Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification | Digital Sources Analog Sources Featured | Accessories Music |
Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | Analog Sources Accessories Featured | Music Columns Retired Columns | Show Reports | Features Latest News Community | Resources Subscriptions |
You've not seen the video?
"Strapped in" was one of the stars.
So AES has become the Heritage Foundation's and the CATO Institute's "Think Tanks" all rolled into one?
I suppose we'll see someone using their purported "evidence" to prove some point about how no one can actually hear anything because everything is always the same.
No, wait, that's already happened!. This is just patting themself on the back for invading audiophile forums with this BS.
Mich:
I don't know if you remember, Michigan, but I specifically mentioned to the public, and them, in past strings about one performing their own in home testing to check if one can actually tell a "1 inch" difference, or even 6" difference as they claim, for that matter. (Just sit, rotate one's head 1" or 6" either way and check for any sonic differences.)
Notice they carefully worded the statement and left out critical information that leaves the public with a false impression.
Cheers.
I've asked Ethan about what I call my "Comb Filter Filter," but he never really 'splained why we don't have a roller coaster of an experience as we listen, and why the character of a system remains intact as one moves about the room.
Now, I'm off to improve my bass by sitting not one, but two inches away from my usual presice exactly the same every time listening position.
Shocking, isn't it?
This is my impression of Ethan Winer, when you respond to him with a question or comment he doesn't have a good answer for:
Hi Buddha,
Good time to find out if they will explain, or whether they sidestep and perform the smoke and mirror tatics again.
Possibly due to the fact our ears feed our perception which is far more sophisticated than what a microphone can discern. Not that perception will be discussed at this gathering. Measure - measure - measure! Look to the machine for your answers. Good enough is sufficient!
Geoff, let's not get hung up on semantics. Conventional to me means that the phenomenon is explainable readily by the application of what is known. If, for example, a cable exhibits directionality, there may be a very conventional explanation, perhaps the impedance or construction. If not I could call it unconventional, if an alternate explanation is offered that is not based on current knowledge. It may turn out that conventional knowledge applied in unconventional ways would explain the directionality. We may differ on our understanding of what is conventional or unconventional, and that is OK. The main point is that I just don't know apriori where the investigation will lead us. Either way, let's investigate it carefully.
As for the arbiter, I really am not sure what you are getting at. Facts that come out from the investigation of claimed phenomena may have different interpretations. In this hobby, we generally decide for ourselves (rightly or wrongly). If you want to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, that's a different story.
The first question I have is how well were these investigated? Are you sure that there is no easy explanation, or is it easy to ignore the easy explanation? I don't know, because I have not investigated any of these. These questions neither preclude nor exclude any later explanation, exotic or not.
I do have direct experience with cable construction and the resulting desired directionality, and the difference between fuses and/or wires in the speaker line. I do have direct experience with the 'better' capacitor dielectrics when used in the signal path, as well as elsewhere, and the Teflon vs. PCV wiring in the signal path. In my experience with my system, these tweaks are wonderful, but I still have no good explanation *myself*, other than to rely on the experience of others who have investigated this.
The absolute level of the CD transport may have conventional explanation due to gravity and the disk vibration, perhaps. That's a place to start and may lead to helpful tweaks if that problem is better defined. What we got is an observation (anectdotal?) of non-level CD transport and audibility, I presume is what you mean. Now were those transports really not level, and if so, how much? When is the effect audible and when not? Is the phenomenon there for all brands of CD transports? Etc., etc. This is a phenomenon that I could try to investigate given the time. If I do, I'll let the forum know what I find.
Jan, instead of quoting your whole post which is quite long, I just say that I don't think that you and I are really disagreeing. I just think that we all should be careful with our investigations and claims. I know that we are supposed to report what our experiences are, and that is good.
Your quote of Henry Kloss is very appropro. So is the one from Werner von Braun to the effect that 'basic research is what I do when I don't know what I'm doing'.
Some of those tweaks may be explained by what we already know, or maybe not. If we cannot find a good explanation ourselves, that is where I go to a person more expert than I. These 'experts' are the ones that seem to do the peer-review for journals. Heck, I've even reviewed scientific papers from others prior to publication, and made corrections for the authors. I've found that really good research does not come in every journal issue. Many are small steps beyond the usual. Very few extend the horizon.
You mentioned Marsh and Jung. That was the impetus for me to try those mods. I took courses in electronics and as far as the simplification goes, capacitors are capacitors. Jung and Marsh said otherwise. I didn't believe it, until I tried it.
With regard to your question:
it at first sounds crazy, but cryo treatment is a physical effect and could have an effect - it is plausible, for this layman in the cryosciences. What do the experts in material science say? Maybe they never looked at audio sound with respect to cryo treatments. I don't know. I have to rely on those other's experiences. If the cryo treatment provides changes anything like the degree of changes from the capacitor dielectics of Jung and Marsh, I would say there is something there. And, I'd bet it is explainable in conventional terms.
