Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geez, Jan, kinda harsh. You get more bees with honey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

More bees with honey, eh? And what do I use if I want to get rid of the bees?

Once they've gotten a foothold and made themselves comfortable they can be quite difficult to get rid of. Maybe best to just lie back and enjoy the ride.

Quote:
But that was my point. Merely accepting convention as being "sufficient" to fulfill the quest might lead you to miss what is extraordinary. We already have one lazy mind on this thread, we do not need another. We already believe we know that LCR and colorants might affect the conditions of the wire. There is no great next step taken by accepting these results as the only answer possible or real. What if none of those were the real answer to what we needed to resolve on order to finish the puzzle? What if there was no possible answer to be found by examining the wire itself but the results remained provable by anecdotal evidence from several observers?

Maybe I did not get what you were getting at. After reading your response, maybe I get it. Let's see:

I do not necessarily accept apriori that conventional explanations are all there is. I am saying that those are the most obvious ones that could explain the difference, based upon what we already know. If those do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc. There's no disconnect here. I think we need to be careful-minded, not closed-minded.

Unfortuantely, most of the time when we're faced with what seems to be an unexplainable event or occurance, we look at all the usual places and nothing comes of it. We try to do all sorts of tests to find the problem. Still nothing. Finally, the simplest conventional explanation appears and that's the source of the problem, because we were not careful enough with the fundamentals or the assumptions. Nothing extraordinary, but only very ordinary. The mistake is to go off searching without clearly understanding what we are trying to find.

I'm not saying that there we understand all things - we most certainly do not. But it's more likely the explanation is simple and not exotic, and especially easy to miss if we are biased toward extraordinary hypotheses than conventional ones. I can't swear that the simplest explanation is always the best, but it seems so in cases that I have run into.

Regarding the no possible answers and the issue remains by anectdotal evidence, I don't think that there is no answer. I think everything has an explanation. We just need to find it. It has nothing to do with conventional or non-conventional. Non-conventional in the past have become conventional in the present, so there's no telling what may be discovered.

Quote:
But you are still relying on what you already know to get you to where you think you ought to be. You are still only looking in one drawer to find your keys because you remember finding your keys in that drawer once before.

I rely on what I know to analyze the problem, not what I think the answer should be. A scientist cannot assume the answer. There is no set destination or answer; that is what is to be found, and not always in the same 'drawer', as you said.

Quote:
And, if by using your already existing knowledge of that one drawer that you know had at one time contained your keys nothing you could define, compare or contrast explained what you had proven to be true, you would do what? How would you take the next step beyond what you already know to be conventional laws and rules? Just telling me you would define the differences and "how they are associated with the wire or fuse" leaves you very much constricted by a narrow window of conventional perception.

Not so IMO. Knowledge is not limited to one 'drawer'. The principles can be general. If conventional known principles cannot adequately explain what is observed, we must work much harder to make sure we are not mistaken that we have eliminated known possible explanations. If after we have checked and rechecked, and a given phenomenon is still not adequately explained, the we may need a new explanation. This approach is well-known in science. Many advances are made this way, when we cannot explain the data with the then current knowledge. That does not mean we quickly embrace new explanation when we might miss the ordinary ones that more adequately explain an effect. All I'm saying is that we should be careful when go to new territory - extraordinary evidence/approaches may be needed to prove it.

I disagree with your last sentence with respect to it leaving me sort of 'boxed in' by trying to associate the difference with the wire or fuse. It does not restrict what can be found; it is a start, like many things. If one does that experiment, it could be the fuse or the interaction of the fuse with it's surroundings. The observation is a fuse vs. a wire shows 'X'. A different wire shows 'Y', etc. The issue is how to explain the various data? Naturally one hypothesis is that the different fuses and wires are the source of the difference. It's simple and more readily tested. If trying that does not explain the differences, we expand the scope.

I don't think we are really talking about two different things. I don't think we are differing in leaving open the possibility that conventional 'laws' may not be enough. Let's be extra careful before discarding those 'laws' and deluding ourselves too quickly.

One thing also to keep in mind in general (I'm sure you already know this) is that much of the conventional book-knowledge is based on simplifications. The real world is more interesting, but in many cases can be approximated sufficiently accurately by simplifications, but not always. It's those 'not-always' cases that can be misleading if we rely only on conventional knowledge alone and as-is.

Maybe the bottom line is that things are not as clear as we think?

Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying?

"I do not necessarily accept apriori that conventional explanations are all there is. I am saying that those are the most obvious ones that could explain the difference, based upon what we already know. If those do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc. There's no disconnect here. I think we need to be careful-minded, not closed-minded.

Unfortuantely, most of the time when we're faced with what seems to be an unexplainable event or occurance, we look at all the usual places and nothing comes of it. We try to do all sorts of tests to find the problem. Still nothing. Finally, the simplest conventional explanation appears and that's the source of the problem, because we were not careful enough with the fundamentals or the assumptions. Nothing extraordinary, but only very ordinary. The mistake is to go off searching without clearly understanding what we are trying to find.

I'm not saying that there we understand all things - we most certainly do not. But it's more likely the explanation is simple and not exotic, and especially easy to miss if we are biased toward extraordinary hypotheses than conventional ones. I can't swear that the simplest explanation is always the best, but it seems so in cases that I have run into."

That's all well and good, that conventional physics or conventional mechanisms might explain a particular phenomenon. It's pretty to think so, and in some cases that might actually be true. The problem arises when we have a particular audio device or phenomenon that is not amenable to easy, straightforward explanation - "conventional" or otherwise. There are quite a few that fit into this category. There will be times when we must simply throw our hands up in the air and say I give up. It might be wise to ask what you mean by "Unconventional explanation?" Your definition might be quite a bit different from mine or someone else's.

If the explanations are difficult it doesn't necessarily mean they must be unconventional or exotic. However, one should not assume an explanation hasn't been found that the explanation must be conventional. And we should acknowledge that an explanation that is "unconventional" to some may be "conventional" to others. There are obviously some explanations acceptable to some but not others. Who is the final arbiter of these things, NASA or the FCC or the AES?

Here is a short list of anomalistic-type devices that do not lend themselves to easy explanation. The short list -- the Intelligent Chip, ion generators, demagnetizers for CDs, LPs and cables, the teleportation tweak, crystals, the directionality of fuses, the Red X Pen from PWB, the Clever Little Clock, Mpingo disc and the necessity for absolute level of the CD transport.

Quote:
Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying?

WTF don't you just read the website? It's there in real world terms and nice simple sentences.

Are you just trying to prove you are lazy rather than incompetent?

