| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2025 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
I enjoy playing musical instuments for relaxation, and creating good music/sound. I would choose an instrument based upon how it sounds 'right' in my own mind. That may not be too different from picking audio gear too, but I compare the sound of the audio gear to the memory of the instrument sounds. On the other hand, if the memory is imprecise, then my choice of gear may be 'wrong', but still enjoyable both because I like it and because I would not know that I am wrong. Science may provide an improved way to judge, or it may not; things are not hard and fast, IMHO. But one thing I want from a audio system is accuracy, the meaning of "Hi-Fi". That means an accurate system must be fed the best material (recordings).
Yes, May, I referred to 'tweaks' like that of the fuses in the speaker line. The difference in two amplifiers is a speculation on whether the pre-amp has influenced the test unbeknownst to the listener comparing amplifiers only. The degree of difference heard may be akin to the fuse tweak. Sorry if it was a round-about way to bring a few points to the table, perhaps not as clearly as I would have liked.
Well, Scott is entitled his opinion as to dismissing anectdotal information. Heck, there are other cases where I would dismiss such information too. I actually did originally dismiss the fuses thing, and tried it, and heard a difference and asked myself 'am I hearing things?'. Following up with the SBT test with my friend as the test subject, I felt that my experience had been validated. Didn't mean it to appear apologetic, but I wanted it made clear that the test did not make the grade as a scientific study, but was informative to me (and just as Scott wrote, if I recall, and I agree with him). What I disagree with Scott is that my SBT test that he apparently dismisses, I no longer would dismiss as I had in the past. It would be nice to get some scientific proof, pro or con, and put the matter to rest once and for all, for everyone.
May, you give me much too much credit of my knowledge. I can discuss some of these things from what I know and learned. But I also found during my grad studies leading to a doctorate degree, there is so much unknown out there that many who have not ventured this far know not what they're ignorant of. Some gain this insight much earlier than I did; others have not reached there yet. Unfortunately, too many use what they think is a lot of knowledge and make the most noise about it, sometimes setting back real progress. I tend not to make noise unless I really can discuss at a reasonably similar level as the experts (take j-j for example, he appears to know more about coding, hearing perception studies than I; take John Atkinson, who is well experienced in the audio field and makes measurements, more experienced than I). To these people, I ask a lot of questions to get a better understanding of what these experts are saying, then make up my own mind whether they really know their stuff or are just making noise. Those people you named above I do not know personally, but they sure sound like they know a lot more than I about what they do. Remember the saying: 'It's better to keep silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt'?
Yes, Scott has wrote that he dismisses test like the fuses one I did as non-scientific, and I agree - it's non-scientific enough. There's more to be done, and I didn't continue farther because I was satisfied that I got confirmation of my experience. Sure, I could have asked ten more people to do SBTs to see if the single-subject result was not a fluke, or controlled more variables. That would have been more scientific, and I'm not afraid to say so.
As for the directionality of cables, I have heard that there may be a reason for this construction in some cases, although I too would have dismissed this idea in the past. I use custom-constructed cables with directionality, based upon a friend's recommendation, a person who I think is a lot smarter than I. Did I do the calculations to see if the theory predicts better performace? No, as it would take me too much time to research figure out and it's easier to depend on someone who I know. There are those on the forum who are highly trained electrical engineers who can do the modeling and calculations. I went by the sonic improvement based upon my years of listening experience with my system before and after that 'tweak'.
May please stop speaking for me. You still aren't getting my position so please don't try to represent it. You certainly can "discuss" such things with me.
I am hardly unique in considering anecodtal evidence as un-scientific. I think you will find this is a universal standard in science. Heck even you concede that point. so why is it a problem if you agree with it?
What you seem to failt to understand is that acknowledging anecdotal evidence as un-scientific is *not* an act of dismissing anecdotes in their entirety. If someone says "hey, I tried out some Belt tweaks and thought they made a huge improvement in the sound of my system" I *ACCEPT* that anecdote for what it is. One person's interpretation of their experience. I do not consider my own experiences to be any different. I don't think anyone has to varify their perceptions or experiences. I don't dismiss anecdotes I simply treat them as anecdotes.
>>> "May, you give me much too much credit of my knowledge. I can discuss some of these things from what I know and learned. But I also found during my grad studies leading to a doctorate degree, there is so much unknown out there that many who have not ventured this far know not what they're ignorant of. Some gain this insight much earlier than I did; others have not reached there yet. Unfortunately, too many use what they think is a lot of knowledge and make the most noise about it, sometimes setting back real progress.
As for the directionality of cables, I have heard that there may be a reason for this construction in some cases, although I too would have dismissed this idea in the past. I use custom-constructed cables with directionality, based upon a friend's recommendation, a person who I think is a lot smarter than I." <<<
When I was describing how you could have discussions with the people I mentioned but not with others, on exactly the SAME subject, I was not meaning serious, technical, at an intense depth discussions. I was meaning that THEY would not dismiss what you had 'heard' because of their own experiences !! In exactly the same way that, because of YOUR own experiences NOW you would NOT readily dismiss other's experiences. You would be sceptical, yes, but not downright dismissive, I am sure.