May, I'm not implying that everyone does the jump to hyperspace explanations first. Of course I don't disagree with Jan's reply, I understand it. I know some who do jump to wild explanations, often because they do not have enough basic understanding in the first place. It's just to point out that if conventional explanation is complete, no need for exotic ones.
I have to assume that people are honorable enough to have investigated enough to make such claims. However, there still are the PT Barnums out there. Sometimes it's hard to tell who is who.
If one has not eliminated those 'problems' of auto-suggestion, placebo effect, etc., one must include them as possible explanations as well. It seems strange to me that if these phenomena have been reported and investigated for so long, and yet are not conclusively proven. Something's missing.
In my fuse vs. wire in the speaker line, I think that the phenomenon is real. Perhaps some cannot hear the difference, I can hear it as subtle but obvious, and others may say that the difference is night vs. day. Perhaps this difference in people may be one source of the controversy - not everyone will agree on the results. If so, and the difference is audible, then the difference must be measurable. Let's get measurements that define what makes it different. Then we can provide a direction as to which fuse tweak works best in what instances for the consumer to use as he/she pleases. This tweak is not expensive and the information can be provided essentially free in the forum.
How about this:
Since the microphone is more sensitive that the human ear, what's missing is the processing that the ear, nerves and the brain is doing. Suppose we mimick that processing process to some acceptable degree (I'm not sure we know how yet) in software after a binaural signal is recorded and evaluate how we interpret imaging, depth, heighth, etc.? This probably is still 'blue sky' stuff.
I have not heard whether the above has been tried anywhere, but there's reason to expect these measurements and modeling may actually advance the state of the art or knowledge. This is a way, hopefully, that the sciences can be used to assist in many ways, including understanding and improving our listening experience. In this sense, measurements are necessary. We can't just look at the meter as you say many have done in the past. This is my thought as going a bit deeper than just meter-reading.
More speculation - maybe we don't need the sophisticated modeling of the hearing process. Maybe the information in the two channels is enough to tell us what we want to know. The pan pots already place the image of instruments. There must be a wealth of information in the correlation of the two channels of stereo in hearing.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Geoff, let's not get hung up on semantics. Conventional to me means that the phenomenon is explainable readily by the application of what is known. If, for example, a cable exhibits directionality, there may be a very conventional explanation, perhaps the impedance or construction. If not I could call it unconventional, if an alternate explanation is offered that is not based on current knowledge. It may turn out that conventional knowledge applied in unconventional ways would explain the directionality. We may differ on our understanding of what is conventional or unconventional, and that is OK. The main point is that I just don't know apriori where the investigation will lead us."
"Either way, let's investigate it carefully."
Ok, let's.
Everyone is saying "let's investigate carefully" but noone is doing anything about it. If we wait for someone to investigate these controversial tweaks we'll be waiting a very long time. Who will step up to the plate? That is what I was attempting to say. As someone once put it, the most you'll usually get from a reviewer is, "Gosh, I don't know how this thing works but it does." Testing and explanations are like the weather - everyone complains about it but nobody does anything about it.
"As for the arbiter, I really am not sure what you are getting at. Facts that come out from the investigation of claimed phenomena may have different interpretations. In this hobby, we generally decide for ourselves (rightly or wrongly). If you want to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals, that's a different story."
But we're suspicious of the peer reviewer, as he is of us, no? Why would any manufacturer risk going through a peer review? Sounds painful. We need an independent group that is interested and capable and has the time and resources. Let me ask you, Where are they?
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The first question I have is how well were these investigated?"
The answer is hardly at all. Let's take the case of the Intelligent Chip, which, perhaps you were doing something else at the time, was the most talked about thing in audio for most of 2005. You know, the little orange thinggie you place on top of the CD player and let the CD play for 2 seconds. While the Intelligent Chip was hotly debated and even reviewed a couple of places, noone (other than your humble scribe) ever looked into the phenomenon in any depth. Well, there was one fellow who took his Intelligent Chip to a metallurgy lab to examine it under an electron microscope. When he didn't find any "quantum material," he proudly announced the thing was a hoax. The two PhDs reviewers for 6 Moons kind of looked into the chip's operation a little bit, but superficially. That's why I say (sarcastically) wait for NASA or the FCC to evaluate these tweaks.
"Are you sure that there is no easy explanation, or is it easy to ignore the easy explanation? I don't know, because I have not investigated any of these. These questions neither preclude nor exclude any later explanation, exotic or not."
I don't think you realize what you're up against yet. If you got your hands on an Intelligent Chip or a Red X Pen you would not be asking that particular question, "Are you sure there is no easy explanation?"
When someone (independent and with creds) gets around to explaining directionality, demagnetizing CDs and LPs and cables, and freezing CDs, cables and LPs and books, then we can argue about whether we think the explanations are correct or not, just like we always do, and whether the explanations are exotic or conventional.
