quote:
LOL, I don't recall once saying "Screw you Jan" even if I may have thought it a few times. Speaking of addressing the issues, how about those three threads?

If you continue to constantly insult me when we get too close to the real subject of the thread, Ethan, you're going to get more "screw you's". You know what I'm talking about. It's one of your defenses that you've done for so long you just do it. May points to it nicely. MJF comes right out and says it. Go back and read the thread again, Ethan, you'll be surprised what a prick you've been. Or maybe you won't.

If you had been paying attention, you would have seen I gave an answer. If it's not the answer you like, that's too bad.

Quote:

Quote:
Certainly there are no more measurements in Ethan's products than there are in source components or loudspeakers which would indicate even the presence of "sound stage" or "imaging" let alone a "real improvement".

In fact there are measurements all over my company's web site showing exactly that.

Sorry, Ethan, I don't see "an impressive improvement in stereo imaging, sound stage and overall clarity of sound". Anybody see that in those graphs? If it's so obvious in those measurements, what are the measurements that indicate "soundstage" in an amplifier? Or a speaker? You're showing me objective graphs and the customer is describing subjective perceptions. I know you got graphs out your ass but they don't say "imaging", the customer perceives a subjective improvement in imaging. Maybe because you told him that would happen by running this ad or maybe because that's what he wanted to hear but he has to perceive imaging before it will change, it's not on a piece of paper. That's the point I've been making since about page five. To you "imaging" may be on those pieces of paper. But your client reads they will cause a subjective change and they preceive it because you tell them what's going to happen. You can't prove what they hear as a subjective improvement after your installation is any different than the subjective improvement a Shakti device effects. You got graphs, they don't. The client is left to make subjective judgements based on their perception in either case.

Everything is perception.

That's the issue raised by me, May, MJF and apparently John. So far your only answer has been, "How is that possible?"

Let's go! Stop dancing around the subject and simply answer the questions raised about perception. They're there, if you can't remember them, read back a few pages. Start with May's post again. It's very good. And the Cognitive Dissonance? I don't think that's it, it's like May says, "The fear of having their beliefs challenged is greater than their desire for better sound. They cannot put aside their comfort blanket for one moment or they fear their guard will be down and they will be vulnerable."

Put your blankey down, Ethan, and let's wrap this up.

[Quote from Ethan :-

>>> "Products like these Harmonix dots defy all logic, common sense, and everything known about the physics of acoustics. So in the absence of hard test data showing a change, or even an explanation as to how they actually do what is claimed, I have to conclude these work entirely on placebo effect. What other explanation possibly makes sense?

Now, the Shakti Hallograph is almost big enough to make a physical change in the sound of a room.
But what exactly could it do that would be useful?
I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear me say that I consider all of the products sold by both of these companies to be total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking. I probably wouldn't object so strongly if the prices were more reasonable." <<<

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

Jan, you don't need to struggle to change Ethan's opinion or beliefs. I don't even think you can. But, there may be enough people remaining sufficiently interested to continue trying to tease out knowledge, understanding, a grasp of what may be happening and WHY numerous people can report improvements in the sound when they have tried the devices which started this particular thread in the first place.

Such arrogance of thought by Ethan, really, is quite unbelievable. Ethan says that he would not object so strongly if the prices of the things under discussion were more reasonable. Does that mean that he would be prepared to discuss these things and how they might work if they were FREE ? Or would his stance still be the same i.e "that these things defy all logic, common sense, and everything known about the physics of acoustics." ? If that is the case, then the PRICE is irrelevant and a red herring (what I call diversionary tactics).

Ethan talks about some of the things under discussion "being total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking" - not able to be explained by the laws of physics. But the laws of physics are not the ONLY laws. This is why I constantly campaign for people to remove the blinkers, look around themselves - forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down.

"Sound", yes, can be the 'physics of acoustics' - which is the area which Ethan is firmly entrenched in (what he calls the world of physics/science). And I use the word entrenched deliberately. But, seeing as it is the human being who is ALSO involved, then the science of biology comes into it !!!!!

THAT is why I used the parallel of Tinnitus. Because in that area of Tinnitus you have :-

The science of physics (acoustics) - sound being generated externally which (may, possibly) start the process rolling.
The science of biology - what might or might not happen inside the FULL hearing mechanism.
The science of psychology - what else may influence what might or might not happen inside the FULL hearing mechanism. As, it is claimed by some sufferers of Tinnitus, stress can make the problem of Tinnitus worse.