Re fuses you say "I no longer would dismiss as I had in the past."
Re directionality in wires, you say "although I too would have dismissed this idea in the past."
THIS is what I was meaning. Once one HAS experienced certain things, one DOES NOT readily dismiss other people's similar experiences !!
When I used the description of those people as 'technically competent' I was really meaning that, because of their technical 'know how' they would be 'leaning' very much to a higher percentage 'objective' side and yet, because of THEIR surprising subjective experiences they would not dismiss YOUR subjective experiences as 'just anecdotal, not scientifically proven' !! I was not meaning that you would be holding intense technical discussions with them.
I am sure that, because of your own subjective experiences with fuses and with directionality in wires, you would similarly not be dismissive when someone else described hearing (subjective) improvements in the sound after such as cryogenically freezing their cables, or cryogenically freezing their fuses !! A different technique, yes, but not one you would dismiss because of what you, yourself, have now experienced.
That is what I was wanting to emphasise.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
You CLAIM to know something about me. You CLAIM to know enough about me to tell me what my fields of interest and expertise are. You CLAIM the authority to tell me all that.
But then you turn around and call me by my first name.
If you knew what you claim, you'd know better. It's that simple.
Right. You KNOW who I am, you KNOW what my expertise is, but somehow, some way, you just missed something that is KNOWN and OBVIOUS to anyone who addresses me.
There are two choices. Either you do not know what you claim to know, or you are choosing to be insulting.
Doesn't really matter which, we've got your number.
Could you expand on this? There are many things I have experienced in the course of many subjective tests, informal tests, sighted tests, etc, that I would in fact consider dismissing, both when noted by myself as well as by others.
Have you ever used a ghost EQ or ghost Fader, May?
May, I understand what you are trying to say. Part of not dismissing outright the 'fuses' or the 'cable directionality' as I would have in the past, is that there were technical reasons presented that seem plausible, but remain untested and uninvestigated by me. The only tests I did were the anectdotal ones, and the experience of improvement to the system sound. I remain open to scientific explanations of what I experienced, whether they support or refute my experience.
There are other 'tweaks' that simply do not make sense and are likely to be dismissed more readily than ones that at least have some possible technical support. We each do our own weeding-out of what we think is appropriate, based on our judgement (and biases).
Your example of cryogenic treatment of cables does not make sense to me. However, I have little technical expertise in this matter so I remain skeptical, but open to demonstration that this is true, or not. Wasn't it Carl Sagan that said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?
This is what I interpreted from your reply to my earlier post, not that you were dismissing as untrue the experience I wrote about, but that these are simply anectdotes. I can see how someone could read what you wrote a dismissal of the experience, but I didn't think so.
I see you posted this.
I see you posted this about me. Don't pretend to speak for me. By the way, I prefer steve.
Steve
>>> "Your example of cryogenic treatment of cables does not make sense to me. However, I have little technical expertise in this matter so I remain skeptical, but open to demonstration that this is true, or not." <<<
Surely that is what I said. That you might be sceptical about some things - but OPEN i.e NOT 'dismissive' !!!!
Your reply to Scott "not that you were dismissing as untrue the experience I wrote about, but that these are simply anectdotes. I can see how someone could read what you wrote a dismissal of the experience, but I didn't think so."
Scott was not dismissing your experience as "untrue". I am sure that I never implied that he said it was "untrue" either. But he DID dismiss your experience because it is not "proof" of anything
To quote from him yet again :-
>>> "If you found them informative that is great but as fara s "proof" of anything I dismiss all such tests." <<<
Of course people's experiences are mainly "anecdotal". But, they are also what scientists refer to as "observations" !!! And, "observations" are often all that scientists have to go on at the beginning - long before they know WHAT they might have to "test", HOW they might have to "test" and WHY they might be "testing" !!
That is why I reacted to Scott's paragraph.
Do please keep on keeping an open mind regarding the freezing technique !! You might surprise yourself if you try it !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
You left out an important last sentence of the quote, that ...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I may be surprised that it works well, or I may be disappointed that it does not. On a scale of dismissive to agreeing, this would rank ~9/10 of the way toward dismissive for me. But, yes, I still remain open minded to it, i.e. that there may be something there due to the 'cold', or that it's caused by other factors and not the 'cold'.
"I may be surprised that it works well, or I may be disappointed that it does not. On a scale of dismissive to agreeing, this would rank ~9/10 of the way toward dismissive for me. But, yes, I still remain open minded to it, i.e. that there may be something there due to the 'cold', or that it's caused by other factors and not the 'cold'."
It is one thing to be open minded regarding cryogenics or freezing of audio components, and even CDs and LPs, to obtain better sound. This is kind of old news in that cryogenics has been employed by Walker, Meitner, Purist Audio, Shunyata, Townshend Audio, Stealth, Furutech, CryoParts and many others over the last two decades. He-llooo!