WTF must you have this information spoon fed to you? You claimed to have read the pages. WTF did you not read this part of the pages?

(Watch, Scotty will want me to show him exactly where to find what he wants instead of possibly reading more than he needs to just tear something apart.)

WTF!

The telltale signs of a troll:

(1) The use of fake outrage and fake frustration in an attempt to get the manufacturer to reveal more information that can and will be attacked. E.g., "WTF," or "I realize I'm getting a little frustrated by this discussion," etc.

(2) The use of courtesy in an attempt to get the manufacturer to reveal more controversial information that can and will be attacked. E.g., "Please tell us how the device in question works," or "Please tell us the operating principle, etc.

(3) The statement to the effect, "The product under discussion is too small to make any audible difference."

(4) The statement to the effect, "And we should believe anyone who sells X or believes Y?"

(5) "Just answer my questions and stop resorting to ad hominem attacks, you big duffus, etc."

(6) "Just provide us with your specific claim in detail and we will tell you whether or not it passes mainstream controlled test muster." or "We represent science and since we know everything there is to know about science we will tell you whether science allow such explanations."

(7) "I read a lot. Therefore if I haven't read about it it must not exist." or "I read a lot and I did not see any evidence supporting this phenomenon, so the phenomenon must not be true."

(8) "I am an expert in such and such; therefore, I can say categorically, even without fully understanding exactly what it is you're talking about, that there is no evidence to support it and it cannot be true."

Quote:
I do not necessarily accept apriori that conventional explanations are all there is. I am saying that those are the most obvious ones that could explain the difference, based upon what we already know.

Why is that? I understand that if you have never driven your car in Kenya it would be rather unlikely your keys are somewhere in Kenya but, why start with "what we already know"? "We don't have our keys" would seem to be the one thing we know and can agree on. Asking "where was the last place you had your keys?" is always a bit ridiculous because that would immediately allow us to find the keys if knowing that answer was always the result of the best question to ask. However, if we already knew that answer, we wouldn't be looking for our keys.

To paraphrase Henry Kloss, "It wouldn't be research if we already knew what we were looking for."

How easy would it be to mislead your thinking by starting with what you already know - "I've never driven in Kenya" - other than the fact you know you don't have your keys?

Quote:
The mistake is to go off searching without clearly understanding what we are trying to find.

Well, in this case we're trying to find some keys because we wanted to go somewhere. Would finding our keys be the most logical thing to do just because we wanted to go somewhere? IOW how do you clearly understand what it is you're trying to find? Maybe you need a phone book to call a cab.

Quote:
But it's more likely the explanation is simple and not exotic, and especially easy to miss if we are biased toward extraordinary hypotheses than conventional ones.

You mean someone might automatically believe their keys were transported to Kenya because they were going to take a cab? Why would anyone with a logical mind believe in such extraordinary things when, as you say, simple explanations often suffice? You seem to be suggesting someone might think calling a Kenyan cab would get their keys back to them.

IOW, going back to wire and fuses, why believe a cab in Kenya would be the solution when the solution might be the wire in your room? Nothing to do with the measurable LCR's and so forth of the wire nor direction of the fuse nor what the fuse is near in the circuit but just the fact the fuse/wire is in your room? Or in another room?

Quote:
Regarding the no possible answers and the issue remains by anectdotal evidence, I don't think that there is no answer. I think everything has an explanation. We just need to find it. It has nothing to do with conventional or non-conventional. Non-conventional in the past have become conventional in the present, so there's no telling what may be discovered.

When does the wire being in your room become the conventional answer?

Quote:
I rely on what I know to analyze the problem, not what I think the answer should be. A scientist cannot assume the answer.

Of course, you wouldn't want to assume the answer, that would make you a poker player counting cards. But relying on what you know to get you somewhere you've never been still seems to limit your scope of investigation.

Quote:
Not so IMO. Knowledge is not limited to one 'drawer'. The principles can be general. If conventional known principles cannot adequately explain what is observed, we must work much harder to make sure we are not mistaken that we have eliminated known possible explanations. If after we have checked and rechecked, and a given phenomenon is still not adequately explained, the we may need a new explanation. This approach is well-known in science. Many advances are made this way, when we cannot explain the data with the then current knowledge. That does not mean we quickly embrace new explanation when we might miss the ordinary ones that more adequately explain an effect. All I'm saying is that we should be careful when go to new territory - extraordinary evidence/approaches may be needed to prove it.

How many peer review panels does it take to screw in a light bulb? How many does it take if the peers doing the review consider your concepts to be out of "the mainstream" and to be heresy?

Quote:
Naturally one hypothesis is that the different fuses and wires are the source of the difference. It's simple and more readily tested. If trying that does not explain the differences, we expand the scope.

To where? How do you know where to expand to if you don't know where to go, you only know where you've been? What if it is not just the wire in your room that affects the change but the difference is within your own perceptions and the wire is just a trigger - not the mechanism itself? How likely is that to be called out of the mainstream?

Quote:
Let's be extra careful before discarding those 'laws' and deluding ourselves too quickly.

Laws are to be obeyed. Rules are to be broken.

Quote:
One thing also to keep in mind in general (I'm sure you already know this) is that much of the conventional book-knowledge is based on simplifications. The real world is more interesting, but in many cases can be approximated sufficiently accurately by simplifications, but not always. It's those 'not-always' cases that can be misleading if we rely only on conventional knowledge alone and as-is.

That would seem to be a good introduction to any discussion of "the Intelligent Chip, ion generators, demagnetizers for CDs, LPs and cables, the teleportation tweak, crystals, the directionality of fuses, the Red X Pen from PWB, the Clever Little Clock, Mpingo disc and the necessity for absolute level of the CD transport."

However, it would appear simplification for one individual is not the same process as simplification for another individual. IOW two observers might come to different conclusions based on their own experiences and ability to think beyond the mainstream. Marsh and Jung seemed to be bucking the mainstream in 1980 when they introduced their papers on the "sound" of capacitors (and they had measurements) and they are still not in the mainstream if you believe what you read from some forum members. From the sound of capacitors to the sound of cables seems to me to be a very easy step yet still out of the mainstream after 30 years if you read JAES. If the sound of cables is to be believed, it doesn't all come down to LCR's and so forth within our conventional knowledge.

So what if it does come down to the wire being in another room? Or in the freezer?

You forgot ...

Quote:
Sheldrake transcends things like testability or disprovability.

Faith based tweaking is a logical offshoot of this religion.

Of course, that might fall under the heading of drunken troll. I assume there is a difference.

Quote:
Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying?