I did not specifically ask Ethan a question, Jan. The question I asked "Has he ever tried one of the Harmonix Dots (which John Atkinson attached to his speakers and improved his sound) on one of his (Ethan's) Room Acoustic Panels ?" was asked 'into the air' so to speak. I don't need to ask Ethan that question directly because I know what his answer would be. He would answer that no, he did not need to try the Harmonix Dots because he knew they could not possibly be doing anything ACOUSTIC to his panels or to the acoustics of the room. Looking at the measurement diagrams he has just referred, there would not be a millimetre of change to those measurements with any Harmonix Dots on his acoustic panels !!! In my opinion he would be correct. The Harmonix Dots would not be doing anything ACOUSTIC in exactly the same way that they are not doing anything ACOUSTIC to John's speakers although they change the 'sound' for John and for many other people. That last sentence is said by someone (me) who does not even make Harmonix Dots - we make something much weirder !!!

The area where Ethan and I agree is that we both believe that there is a wealth of information, already in the room, having already been presented into the room by the audio system, which we (human beings) are not resolving correctly. The point where I part company with Ethan is that he believes that the problem is 100% caused by acoustic variations in the room and can therefore ONLY be dealt with by acoustic methods - so there can be no other consideration of any other methods which are not acoustic !! Hence his words which I have quoted at the beginning.

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
The Harmonix Dots would not be doing anything ACOUSTIC in exactly the same way that they are not doing anything ACOUSTIC to John's speakers although they change the 'sound' for John and for many other people.

If they do nothing acoustic, what are they doing?

{BTW, when Ethan states: "I probably wouldn't object so strongly if the prices were more reasonable" I take him to mean that if the tweaks he finds unreasonable were cheap, they would be unobjectionable; little harm would be done to the buyer. That is, so what if a $1.50 bag of pebbles do not improve the sound? OTOH, if they are $500.00 and nonreturnable . . .}

Quote:

Quote:
the audiophile's two best methods of protection: their own ears, and a money back guarantee.

Heh, all of my real products have an unconditional money back guarantee. Not even a restocking fee. It is very rare for us to get a return.

--Ethan

The very rare return? Usually cuz' someone overspent their budget on useless visuals or overpaid for some other far less important aspect of the room/install.

Since folks don't really understand acoustics and can't actually see sound..they tend to not 'get it'. But they sure come cryin' when they hear their great looking install. By then, they've spent all the money and expect you to fix the 'afterthought acoustics' for nearly nothing.

(This is where Ethan says 'Amen, brother!-don't you know it-sing that tune!')

Quote from Elk
{BTW, when Ethan states: "I probably wouldn't object so strongly if the prices were more reasonable" I take him to mean that if the tweaks he finds unreasonable were cheap, they would be unobjectionable; little harm would be done to the buyer. That is, so what if a $1.50 bag of pebbles do not improve the sound? OTOH, if they are $500.00 and nonreturnable . . .}

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

You say that your interpretation of Ethan's attitude regarding price is that if they were cheap, he would not find them objectionable. THAT is NOT what he actually SAYS. He says (as I quoted his very words)
>>> "I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear me say that I consider all of the products sold by both of these companies to be total bullshit with no foundation in science or anything else beyond wishful thinking." <<<

If Ethan considers them 'total bullshit' then, surely, they will continue to be 'total bullshit' in his opinion whether they are $1.00 or even FREE !!!

It is his total disregard for and dismissing of other people's experiences which I react against.

So, Elk, the impression you give in your reply to me is that, in your opinion, it is OK for Ethan to find those products objectionable and 'total bullshit' if they are expensive (or even more than Ethan considers they should be). I don't think you can hide behind the 'price' thing at all - if someone's attitude is objectionable, then it is objectionable !! Or not, whichever you choose.

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
{BTW, when Ethan states: "I probably wouldn't object so strongly if the prices were more reasonable" I take him to mean that if the tweaks he finds unreasonable were cheap, they would be unobjectionable; little harm would be done to the buyer. That is, so what if a $1.50 bag of pebbles do not improve the sound? OTOH, if they are $500.00 and nonreturnable . . .}

Elk, we've had this conversation, remember? I replied here, Re: Charts and graphs were prepared for the sceptics ... [Re: Elk] #39260 - 04/22/08 03:40 PM, to your issues of cost. Ethan has a problem with wanting to control what other people spend and think. Go check that post, Elk, it was in direct response to your first defense of Ethan and pricing. You seem to assume lots of things that aren't really true.