"I do have direct experience with cable construction and the resulting desired directionality, and the difference between fuses and/or wires in the speaker line. I do have direct experience with the 'better' capacitor dielectrics when used in the signal path, as well as elsewhere, and the Teflon vs. PCV wiring in the signal path. In my experience with my system, these tweaks are wonderful, but I still have no good explanation *myself*, other than to rely on the experience of others who have investigated this."
I have not seen any investigation of directionality in wire or fuses, although I've seen some theories put forth causually on forums. Maybe the theories have merit, who knows? Will they pass "peer review," who knows? As far as I know, there's no requirement for peer review for any audio component or tweak, so most likley things will continue as they are. As I mentioned a few days ago, the manufacturer of one of the two leading high end fuses swore up and down for years that fuses are not directional. He only recently recanted. "Old beliefs die hard." -old audiophile expression.
"The absolute level of the CD transport may have conventional explanation due to gravity and the disk vibration, perhaps. That's a place to start and may lead to helpful tweaks if that problem is better defined. What we got is an observation (anectdotal?) of non-level CD transport and audibility, I presume is what you mean. Now were those transports really not level, and if so, how much? When is the effect audible and when not? Is the phenomenon there for all brands of CD transports? Etc., etc. This is a phenomenon that I could try to investigate given the time. If I do, I'll let the forum know what I find.
All good questions. The reason I include this level CD transport issue in the list of controversial items is because many audiophiles would probably say level does not matter because the Reed Solomon error correction routine will correct any errors that might result from an out of level condition. Other than yours truly, I don't think I've ever seen anyone mention transport level being an issue.
We're missing each other again. I meant "in the freezer" as in while you are listening in another room the wire is actually in the freezer, inactive, not plugged into any active circuitry and yet it's presence there would appear to affect a change in our perception.
Then let's take another example where measurements might not reveal what we are perceiving.
Indeed. I was being careful to level my CD transport like 20 years ago, I think. After ensuring the tt motor pulley and shelves the equipment were on were level. I probably didn't write about it, though. Maybe that's why it's not more well known. I thought it was already understood now among audiophiles that the Reed Solomon code itself is a major detriment to getting anything like decent sound off of a digital system (and hence the more EC being done, the worse it gets), with the introduction of Nova Physics "codeless", "read until right" Memory Player. http://www.novaphysicsgroup.com/Page13.html
In a decent room, there are enough modes that you don't get enormous perceptable changes. That really is the simple answer.
In a bad room, oh yeah, you'll hear stuff. (wince)
That would imply a very loose interpretation of, "If you move your head even one inch, the frequency response changes substantially due to acoustic comb filtering", is being employed to throw the posse off the track of honesty.
Either "enormous perceptable changes" do not occur or "the frequency response changes substantially" does occur. Could it be someone is playing with adjectives again? Kind of like "good enough" is all you need?
Or is someone just assuming we all listening in "bad" rooms if they are not covered top to bottom and side to side in refrigerator doors?
Geoff,
All interesting thoughts.
The result of all the discussion is that I try to look at tweaks in the usual way (science, engineering, ...) and try to get some information that can define or describe the tweak in a repeatable way, so that others can use it with more than 'I tried it and it works' information. You're right that many have not been thoroughly investigated, and I'm sure should be.
Specifically, I have not tried reversing fuses so don't know if anything will come of it. I did hear differences between different types of wire I used in place of the fuse. That has got to be related to the material and the contact conditions between the wire and the fuse holder, because of the relatively repeatable character of the sound for a particular type of wire. Don't ask me what the wires were made of as this experiment was nearly 25 years ago and I don't remember, other than it was two different metals taken from paperclips, about the same length as the fuse.
We should not be afraid of peer-review in most cases. Sometimes they can point us in a better direction, perhaps from a trusted colleague(?). Manufacturers who are competitors may not work out too well in this regard. But scientists do review each other's work before publication on an anonymous basis, even though they work on the same area of research, sort of being 'competitors' in a friendly way. As far as I know, this is done honorably. Asking a trusted knowledgable friend is one way to avoid egg on one's face for claiming exotic things and find that only a simple explanation is needed.
The only instance I am familiar with is that one should not apply to psychology graduate programs based upon proposed research in clairvoyance. Yet, this was said by a researcher who investigated some paranormal phenomena, and had observations but did not offer explanations. It's not looked upon as a something a 'true professional' would do, he would say.
More on the leveling of CD transports, has anyone tried to run the CD transport with the CD's vertically? Hard disk drives can be run either way, and the Nintendo Wii can be run either way, without apparent difficulty.
OK Jan. Thanks for explaining what I misunderstood. I can't imagine how that could affect the sound, but if it affects one's perception, then that's a different situation than tweaking the stereo system. Many things can affect our perception. I could probably get similar results with other things if perception is the key.
Sorry, I don't have the time at the moment to check out this site but will later. Sounds interesting.
Remember the YGA speakers (if I recall correctly) reviewed recently, where the manufacturer said (my interpretation) that if the measurements do not agree with what they hear he would refine their measurement methodology? My opinion is that things we hear or measure should agree, if both are done correctly. Sometimes something is missing in either one or both that cause issues.
