It would seem nothing but obvious to me that the human skin monitors the temperature of the outer skin, in order to make the body keep a steady temperature, but at the same time the interior (organs etc) function a whole other way. Inside the body is a much more constant temperature, and as such no sensory system needs to work on the inside of the body in the same manner as it does in the skin.

When the sensors in the skin "measures" a decrease in the skin temperature, it contracts the outer vessels, so less blood flows close to the skin surface, ie to lessen heat loss from the skin. If this doesn't help, we feel cold, and put on a sweater, turn up the heat etc.

It would make no sense if the skin sensors monitored the environment, as it is apt to change to whole time. The whole purpose of these sensors are to prevent deviations in the central temperature of the body, not in the skin, which is merely a "regulator".

If the temperature in the environment change to a large degree, it's another story. This spells "danger" for the body, and I believe different, and more serious mechanisms get into play in this situation. In such an environment, the skin temperature drops or raises so fast and so much, that the skin can no longer regulate, and thus compensate for the changes. I would imagine a further detraction of blood into the vital organs, and a "preparation" of an eventual loss of limbs by a more or less complete shut off of the blood supply to those limbs. It's the vital organs that keep us alive, not the limbs.

Therefore it's my guess that we have at least two different temperature sensory systems, and they work independantly of each other. I must repeat, that it makes no sense for the skin sensors to monitor the surrounding air/environment, but only the outer skin itself. Think of the chill factor; how quickly and abruptly it can change the skin temperature, and when we go into shelter it just stops as abruptly. We would use huge amounts of energy if we constantly monitored the air around us, which is why I believe this is not the case. Nature is smart!

Quote:
Think of the chill factor; how quickly and abruptly it can change the skin temperature, and when we go into shelter it just stops as abruptly.

That's due to the chill factor being a combination of ambient air temperature and wind speed. Step out of the wind, whether inside a shelter or just behind a large building out of the windflow, and the "wind chill" is no longer relevant.

Of course we are influenced by our environment. That's why we're where we are today, whatever people like to think of that fact. Our environments shape and change living creatures, and sometimes they kill us. Survival of the fittest!

Quote:

Quote:
Think of the chill factor; how quickly and abruptly it can change the skin temperature, and when we go into shelter it just stops as abruptly.

That's due to the chill factor being a combination of ambient air temperature and wind speed. Step out of the wind, whether inside a shelter or just behind a large building out of the windflow, and the "wind chill" is no longer relevant.

I agree. It was just a way of leading others to grasp my hypothesis why it makes no sense for the skin to monitor the environment.

But what you said is incorrect. You perspire because the skin monitors the ambient temperature vs. your body temperature. I assume, living where you do, you know winchill doesn't have any effect on your automobile's engine, it reacts only to ambient temperature. It is pertinent to humans because we are constantly monitoring and reacting to our environment.

Quote:
It was just a way of leading others to grasp my hypothesis why it makes no sense for the skin to monitor the environment.

How do you explain the process of sweating to cool the body if you don't believe the skin is monitoring and reacting to the environment on a purely subconcious level? Freako, don't just make stuff up, that's why we have B/Beck around. Go ask a gardener about cool season and warm season plants and why perenials such as trees and grass go dormant in the winter. He had none of that right. He just thinks if he says it and no one catches him, people like you will believe his BS.

If he's lying to you about a little bitty seed, what else is he lying about?

My lacking capabilities in your language don't make me wrong. Honestly, don't you realize that a change in the surrounding temperature also changes the temperature of the skin? Don't you realize that we perspire because the skin gets hot? Not because the air gets hot.

Maybe we're in reality discussing a minor detail here?

How does the skin get hot?

Exactly, that's why I'm suggesting we're in reality discussing a minor detail, right?

But the skin is not MONITORING the temperature of the air, but of the skin itself! If that was the case, we'd not be able to survive a sauna, due to a huge - and very rapid - loss of body liquids.

If that were the case, people would die inside saunas, which they do. The process is not a loss of fluids but of a suffice of fluids. It is essentially the same as heat stroke were your skin stops perspiring, you can no longer cool yourself through evaporation of sweat and your internal body temperature rises to dangerous levels.

I'm asking you how the skin temperature rises and you're telling me it rises due not to ambient environmental effects. I don't believe that is the case. You prespire in hot ambient temperatures and not in windchill factors. If that is not your skin monitoring and reacting to the environment, what would you call it?

And why do we perspire when we eat several jalapeno peppers? What's the purpose of eating spicy food in tropical climates?

...your skin monitoring and reacting to the environment...

Monitoring and reacting to, I see as two very different things. Honestly there's no point in discussing this - basically we agree.