But let me take it one step farther. How open minded would you be if someone told you freezing or cryoing books or video tapes located in the room would improve the sound? And I mean here that freezing books and video tapes improves the sound of CDs or LPs that haven't been cryo'd or frozen. Obviously, there is something else, much deeper, going on besides rearranging molecules using cold temperatures. But most audiophiles draw the line pretty far north of that one. I'm guessing it would rank ~ 9.999/10 on the way toward dismissive.
Just to pursue that one more time.
Your quote :-
>>> "You left out an important last sentence of the quote, that ...extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." <<<
On your scale of dismissive to agreeing (0 - 10), and regarding your trying of directional cables. "Directionality" in wires is an extraordinary claim (as everyone who I know who has heard that effect acknowledges), did you FIRST require that "extraordinary evidence" before trying them ??? Or did you try them because of 'what the hell, nothing tried, nothing gained' and with a mind open enough to at least try ?
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
>>> "May please stop speaking for me. You still aren't getting my position so please don't try to represent it. You certainly can "discuss" such things with me." <<<
OK. So as to make sure I am NOT misrepresenting you, here is your quote :-
>>> "IMO Blind tests single or double done by hobbyists are anecdotal either way. Don't think I am dismissing your tests. If you found them informative that is great but as fara s "proof" of anything I dismiss all such tests. they *might* be better than sighted tests. They might not! Hard to tell inthe hands of hobbyists. Personally I do find them very useful in my audition process but I would never confuse my audition proces with scientific research. Nor do i think one has to do scientific research to justify their preferences. Quite the opposite. If someone thinks something sounds better or worse. They are right. At least for their purposes a a hobbyist." <<<
I read that as you saying - because the tests (single or double blind) are anecdotal (meaning subjective only and not scientifically done) and are from "hobbyists", then YOU dismiss them because they are not 'proof' of anything.
Of course they are not 'proof'. We KNOW they are not 'PROOF' !!! We KNOW. We KNOW. We KNOW they are not 'proof'. Now we have established that fact, can we proceed !!
So the statement of yours actually means that if you dismiss anything which is not 'proof' of anything then HOW CAN anyone discuss anything with you if they do not have this 'proof' you require, if they have listening (anecdotal) experience only ? Surely, in your own words, their listening experience, if anecdotal only, with or without single or double blind tests, will be dismissed by you because they lack "proof", so how can they have a discussion ? A discussion about what ? About NOT having 'proof' ? That would NOT be what I would call a 'discussion' about listening experiences.
You say that single or double blind tests are OK and acceptable for the individual doing it for their own purpose, that they are OK for you when YOU do them yourself for your own purpose, but they (the tests) and anecdotal experiences are un-scientific and therefore you dismiss them as "not proof". How, then, can you say "You certainly can "discuss" such things with me" ?? What things exactly CAN be discussed with you if the majority of people's experiences are anecdotal, un-scientific and without "proof"?
>>> "I am hardly unique in considering anecodtal evidence as un-scientific. I think you will find this is a universal standard in science. Heck even you concede that point. so why is it a problem if you agree with it?
What you seem to failt to understand is that acknowledging anecdotal evidence as un-scientific is *not* an act of dismissing anecdotes in their entirety." <<<
Of course anecdotal evidence is un-scientific - that is, it is not scientifically accepted as "proof". We KNOW. We KNOW. We KNOW.
I don't understand why we are arguing such fundamentals ? We all understand such things !
But, as I have replied to WTL what is anecdotal to one person is "observations" to another. AND, "observations" quite often without accompanying 'proof'. And "observations" are quite often ALL that scientists have to go on in the beginning. And, I think you will find (and already know - you see, I am giving YOU the benefit of already KNOWING !!) that scientists DO NOT dismiss "observations", if they happen within the field of expertise in which they are working. If they can't understand or explain what they have 'observed', if it does not 'fit in with what they are doing at that particular time', what I say they do is to put it on a "mental shelf". They DO NOT dismiss "observations" just because they do not initially come with "proof". If, at some later date, some new information becomes available, or someone else, somewhere else, reports a similar "observation", then the original "observation" is taken down from the 'mental shelf', dusted down and looked at again !! It might STILL have to be put back on the "mental shelf" again, and again, and again. It might even lay there for years, forgotten, until someone researching in the same field, decides to go back to see if there is anything in previous scientists work which could be of help.
>>> "What you seem to failt to understand is that acknowledging anecdotal evidence as un-scientific is *not* an act of dismissing anecdotes in their entirety." <<<
I am not "failing in any understanding", Scott !! What I AM saying Scott is that when we are all having a debate around our listening experiences - whether we are 'professionals in audio' or 'hobbyists' - we should not need to pepper each of our sentences with "we know that anecdotal experiences are not "proof". It is already 'taken as understood' between intelligent people. My impression is that you 'talk down to people', as though they don't understand these basics.