Which brings me to my curiousity regarding how you came to the conclusion that these various devices are a non-returnable sale. Have you inquired about these products to reach that conclusion? Have you called a dealer to see just how these devices are sold? Why would a Shakti device be non-returnable? Or the Shun Mook products? There is absolutely no reason to think you can't return a disc. C'mon, Elk, did you ask whether dealer support is included in the sale, you know, does the dealer help you with the installation to assure the best performance as they would with a pair of speakers, or did you not bother to ask any questions? How did you come to that conclusion, Elk? Do you know any dealer who sell tweaks of any kind on a non-returnable basis?

Quote:
(This is where Ethan says 'Amen, brother!-don't you know it-sing that tune!')

Let's not get distracted, Ethan. Your questions are on perception not return policies. If you will keep this thread on track, we can get this done. If you only wish to avoid the questions, then this thread is going against you. You have no answers other than, "How can this be?" If you have no answers to the questions put to you, the thread can end and you still loose with the conclusion being, "Ethan, I know what you think but you are wrong! And you will remain wrong forever."

Perception, Ethan. Discuss perception. If you wish you can begin with, "It is his total disregard for and dismissing of other people's experiences which I react against." Or you can return here, Re: Charts and graphs were prepared for the sceptics ... [Re: Ethan_Winer] #39390 - 04/23/08 10:15 PM. There aren't very many question marks but that doesn't mean there aren't questions for you to answer.

Yes, but was there ever really much of a debate?

Eh not much, of what I saw. From what I read, I came to the same conclusion that Jan did. You were very vocal and adamant about dismissing acoustic tweaks that were in your opinion, "bogus", believing it was impossible for said tweaks to make a real difference, no matter what anyone who has actually tried them says about that. But when that narrow view was argued against, you failed to defend it. You cherry-picked over your opponent's responses, largely ignoring their arguments against your position, and requests to support your position. Yet instead of changing your position and relenting the obvious, namely that you have no basis for it in light of the evidence against it, as far as I know you've decided to keep it (and persuaded no one to give up their Harmonix dots!). But isn't that always the way these skeptic vs. opponent debates go on audio forums?

Gotta love guys who hurl accusations while hiding behind a bogus screen name. Whatever differences Jan and I may have, at least Jan uses a real name. I respect that.

Well considering how you lost the debate here on the audio front, are you sure you want to have a debate on using handles?! Because I'm open for that too, if you want. I guess we can start by me asking the most obvious question: "what in the wide world of sports does one's name have to do with what they say or write?" Your friend Darryl Miyaguchi never expressed any lack of respect toward me on account of my posting name, when we had civil discussions on Usenet many years ago. But perhaps you don't recognize the name? His alias was "ff123". If you would even pretend to be consistent in your arguments Ethan, that would mean you have no respect for Mr. Miyaguchi, accordng to your personal credo. Yet despite the fact that he posted under an alias, you seemed to have respect for him in your forum conversations with him, enough to have him host your test files: http://ff123.net/24bit/24bitanalysis.html I guess the next obvious question is: do you make exceptions to your personal beliefs for those who's views are aligned with yours?

Poor Ethan.

While I agree that he stops short on some topics, I give him credit for trying to be rigorous in his pursuit of "audio truth."

As others have pointed out (and no stealing my analogy,) just because cavemen couldn't measure radio waves didn't mean that the radio waves didn't exist.

___

Jan gets kudos for his true interest in using his ears.

However, on the negative side to this "any report of hearing something is automatically empirical data" debate, Ethan is right, in that "the plural of anecdotes is not data."

If this were true, Allah would have been empirically proven to rule Islam, Jesus would be empirically the proven God of Christians (you know what I mean,) and Thetans and such would exist because Scientologists en masse claim (anectdotally) that they do.

We have to be careful with whom gets credit for refuting whom.

Pointing out that something was once not measurable but it now is doesn't actually prove that any ol' piece of BS is a valid claim. So, I can see why Ethan may harden his heart when he somes some claims!

One other thing that subjectivists seem to fear above all else is not Ethan and his measurements - there are enough of these "radio wave" arguments that pop up all the time to always remind us that measurment does move ever forward; what subjectivists seem to recoil from is the topic of "reproduceablilty."