If we were to agree that the skin temperature is monitored (more or less) continuously, would that be a guarantee that we also monitor for "safe environment" continuously?

If we agree that we monitor for "safe environment" continuously, would that be a guarantee that every person get the same result?

If we agree that not every person get the same result, would that be enough to make you admit that, some people might not at all feel unsafe in environments that would make others feel unsafe?

Quote:
If we were to agree that the skin temperature is monitored (more or less) continuously, would that be a guarantee that we also monitor for "safe environment" continuously?

If we agree that we monitor for "safe environment" continuously, would that be a guarantee that every person get the same result?

If we agree that not every person get the same result, would that be enough to make you admit that, some people might not at all feel unsafe in environments that would make others feel unsafe?

That is sooo Buddha-like. The ultimate non-starter. You rearn quickry, glasshopper.

"Is it safe?"

Not a nice thing to say. I can't help that Buddha agrees with me on this (if he does). And let's get one thing totally straight here: I have not LEARNED anything from Buddha!

And I don't use those 4-letter words and stuff.

Keld, that pic is of a member of the belt/Sheldrake cult trying to get Dustin Hoffman to buy into their line of grease.

It's a rare personal glimpse of how they view dissent.

__________________

To go along with mangled physiology, beltists would also insist that you need your (fictitious, but for the sake of the fun of the topic....) finely tuned evolutionary threat assessment apparatus impaired in order to fully enjoy your Hi Fi.

beltists are promoting the anesthitizing of a non-existent entity.

Brilliant!

Next, ask geoffie why the morphic resonance of crossword puzzles tavels the world making people better at doing a crossword puzzle one day after other people did it (yet over-all crossword spead has not shown progressive improvement) yet the benefits of May's morphic resonance tweaks stop at the side wall of his apartment, while functioning through the walls within his apartment.

Telephone books harm his morphic resonance, but a computer containing the information of all phone books combined does not.

May is pretty good....make up an evolutionary force, then sell sham products in an attempt to try to turn it off.

May, would you suggest tweaks that turn off one's ability to thermoregulate to make listening to Hi Fi more enjoyable? Maybe take our minds off the busy work of maintaining our body temperature to help us along with a more pleasurable listening experience?

Would you turn off our system for managing our fluid volume to favor a more delightful sonic experience?

If your fantasy system did exist...Why on earth would you want to turn off a perfectly good (but non-existent) evolutionary characteristic your religion insists exists for our benefit?

Are you equating your tweaks with some sort of existential soporific?

__________________________
__________________________

The craziness is all around us.

Check out Islam's take on music....

Crazy, but not actually as crazy as May and geoffie...

According to islamic law, we should all be stoned for listening to our Hi Fi's...and there's over a billion of them and they have members who are eminent scientists, so it must be the unvarnished truth.

"Before discussing...Music's....effects on nerves it is necessary to briefly describe an intricate & awe-inspiring part of the nervous system itself. These details are quoted here from the "Foundation of Biology" (by William D. McElory & Carl P. Swanson & others; published by Prentice-Hall, Inc; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersyy U.S.A. 1968) & "How your Nervous System Works" (by J.D. Ratcliff; Reader's Digest - Book of Human Body) :-

"Many reflexes that help control the internal environment involve a special part of the nervous system (ANS). This system consists of nerves making up the motor pathway to the heart, stomach, intestine & other internal organs These nerves are not under voluntary control; that is, you can not make your heart beat faster on command."

"The two major divisions of the automatic nervous system are called the sympathetic & parasympathetic nervous systems."
Sympathetic nerves leave the middle regions of the spinal cord "Parasympathetic nerves leave the central nervous system from the upper regions where they travel in cranial nerves (i.e., 12 pairs of nerves attached to the brain & serving head & neck), & from the lowermost regions of the spinal cord where they travel in spinal nerves.

"Most internal organs of your body are supplied with both parasympathetic & sympathetic nerve fibers."

"In general, these two types of nerves work in opposite ways. For example, impulses traveling along sympathetic nerve fibers toward the heart increase your heart-beat rate, whereas impulses traveling along the parasympathetic nerves leading to the heart disease its rate.

"When we examine the effects of sympathetic stimulation of various organs, a pattern begins to emerge. We find that sympathetic stimulation causes a number of events:

1. Widening of air passage leading to the lungs;

2. Constriction or narrowing of blood vessel in the skin & in the
intestinal tract, resulting in blood being shifted from the digestive organs
and skin to the muscles;

3. A general slowing down of movements in the intestinal tract;

4 An increase in the force & rate of heart-beat:

5. Release of the blood sugar from the liver;

6. Release of the hormones adrenaline.

All of these activities prepare the human being for emergencies such as running or fighting. The widening of air passages makes it easier for the human being to breathe faster & get more oxygen. Blood is shifted from regions where it will not be needed during the emergency (the intestinal tract, for example) to skeletal & heart muscle which will need oxygen & blood sugar.