To me, Scott, it is like a group of electronic engineers discussing listening to their audio systems and one of them says "My audio system wouldn't work last night" and someone asks "Did you switch it on ?" ONE would think twice before even saying that to a ten year old, let alone to another electronic engineer !!!!!!
If someone DID say that to another electronic engineer, then they would have scant regard for that person's intelligence, wouldn't they ?
You said, in one sentence to WTL - "Don't think I am dismissing your tests." And, then, in the very next sentence you said " If you found them informative that is great but as fara s "proof" of anything I dismiss all such tests.
You say you are not 'dismissing' them one minute and then you ARE 'dismissing' them the next minute !!!!! No wonder we are all confused !!!
You say "You certainly can "discuss" such things with me." OK, Scott, let's start the ball rolling. Let us start the discussion with two techniques (tweaks) currently being discussed.
1) The technique of applying a demagnetiser to discs and gaining an improvement in the sound - with 'anecdotal' confirmation from Michael Fremer, Stephen Mejias, John Atkinson, Robert Deutsch and, most recently, from Tom Campbell in the July/August 2009 Issue 44 of Positive Feedback Online.
2) The technique of applying a specific colour to Discs and gaining an improvement in the sound. Resurrected by Sony Engineers (2009), with 'anecdotal' confirmation by Teresa Goodwin in the May/June 2009 Issue 43 of Positive Feedback Online, previously (1990) confirmed by Martin Colloms and also (in 1995) confirmed by John Atkinson.
To plagiarise Shakespeare :-
"To dismiss, or not to dismiss, that is the question
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous audiophiles...
By discussing anecdotal descriptions without 'proof'"
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
This whole subject is interesting since even mainstream science does not suggest audio subjective DBTs/ABX testing and conclusions as "fact" in any sense of the word.
Yes I would have required extraordinary evidence if nothing else is provided as evidence. In this case, my friend gave me a plausible technical reason.
The improvement I heard may be partly from the teflon dielectric as opposed to a PVC dielectric as insulation on these cables, and not from the directionality. It could also be from the cable construction (conductor placement, geometry, etc., that affect L, C, and R properties), and most likely so.
I don't think an ordinary coax cable has 'directionality'. Maybe that term is not the right one to use here. Which end is the 'sending' end vs. the 'receiving' end might make a difference, if the cable construction is such that the shield is grounded only at one end for example, and would not be carrying current. Two other conductors inside that shield would carry the current (the usual signal and ground for an unbalanced connection). Here the sending and receiving ends may make some difference what direction the cable is connected to the source of the signal. I didn't and don't have the means to test this other than listening.
In another tweak, the green coloring around the outside edge of the CD is supposed to make a 'audible' difference, as some reported. The explanation provided was marginally plausible, that the laser light is reflected back and forth and finds its way back to the sensor hence in some mysterious way interferes with the sound, despite having the 'same' bits read off the CD. This was one tweak that was easily tried with two copies of the same CD, and I was curious to see (1) if this was true, and (2) if audible, how big an effect is it. This was likely also a 9/10 the way to dismissive, on that scale.
So I got two copies of the same CD, and couldn't tell them apart before the test. Then I applied green marker around the outside edge of one of the CDs. The result of this quick test is that I could not detect a difference in several back and forth trials, under sighted conditions(don't reall exactly how many, but more than three or four). I really tried to hear a difference, each time thinking I heard one only to find the same sound on the other CD, and finally gave up because I could not hear any difference. If anything there might have been a very, very subtle difference in the background, bordering on or in my imagination, but *not* one that I could definitely point to and say 'there it is'.
The same criticisms apply to this green-edge CD test as did the one I did on fuses. This was not a controlled test, and hence is not scientific proof. But it was convincing enough for me to say that in my experience this tweak does not work.
So if I could detect a difference in fuses, and not in the green-edge CD, and both were claimed to be definitely audible by some audiophiles, and the same system was used in listening, then I would say that the fuses tweak 'works' while the 'green-edge CD' tweak does not *in my experience*. This does not say that the effect of fuses vs. the green-edge treatment are causing the same level of change, if any, only that former was audible and the latter was not.
Yes, I generally agree with what you said, and well said. Many things are observations, and information from others may be anectdotal. One danger is that we, because of our own biases or preconceptions from experience, may incorrectly dismiss observations. I know I have done this myself, and later found those observations to be useful, or even the real direction leading to an explanation, after careful evaluation and tesing the hypotheses.
Geoff,
I've been an audiophile for a long time. In the latter part of that, my priorities are raising kids and keeping a job. Unfortunately, I've not kept up on the audio literature regarding the cryogenics. I have read of it but not familiar with it to really discuss with any passable understanding that I expect of myself. That's why I think it is a fringe thing. OTOH, I've seen other wierd things pan out, so am not so quick to just dismiss outright. I learned that I could be wrong in apriori dismissal of ideas.
On your second thought of freezing books etc., I pretty much agree with your analysis of what most audiophiles would think.
Directionaliy of cables has been hotly debated by the best of them for years, as has directionality of fuses. Perhaps directionality of fuses has the edge in terms of hotness.