On the one hand, they hear "order of magnitude" or "night and day" differences when they are told what they are listening to, but these effects magically disappear if anyone tries to see if these same phenomena can withstand any sort of blinding with regard to listening. Not just instantaneous DBT, which I agree is flawed, but even open ended listening trials with any option open for music choices, volumes, listening time, etc...

Like Ethan refusing to listen, subjectivists refusing to explore the ways they may be making stuff up makes for a loss of richness in the hobby.

At least you could theoretically "prove" and objectivist wrong. Subjectivists are infallible by definition. "'Cause I said so" is about as far as you can go in getting a subjectivist to discuss whether or not he could be mistaken.

Hopefully, most audiophiles fall somewhere in bteween.

Leon Russell's "Tightrope" comes to mind, or maybe Stealers Wheel and "Stuck in the Middle."

Each side is pretty reactionary in protecting its turf! Neither will venture into tiger country and explore where they may be wrong.

Gee Jan, breathe . . .

I never stated that any particular tweak is nonreturnable, other than an understanding that the Teleportation Tweak cannot be returned - at least not in this dimension.

I simply made the point - which I acknowledge may be wrong - that Ethan appears to find certain types of tweaks to be more objectionable if they are expensive and, in my mind, even more objectionable if they are non-returnable.

Ethan did not claim that cost is a measure of efficacy nor of scientific veracity as May seems to be stating.

Of course, if I am the one who is misreading Ethan's posts he will likely correct me.

Quote:
Poor Ethan.

No kidding, apparently I have lost the debate because a couple of forum posters say I lost.

Quote:
Pointing out that something was once not measurable but it now is doesn't actually prove that any ol' piece of BS is a valid claim.

Yes, and I see this logical fallacy all the time from believers - they say we don't know everything (duh), but they can't understand that has no relation to the validity of their argument. Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing!

Quote:
they hear "order of magnitude" or "night and day" differences when they are told what they are listening to, but these effects magically disappear if anyone tries to see if these same phenomena can withstand any sort of blinding

Testify brother. This is like the dither and jitter threads I've been in lately. Proponents always claim those are "hugely important" and highly audible, yet when I post a link to my Dither and Artifact Audibility comparisons they attack my tests. This is easier than admitting that while dither (and jitter) may in some cases be barely detectable, in most cases nobody has a clue if dither was applied. So they blame the messenger. Repeat it enough times and next thing you know the huge importance of dither and jitter are common knowledge. Not only that dither is hugely important, but which flavor of dither. I crack up seeing these guys argue over which algorithm is better for classical music versus jazz versus heavy metal. Sheesh. It's all in their imagination! As I said earlier, you don't have to change anything. Just hit Play again and the sound is slightly different.

Quote:
Like Ethan refusing to listen

Now hold on there pal. Where'd you ever get the idea that I don't listen? I do this for a living fer crying out loud. Of course I listen! I listen to music critically every single day. And that is why I know all these BS tweaks are BS. If I suggested to my partner that we experiment with 1/2 inch diameter thin plastic dots on our panels he'd have me committed. And I'd go willingly.

Quote:
Subjectivists are infallible by definition. "'Cause I said so" is about as far as you can go in getting a subjectivist to discuss whether or not he could be mistaken.

LOL, so true. And so apparent all throughout this thread.

--Ethan

Quote:
Of course, if I am the one who is misreading Ethan's posts he will likely correct me.

You understanding my position perfectly. The cost of a tweak is unrelated to its efficacy - obviously - and using that as an argument against me is another logical fallacy. In this case it's called a straw man:

"A straw man is an argument made by mischaracterizing an opponent's viewpoint in a particularly weak fashion, and then attacking the weaker version of your opponent's arguments, rather than their real arguments."

--Ethan

Quote:
using that as an argument against me is another logical fallacy. In this case it's called a straw man:

BTW, this is a great article about logical fallacies, and how to argue factually when others deny the facts:

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=38

The Logical Fallacies list starts partway down the page. I imagine people on either side of any argument will benefit from reading and understanding the points made.

Now who do we know that tries this?

Quote:
Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy

Quote:
Now who do we know that tries this?

Most of the posters on this forum, in one way or another.

To add credence to this claim, I'll mention that one of my degrees is in philosophy - including formal training in logic.

Not to beat this to death DUP-style, but this is a perfect example of a logical fallacy:

Quote:
Gotta love guys who hurl accusations while hiding behind a bogus screen name. Whatever differences Jan and I may have, at least Jan uses a real name. I respect that.