I do get noteciable changes in bass response moving about a foot of distance. Not sure of the exact amounts, but those modes-caused issues sure can be heard. Larger difference if I move more about the room. It does not sound like large changes in inches of movement though. Then, every room is different.
Abolutely. I have engineer friends who work at Caterpillar Tractor Company, and other companies. One in the fuel system arena at Cat, clean engine technology with very low pollution. He works with fuel pressures that reach well over 25,000 psi (hope I am not giving anything away).
We were talking the other night and he stated he has yet to see the information gathered/theoretical "models" that are produced by the pencil pushers that are never correct. The point being that "models" are only approximations at best, so don't take them as gospel.
Cheers.
"I do get noteciable changes in bass response moving about a foot of distance. Not sure of the exact amounts, but those modes-caused issues sure can be heard. Larger difference if I move more about the room. It does not sound like large changes in inches of movement though. Then, every room is different."
Using a Radio Shellac SPL meter and test tone of 315 Hz, I found at least 30 regions in a small-medium size room that exhibited sound pressure levels 4 db or greater than the average SPL in the room. These regions of very high sound pressures are most obvious in room corners and at the first reflection points on the walls and floor, where SPLs can exceed 6-8 db above average. There are a number of high SPL "interference peaks" out in the 3-D space of the room. So, it's no wonder you can hear stuff when moving around the room.
>>> "In my experience with my system, these tweaks are wonderful, but I still have no good explanation *myself*, other than to rely on the experience of others who have investigated this." <<<
Regarding directionality in wires.
The following is not me being argumentative, it is me having a discussion. WHAT "experience of others" ? WHAT investigation have these 'others' done ???? As, of now, 2009, I don't know of any investigations on the directionality of wires. As, of now, I understand that although (such as) Naim are still marking their cables with arrows to show the preferred direction they should be connected into the audio system, they are still not sure as to WHY some cables show a preference for a particular direction. And, again I am sure, that if ANYONE would have done any investigations, it would have been such a 'technically savvy' audio equipment manufacturer as NAIM !!!!
So, WTL, were the investigations you refer to 'measurement investigations' or 'listening investigations' ?
I know the usual explanation put forward for the directionality in wires. A perfectly feasible one and one which would fit your criteria (i.e has a conventional basis).
Basic understanding. As a thicker gauge wire is pulled through a reducing die, to make a thinner gauge wire, as it emerges from the reducing die it is hot (because of the friction caused by reducing the wire to the next gauge). As that (hot) part of the wire progresses further away from the reducing die it cools, whilst the wire just coming out of the reducing die is now hot. So, a differential in heat is created along the wire, one part hot (coming out of the die) other parts now further away from the reducing die, cold.
That could explain a directionality in certain metals. Now, WTL, IF that directionality had an effect on the audio signal travelling along that particular wire, then surely that effect could be 'measured'. If ANY differences in the audio signal had actually been 'measured', then those measurements would, surely, have been shouted from the rooftops !!! If no measurable changes to the audio signal HAVE been measured but changes in the 'sound' have been heard, then what ? How then are you (is anyone) going to explain the differences in the sound ? It now gets even more complicated.
If you have connected a particular cable between the Joe Bloggs preamplifier and the Bill Brown amplifier in a specific direction which gives you the best sound (i.e direction A > B), then any explanation would - using your criteria - be a conventional explanation - it must somehow or other be affecting the audio signal travelling along that cable. If, however, you now have an identical Joe Bloggs preamplifier and an identical Bill Brown amplifier sitting PASSIVELY on a shelf - not connected to the audio system, not connected to the AC power, just sitting there, on a shelf and you connect an identical cable the right way round (i.e A > B) between those two passive pieces of equipment, you will gain an IDENTICAL improvement in the sound as you had when you connected the identical cable (A > B) in the working audio system !! Explain THAT with the conventional explanation of "it must somehow or other be affecting the audio signal" when there IS NO audio signal travelling along the passive cable and through the passive equipment !!!
The point I have tried to make, repeatedly, is that intelligent people DON'T 'gloss over' an effect because of bias, auto-suggestion, the placebo effect etc. Etc. Nor is it a case of 'people will believe what they want to believe' !! Believe me, audio engineers do NOT want to believe that doing something identical to PASSIVE equipment, in the listening room, and gaining an IDENTICAL improvement in the sound as they did when doing the same thing to active equipment. They would much rather it NOT to have happened !!!!!!! So, when it happens, it is not because they WANT it to happen !!!!
So, we are back to square one. In the case of the PASSIVE equipment, something is affecting the sound but it cannot be the audio signal being affected nor can it be the acoustic air pressure waves in the room being affected. What is now left is the human being who is doing the listening !!! This is where you next paragraph comes in.