Anyway, on one hand we have Isoclean fuses from Japan, with the handy arrow on the glass. However, the guy that owns Hi Fi Fuses in Germany, the main competition for Isoclean, insisted adamantly for at least several years that his fuses were definitely NOT directional, that they would "break in" correctly no matter what direction they were installed. (During this time, by the way, the consensus of users was that the Isocleans sounded better than the Hi FI Fuses.) Well, guess what? The Hi Fi Fuses guy must have finally gotten the memo because now all of his fuses come with, you guessed it, direction arrows! Now he has extra job of keeping track of the metal conductor all during the manufacturing process.
For at least 20 years some cable manufacturers have had direction arrows on their cables, Audioquest is one. However, many cable manufacturers remain in the former camp of the Hi Fi Fuses guy. They haven't gotten the memo yet.
Even if one has standard old style non-audiophile fuses in equipment and speakers, he can experiment by reversing them one at a time. If a fuse is in the wrong direction the sound will be decidedly overly bright. Most systems have more than one fuse and it might take a while to figure out when all the fuses are in the proper direction.
Cheers
That is an accurate quote.
Not such a good reading IMO. How do you reconcile your reading with this excerpt from my quote? "Don't think I am dismissing your tests. If you found them informative that is great" Here is the nuance that I think you are missing. You say "I dismiss them (anecdotes) because they are not proof of anything." I don't dismiss anecdotes. I treat them as anecdotes. Anecdotes simply don't rise to the level of empirical, testable, varifiable evidence in the world of science. That does not mean I dismiss them entirely. I have spent thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on audio as a hobby. Certainly I don't dismiss that experience. I have enjoyed it thouroughly.
Certainly.
What do you not understand about this? "Nor do i think one has to do scientific research to justify their preferences. Quite the opposite. If someone thinks something sounds better or worse. They are right. At least for their purposes a a hobbyist." How on earth does that postion prevent any further discussion?
They won't be dismissed. Don't blame me for your inability to distinguish between dismissing anecdotes in their entirety and treating anecdotes as anecdotes.
What do you want to discuss May?
If you want to discuss proof of your "concepts" of cause such as "happy energy fields" then we are going to have to do a number of things such as figuring out in real world common terms what that even means and then yes, we will have to discuss evidence. If you want to discuss your perceptions then no, we don't need to discuss "proof" of anything.
really? A discussion of listening expereinces with no demands of proof of anything is not something you would call a discussion of listening experiences? OK.....
Because I do not think one has to prove anything about their perceptions. I have said this more than a few times. I said this in the quote you provided in your post. It can't be that you never saw me making this assertion. Why can't you understand it?
Well,despite your assertions, those experiences for one....What else do you want to discuss? Oh yeah, those alleged mechanisms of cause. The "happy energy fields." You want to discuss your perceptions with me knock yourself out. I will not ask you to ever prove them to me. You want to discuss happy energy fields.... Well,that is not a perception. That is a testable assertion of cause. Er... I think it will be once you explain in common terms what it means.
great, then what is your problem with my position?
Fine. then why is it that when I acknowledge these things you somehow conclude that people can't discuss expereinces with me and I am being "dismissive" but when you acknowledge these things it's cool?
That is simply not true. anecdotes are anecdotes whether they are yours or some one else's. The standards of evidence are not personal. One person's anecdote is not another person's empirical evidence.
I have no problem with that May. But that is indeed the "begining." It seems to me that your assertions about "happy energy fields" have been presented as a conclusion on your web page. That comes much later than the "begining."
Actually they very much do once they have moved beyond that stage and have done meaningful research that has wrought results that run contrary to the claims of the initial observers. Consider the age old "observation' of the sun going down.
That is a big "if" May. So much so that i would have to call it a false premise. In the world of audio what has beeen 'observed" by scientific researchers in their research that has gone utterly unexplained?
OK then why do you continue to assert that I am dismissing anecdotes? Intentional misrepresntation?
I am not suggesting anyone should, when discussing experiences. But when discussing alleged causes it is a different ball game. Do you understand the difference between discussing percpetions and discussing the mechanics that cause those perceptions? i think we are just going in circles here.
You are the one making the assertion that no one can discsuss their experiences with me.
It might be that way to you. To me it still seems that you are struggling with the seperation of perception and cause.
I don't know May. It is a hypathetical that IMO simply lacks relevance.
Indeed. You are confused. Treating anecdotes as anecdotes is not dismissing them in their entirety. You claim to understand this and yet you demonstrate in the end a complete failure to understand this. I don't know how to make the distinction any more clear.
"anecdotal confirmation?" An oxymoron if ever there was one. What do you want to discuss about their experiences May?
I have done two comparisons of this. Both blind and sighted. I could not detect a difference.
Get it straight, Scott, these are not the "mechanisms".
And, if you had actually done any reading on the Belt website, you would have found your answer. Instead, you choose to sit here and criticze what you do not understand and are unwilling to investigate.