Wow, how about you calm the F down, for starters? When you ask a question in such a hostile manner, with open prejudice and closed mind, you're looking for a fight. Not for answers or education, or even honest discussion. Anyone can see you've already made up your mind on the issue, so who do you think you're fooling to pretend otherwise? Besides your "WTF attitude", this is shown by the fact that I already explained to you what the term implied. Your puerile, mindless reactionary response to that was, and I quote: "I see now! Yoda taught you well."

You don't learn things very well. Because like big brother James, you're left insecure about what you don't know, and threatened by any encroachment on what you think you do know. Which would explain why you haven't learned much, despite claiming you've read up on this stuff. Again, as you're only interested in playing games of "armchair scientist" (jr.) on the net, attacking and attempting to "debunk" things you so obviously know nothing about and have no real experience with, that puts you squarely in the "lunatic fringe objectivist" category. You may continue to believe that you can find all the answers you need in life on Wikipedia. But like I told you, stay away from the angry energy fields. They're doing you no amount of good.

Quote:
However, one should not assume an explanation hasn't been found that the explanation must be conventional. And we should acknowledge that an explanation that is "unconventional" to some may be "conventional" to others. There are obviously some explanations acceptable to some but not others.

Quote:
I intuitively know that we are awakening from the dream of only three dimensions so this statement is consistent with my beliefs. Intent is the focal point of any happening.
http://www.highdesertshaman.com/Schuman_Resonance.html

Yup, guess we need to add Schumann Frequency Generator to the list. The article you provided a link to, while interesting, fails to explain the most important thing about the 7.8 Hz frequency - *why it affects the sound* or anything else claimed for it, for that matter.

I can't be expected to provide everything, geoff. Someone is going to have to bring the pie.

Quote:
>>Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying? >>

WTF don't you just read the website? It's there in real world terms and nice simple sentences.

really? Why don't you just cut and paste those simple sentences? If you want me to read something specific you might consider pointing it out dip shit.

Quote:
Are you just trying to prove you are lazy rather than incompetent?

WTF must you have this information spoon fed to you? You claimed to have read the pages. WTF did you not read this part of the pages?

Yes it must be spoon fed to me. Remember I am just a mere makeup artist and not fit to be an audiophile. Please help me out here and spoon feed me the actual explanation as to WTF friendly energy patterns means in real world terms. As far as i can see it means bullshit bullshit bullsit. Feel free to cut and paste those simple sentences that will prove me wrong and you right. That ought to feel good wouldn't it?

Quote:
(Watch, Scotty will want me to show him exactly where to find what he wants instead of possibly reading more than he needs to just tear something apart.)

WTF!

I say it (a real world explanation as to WTF freindly energy patterns means) doesn't exist. Feel free to prove me wrong. You say it's there you show me.I think you are full of crap. I'm not interested in your snipe hunt. Prove me wrong.

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying?

Wow, how about you calm the F down, for starters? When you ask a question in such a hostile manner, with open prejudice and closed mind, you're looking for a fight. Not for answers or education, or even honest discussion. Anyone can see you've already made up your mind on the issue, so who do you think you're fooling to pretend otherwise? Besides your "WTF attitude", this is shown by the fact that I already explained to you what the term implied. Your puerile, mindless reactionary response to that was, and I quote: "I see now! Yoda taught you well."

You don't learn things very well. Because like big brother James, you're left insecure about what you don't know, and threatened by any encroachment on what you think you do know. Which would explain why you haven't learned much, despite claiming you've read up on this stuff. Again, as you're only interested in playing games of "armchair scientist" (jr.) on the net, attacking and attempting to "debunk" things you so obviously know nothing about and have no real experience with, that puts you squarely in the "lunatic fringe objectivist" category. You may continue to believe that you can find all the answers you need in life on Wikipedia. But like I told you, stay away from the angry energy fields. They're doing you no amount of good.

all that bullshit and not one word from you as to what the phrase is supposed to mean. Guess you'd rather go on rants about me than discuss audio. Jump froggy jump. Frog with no legs is deaf.

Quote:
I can't be expected to provide everything, geoff. Someone is going to have to bring the pie.

apparently you can't be expected to provide *anything* other than more bullshit.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Snip....
One is not responsible for another's inability to understand the simplest basics of hearing, signal processing, or perception.
Snip...

It would be good for a lot of readers (many Stereophile subscribers probably read these forums but do not post) including myself if you could expand on this within the context of research theory/models and also behavioral experiements/scientific-engineering measurement tests.

At least it would put more weight and context behind the assertation of what is defined as simple/basic in these terms.

Cheers and thanks
Orbs

Your use of language is quite telling.

When you say "At least it would put more weight and context behind the assertation of what is defined as simple/basic in these terms." you show that you don't know what the scientific process is. What is "simple" or "basic" is not "defined", for instance, it is what understanding has reached the level of accepted understanding, and while it may be basic, may not be "simple" at all. The mere combination of those two words exposes a host of mistakes.

Yet you have the chutzpah to tell me what my expertise is, without taking a position of your own, or even suggesting you have one that you could support.

You're a troll.

Now, as to education, since you've stated quite clearly that you are unwilling to respond to anything I write because you can't withstand basic scientific dialog, why should I bother to try in your case.

In other folks' cases, well, I have done a rather large bunch of tutorials for beginners and workshops for those more advanced in the science. These people, however, by their attendence are showing a willingness to learn, as opposed to falsely state the expertise of the person giving the tutorial, for example, which is only one of the many places you, personally, are shown wanting. What is more, you have failed completely to do your own homework, there is a discussion of key observations and facts regarding human memory on this web site, one that has gone mostly undiscussed, that covers the issues in the OP for this thread like a blanket. Your statement of "
It would be good for a lot of readers (many Stereophile subscribers probably read these forums but do not post) including myself if you could expand on this within the context of research theory/models and also behavioral experiements/scientific-engineering measurement tests.
" is both mistaken and leading, in this regard, because you're asking for a free multi-week tutorial to be presented into an audience already proven to be malicious (not necessarily referring to you there), uninterested, and willing to engage in base insults rather than accept the most simple, basic principles of either the mathematics or the empirical conclusions, and finally that engages in repetitive, malicious harrassment that contains intentional defamation and willfully misleading falsehoods regarding past discussions.

Teaching into that audience is, frankly, throwing pearls before swine.

Perhaps, since you have insinuated that you have such superior expertise to mine that you are able, without research, to tell me what my expertise is, you should undertake this Promethian task, Orb?

Well, heave to, mate.