... Your friend Darryl Miyaguchi never expressed any lack of respect toward me on account of my posting name, when we had civil discussions on Usenet many years ago ... If you would even pretend to be consistent in your arguments Ethan, that would mean you have no respect for Mr. Miyaguchi, accordng to your personal credo.

Since ff123 didn't hurl insults at you while hiding behind a screen name your argument is flawed and irrelevant. See my quote above in bold. Also, you know his real name so obviously he didn't hide it from you. So that's Strike 2. I don't know your real name, and I'm pretty sure you're not about to tell me. But if you'd like to prove me wrong please do so. You also have to give me a verifiable address etc (by email is okay) so I know you're not just making it up. Otherwise I dismiss you as non-serious and no more than a troll.

--Ethan

Quote:
However, on the negative side to this "any report of hearing something is automatically empirical data" debate, Ethan is right, in that "the plural of anecdotes is not data."

Please do not mischaracterize what I have said. Ethan has done enough of that. I never posted what you claim.

Quote:
If this were true, Allah would have been empirically proven to rule Islam, Jesus would be empirically the proven God of Christians (you know what I mean,) and Thetans and such would exist because Scientologists en masse claim (anectdotally) that they do.

If your premise were true, we would have proof of a higher intelligence. Whether we do or not is not within the confines of this thread. Your argument doesn't hold water since it cannot be proven one way or the other. It is just another hypothetical meant to distract and as such qualifies for an AL GORE!!!

Quote:
Pointing out that something was once not measurable but it now is doesn't actually prove that any ol' piece of BS is a valid claim.

Ethan is the only participant who insists only measurable quantities can be allowed as evidence. Several of us contend - and this is the main issue at stake here - that what is measurable is not the totality of you perception. As May states, Ethan's measurements can be achieved without any perception of any kind taking place. You are once again misquoting me if you mean to imply I want "any ol' piece of BS" accepted as a "valid claim". We are not discussing any ol' piece of BS in this thread. We are discussing repeated observations made by numerous reputable authorities over a wide expanse of time and locale. Thank you very much!

Quote:
One other thing that subjectivists seem to fear above all else is not Ethan and his measurements - there are enough of these "radio wave" arguments that pop up all the time to always remind us that measurment does move ever forward; what subjectivists seem to recoil from is the topic of "reproduceablilty."

On the one hand, they hear "order of magnitude" or "night and day" differences when they are told what they are listening to, but these effects magically disappear if anyone tries to see if these same phenomena can withstand any sort of blinding with regard to listening. Not just instantaneous DBT, which I agree is flawed, but even open ended listening trials with any option open for music choices, volumes, listening time, etc...

Stated as if it were actually true. In reality it is not. If you had been paying attention, you should have relaized that. The devices under question here have "reproducability". If they did not, I would not have spent three weeks defending their viability and accepting the perception of numerous individuals as fact. Mischaracterization seems rampant and easy on one side of this argument - and it ain't my side that's doing it.

Quote:
Like Ethan refusing to listen, subjectivists refusing to explore the ways they may be making stuff up makes for a loss of richness in the hobby.

I fail to see how a discussion of percetive ability makes for a loss of richness in the hobby. Unless you mean when one side will not participate.

Quote:
At least you could theoretically "prove" and objectivist wrong. Subjectivists are infallible by definition. "'Cause I said so" is about as far as you can go in getting a subjectivist to discuss whether or not he could be mistaken.

Why don't you once again read this entire thread and see just who is making their case based upon, "Cause I said so".

Quote:
Hopefully, most audiophiles fall somewhere in bteween.

Hopefully, most audiophiles have honed their perceptive skills to the point where they can distinguish between real and not.

Quote:
Each side is pretty reactionary in protecting its turf! Neither will venture into tiger country and explore where they may be wrong.

Puhlease!!! Why do you think I started this discussion?

Buddha, I know what you think, but you are wrong.

Quote:
I never stated that any particular tweak is nonreturnable

The entire argument against these devices has been run on proxy and implication. This is just another example of something we are meant to accept as a truth when in fact there is no truth to your "fact".

Quote:
I simply made the point - which I acknowledge may be wrong - that Ethan appears to find certain types of tweaks to be more objectionable if they are expensive and, in my mind, even more objectionable if they are non-returnable.

Ethan did not claim that cost is a measure of efficacy nor of scientific veracity as May seems to be stating.

I don't remember Ethan getting around to "returnability". He stops at expense. Do I need to pull the quotes?