If you had been paying attention to all that May has posted, you would have had your answer. For the sake of argument alone you prefer to disassemble everyone's posts line by line. That is a large part of the "problem" you present to a useful discussion.
Read the posts for comprehension, Scott, don't just look for a word or two you can argue over. Take the time to attempt an understanding of what you are discussing and this will be a much more productive exchange.
Why must the "reason" given be "plausible" within your group of known "plausible reasons" when the totality of your knowledge is limited to a very small portion of what might actually be happening in the physical world? If the mechanism - as Scott likes to call it - is only plausible by attaching it to your known/accepted scraps of all the knowledge available, how do you expand your knowledge to include something that might not fit into what you already know? Or do you not bother?
You're sounding very much like another member here who insisted everything must fit into what he already had prior knowledge of and could measure with tools. Since he was so absolutely certain his knowledge and tools were sufficient to prove anything, what didn't fit into his basket of accepted facts was simply discarded and ridiculed without being given the opportunity to question what he actually knew or how far his knowledge could lead him. He was and remains unable to take a step beyond where he stood yesterday.
That is, I would think, the very definition of being close minded.
Not to speak for JA and reciting only from memory but, as he replied in an exchange about the operation of an unconventional device he has experienced and employs, that approach to explanation/acceptance leaves nothing ever to be learned. You are where you are - where you have been - and you cannot move forward if you are not willing to accept that there are things you have yet to learn or experience. There are undoubtedly things that occur which cannot so easily be explained by anyone's plausible, already existing knowledge. That does not mean they cannot occur. The knowledge will come when it is time for it to come. That is the reason for further study.
What if someday it is common knowledge that it is not the Teflon or the L/C/R values but it is actually the color of the device? What step beyond conventional knowledge would you say is required to come to that conclusion? Not whether you accept the conclusion within the limitations of what you now know, but within the framework of what might actually occur.
If the method of operation is outside your plausible reasoning, WTL, does that mean the device simply can't operate for you? If it does operate, must the mechanism only be plausible to your already existing bits of knowledge? I've seen people twisting their minds around a sliver of foil placed on the label side of a CD or a slip of colored paper being introduced to the room and the resulting improvements in sound they perceived. They always remain confined to what they guess might be happening in their plausible world rather than taking even one step beyond only what they already know. Yet, if the "reason" is just as logically plausible but remains a step outside the confines of your knowledge or present day thinking, should that make the reason any less possible? Shouldn't we embrace those who can take that step beyond what is now known and push us just a bit farther toward what we might someday know? While you remain bound by what you already know, what about the rest of us who care to take what is a rather unplausible to you step? What are we to do with your perceptions of our step?
I did get it straight. Perhaps you should do your homework before lecturing me. Do you know what the word "mechanism" means? Here read this.
http://www.answers.com/topic/mechanism
How did I come up with "happy energy fields" without reading the website? How did I manage to cut and paste that part of the website without reading the website? But please cut and paste my "missed answer" from the website. I might even read it.
Really? Please show me what I have missed on the subject of happy energy fields.
Bullshit.
Feel free to explain happy energy fields to me. Lets see if you can actually make a post with substance that isn't pure ad hominem like the useless piece of crap post I am responding to now. Good luk with that challenge.
And it would be good if we didn't see stuff like "anecdotal confirmation", or an unwritten presumption that if it's on the Belt web site it must be gospel.
Good Grief, Scott! You believe your own lies.
Here is your statement that I responded to, "Well,despite your assertions, those experiences for one....What else do you want to discuss? Oh yeah, those alleged mechanisms of cause. The "happy energy fields."(my emphasis)
And ...
here is exactly where "happy energy fields" came from;
From which, in that same post, you proceeded to create the very words you find so unbelievable...
and ...
you then, in a great bit of intellectual laziness and functional dishonesty, proceeded to declare such "happy energy fields" were the claimed mechanism of operation for all of PWB's work.
So ...
you yourself somehow created the phrase "happy energy fields" and then with equal dishonesty you misinterpreted such "happy energy flieds" as the mechanism of operation. All from the statement "The devices have been specially treated to provide 'friendly', 'relaxing' energy patterns".
And ...
now you want me to explain to you what you have created and what you have turned against May when she did not post those words nor make such claim?
I cannot explain how you managed to get this so screwed up. But screwed up it is. Possibly you can explain how one becomes the other because 1) there is nothing that connects the two in my mind or on the PWB pages, and 2) if you were using the actual words on the PWB page, you would be describing a perception and not a mechanism of operation.
Still, ...
convinced you have this right and that no one else can understand PWB as you can - not even May, you insultingly post;
OK.
The link provides this;
Oops. Friendly....happy....I guess you think this is an important point. I was going from memory. I knew it was some sort of feel good word that has no connection to any sort of real world energy field. You spent all that time to make an issue out of me using "happy" instead of "friendly?" that's "funny."
An interview with Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, Cambridge biologist and author, in which he talks about morphic fields, or "happy fields" as we like to call them.