The heart beats faster & stronger so that blood circulates through the muscles at a higher rate. Blood sugar is released from storage in the liver into the blood stream where it will be available to supply muscles with energy.

In short, sympathetic stimulation prepares the man for emergencies, & in this process, increases the blood pressure, retards the function of digestive system & increases the sugar contents of the blood.

The function of Parasympathetic nerves system is opposite to the sympathetic system "It widens the veins, releases noradrenalin hormones & generally retards activities.

"The two nervous systems run parallel to each other & in co-operation from one part of the body to another. The co-operation of the two systems is essential for maintaining the equilibrium of the body, which in turn has a great bearing & effect on the physical & mental health of man.

Should at any time there be a lack of co-operation between these two systems, physical or mental disorders could arise resulting in one disease or another."

Some actions or movements outside human body can adversely affect the natural equilibrium of these two systems. One of those things is music.

A brisk & lively musical programme, particularly if it is accompanied by musical instruments, disturbs this equilibrium of the various systems; digestion is badly affected; palpitation of the heart is increased; blood pressure goes high & abnormal secretion of hormones leaves a lasting bad effect upon general health.

Music stimulates mostly the sympathetic nervous system; & it may create insomnia (lack of sleep); it may cause tempers to flare-up; sudden laughter or nonsensical talks are amongst its possible effects. It may even lead to mania (a kind of madness)..

Such people may be seen to move their hands & feet in dancing pattern even when not listening to music.

Dr. Vollf Adler, who was a professor in the Columbia University, found out that a best melodious record of music can badly harm the nerves of a human body; & the warmer the weather the more the harm. He proved that music upsets the nervous systems unnaturally, & causes considerable fatigue.

This research of Dr. Adler had a widespread effect on many Americans; many stopped listening to music altogether. The belief that music was harmful for a progressive nation like U.S.A., reached a stage when a member of the Senate proposed a resolution to ban the music in the country. Relevant proofs & arguments were put before the Senate. But in a nation steeped in lust & materialism, not many senators could be found to vote for that resolution."

__________
__________

Yet another nutty case of someone advocating for a dumb ass universal piece of idiocy.

Keld, May and geoffie are acolytes in a religious cult, with no actual coherent philosophy other than blind agreement with their street corner messiah.

Quote:
... basically we agree.

We do?!

I don't mind religious. I don't mind acolytes. I don't mind cults.

I do mind scientology. I do mind fundamentalism. I do mind followers with no thinking of their own. I do mind -isms. I do mind 4 letter words. Thanks for not using them.

Quote:
Yet another nutty case of someone advocating for a dumb ass universal piece of idiocy.

Keld, May and geoffie are acolytes in a religious cult, with no actual coherent philosophy other than blind agreement with their street corner messiah.

B/Beck says, "Make way for Uber-Strawman. Sillier than anything else I've peddled so far. I've researched and found someone with strange ideas, therefore, everyone I say has strange ideas must have strange ideas. Didn't I say this was sillier than anything else I've yet to push? Well, kiddos, don't go away because there's more where that came from. If you liked that, wait till I prove May is Hitler."

The only thing he has right is "bullshit is bullshit" and he should know, he's peddled the same bullshit for years. To answer your question May, some of us prefer to think, those like B/Beck prefer to peddle bullshit.

To Buddha, Jan and everybody else in the "fight":

Please keep me out of it. I am not taking sides. I believe what I believe until something convinces me otherwise.

Excuse me, Freako, I didn't put you in this "fight"?

But I do believe convincing you of anything is tough work.

Quote:
Honestly there's no point in discussing this ...

Quote:

Or am I too logical in MY understanding of what a 'Controversial Discussion' is all about ??

Not too logical, too pedantic.

In all seriousness, you don't discuss, you lecture.

It always comes back to you selling your world.

Someone brings something up, you poo poo it and turn things immediately back to Sheldrakeism.

Leave the religion behind and join a discussion!

Lots of fun to be had if you ditch the fundamentalism.

Quote:

Quote:
If we were to agree that the skin temperature is monitored (more or less) continuously, would that be a guarantee that we also monitor for "safe environment" continuously?

If we agree that we monitor for "safe environment" continuously, would that be a guarantee that every person get the same result?

If we agree that not every person get the same result, would that be enough to make you admit that, some people might not at all feel unsafe in environments that would make others feel unsafe?

Why on earth would you want to introduce the word "guarantee" ? Surely in a discussion one just discusses ??