Quote:
Of course, if I am the one who is misreading Ethan's posts he will likely correct me.

Maybe it's best to let Ethan speak for Ethan since none of us require an interpreter to comprehend American English. Or simply allow Ethan's words, such as "FREE BUT STILL STUPID" to stand for themself.

Elk, I know what you're thinking, but you're wrong.

Quote:
No kidding, apparently I have lost the debate because a couple of forum posters say I lost.

No, you are loosing the debate because you refuse to debate the issues of the thread.

Quote:
Yes, and I see this logical fallacy all the time from believers

I'd like to continue to quote this and argue against it but I was stopped short by the word "believers". If that doesn't make plain Ethan's attitude toward anyone who disagrees with him, I don't know what - other than "dismiss" - could possibly do so. We are not logical beings, we are believers!!! Ethan, you are obnoxious!

Quote:
And that is why I know all these BS tweaks are BS.

Is there such as word as "obnoxiouser"?

Quote:
If I suggested to my partner that we experiment with 1/2 inch diameter thin plastic dots on our panels he'd have me committed. And I'd go willingly.

Obnoxiouser-er?

Quote:

Quote:
Now who do we know that tries this?

Most of the posters on this forum, in one way or another.

I guess I have to pull actual quotes for this too.

Meet Dr. X, Dr A, and those who should be committed:

Quote:
If I suggested to my partner that we experiment with 1/2 inch diameter thin plastic dots on our panels he'd have me committed.

It's plain to see Ethan cannot discuss the issues of perception. If we are unable to get through that simple phase of this discussion, we will never reach the larger issue, IMO, which is whether it is correct to squash interest by denying percpetion.

Ethan simply cannot do this. Or will not do this. He cannot let go of his security blankey.

This thread has gone on for three weeks and Ethan has not once moved from his dismissive stance that his tweaks do not rely upon perception and all others do. He further refuses to acknowledge perception as a reality.

Since it is impossible to have a discussion when one side refuses to participate there seems little reason to continue this. If anyone has any objections, you can have your say now. Make your closing statement within the next day's time.

I would like to thank those who did actually particpate in this thread. I would most particularly like to thank May Belt for her valuable contributions to thinking beyond the ordinary.

I have nothing else to say. I'm tired of being ignored, tired of being dismissed and insulted and I'm tired of being treated as an inconsequential "believer". To paraphrase Ethan, I know what you are thinking but almost all of you are almost totally wrong and unwilling to face the real issues of this thread.

If he would be so kind and without taking sides, since this subject seems to be of interest to him, I would appreciate any closing comments John might have. After his comments I would ask that the thread be closed. Thirty pages is enough!

Quote:

Quote:
I never stated that any particular tweak is nonreturnable

The entire argument against these devices has been run on proxy and implication. This is just another example of something we are meant to accept as a truth when in fact there is no truth to your "fact".

But Jan, I never stated that any tweak is nonreturnable, other than the Teleportation Tweak, which is true.

Quote:
I simply made the point - which I acknowledge may be wrong - that Ethan appears to find certain types of tweaks to be more objectionable if they are expensive and, in my mind, even more objectionable if they are non-returnable.

Ethan did not claim that cost is a measure of efficacy nor of scientific veracity as May seems to be stating.

I don't remember Ethan getting around to "returnability". He stops at expense. Do I need to pull the quotes?

Once gain Jan - read what I posted. Note the bold italicized portion. I am the one that added the reference to non-returnability.

Quote:
Of course, if I am the one who is misreading Ethan's posts he will likely correct me.

Maybe it's best to let Ethan speak for Ethan since none of us require an interpreter to comprehend American English.

Perhaps you missed Ethan's response which states I understood him and that his comments have otherwise been actively mis-interpreted.

Quote:
Elk, I know what you're thinking, but you're wrong.

Gosh Jan, you are amazing - you both know what is in my head and you know it is wrong. Impressive.

What exactly are you railing against? Even if your nit-picks at my posts were factually correct - what would you have established?

Can you state what your position is in fifty words or so, clearly and without attacking someone else? At this point I have no clue what you are trying to accomplish other than to continually assert others are wrong.

Please tell us what you believe to be correct. I am probably not the only one that is interested in what you positively stand for. Let us know what this is.

Jan Vigne page 4 post #37578 3/28/08

Quote:
I also tend not to take too seriously the majority of Peter Belt's tweaks.

And when she gets done answering Elk's question I

30 pages?

It must be the exchange rate. I'm only on page 6.