Sheldrake Interview
Excerpt:
MISHLOVE: When you talk about these fields containing a memory, they almost begin to sound like the mind itself, in some funny way.
SHELDRAKE: Well, if they're like the mind, they're much more like the unconscious mind than the conscious mind, because we have to remember that in our own minds, a large part of the mind, as Freud and Jung and others have told us, is unconscious. And what Jung and his followers have emphasized is that we all not only have our own personal unconscious, but we tune in to or access the collective unconscious, which is a collective memory of the species. What I'm saying is very like that idea, but it's not confined to human beings, it's right through nature.
Could Sheldrake be more vague? "If" those morphic fields are like mind it's more like "unconscious mind" and then maybe it's more "the collective unconscious" of the species, but then it's beyond that, "right through nature."
I suppose it would be funny if it were not your mode of operation that is so commonly and dishonestly at fault here. Like jj you have a pattern of going on the defensive whenever you are called on your dishonesty, claiming you have been attacked and responding with ad hominems while retreating to the standard line of you are being misrepresented by others.
You backtrack and take no responsibility for what you post while insisting on higher standards for all others. You skittle and weasel to avoid admitting what you are, preferring to claim you are being wronged by everyone who crosses your path with what is clearly the reality of the situation.
Just what is the difference between you claiming a misrepresentation of your words and you being proven to have misrepresented someone else's words? The only thing I see is it is simple to prove your clear and deliberate dishonesty in either case.
So, even after you insisted I read the cut and pasted passage from the PWB webpage, you couldn't remember what was said on that page for more than a few minutes?
Is that your story now?
And you couldn't be bothered to go back and check before you made this your mantra that "May must explain WTF" you made up?
And even after it was proven you were not quoting the PWB pages correctly you still used the same words rather than go back and check to see what was factually correct?
And you claim you did read the entire PWB webpage?
And you claim you understood what was being said when "provide relaxing patterns" were discussed?
Really?! That's what you want us to believe?
Even after I told you that you clearly did not understand mechanisms and perceptions on the PWB page you insisted I read a passage that you clearly do not understand?
Even after I once again provided the proof you do not understand mechanisms you want us to believe this is all some misunderstanding of a poor memory on your part?
After once again claiming ad hominem attacks you can't prove there was anything but the truth in the evidence against you?
You misrepresented the PWB pages and then continued to misrepresent them while insisting May explain what you had made up in your mind through either laziness or incompetence on your part?
Well, tell me then, Scotty, ...
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when you posted this;
... when it would seem you didn't bother to read the link yourself? As usual you merely pulled the few words out that you wanted to use and left the rest as if it meant nothing.
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when what you link to shows you didn't actually read the page you presented as proof?
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when you insisted;
... when you obviously didn't read the web page and the bits that you did paste directly from the PWB pages were very quickly misquoted due to your "poor memory" function?
Really?! That is your story now?
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when you insisted;
... when there are no "happy energy fields" mentioned on the PWB pages because you created the phrase rather than go back a half dozen lines to check your facts?
Even after it had been shown you were misrepesenting PWB's words?
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when you called this "Bullshit";
... when it clearly is a factual representation of how you go about this forum?
Was it laziness, incompetence or dishonesty when you made the challenge;
... after you had engaged in ad hominems throughout your post?
When you should have known at that point you had created the term "happy energy fields"?
When it had been proven to you that the reference to Belt devices providing "relaxing patterns" was a perception and not a mechanism?
When you ignored what you considered a "useless piece of crap" because it proved you to be either very incompetent or extremely dishonest?
Is it laziness, incompetence, dishonesty or all of the above that allows you to ignore the basic question about mechanisms in my post?
I don't know, Scotty, when I think I'll give you a break and consider you to just not be very good at this forum stuff, you go and pull a jj on me and repeatedly misrepesent what someone has said.
When I think you are just lazy and not very good at this forum stuff you prove you are ultimately as dishonest as Buddha.
When I present facts that you cannot deny you prove you are simply a complete fraud.
Your "side" of this claims to not be bothered by other's perceptions until you prefer to claim wrong-doing and weasel away from the fact that your side is patently dishonest in their dealings on this forum.
Then you squeal like a stuck pig.
As usual, and as Steve has proven true with jj, you rely quite a bit at not being very good at this forum stuff.
As usual, you have once again been proven to be both incompetent and dishonest and a complete fraud in your dealings with other members.
So why should we take anything you say seriously when you can't get the basics of this forum stuff down?
When you can't remember and keep straight what you have posted just moments before?
Or when you contradict yourself on post after post?
Or when you find the undisputed evidence that you are incompetent, dishonest and a fraud to be "funny"?
You tell me why we should give you the time of day, Scotty, when you can't be trusted with even that small bit of information.
And, since it is clear you still do not understand the term, also tell me just what, in your opinion, is the "mechanism" in the example I gave?
Wow! A complete critique of Sheldrake accomplished by reading only one response to one question from the entire interview!
You guys are f'ing amazing!