How many times do I have to state "different people experience different things in different environments at different times" ?? But that still should not stop us discussing ideas, surely ? Surely so many of the discussions which have taken place through the various sections of Stereophile - over many many years - have been because various so called 'tweaks' have been described as 'changing sound' when people could not believe how they could possibly have any such effect ! Isn't THAT what we are trying, ultimately, to understand ??????????

Of course there can be no guarantee that any concept which someone introduces is 100% correct. Why on earth would you say the sentence "If we agree that we monitor for "safe environment" continuously, would that be a guarantee that every person get the same result?"
Why would you want a guarantee that every person would get the same result ? One can still DISCUSS the concept that we monitor our environment continuously - even though every single person might not get the same result - and we could still end up further along the path of understanding without any form of a GUARANTEE !!

Or am I too logical in MY understanding of what a 'Controversial Discussion' is all about ??

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Perhaps, or perhaps I use unsuitable words. Anyway, I just seem to remember you generalizing about "universal" results. That's all I oppose to

Quote:
Perhaps, or perhaps I use unsuitable words. Anyway, I just seem to remember you generalizing about "universal" results. That's all I oppose to

I cannot think of a single audio component or cable or tweak that produces "universal" results. It is a little naive, in my opinion, to surmise that everyone should/will obtain the same results across the board from any particular thing - whether it's new-fangled interconnects, room treatments, vibration isolation stands, audio feet, or some controversial tweak. Take almost anything, Black Diamond Racing cones, for example, some people swear by 'em, some people hate 'em.

As can be observed from customer and reviewer reports, and from our own efforts, results for any given item can vary widely, from "it makes the sound worse" to "if it works it's so subtle I can't be sure it's doing anything" to "significant improvement in sound quality" to "the greatest thing since peanut butter." Especially, perhaps, when the thing is controversial. One should also consider the common problems of not following instructions or having some (undiscovered) problems or shortcomings in the system that mask or supress desired effects. Not to mention variability in individual listening/hearing experience/ability. To put it another way, there is no magic bullet.

This non-universality of audio tweaks and components, that results vary so much, is why it is difficult to ever reach consensus on anything from speakers to interconnects to mass-loading speakers to Schumann Frequency generators to Mpingo discs to acoustic resonators to cartridges to audio feet to rainbow foil to crystals to greening the edge of CDs.

Look on the bright side: If everything were universal, if everyone achieved the same results, things would be pretty cut and dry and there would be no arguments.

If you look around you're sure to find someone who can't hear it. If you look around a little bit more, you'll find someone who says it hurts the sound. - old audiophile axiom

Quote:

Quote:
Perhaps, or perhaps I use unsuitable words. Anyway, I just seem to remember you generalizing about "universal" results. That's all I oppose to

I think, Keld, that it is Buddha who is constantly misrepresenting me as "generalising" and me as claiming things as "universal" !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do say, yes, what might be termed a 'generalisation' by some, that we are all reading/sensing/monitoring our environment constantly (although in my opinion it is not so much a generalisation as a common feature - no different to saying we all breath and use oxygen). Different people may use the oxygen they inhale more efficiently than others but as a 'generalisation' (if that is what you want to call it) we DO all breath and use oxygen.

So many times in the Stereophile discussions I see people having blinkers on. They are either looking intently at might be happening to the audio signal or looking intently at the room acoustics and are failing to see that it is the human being who is the one actually listening to the music and actually describing the improvements they are hearing !!
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

If it was 'something affecting' the audio signal which was providing the improvements described :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<< and which could be confirmed by measurements, then there would be no controversy.

If it was 'something affecting' the room acoustics which was providing the improvements described :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<< and which could be confirmed by measurements, then there would be no controversy.

If there is no such measurement proof, then surely we have to look far more seriously at the human being, at what the human being is experiencing and at why they are describing :-
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

Which is exactly what I am, and have been, attempting to do !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

I wish we could continue this discussion in Danish. Would be much easier for me, now that I'm so deep into it. Debating such stuff in your second language is not easy!

I gotta admit that if better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements, etc etc could be measured as it is, we would not be having this discussion, and if we knew more about the extremely complex being man is, we would not HAVE to have this discussion. I'm not sure you're totally far off the truth, but then again when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know and can hear with my ears. Assuming that little bowls, cream, holographic foils, clocks, telephone calls etc do more for the music/room/listener than a good cup of coffee, is just beyond what I can buy as being sensible.