Actually it would had been a good way to start a discussion, I cannot see what is wrong with using the assertion as that is what you are doing.
This was yet another attempt of mine to actually get you to engage in providing some of that information you know for the BENEFIT of other STEREOPHILE READERS.

Scott, you state James provides good information but this trend is just the opposite.
I could lower myself to your level James, but honestly what is the point.

You argue that no-one provides any informationa and then willingly ignore your own advice.
Irony, your quote here:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Back to the sentence by sentence thing again, eh, Scotty?

Maybe you should call one of your BFFF's and talk about who dissed you in the school cafeteria today.

You seem far more interested in me than in audio. I get it.

Well, he can't attack your substantive statements, he has no substance to attack with, so he has to focus on ad-hominem attacks.

It's like our own "Karl Rove of Audio" here who insists black is white, mainstream is far out, and good is bad.

And yes I am going to call you James as you dont deserve the use of JJ that I feel you like as a title these days, I would recommend others on this forum do the same (if they can accept who you are).

Cheers
Orb

Dear "Orb",

You have claimed superior authority to me via insinuation, and have done so repeatedly.

Therefore, nearly the entirety of your propagandistic rant is really about you, and why you haven't provided any substance, evidence, or contributed even a position on the OP and Lavorgna's false dichotomy.

The rest of your rant is used to advise others to be insulting when addressing me.

It seems that you really have nothing to add here, and that your entire "entrance" is nothing but posing and posturing, that you are really interested in being insulting, and that you don't care about any actual information, basic or otherwise, be it "defined" (your choice of words) or discovered via the scientific process and/or mathematics.

As you have insinuated several times that you have the authority to tell me what I have expertise in (including the curious "PCM Coding" mistake), I think it's time you put some meat on your insinuation, and provided full and testable evidence.

One way you could do that and remain pseudonymous is to answer the questions you demand that I answer, all 1 year of grad school's worth, since after all, you've claimed authority in the subject.

As you've insinuated authority, and thereby claimed it, where IS this year's course in DSP, hearing, and human perception?

How come you haven't offered it up? After all, you claim superior authority, superior knowledge, etc. Where is it?

When will you undertake this task to all our benefit?

Let's have it, for the BENEFIT of STEREOPHILE READERS?

Why haven't you walked the walk, lad?

Quote:
Here is a short list of anomalistic-type devices that do not lend themselves to easy explanation. The short list -- the Intelligent Chip, ion generators, demagnetizers for CDs, LPs and cables, the teleportation tweak, crystals, the directionality of fuses, the Red X Pen from PWB, the Clever Little Clock, Mpingo disc and the necessity for absolute level of the CD transport.

Nice ad work in!

Trouble is, things like the Intelligent Chip, Teleportation Tweak, Clever Clock, and Belt Pens do lend themselves to complete explanation - y'all just get upset and call people trolls when people do post the true explanation...for free, no less!

Same old song and dance from GeoffJan: Someone balks at the BS, gets called a troll by Geoff. Dead giveaway of his hucksterism.

Like I said, go get your Nobel for the physics you claim! See you in Stockholm!

Please find a post of mine where I have insinuated your level of knowledge or anyone elses on this forum is wrong or lesser than mine, or please find where I claim to be a "superior authority", in fact I stated awhile ago your knowledge is greater than mine and that it would be great to SHARE it with other readers.
You know one interesting aspect of bias in daily life; it is suggested that a technique to overcome bias is to consider that you are not writing for oneself but for others to read, in other words consideration for those that will read it.
This is even more relevent when considering that this is a forum, however your posting is all about you, or forcing responses to be focused around you like now.

Looking back you can see that I have offered valid research not to prove my points but for discussion, I am not pushing the case for or against one factor but offering up information for others to read fully or take highlights from snippets I quote.
Again the response was all about yourself; how any information I post is inconsequential/infactual/misrepresenting/etc.
The reality is they are there for a FORUM DISCUSSION, not lets see how great James is

Anyway enough, say what you want as I can already predict what is coming.

Orbs

"Go get your Nobel for the physics you claim! See you in Stockholm!"

Aw shucks, Bubbha, that's sweet. Been kinda wondering what's taking so long myself. Being mainstream and all, they're probably just being deliberate and and checking all the facts.

addendum: Last I heard, the mainstream guys finally managed teleportion for 3 feet. Big friggin deal. Rank amateurs!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, how about you just explain WTF you mean by "friendly energy patterns?" As far as I can see this is simply some nice sounding words strung together for the sake of marketing. What, in real world terms, are you saying?

Wow, how about you calm the F down, for starters? When you ask a question in such a hostile manner, with open prejudice and closed mind, you're looking for a fight. Not for answers or education, or even honest discussion. Anyone can see you've already made up your mind on the issue, so who do you think you're fooling to pretend otherwise? Besides your "WTF attitude", this is shown by the fact that I already explained to you what the term implied. Your puerile, mindless reactionary response to that was, and I quote: "I see now! Yoda taught you well."

You don't learn things very well. Because like big brother James, you're left insecure about what you don't know, and threatened by any encroachment on what you think you do know. Which would explain why you haven't learned much, despite claiming you've read up on this stuff. Again, as you're only interested in playing games of "armchair scientist" (jr.) on the net, attacking and attempting to "debunk" things you so obviously know nothing about and have no real experience with, that puts you squarely in the "lunatic fringe objectivist" category. You may continue to believe that you can find all the answers you need in life on Wikipedia. But like I told you, stay away from the angry energy fields. They're doing you no amount of good.

all that bullshit and not one word from you as to what the phrase is supposed to mean. Guess you'd rather go on rants about me than discuss audio. Jump froggy jump. Frog with no legs is deaf.

Nice of you to sum up your scientific research skills for us. Like they say, give a man enough rope and he will hang himself. I'll bet you could manage to do that with licorice string. The only "bullshit" I see is coming from you. It's a shame you seem to have no sense of awareness of self. You're the one who is spewing profane mad rants at people here, filled with ad hominem and personal insults, including rants about me. All because you're unwilling to discuss audio in anything approaching a sincere and honest manner (despite what you make pretence to). But maybe I'm giving you too much credit in saying your approach is insincere and dishonest. Maybe you're simply too thick in the head to realize in the space of 2 paragraphs, that I did write more than "one word" on what that phrase is supposed to mean. What I wrote, and this makes the SECOND time that you've been too dense to understand it, is that I had already explained to you what the phrase means. Proving again what I said, that you don't learn things very well. I'm not even certain you could focus your attention for longer than 2 or 3 lines of text, so trying to have an intelligent discussion with you is like teaching a tap dance routine to a room full of monkeys. Except I would probaby have more success with the monkeys.