>>> "In my fuse vs. wire in the speaker line, I think that the phenomenon is real. Perhaps some cannot hear the difference, I can hear it as subtle but obvious, and others may say that the difference is night vs. day. Perhaps this difference in people may be one source of the controversy - not everyone will agree on the results. If so, and the difference is audible, then the difference must be measurable." <<<
I also think the phenomenon is real. And yes, the difference in people may be the source of the controversy - I.e the difference in people and their different reactions !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The part where I disagree with you is that "if the difference is audible, then the difference must be measurable". Not if it is the human being who is doing the reacting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And as you have said, others may not hear the same things in the same way - they may react differently to different things. Nor will DBT listening trials answer that problem. Listening DBTs are usually conducted under the belief that it is either the audio signal which can be affected or the acoustic air pressure waves which can be affected. If it could, actually, be the human being who is the one being affected, then human beings being different will react differently or may not even react at all to certain things whereas others may have a considerable reaction.
Let me stay with the directionality in wires for the moment. If someone wants to conduct DB trials on directionality in wires, they will be doing so under the conventional concept that it MUST BE the audio signal which is being affected. The much favoured DB trial procedures I have seen described would be where all the audio equipment except the speakers would be in a separate room and the audio signal fed through to the speakers in the listening room. The wire under test could then be changed, backwards and forwards, (or not at all), at will, without the participants in the DB trials seeing anything, only hearing and detecting (or not) any changes in the sound !!!! But, you see WTL, if it is NOT the audio signal being affected, if it is the human being who is reacting to the presence of an induced directionality in a wire, and that wire is in a separate room, then there is nothing changing in the audio signal being presented into the listening room !!! In those circumstances, results of DB trials won't hold water. The people conducting them would believe they have followed strict procedures (which they would have) and would believe the results they obtained whether conclusive or nonconclusive - but the basic premise under which the trials were done would not be correct - if the explanation was that it was the human being who was doing the reacting.!!
Reacting to what ? Go back to the reducing die. With the wire hot as the wire comes out of the reducing die and, further along, that part of the wire is now cold, then a polarity could have been set up along (in) that wire. Could it be the differences in the specific polarity that the human being is reacting to ? I.e connected in the direction A > B is a 'good' reaction, connected in the direction B > A is a 'not good' reaction ?
You see, WTL, if it hasn't happened to you yet, then you can't possibly understand what I mean when I describe the SAME effect happening with the sound but on a PASSIVE object, not connected into the audio system and not connected to the AC power. When it DOES happen to you, then a nice, simple, feasible, conventional explanation will NO LONGER be complete, will no longer suffice.
>>> "I know some who do jump to wild explanations, often because they do not have enough basic understanding in the first place. It's just to point out that if conventional explanation is complete, no need for exotic ones." <<<
It is when you HAVE enough basic understanding and more than basic understanding that you can be aware when the conventional explanation is NOT complete !!!!!
>>> "If one has not eliminated those 'problems' of auto-suggestion, placebo effect, etc., one must include them as possible explanations as well. It seems strange to me that if these phenomena have been reported and investigated for so long, and yet are not conclusively proven. Something's missing." <<<
Of course it 'seems strange'. It SHOULD seem strange that these phenomena have been reported and investigated by SO MANY people, over SO MANY years, using SO MANY different types of equipment, in SO MANY different locations and yet nothing CONCLUSIVE proven. Yes, something IS missing !! But, it is far too simplistic to also believe that ALL THOSE people, over ALL THOSE years have just been influenced by "bias, auto-suggestion, placebo effect, etc.,"
>>> "I do have direct experience with cable construction and the resulting desired directionality, and the difference between fuses and/or wires in the speaker line. I do have direct experience with the 'better' capacitor dielectrics when used in the signal path, as well as elsewhere, and the Teflon vs. PCV wiring in the signal path. In my experience with my system, these tweaks are wonderful, but I still have no good explanation *myself*, other than to rely on the experience of others who have investigated this." <<<
>>> "I do have direct experience with cable construction and the resulting desired directionality, and the difference between fuses and/or wires in the speaker line. I do have direct experience with the 'better' capacitor dielectrics when used in the signal path, as well as elsewhere, and the Teflon vs. PCV wiring in the signal path." <<<
Join the club !!!!! Do you know why Teflon (PTFE) is the most favoured (from a good sound point of view) insulation material ? Would your explanation be to do with the dielectric effect on the audio signal; ?
You "rely on the experience of others". What 'experience' ? Their listening experiences or their technical experience ? If you rely on their 'technical experience', therein lies a problem. Who'se 'technical experience'? When even the technical people cannot agree !!
As evidenced by Bob Stuart of Meridian and the later Julian Vereker of Naim on the one hand (who COULD hear directionality in some wires) and the late Peter Baxandall (described by John Atkinson in 1985 as 'the highly respected electronics engineer') on the other hand who declared that 'no matter which way round wires were connected - conferred no sonic benefit whatsoever' and believed that 'single crystal, high purity, oxygen-free connecting cable was just a load of absolute hogwash'.