I have cardboard boxes stuffed with newspapers and old speakers stacked behind my TV, and in the opposite corner by the rear wall, I have DIY bass traps, I have small carpets on my doors for reflection next to the speakers, and lots of decoupling under my equipment, speakers and subwoofer included, and I have added very efficient decoupling between the arm and the arm base on my TT, like I have very efficient decoupling between the cartridge and the headshell. I have even filed the tip of my cantilever to raise it's point of resonance. I have added reversed magnets to the back of my tweeters, and replaced all cables with better ones in my system. I have a dedicated group with a 13 Amp fuse, and gauge 15/16 (1,5mm) power wires to the outlet.

These are the things that may not all be measurable, but which I can understand and trust to deliver an increased joy in music listening. I wish I never got involved in this discussion

Quote:
These are the things that may not all be measurable, but which I can understand and trust to deliver an increased joy in music listening. I wish I never got involved in this discussion

I'm not at all sure where you get your ideas, Freako, but many of them would be considered wrongheaded when viewed from a certain perspective. What I hear you saying is what you've done makes "sense" to you and it doesn't matter to you whether what you've done is "logical" to anyone else. I'm not disputing your hearing or your reasoning though I've seldom seen a change in a system that didn't sound "better" to the person who made it if they thought the change made sense to them - at least until they had tried the opposite approach. For example, nearly forty years on and many retailers are still not willing to accept a source first approach to system building. We can convince ourself - and others - our personal approach makes sense if that's what we want to do even when it would appear all together wrongheaded to most other listeners. I suspect you've come across someone who you ask, "Why do you do it that way?", only to get the answer, "Because that's the way I've always done it."

How many of your "tweaks" have you undone after, say, a month to check for actual effectiveness?

The weight on the speakers, the decoupling between the cartridge and the headshell, the decoupling of all equipment. Have experimented much with cabling, position and angling (of speakers) and decoupling of all my equipment. And of course I have stopped using electret cream and foil altogether.

I don't trust measurements, but my ears (and memory) only

I know this is far fetched, but I'll bet my system can stand a match with a far more expensive system - not that we'd be able to check it out, but my experience tells me I have come very far for very little money.

Quote:
I know this is far fetched, but I'll bet my system can stand a match with a far more expensive system - not that we'd be able to check it out, but my experience tells me I have come very far for very little money.

That's what they all say.

No offense intended.

Addendum - If I may be so bold, the fact that you haven't gotten good results with the foil and creme is proof positive that there's something wrong somewhere (something rotten in Denmark? heheh).

Apologies in advance for the harsh assessment. No charge.

I guess I could expect that one

I agree ...

Quote:
That's what they all say.

IMO most people like what they buy or do to or how they change their system. They like it until they want something new, they hear something better or they read about some new tweak or new component that promises bliss, then all the faults of the decision they made earlier become glaringly apparent. For the most part that's how this hobby stays in business. It's mostly through a lack of priorities on the listener's part I'd say but then any change becomes better than what you previously had, though change for the sake of change is never quite as good as improvement you can live with for years.

I obviously can't speak to the results of your tweaking but all of your decoupling is typically against all contemporary thinking on speakers and turntables. A table is a closed loop system and with few exceptions rigidity is the key to success. Decoupling risks introducing random motion which is then converted to either distorions, noise or lost information. Speakers are not normally decoupled from their supporting surfaces unless there is a poor support system being employed and then your problem becomes the support and not the contact between the stand and the speaker. If I remember correctly, your speakers are sitting on top of a box type cabinet. Decoupling the speakers to put less energy into the box might be a good idea in one sense but placing the speakers on rigid, less resonant stands would have been the better route. Decoupling the speakers from their support and then adding mass to their top plate can create a swaying tower of Pisa and possibly negates the decoupling if too much mass is used up top. Does all that make sense to you?

As geoff says, this is not to criticize your system or your set up but to point out what "makes sense" to you (or anyone for that matter) and even makes a subjective improvement in one area is often contrary to most logic. So, you see, what is logical to another can be illogical to most. Applying your reasoning, if I might, you see no logic in foils and cremes but you see logic in decoupling your cartridge from its support system. Where is the energy generated within the cartridge supposed to go? If decoupling the cartridge from its support allows more movement than the stylus traces in a 15kHz groove modulation, what happens to the 15kHz signal?

I'm all for thinking and I'm all for logic but you have to admit we all approach this from our own perspective and with our own degree of reasoning capacity. If you've stopped using the foil simply because you cannot see the logic in the device, then possibly you are applying faulty logic to the foil also. I won't go so far as geoff to say you must hear an improvement from the foil, we all do hear differently and we all should have somewhat dissimilar priorities which reflect our own personal experiences with live music. If you aren't interested in the areas where the foil shows improvements to most other users, then you won't hear an improvement by using the foil until your listening priorities change. That doesn't mean the foil is ineffective simply because you can't figure it out. As a matter of fact, I believe that is what May is trying to explain.