"Could Sheldrake be more vague? "If" those morphic fields are like mind it's more like "unconscious mind" and then maybe it's more "the collective unconscious" of the species, but then it's beyond that, "right through nature.""
I think he was speaking about morphic fields at a high level, that he was aware the audience would most likely have little or no background for what he was attempting to explain. With that in mind, you summed up his basic concept pretty well, actually.
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to. And it's probably not for the scientifically squeamish, if you know what I mean. What with memory not being located in the brain and all.
Or not being located in Scott at all.
Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?"
Well, ya can't see it if ya don't try, can ya? Are you waiting for a rock to fall on your head?
Sorry, you make the claim, you conjure up the rock.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?"
Well, ya can't see it if ya don't try, can ya? Are you waiting for a rock to fall on your head?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry, you make the claim, you conjure up the rock."
Uh, what is it exactly that you think I'm claiming?
Whatever it is he can disagree with.
Do you have any idea how funny it is that you would get so worked up over my remembering friendly energy fields as happy energy fields? Really is quite the scandal.
You'd think I was some sort of holocaust denier by your anger and outrage. Be careful there. You might be destroying your "friendly energy fields." Hate to see all that foil go to waste. How much crap do you have to freeze to repent?
Notice that J_J states there is no proof offered in the interview.
Interesting since:
1) James has not provided any proof, not even a link or page number from mainstream science backing his extremist claims,
2) Which leads to why James mounts an attack on Dr. Kunchur without first contacting him, and is now attacking Dr. Sheldrake without first contacting him either. Yet J_J does not provide any evidence/proof, nor links or page numbers, confirming mainstream science backs his views, when he is requested to do so.
One can see what is good for J_J is not good for everyone else, including multiple PhDs, and including multiple national organizations. But then this has been mentioned before with no reply from James. Hmmmm. What is wrong with fairness? If double standards are the norm what good is the forum.
Take care.
http://www.answers.com/topic/morphic-resonance
It would seem that it has no support in the scientific community and has been pretty harshly criticized. IMO it has the distict oder of ID. It smacks as a garden variety god of the gaps. Not sure how it relates to May's "friendly energy fields" though. um, well....maybe yes, there is a connection.
Why don't you tell us.
Oh, and there's still no rock on the floor.
That is not the point I was making Scott, although it looks like Dr. Sheldrake is on shakey ground. My main point concerns double standards.
By the way, what is the definition of "little support" and how does it relate to your comment "no support".
Multiple questions that need addressing are listed in my last post.
Take care.
Please feel free to cite any support from the scientific community that I may have missed. I don't want to be unfair. I don't see the double standard you are asserting exists. what double standard has been applied here by whom?
Sasaudio is, if he has the expertise he claims, aware that my statements are not in any fashion whatsoever "extremist claims". Furthermore, he must, if he in fact has the expertise he claims, be aware that my "claims", as he so falsely puts it, are actually a gentle, kind, high-end-friendly restatement of the mainstream science.
It is a fact that my statements are entirely within the mainstream, and that any claim to the contrary is false, unprofessional, and reeking of ignorance, sheer dishonesty, confusion or perhaps outright delusion of the sort that would lead a disturbed individual to assert that the AES is controlled by its corporate members.
It would further be false to claim that providing a means to improve music transmission is actually helping to degrade music transmission. It is sheer, utter, and complete dishonesty to refer to an improvement as a degredation. Such obviously insane logic calls into question every word that such a poster might offer.
Read my previous post, which I quoted from a previous quote Scott. Notice J_J/James. Any questions now?
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole idea of morphic fields - these "organizing fields" or "information fields" ...how should I phrase it? - takes a little bit of getting used to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yeah, like starting with "getting used to seeing absolutely no evidence or support for the idea", you say, eh?"
Well, ya can't see it if ya don't try, can ya? Are you waiting for a rock to fall on your head?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sorry, you make the claim, you conjure up the rock."
Uh, what is it exactly that you think I'm claiming?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why don't you tell us.
Oh, and there's still no rock on the floor."
I asked you first.
That is interesting J_J since it was the IEEE that made the comments and were posted earlier.
Again check IEEE's comments. Also check other strings for info concerning Dr. Kunchur, peers, and 3 national organizations.
Again check IEEE's comments. They seem to disagree with your above statement.
Take care.
Still not seeing it. Sorry
What evidence do you have that there's "absolutely no evidence or support for the idea"?
Maybe he did what I did. Looked and found none. If you find either feel free to post it. But really, what does morphic fields have to do with anything on this thread? It seems Geoff dug up an odd ball hypothesis that happens to have the word 'field' in it. what next? I'm not going to sit through Field of Dreams. I'm not going to search for missing people in the corn field. I'm not going to field a baseball.
What about those "friendly energy fields?" WTF is that supposed to represent in real world terms?
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.
It would be wise of you to cease your misrepresentations of what is "mainstream", what the "ieee thinks" and how individuals such as Sheldrake are regarded in mainstream circles, as well as admitting that giving a paper or publishing in a journal does not constitute endorsement.
Pages