Stop screaming at others and demanding they explain something that has already been explained to you several times, simply because you're too incompetent or too easily distracted to realize that.

Quote:
me old song and dance from GeoffJan: Someone balks at the BS, gets called a troll by Geoff.

Well, we started off calling you someone who just can't hear worth shit or accept that others can hear what you cannot but you insisted May is not up to your high standards of morality and in a drunken fit that extended over several posts you stated Frog and I had an illicit relationship - so you became a troll and a sloppy drunken troll at that. You did it to yourself, Bood-ha! You made the choice who to settle with in this whole affair. You weren't interested in a middle ground where two sides could meet. You came in with your mind made up and looking for a fight. We could have carried on a converstaion all those months ago but you decided to become your insulting, if-I-can't-hear-it-no-one-can-hear-it self who palled around with the other trolls. Anyone who disagreed with you became your enemy. Anyone who is your enemy is due to receive your drunken tirades and insults. Another opinion just isn't what you are about. You have nothing to contribute other than more insults - witness your last dozen posts as just one dozen out of the hundreds. I think that pretty well cements your position as a troll. Actually, I can't think of anything else you could be considered.

Another piece of evidence you'll fail to see.

Quote:
Stop screaming at others and demanding they explain something that has already been explained to you several times, simply because you're too incompetent or too easily distracted to realize that.

Incompetent? Definitely!

Dishonest? Without a doubt!!!

And lazy to boot.

I could go on but, what's the point?

My "Hallmark moment" for today.

So why is it that all of the trolls are having such a conniption fit? Full moon?

That would be very "unmeasurable" of them.

Quote:
Prove me wrong.

Gosh! I bet that's another line you first used back in highschool.

Scotty, you are amazing.

Go fish.

Quote:
As you have insinuated several times that you have the authority to tell me what I have expertise in (including the curious "PCM Coding" mistake), I think it's time you put some meat on your insinuation, and provided full and testable evidence.

That is curious, as the "PCM Coding" mistake is yours. I have proven this here already some time ago, with "full and testable evidence". In the several years I've been here, to claim there is no such thing as "PCM coding" as you did, is absolutely one of the most outrageously silly "mistakes" I've heard, coming from your lunatic fringe objectivist camp. For someone who's only expertise in audio is limited to coding; ie. "PCM coding", it's even more curious. And James, seeing that you are insulted when you are addressed by your name, it leads to one conclusion: have you been tested recently for Alzheimer's or dementia? Given the rants that have come from you in recent days, even more nonsensical than your usual rhetoric, I think there's a very strong possibility that maybe all your jets aren't firing right.

Quote:
So why is it that all of the trolls are having such a conniption fit? Full moon?

That would be very "unmeasurable" of them.

Full moon may play a role, but I'm seeing the same reasons the skeptologists always have coniptions. They are insecure people, who feel threatened by any challenge to their rigid belief systems. Hence the acting out, the "WTF's", the "you dip shit!'s", and the "stop insulting me by calling me by my proper name!" rants (though to be honest, there's only one person here bizarre enough to throw that one at you...). What does a dog do when it feels threatened? Exactly, go on the attack. Totally base behaviour for humans mind you, but everyone evolves at their own pace. Trying to get them there quicker is like dragging a lame dog on a leash. You would think those who purport to be audio enthusiasts, if anybody, would welcome new ideas that could help improve their sound, even if the odds were against it. That turns out not to be the case. Many are as conservative as Christian Republicans on church day. The usual excuse is they don't have time to try everything under the sun, nobody does. But somehow, they have plenty of time to argue, fuss and fight on this forum, against what they don't have time to try. Uh-huh.

"you can take a horse to the water but
you can't make him drink
oh no, oh no, oh no
you can have it all layed out in front of you but
it still don't make you think"

- George Harrison

Quote:

Quote:
Stop screaming at others and demanding they explain something that has already been explained to you several times, simply because you're too incompetent or too easily distracted to realize that.

Incompetent? Definitely!

Dishonest? Without a doubt!!!

And lazy to boot.

I could go on but, what's the point?

My "Hallmark moment" for today.

You can go on and on and on. But you can't come up with the goods. Ya got nothin.

I accept your concession.

Freindly energy patterns. Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

But, Scotty, I've told you several times where to find the information. It seems I have something you can't find because you're; 1) too lazy to look and 2) too incompetent to understand you have already been given the information.

Frog has it right. You can scream and bluff and bluster all you want, Scotty. But it was a long time ago I figured out how to improve the sound in my room. And weeks ago that I was smart enough to figure out just how stupid and dishonest you really are. And I was quick enough to realize when you had been provided the information you insist we feed to you - again. You haven't been smart enough or quick enough to realize any of that. And you're still too damned lazy to do anything about finding the information on your own even when you've repeatedly been told to follow the bread crumbs. How hard is that? Other than bood-ha!, who do you think is going to believe it's my fault that you are so totally incompetent? I notice none of your BFFF's are coming to your rescue here.

So you can stop reliving those moments when the cool guys trapped you in your own locker until the janitor let you out and you missed the bus home. Either get over yourself by finding the information through the very obvious clues you've been provided or we'll just keep making fun of the dummy who can't keep up. I mean just how much time are you going to waste stomping your feet and looking as dull as you really are?

Or, you can sit there and get angry again. I know which option I'm betting you'll take.

Oh, BTW nice discussion of audio.

Quote:
You seem far more interested in me than in audio. I get it.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!

Scotty, don't bother looking for the PWB information. We all know what your opinion of PWB is right now. Why spoil any opinion with facts? You'll only hurt bood-ha!'s feelings if you actually look.

Danger! Danger, Scotty Robinson!

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/rqfcgvbfmn--Danger-Will-RobinsonRobot-Lost-in-Space-

Quote:
ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!

Scotty, don't bother looking for the PWB information. We all know what your opinion of PWB is right now. Why spoil any opinion with facts? You'll only hurt bood-ha!'s feelings if you actually look.

Danger! Danger, Scotty Robinson!

But I did look. seems like the only hurt feelings are yours, the frog's and May's.

Quote:
But I did look. seems like the only hurt feelings are yours, the frog's and May's.

LOL! Let me see if I've got this: my "feelings are hurt" because you're too silly in the head to do your own audio research? Scotty, my funny friend, I have some news for you. You're the new Ethan Whiner. Congrats. I trust you will do the title proud, and supply us with plenty more risible Whinerisms, as per the above.

Now you've gone and hurt geoff's feelings, you twit! Look at him, he's over there inconsolable! Not even Space Ghost can pull him out of this one.

Nice going, Scotty, nice going, moron!