Quote:

Addendum - If I may be so bold, the fact that you haven't gotten good results with the foil and creme is proof positive that there's something wrong somewhere (something rotten in Denmark? heheh).

Yes, that must be the only possible explanation.

"belt universalism" writ large.

may, care to disagree with your acolyte?

Quote:

OK, let's see you discuss !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been trying to get back to one of the earlier subjects under discussion - the ART devices. So, Buddha, let us have your views for discussion !!! Let us hear from YOU what YOU think is going on !!

How quickly you forget, May.

December 16, 2008:

Fresh Clip had mentioned Helmholtz resonators and the ART Bowl thread, and Ethan had poo poo'd the size of the ART Bowls...

My post 12/16/08:

"Really, we are just arguing along a continuum.

Even Ethan agrees that large things can affect the sound in a room. We just have a schism about what the minimal size and composition attributes are.

In all seriousness, your drinking glass should have an effect in the context of discussing those bowls.

In fact, a good wine glass is shaped more like a Helmholtz resonator than the bowls.

Lick the tip of your finger and rub it along the top of a good wine glass if you don't believe me!"

_______________________

I have a pair of these sitting around:

_______________

12/17/08:

"Pretty much everything has a resonant frequency...

If one were to pick objects with what one considered to have an advantageous resonant frequency to enhance some part of the sound in a room, one might pick objects that 'ring' at very high frequencies.

I say this because, especially with digital, we end up kind of 'clipping' off the top frequencies that may give rise to lower frequency harmonics that give us spatial clues.

Of all the things our ears can tell us, they are poorest at actual location at certain higher frequencies, as compared to gauging loudness, frequency, etc.

If the bowls have a high enough reactive resonant frequency, they actually may be able to possibly aid with creating the illusion of the music providing missing high frequency information and aiding and abetting a listener's sensation of space or location.

We played with a super tweeter once that just made 'pink noise,' so to speak, from 30K to 100K and let it sit on the speakers. It did make for a sensation of enhanced space - when they were on alone, the room sounded "bigger," and when they were on with music, they made the music seem to come from more central images, even when the recording did not originally include images in that location.

The sound was very quickly fatiguing, however, with a component of that ear stuffing feeling you can get with out of proportion high frequency signals. These bowls, being passive, may not produce that part of the fatigue as quickly.

So, it would be neat to measure the resonant frequencies of these...toys and see what they are really up to.

I wish Stephen had had some to try to live with.

The people I've met who went with those original ridiculously priced precious metal bowls (Tchang) that were marketed about a decade ago fell quickly into and then pretty quickly out of love with them. There is a certain monotonousness to the repetition of certain tones over and over no matter what the material.

So, there is a measurable answer to a subjective question, and a past listening experience with a related product."

_______

Then you started with one of those "they all laughed at Lister" diatribes and some "the sound must already be in the room" tripe....and would not discuss how the bowls work.

Regards.

Quote:
I agree ...

Quote:
That's what they all say.

IMO most people like what they buy or do to or how they change their system. They like it until they want something new, they hear something better or they read about some new tweak or new component that promises bliss, then all the faults of the decision they made earlier become glaringly apparent. For the most part that's how this hobby stays in business. It's mostly through a lack of priorities on the listener's part I'd say but then any change becomes better than what you previously had, though change for the sake of change is never quite as good as improvement you can live with for years.

I obviously can't speak to the results of your tweaking but all of your decoupling is typically against all contemporary thinking on speakers and turntables. A table is a closed loop system and with few exceptions rigidity is the key to success. Decoupling risks introducing random motion which is then converted to either distorions, noise or lost information. Speakers are not normally decoupled from their supporting surfaces unless there is a poor support system being employed and then your problem becomes the support and not the contact between the stand and the speaker. If I remember correctly, your speakers are sitting on top of a box type cabinet. Decoupling the speakers to put less energy into the box might be a good idea in one sense but placing the speakers on rigid, less resonant stands would have been the better route. Decoupling the speakers from their support and then adding mass to their top plate can create a swaying tower of Pisa and possibly negates the decoupling if too much mass is used up top. Does all that make sense to you?

As geoff says, this is not to criticize your system or your set up but to point out what "makes sense" to you (or anyone for that matter) and even makes a subjective improvement in one area is often contrary to most logic. So, you see, what is logical to another can be illogical to most. Applying your reasoning, if I might, you see no logic in foils and cremes but you see logic in decoupling your cartridge from its support system. Where is the energy generated within the cartridge supposed to go? If decoupling the cartridge from its support allows more movement than the stylus traces in a 15kHz groove modulation, what happens to the 15kHz signal?