To quote John's comments from after attending the talk given by Peter Baxandall to the British section of the Audio Engineering Society :-
>>> "The sad thing was that, with Peter Baxandall having stated his beliefs with only the barest minimum of factual evidence, and having flatly contradicted the published views of some of those present in the audience, there was no question and answer session at the end of the lecture...... Peter Baxandall is perhaps one of the few engineers with the intellectual ability to be able to come up with some answers bridging the gap between what is measured and what is heard...... But he chose not to see it that way...." <<<
John concludes his comments with a quote from Arthur C Clarke :-
>>> "It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible " <<<
You say, WTL, that there will quite often be a conventional explanation for most, if not all, the phenomena which people describe hearing. Yes, there WILL be - UNTIL you do exactly the same technique and get exactly the same result but do it on something else which does not fit the original explanation !!!! Then, no amount of pulling, pushing, squeezing, stretching, bending the original explanation will get it to fit the new experience !!!!
THAT is why you can say:-
>>> " It seems strange to me that if these phenomena have been reported and investigated for so long, and yet are not conclusively proven. Something's missing." <<<
Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.
That becomes the question, doesn't it? At this point I would say you are depending on what you already know to get you somewhere but that somewhere isn't where you can see the end of the road. You're pre-existing knowledge says a cable in the freezer couldn't possibly be affecting the signal through the system or the acoustics of the room. Most of us would readily agree based on what we presume to know. But how would you test that idea? How would you be certain what you already know isn't letting you down?
Next what would you do to test whether it is your perception that is actually changing? I assume somewhere along the line you would want to get feedback from some other ears. What if 40% of those you had listen said they heard nothing while another 40% said they also had a change in preception and another 20% were unsure or wouldn't commit to an answer?
How do you sort through what is there and what is not or what is within your own perception and what is not?
Then I would ask you, in a situation as described above, just how much basic understanding of conventional knowledge is sufficient or even required to take that next step? At what level would you be considered well educated enough if what you proposed does not meet well with conventional thinking?
How often should we be afraid?
What is the risk when those who already agree conventional knowledge can answer all problems review an unconventional theory? How likely are they to talk only to themself and of their already acumulated knowledge?
Possibly you've seen the likes of Sheldrake or some other theorist called unreliable (at the most kind) or someone who reads a particular newspaper/magazine or listens to a specific commentator dismissed as uninformed because that source doesn't suit the partisan interests of those doing the dismissal.
Hi WTL,
I think it depends upon the peer group/organization. If it is an organization that receives funding from manufacturers/companies directly or even related to its expertise, I would be deathly afraid. Money speaks regardless of the denials. I would always suggest doing a backround check if possible.
"We should not be afraid of peer-review in most cases."
I suspect these might be a couple I should be afraid of:
New Scientist Feedback and Machina Dynamica
Journal of Acoustical Society of America, oldest journal of acoustics in America, published an article Oct 2006 regarding what they considered suspicious audiophile tweaks, most notably Brilliant Pebbles, Clever Little Clock and PWB products.
Abstract of article in Journal of Acoustical Society of America:
"Every branch of science attracts its share of cranks and pseudoscientists, and acoustics has been no exception. A brief survey of those who touched on acoustics is given with quotations from the more interesting or egregious examples. A contrast is drawn between the nineteenth century contrarian's quarrel with particular theories and the modern new age wholesale rejection of theory. This world-view is traced back to the later scientific writings of Goethe. Examples of pseudoscience applied to biomedical acoustics, architectural acoustics, and audio reproduction are given."
How can that explain directionality of cables?
A point of agreement. And if so measured you wouldn't really need to explain how.
I don't know about that. It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables. I don't hear any shouting about that fact.
Then you have a classic case of people percieving a difference when there is no change in the sound. To the best of my knowledge there is a documented cause for such a phenomenon, bias effects.
Bias effects is a legitimate explanation and is not terribly complicated. It only gets complicated if one does well designed tests to eliminate the possibility of bias effects and such tests suggest that bias effects are not the cause. Then it would get complicated.
We will or *you* will? It seems you are making a rather broad assertion based on very personal experiences.
The conventional explanation of bias effects could certainly account for such an experience. since that has not been ruled out it remains on the table and IMO the most likely explanation. If you are worried about explanations why not make the effort to eliminate the obvious before asserting unsupported alternative explanations?
It seems to me that intelligent people don't assume unconventional explanations are true while failing to eliminate conventional explanations.
Bias effects have been proven to have such an effect even under such conditions that the person actively would be against the effect. So you still haven't eliminated bias effects as a possible cause.
The "acoustic air preasure" is the "sound." Let's not fall into semantical arguments. Sound is what the ear picks up. Perception is what the brain does with the sound picked up by the ear.
Yep.
Maybe you are not on the same page as to the meaning of "audible."
Hearing and percieving are two different things. It is true that we do hear differently and we also percieve differently.