Looking isn't finding and finding isn't understanding. Particularly in Scotty's case.

I believe this boy needs a strip of foil applied to the center of his forehead and a reef knot tied - well, somewhere.

Yes, the Schumann Resonance device should definitely be added to the list.

As I understand it, the Schumann resonance device was originally developed and introduced for people to be able to create a better environment to assist in better health - it was not originally developed to give better sound !! It was developed because of a belief that there is now so much "adverse environmental and electronic smog" in the modern environment. But, obviously, someone, at some time, having such a device in the room from a health point of view suddenly realised that whilstever the Schumann resonance device was in the room, the sound from their audio system was much better !!!

The hostile modern environment and it's adverse effect on the human being (and subsequently on their health) was blamed for the need for the Schumann resonance device in the first place. As soon as people began to realise that this device could also "improve the sound", then it began to be realised that it was allowing the human being to resolve more of the (musical) information available !! So, people's thinking had to move away from the conventional (electronic) viewpoint of "it must be having an effect on the audio signal" and away from the conventional (acoustic) viewpoint of "it must be having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves" and start to look at it "affecting the human being". And, if the result was beneficial i.e better sound and the Schumann resonance device cannot have been ADDING additional musical information to what was already there, then it must be 'dealing with' an already existing adverse effect - the modern environment - and the adverse effect the modern environment is having on the human being !!!!

The discoveries we made over 25 years ago forced US to seriously consider the concept of "adverse effects in the modern environment having an adverse effect on the human being".

I watch the Schumann Resonance device story and how the world of audio deals with it with considerable interest !!

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

Acoustic Revive, manufacturer of the audio device, RR-77 (Schumann frequency generator) claims the operating principle is "neutralization of standing waves" in the room, "neutralization of electromagnetic waves" generated by electronic equipment and "harmful external radio waves." They also do a little bit of hand waving regarding the "effect on the individual" as well as effect on the viscosity of the air. They do try to cover all the bases.

Interestingly, according to their web site, the RR-77 is used for live piano concerts, at least in Japan. This application seems to conflict with their theory of affecting electromagnetic waves and perhaps with their theory of affecting standing waves in the room. Their suggested use of the RR-77 for video application, it seems to me, conflicts with their theories of affecting standing waves and affecting air viscosity.

from Acoustic Revive web page:
Acoustic Revive
RR-77 Schumann Frequency Generator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S Audiophile Magazine "The Stereo Times" Most Wanted Components Award 2008
U.S Audiophile Magazine "6moon" Blue Moon Award
Audio Excellence Award Prize 2002 for accessories category

For Audio equipments
By generating the Schumann Resonance, there is an effect that it neutralizes electromagnetic waves generated from an audio equipment and external harmful radio waves. So interference of electromagnetic waves and radio waves that exist among equipments is disappeared, it becomes possible to reproduce the music clearer, the S/N ratio is improved higher and the distortion is reduced.

For Listening room
Also, by generating the Schumann Resonance, there is an effect that it neutralizes harmful standing waves. And it has the feature of improving the viscosity of the air in the listening room. Therefore, you can reproduce the excellent music, the sound is improved clearly audible, and the depth of the sound image is increased dramatically.

For Listener
It is established medically that generating the Schumann resonance activates the cellular immunity. And it is said that the Schumann resonance produces the good relaxation effects, and the attentiveness is raised greatly. So you can hear the details of the sounds that could not be heard before.

Ultra low-frequency pulse generator RR-77 is used in a major recording company!! Because of the great effects of the RR-77, recording engineers or musicians take notice the RR-77. Recently, the RR-77 is used for the recording process of the major recording company; it has given full play to its ability for not only recording equipments but also a live performance of a piano and other instruments.

Picture quality is improves by the RR-77
The RR-77 brings a great ability of a projector, such as CRT Projectors, DLP Projectors, Liquid projectors. By using RR-77, the focus of the picture is improved certainly. We recommend that you use the RR-77 as final method of adjustment of the projector.

Quote:
Please find a post of mine where I have insinuated your level of knowledge or anyone elses on this forum is wrong or lesser than mine,

You told me authoritively and without qualification, in a rather rude fashion, what my expertise was.

By doing so, you have claimed full knowledge and authority.

A such, please provide what you ask for all of our edification.

Quote:

Looking back you can see that I have offered valid research not to prove my points but for discussion,

You've offered bits of this and that with a suggestion that they are somehow earthshattering, and with an insinuation that somehow or other they invalidate the status quo.

They are neither earthshattering nor do they invalidate the status quo, ergo I have to presume you are simply posturing.

You have offered nothing of substance for which I can determine you actually have the understanding you have claimed.

I think the conflict between your word and your deed is obvious, and your behavior, including your insistance on willfully insulting me every time you address me, shows both your agenda and your malice.

The fact that you have also asked others to insult me intentionally is, I dare say, just a bit obvious.

You are, obviously, a malicious troll.

Quote:
The Acoustic Revive RR-77 ultra-low frequency pulse generator is a stand-alone active device that plugs into a wall outlet but not your HiFi rig. According to Acoustic Revive, the RR-77 generates a 7.83Hz Schumann frequency pulse that 'shields' your HiFi electronics and listening room from radio frequency interference and thereby improves the S/N ratio so the electronics perform better.

As hifi enthusiasts know, there is a lot of electromagnetic 'pollution' from signal transmissions in modern times that can degrade a system's performance. It would appear that Schumann pulse generators like the Acoustic Revive RR-77 provide a shield for EM pollution. It stands to reason that if a Schumann pulse generator can shield a human body from harmful EM contamination and provide positive benefits, it might do the same thing for our HiFi rigs - which is exactly the premise behind the Acoustic Revive RR-77.

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/acousticrevive/rr77.html

Orb, you aren't going to get anything other than more of the exact same BS everytime you try adressing James.

Why not forget him since he has nothing of value to offer and try someone else?

Someone can read the Acoustic Revive web site as well as I can.

Not really, your's was much better.

Six Moons didn't even touch on standing waves being affected.

But, then, they're just reviewers.

"Not really, your's was much better.

Six Moons didn't even touch on standing waves being affected.

But, then, they're just reviewers."

Jan, thanks for pointing that out, that's what I attempted to imply, among other things. There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation and disimformation regarding the Schumann frequency generator. There are a number of inexpensive SF generators, e.g., Earth Calm, sold for health purposes that audiophiles purchased for audio applications once they read the reviews of Acoustic Revive's device. There are also a fair number of companies selling SF CDs that generate the 7.83 Hz wave acoustically.