I'm all for thinking and I'm all for logic but you have to admit we all approach this from our own perspective and with our own degree of reasoning capacity. If you've stopped using the foil simply because you cannot see the logic in the device, then possibly you are applying faulty logic to the foil also. I won't go so far as geoff to say you must hear an improvement from the foil, we all do hear differently and we all should have somewhat dissimilar priorities which reflect our own personal experiences with live music. If you aren't interested in the areas where the foil shows improvements to most other users, then you won't hear an improvement by using the foil until your listening priorities change. That doesn't mean the foil is ineffective simply because you can't figure it out. As a matter of fact, I believe that is what May is trying to explain.

Now this is a good post, but sadly it's flawed.

Of course we all compromise. If I had money for a Madrigal or a Levinson setup, I'd go buy it. If I had money and room for the most expensive Dynaudio speakers I'd have them. My room doesn't fit big systems as I need to keep my LP's and other accessories close to the system. I can't have stands because I have 2 doors right next to the speakers. Same reason I don't have floor standing speakers.

They like it until they want something new, they hear something better or they read about some new tweak or new component that promises bliss, then all the faults of the decision they made earlier become glaringly apparent.

This may be true for some audiophiles, but certainly not for me. First, I haven't made flaws with any of my tweaks. Second, I have a system for life IMO, at least until I discover a bag full of money. I truly believe nobody could build a better system for $8000 all things considered. Honestly.

Now you haven't heard much about the Nano Pads i use for decoupling, so you wouldn't know their properties. It's hard and very sticky rubber, and they are the best I have tried so far. Agreed, I never touch silly feet or spikes, so I wouldn't know how they would sound. But I heard a vast improvement with my self-invented Nano Pads-feet, and I stick to it, simply because they do the job I expect.

Applying weight on top of the speakers made the Nano Pads even stickier, and stabilized the speakers to a large degree. I have tried to push the speakers both with and without the weight, and it's simply impossible. Swaying towers they are NOT. They are rock steady. They stand on marble slabs, which in turn have been decoupled from the cabinet (box type is correct). The main issue here was the cabinets playing along, which they don't do any longer. That itself made a huge difference.

Why is it strange that anyone would try and squeeze the most possible good sound out of your equipment? Applying tweaks is an interesting hobby, and you can come a very far way along the road to enjoyment doing tweaks, and sometimes for free.

About the decoupling on the turntable: If you heard the difference before and after, you'd spurt home and do the same thing to your own TT. No doubt in my mind. The improvement here was vast. Simple as that. Now, don't believe I just added decoupling and sat back in my chair thinking: Neat! I of course tightened and loosened the screws on the cart, and tightened and loosened the nut holding the arm and base together, but came to the result, that the harder I tightened, the better the sound. There is no random motion, only prevention of distributed vibrations. Before the decoupling the cantilever made an audible noise when moving through the grooves, like I could feel strong vibrations in the arm itself with my fingertips. That means vibrations were travelling through the cartridge and the arm, and further on into the base and the deck. I don't know if you want your deck and arm playing along, but I sure won't.

I always listen very carefully when experimenting with tweaks, and that I did too when applying damping material/decoupling between my cartridge and the headshell. Same with adding decoupling between the arm and the base. When I hear an improvement, I believe my ears. When the music all of a sudden gets much more clean, clear, dynamic, yet calmer, I like it, and I know it's an improvement. When details I've never heard before get revealed I believe it's an improvement. When the background gets more silent, and the soundstage gets deeper, I believe it's an improvement. When it gets easier to pinpoint ever instrument I know it's an improvement. After 40 years of having hifi as a hobby I've learned a few things.

Quote:
If you heard the difference before and after, you'd spurt home and do the same thing to your own TT. No doubt in my mind.

Why would I when it makes no sense to me? It defies all logic in how I think about audio. If it's not logical, then I'm rather certain it can't work no matter what you claim. Sure, you like it but I know I won't.

How can you declare that about a tweak you never heard? It was like getting a much better TT...

I don't care, it's not logical. You claim it makes an improvement but it cannot.

Nope! Not possible, can't be, it's not logical. He doesn't trust measurements, only his ears. Indeed! ...

Quote:
It does not sound logical ...

As Freako has said ...

Quote:
... when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know and can hear with my ears. Assuming that little bowls, cream, holographic foils, clocks, telephone calls etc do more for the music/room/listener than a good cup of coffee, is just beyond what I can buy as being sensible.

How can I not agree with that logic? What he suggests I do to my system is beyond what I can buy as being sensible, therefore it cannot work! I stick to what I know. May, you understand, I'm sure. geoff?

Quote:
Is my logic askew ?
I can understand decoupling the arm and it's cartridge away from unwanted vibrations coming in the direction from the turntable platter itself through to the cartridge but not decoupling the cartridge away from the arm. Surely doing that would allow any vibrations produced by the cartridge to STAY within the cartridge ? Is that what people desire ?