If done well they can certainly give us substantial evidence as to whether or not bais effects are causing the percieved differences.
Yes, such bias controlled tests are designed to determine if the percieved difference is one that is heard by the ear or percieved by the brain. If the actual "sound" or "acoustic air preasure waves" as you seem to like to call sound are actually the same then indeed they will not be detected in a well designed DBT. The "change" is in the human. Now you seem to be claiming that this change is not bias effects but some sort of other physical change manifested in the listener. If this is true then why would such effects disappear under blind conditions? If they don't then they should give us a positive result under blind conditions.
but that is true with bias effects. So how do you know this isn't just bias effects as opposed to some other sort of physical manifestation in the listener?
There is no reason why such a test cannot be done with the wires in the room so long as the subject is not allowed to know which is which.
How does the explanation of bias effects no longer suffice?
But you have yet to offer any compelling argument that that is the case.
Actually there is nothing strange about that. There is nothing about that that suggests bias effects are not the cause.
No it is not to simplistic. It is a very reasonable possibility and until it has been eliminated by proper tests it remains a reasonable possible cause.
That one what? That was not a peer reviewed paper.
"We should not be afraid of peer-review in most cases."
I suspect these might be a couple I should be afraid of:
New Scientist Feedback and Machina Dynamica
Journal of Acoustical Society of America, oldest journal of acoustics in America, published an article Oct 2006 regarding what they considered suspicious audiophile tweaks, most notably Brilliant Pebbles, Clever Little Clock and PWB products.
Abstract of article in Journal of Acoustical Society of America:
"Every branch of science attracts its share of cranks and pseudoscientists, and acoustics has been no exception. A brief survey of those who touched on acoustics is given with quotations from the more interesting or egregious examples. A contrast is drawn between the nineteenth century contrarian's quarrel with particular theories and the modern new age wholesale rejection of theory. This world-view is traced back to the later scientific writings of Goethe. Examples of pseudoscience applied to biomedical acoustics, architectural acoustics, and audio reproduction are given."
Ironically, you're the one arguing semantics. So I don't know if you're just talking to yourself again. I do know that you're not understanding what you are reading again. What's clear is you don't even understand the very fundamentals of audio, my friend. I think you should stick to make-up, and be more discerning about what debates you enter into. I'll teach you what you're missing here, but I haven't the time nor the patience to school the likes of you on all the basics. Without arguing semantics, the "sound" as discussed in the context of audio research, is not simply a reference to "what the ear picks up". The signal, which influences the "sound" produced by the device, can be changed in any of a million ways before it is ever heard by the ear via loudspeaker. The "sound" (signal) can be measured by an instrument and detect things an ear can't pick up. So now I hope you finally learn there is a very readily definable difference between the signal (sound) and the "acoustic air pressure waves" (<---- note how it's spelled) that come into the room. (And I'm not going into headphones here...). You can change the "sound" produced by the acoustic pressure waves (ie. room treatment) without affecting the signal. And vice versa. So yes, it is proper and correct to separate the two, in discussion of the "sound". When you overhear real audiophiles saying "Those speakers have a very laid back sound"; the reason you are so confused and wondering why they think the speakers have developed a set of ears, is simply because they are referring to the "sound" the device produces, as perceived (or measured). Any of this sinking in at all?
I've got time for just one more ignorant flub of yours. Again, don't be afraid to read up on a subject before you think to debate it with people obviously more knowledgeable than you.
So you really have no idea how the sound can change for someone, if there is no change in the signal; other than the only thing you have heard of and can seem to talk about; "bias effects"? So you mean they could be drunk, sober, have a migraine, slowly dying of fright, developing tinnitus, move their head one inch, hear the voice of Satan or simply build up ear wax, but in Scotty's world, the only "knowledge" you have of anyone perceiving a change in the sound of their audio without an actual change in the system's sound, is the omnipotent and unusually ubiquitous "bias effect"? Thanks. I think you've just cited a perfect example of why you and the rest of the lunatic fringe objectivists are a constant source of amusement, and never taken as seriously as you wish you were.
Then you've just excluded all serious professional societies.
Of course, "Money speaks" is simply false, but I doubt we'll ever separate sasaudio from his paranoia, any more than we'll separate his delusions about what is "mainstream" from the real mainstream, or understand why he thinks it's somehow evil to invent a perceptual coder and make the music sound better than it otherwise would have.
since you don't like me to break things down for you I'll keep it simple. Everything you just said is bullshit.
Good proof, Scotty!
ROTFLMAO!
Let's break it down. "We should not be afraid of peer review" "I suspect this might be *one* I should be afraid of" followed by a link to the article. technically yes you did. "peer review" being the noun and "one" being the pronoun.
Thank you for the clarification. but given that your stuff is all a big hoax I suspect you wont be submitting any such papers for peer review to any scientific publications.
Submit what? A paper for peer reviewed publication? Good call. They don't have a peer reviewed scientific journal for that sort of thing.