One interesting tidbit is that a common selling point used by manufacturers of both the SF electromagnetic wave generator and the SF acoustic wave generator is that astronauts used a Schumann generator on the space shuttle, supposedly to fight fatigue. Pretty good selling point, if true. (Please note that Acoustic Revive does not use this selling point.)

The problem is there's no record, anywhere, that astronauts ever used a Schumann frequency generator on the shuttle, or anywhere else. One would expect there to be NASA reports, or articles in scientific publications, or at least newspaper articles, something. But there is nothing regarding the use of a SF generator in space. It appears all the SF generator manufacurers saw the "astronaut paragraph" somewhere and purloined it for themselves. In fact, almost anywhere in cyberspace that Schumann frequency is discussed mentions astronauts in space.

Here's a typical blurb found on manufacturers' web sites regarding the SF generator and astronauts:

"Unfortunately, very little is publicly known about the Biological Frequency, although NASA has been aware of it for many years and is using this knowledge to protect Astronauts in Outer Space. In 1952 the German Scientist W.O.Schumann, discovered the presence of a natural radio signal resonating as a standing wave around our planet within the Earth/Ionosphere cavity and beating with a sharp pulse of 7.83 Hz. Thereafter, this signal has been referred to as the "Schumann Resonance". It is no coincidence, that the brainwave frequency of most vertebrates is around that value, although that of industrial man/woman is often higher. However, the dominant brainwave frequency of sensitives, such as Shamans and Healers comes close to 7.83 Hz and may, at times, beat in phase with the Earth's signal, thereby causing Harmonic Resonance.

The physical condition of early Astronauts deteriorated severely whilst in Outer Space, away from the Schumann Resonance. The problem was solved by introducing the "Schumann Simulator" into all space shuttles, a magnetic pulse generator mimicking the Earth's frequency. This demonstrates the simple fact that we cannot be healthy if disconnected from the "natural biological frequency."

Same reviewer, Jan, as in your quotes from 6moons, but this time from Postive Feedback Online :-

>>> "Quotes by Jeff Day on the Schumann 7.83 Hz resonance device on Positive Feedback Online September 2008.

>>> "It's ability to make everything more natural, smoother and more musically lifelike was a big hit with everyone that heard it........ sensation of space opened up in the recording acoustic, notes decayed in a much more natural fashion, and the edge, grit and glare I heard became more tolerable and less offensive........ The sonic artifacts of the recording process (such as soundspace, soundstaging, imaging, detail recovery, and so forth) all had a dollop of naturalness applied to them so that they enhanced the musical content of recordings (like timbre, beat, meter, tempo, tonality and harmony). If anything, a listening session becomes energizing and edifying, and when a long nocturnal listening session was over I felt refreshed." <<<

Far more descriptive words in the Positive Feedback Online magazine !! In fact, I can't think of a better description of an actual 'PERSON being affected' rather than the audio signal being affected or the acoustic air pressure waves being affected !! Jeff Day's last sentence points so much to him having 'sensed' a 'reassuring energy pattern' i.e thereby experiencing less tension !!!!

As I said to Geoff, I am watching the Schumann Resonance device story and how the world of audio deals with it with considerable interest !!

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

>>> "Maybe the bottom line is that things are not as clear as we think?
The real world is more interesting " <<<

Yes, you can say that again !!

>>> "If conventional known principles cannot adequately explain what is observed, we must work much harder to make sure we are not mistaken that we have eliminated known possible explanations. If after we have checked and rechecked, and a given phenomenon is still not adequately explained, the we may need a new explanation. This approach is well-known in science. Many advances are made this way, when we cannot explain the data with the then current knowledge. That does not mean we quickly embrace new explanation when we might miss the ordinary ones that more adequately explain an effect. All I'm saying is that we should be careful when go to new territory - extraordinary evidence/approaches may be needed to prove it." <<<

I just wish others would at least START at that level of discussion !! Now, however, you have 'toned down' from JUST "extraordinary evidence" needed and you have now included "extraordinary approaches" needed - this helps in a discussion as it broadens it out from the limiting word "evidence". "New territory and extraordinary approaches" I like !!

>>> "But it's more likely the explanation is simple and not exotic, and especially easy to miss if we are biased toward extraordinary hypotheses than conventional ones." <<<

Jan is right, WTL, with his reply to you "Why would anyone with a logical mind be biased in leaning towards "extraordinary" hypothesis things when, as you say, simple explanations often suffice?" Why would YOU presume that people MIGHT be biased toward extraordinary hypothesis than conventional ones, surely as Jan says, intelligent people would look at a simple (known) explanations first ?? Surely you are not believing that such as Peter and I aim first and foremost for an "extraordinary hypothesis" before we have even tried all the known conventional ones ?

>>> "Regarding the no possible answers and the issue remains by anectdotal evidence, I don't think that there is no answer. I think everything has an explanation. We just need to find it. It has nothing to do with conventional or non-conventional. Non-conventional in the past have become conventional in the present, so there's no telling what may be discovered." <<<

A scientist cannot assume the answer." <<<

Of course !!

>>> "I do not necessarily accept apriori that conventional explanations are all there is. I am saying that those are the most obvious ones that could explain the difference, based upon what we already know. If those do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." <<<

>>> "If those do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." <<<

THAT is exactly what we have been doing for over 25 years, when what we already knew DID NOT explain what we were discovering !!!!! And, the last 25 years have come AFTER an earlier 30 years of working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!

>>> "Unfortuantely, most of the time when we're faced with what seems to be an unexplainable event or occurance, we look at all the usual places and nothing comes of it. We try to do all sorts of tests to find the problem." <<<

I have been saying that since day ONE. I have been saying that skilled engineers go through 'what I call a conventional check list' looking to see what explanation would fit what they are experiencing.

1) Is it anything to do with Capacitance ?
2) Is it anything to do with Inductance ?
3) Is it anything to do with Resistance ?
4) Is it anything to do with the dielectric effect ?
5) Is it anything to do with microphony ?
6) Is it anything to do with vibrations ?
7) Is it anything to do with static ?
8) Is it anything to do with electromagnetism ?
9) Is it anything to do with RF interference ?
10) Is it anything to do with ........... ? And so on.

If they find something from that list which satisfies them, then that is where they stay - satisfied !!

If nothing then comes along to challenge that, then that is where they stay. But, if something happens which challenges what originally had satisfied them, and what they originally thought was the explanation no longer holds water, then what ????

Do they sit down and weep ? Do they wring their hands in despair ? Or, do they do what you also say they should do - >>> "If those do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." <<< ?????? Do they look elsewhere, farther, deeper etc ?