Is it the actual word 'decoupling' which is the problem for me ? Is the actual technique 'absorbing' (vibrations) but being described as 'decoupling' ? That I can understand !!

I can understand tightening up the screws fixing the cartridge to the headshell to that there are no unwanted vibrations created in the cartridge by loose screws - ditto tightening the screws fixing the headshell to the arm.

Quote:
I of course tightened and loosened the screws on the cart, and tightened and loosened the nut holding the arm and base together, but came to the result, that the harder I tightened, the better the sound. There is no random motion, only prevention of distributed vibrations

Prevention of distributed vibrations, Yes !!

Quote:
I always listen very carefully when experimenting with tweaks, and that I did too when applying damping material/decoupling between my cartridge and the headshell.

Surely 'damping material' and 'decoupling' are contradictory ? Which is it you have done between the cartridge and the headshell ?

Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.

It's my lack of understanding combined with the lingo problems again. Absorbtion might be what I did, I don't even know, but boy did it work! BTW, the nut I tightened was the one securing the armbase to the deck, not the one securing the headshell to the arm. I don't want to stress the bearings in the arm.

Damping, decoupling, absorbtion, who knows? Perhaps I was so lucky as to eliminate those cartridge vibrations? I really don't care what I did as long as it works

Sorry for going OT by the way

Quote:
I don't care, it's not logical. You claim it makes an improvement but it cannot.

Vibration control can take you a long way. Either you're more stubborn than me, or you're acting like a child. I don't know which.

Quote:

Quote:
I wish we could continue this discussion in Danish. Would be much easier for me, now that I'm so deep into it. Debating such stuff in your second language is not easy!

I gotta admit that if better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements, etc etc could be measured as it is, we would not be having this discussion, and if we knew more about the extremely complex being man is, we would not HAVE to have this discussion. I'm not sure you're totally far off the truth, but then again when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know and can hear with my ears.

You may be wishing you could debate in your primary language but, Keld, I find you are able to participate remarkably well - even in a second language !! In fact, you have been prepared to participate far more than so many others !! I congratulate you on your understanding in a second language. Thank you

You may have been struggling Probably! to understand the concept I have been trying to get across but still you have understood enough to be able to say "I'm not sure you're totally far off the truth". How much more would you have actually understood if we HAD been debating in Danish ? Perhaps not much more, but it would make it much easier for me to get my ideas across!

If you had people similar to John Atkinson, Jason Victor Serinus, Paul Messenger, EricArjes etc in the Danish Hi Fi magazines - i.e people who had all heard the effect of the ART devices - would you not be just as interested and curious as to WHY they were hearing the improvements they described from something you say "is just beyond what I can buy as being sensible". Depends. First, it would depend on how much trust I have in the reviewer, and secondly, how well the test was done and presented. Of course I would be curious!

Which then means actually "thinking" further into the subject !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Regards
Keld aka Rubber Duck

Quote:
Either you're more stubborn than me, or you're acting like a child. I don't know which.

Niether, Freako, I'm whole heartedly agreeing with your earlier statement ...

Quote:
... when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know and can hear with my ears. Assuming that little bowls, cream, holographic foils, clocks, telephone calls etc do more for the music/room/listener than a good cup of coffee, is just beyond what I can buy as being sensible.

I know turntables are, with very few exceptions, going to operate at their peak when rigidity is maintained and I know speakers require a rigid mounting surface. I know that is true and I've found references to the validity of that concept in the writings of numerous audio reviewers whom I respect for their opinions. I know what I know and what I know is this; rigidity is the first rule to success in a table. Look, here you say ...

Quote:
First, it would depend on how much trust I have in the reviewer, and secondly, how well the test was done and presented.

OK, I know I trust those people who have told me rigidity is the path to take. Have I not been agreeing with you there also? I know I trust the reviewers and I know I trust their tests. More agreement on my part, right? I know what I know. And I have two ears! Why tell me I am wrong when what I am doing is agreeing with what you have said? Does that make you wrong too? And I am agreeing with your previous statement about knowing what works and what doesn't. Now you want me to do something I know cannot work just to prove to myself it cannot work. I am also agreeing with the rest of what you said earlier, " ... when there's nowhere in my mind where I can buy it, I stick to what I know". So I'm sticking to what I know, just like you. And I know rigidity works in turntables and speaker stands. Your claims are preposterous and "beyond what I can buy as being sensible".

So why should I be expected to accept what you say on the one hand but ignore what you say on the other? You are contradicting yourself, Freako. Between the two of us I would say you are the one who is being stubborn.

Err... you may be right here. My bad