Let me give you a hypothetical example of what I mean.

Say, you have a piece of equipment with a clear glass facia. This facia has some unsightly discolouration so you decide to use an old fashioned, non abrasive, remedy to clean the glass - you wipe it with methylated spirits. The glass is cleaned.
However, when you play that piece of equipment, you find there is now a distinct improvement in the sound. You, a skilled engineer, go through the usual 'check list' and the one from the list which gives the best explanation is that there must have been a problem with static on the glass, that that static problem had been interfering with the signal travelling through the equipment and the methylated spirits must have dealt with that (static) problem - hence the improvement in the sound.

Say this happened in 2001. After that, you cleaned the glass facia of every identical piece of equipment you sold. This went on for 3 years - you being completely satisfied with the original explanation.
However, one day in 2004, you noticed that an IDENTICAL piece of equipment, just sitting PASSIVELY on a shelf, NOT connected into the audio system, NOT connected into the AC mains supply - just sitting passively on a shelf had again the unsightly discolouration on the glass facia. You applied the usual methylated spirits to the glass facia with the usual successful results - the glass was cleaned. But, on listening to your (connected) audio system again, you realise that there has been a further distinct improvement in the sound !!! This time there is NO audio signal travelling through the PASSIVE equipment, NO AC power connected to the PASSIVE equipment, so how can the original explanation of "dealing with a static problem affecting the audio signal" hold water any longer ?
You are now left with an 'observation' - there is a further improvement in the sound - but with NO explanation as to why. You tell others what has happened !!

I repeat. This is a hypothetical example !!

Let us look at it logically.

If, in 2001, when you first experienced an improvement in the sound and you had a suitable explanation from within the conventional 'check list', you would NOT have explained hearing that improvement was because of "auto-suggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing", "needing to carry out the ritual of cleaning the glass" and so on. You had a SUITABLE explanation from your 'technical' check list.

But, as soon as you mention that you have got an identical further improvement in the sound by 'treating' an identical but PASSIVE piece of equipment in an identical way, suddenly 95% of people's reaction to your report would be "Oh, it must be because of "auto-suggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing", "needing to carry out the ritual of cleaning the glass" and so on. A completely different response from when you had an 'acceptable' explanation but regarding exactly the SAME equipment, using exactly the SAME treatment with the SAME effect !!!!!

Now what ??? Now how are you going to explain what has happened ??? You are going to have to do what you stated earlier >>> "If those (on the technical check list) do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." <<<

THIS is what happens in REAL audio !!!!

Another example :-
They have a tentative explanation for different coloured insulation material sounding different (because of different pigments in the plastic material somehow ? having a dielectric effect on the signal being carried by that cable). What they obviously have not done yet is to use exactly the SAME coloured insulation material which sounds the best on an active cable - but this time on a PASSIVE cable, (say) just dangling from a table lamp in the corner of the room and get an identical improvement in the sound from doing that. What price the explanation of a 'dielectric effect on the audio signal' now ? When there IS NO audio signal going along the passive table lamp cable !!!

What has to happen is what you suggested - >>> "If those (on the technical check list) do not explain all the issues, we need to look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." <<<

Different cables sounding different has STILL not been resolved after 30 years of controversy. Carrying out the freezing technique on numerous things and gaining improvements in the sound has STILL not been resolved after at least 20 years of controversy.
Applying a particular colour to CDs and gaining an improvement in the sound has STILL not been resolved after at least 20 years of controversy.

But, "looking elsewhere, farther, deeper etc" DOES NOT mean presuming:- it must be because of "auto-suggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing", "needing to carry out the ritual". !!!!!

HOW many anecdotal experiences have to be described, by HOW many people, over HOW long a period before people would be prepared to move away from it must be because of "auto-suggestion", "the placebo effect", "imagination", "audio faith healing", "effective marketing", "needing to carry out the ritual". ?? And begin to "look elsewhere, farther, deeper, etc." ??

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

Quote:
Chair:
Ethan Winer, RealTraps - New Milford, CT, USA
Panelists:
Jason Bradley, Intel Corporation - Hillsboro, CO, USA
Poppy Crum, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine - Baltimore, MD, USA
James Johnston, DTS, Inc. - Kirkland, WA, USA

Abstract:
Human auditory memory and perception are frail, and expectation bias and placebo effect are stronger than many care to admit. The result is endless arguments over basic scientific principles that have been understood fully for more than fifty years

"Human auditory memory and perception are frail."

Well, yes, in humans with frail auditory memory and poor perception skills.

Poppy Crum is a cool name.

He's a doctor, he probably owns $10k cables. Or, he's looking for a new version of "Gunsmoke" to try out for.

I suspect he's the non-objectivist on the panel who doesn't believe in DBT's and all that other BS.

There has to be at least one to make it a real discussion, right? AES wouldn't just talk to itself, would it?

Hmmmmm, the panelists' names look familiar. What was it bood-ha! was saying about removing someone's lips from someone's backside?

I thought RealTraps was now under one owner management?

Notice how it would appear it is those who suffer from placebo effect, auto-suggestion, etc, who seem to be causing the endless arguments.

Hey, James, are you going to be there to promote even more compressed and screwed with audio files since this states flatly, "Masking makes it difficult to hear artifacts even 40 dB below the music"? I guess that ends any discussion other than why audiophiles are such fools, eh?

Maybe there will finally be an explanation for how, if moving your head as little as 1" results in frequency response shifts, DBT's can be defended as scientific. I guess because it's also been decided "perception is frail" and that's all that needs to be - or is going to be - said about perception.

Wow! Reading it again, that's quite a bit of propaganda in one little abstract!

Oh that's hilarious! Bunch of old tecchies known to have poor auditory memory and frail perception skills (most especially the guy who's "teaching" the workshop!), not to mention extremely prejudiced and blinkered in their thinking, thus highly prone to expectation biases and placebo effects, get together in a "feel good workshop" to try to feel good about themselves for having poor auditory memory and frail perception skills, as well as being highly susceptible to expectation biases and placebo effects. So here is where they will project their own auditory weaknesses on all others, as well as their own intellectual weaknesses, and universally declare what is and isn't valid in audio, so they can feel safe and secure with their profound lack of knowledge of audio and its relation to human perception. Let me do a Kreskin and predict that what they declare to be null and void in audio by the end of the happy objectivist workshop, will be exactly what they always believed to be null and void! This gig is basically the conservative audio community's equivalent of the recent "tea party" protests in the State's conservative political community.

Just the abstract itself is hilarious!

"The result is endless arguments over basic scientific principles that have been understood fully for more than fifty years