Surprise, surprise, look who responded. Now compare the sponsors of those organizations.
So you claim you can serve two different interests, those of the public and those providing money/positional pressures/employer. That is Interesting James since according to the IEEE, you have provided MP3, jukeboxes, media, all of which degrade the good existing digital signals. Can you provide one instance where you have actually improved the digital signal over what others have already designed? Please be specific.
I will bite. Are you now changing positions and claiming that IEEE, Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS) are not real mainstream science? I guess you are "mainstream" and these organizations are not. I guess we can see which master owns you by such a reply.
Compared to what? Nice slick two step shuffle James. James neglected to inform you that he, J_J/Woodenville, takes an existing digital signal and invents a way to degrade it, as mentioned by the IEEE. So it is "good enough" and no one will actually receive the best digital signal. Slightly different than what J_J just stated.
Is that the response, slick deceptions, lack of critical information provided, two step shuffle we should receive from those claiming to be "mainstream science".
Got any other type of dance you wish to perform James D. Johnston, J_J, Woodenville.
Surprise, indeed, now go look at the corporate members of any professional society. Go. Do it.
By your (paranoid) "standards" all professional socities are "suspect".
Your paranoia (or is it simple, outright lies on your part?) is inexcusable. You have yet to do your homework regarding professional societies, what they "endorse" or "approve", mainstream conclusions in the field, or, well, a lot of things.
What I have said is the mainstream. It's a simple, testable, verifiable fact. Anyone here can go look at the actual situation, as opposed to your twisting of facts, evasions, and apparently intentional defamatory remarks. Your failure to utterly capitulate in this regard again demostrates your failure to act as a reasonable man.
You are a defamatory, paranoid stalker.
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn't say it was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's break it down. "We should not be afraid of peer review" "I suspect this might be *one* I should be afraid of" followed by a link to the article. technically yes you did. "peer review" being the noun and "one" being the pronoun."
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was simply implying I wouldn't be inclined to submit to their review or test.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thank you for the clarification. but given that your stuff is all a big hoax I suspect you wont be submitting any such papers for peer review to any scientific publications."
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't be inclined to submit to The Amazing Randi's Educational Foundation, either.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Submit what? A paper for peer reviewed publication? Good call. They don't have a peer reviewed scientific journal for that sort of thing."
Why on Earth would I submit a paper or a product to any organization that makes fun of my products? Are you insane? Furthermore, why would I wish to submit a paper or product to *any* publication, even one that might be neutral on the subject? What possible good could come of it? That I get some sort of mainstream science credibility? LOL Just doesn't make sense. Anyway, what has mainstream science done for us lately? Why, hell, they can't even teleport something more than 3 feet, fer chrissakes. They're pissing into the wind.
To prove them wrong and win 1,000,000 US dollars? Seems like a perfectly good reason to me.
I suppose you're just in it for the good of music, then?
Doing the two step again, or are you having problems reading basic English. I also see you could not provide one piece of evidence to support your claim above, just the old sidestep/redirect tatic.
You are the one who replied to my previous general comment. No one forced you to respond.
Another personal attack and Notice he could not provide even one piece of evidence in reply to my comments last post, just a personal attack and the same old two step shuffle.
For those who did not read my last post listing these mainstream science organizations, he could not refute my comments that IEEE, Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS) are mainstream science. Yet he could say this about me.
So evidently he thinks those national organizations are not "real mainstream". If he thought they were, he could not have said I have delusions about what is "mainstream" from the real mainstream".
Notice also that James D. Johnston/J_J/Wooden could not even supply one piece of evidence that he has actually stayed status quo let alone increased the digital signal quality to the public. Not surprising as IEEE did not mention any either.
We can again see what master J_J serves, and it is not the public.
Why on Earth would I submit a paper or a product to any organization that makes fun of my products?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"To prove them wrong and win 1,000,000 US dollars? Seems like a perfectly good reason to me."
Yeah, right. Besides, I already know they're wrong. You can't cheat an honest man.
"I suppose you're just in it for the good of music, then?"
More for the entertainment value, something along those lines.
Really? Interesting. Because some of what I said were direct quotes from you. Admitting that everything you say is "bullshit", is at least the on-line equivalent of getting your ear out of your rear. Now, work on pulling the rest of your head out, and you'll be one good baby step toward an education, my friend. Then, maybe in, oh I don't know, 20-25 years, you'll be ready to actually have an intelligent debate on audio with me, or another one of our fine Sphile residents. One in which you don't just reply with the word "bullshit" and run away in fear, when you are losing points in the debate and can't advance in the discussion without making yourself look worse. Hell, if you could just speak with the conviction of experience one of these days, instead of simply parroting what others around you are saying or what others you've read are saying, you'll have impressed me.*
*Yes, even if its just to say "I swear, I can't hear a difference in anything!"
Hi James. Member me? Could you -- ("shut up, I'm asking him!")... sorry. Could you please let me know who you're talking to, when you talk in the third person like this, in your direct response to SASAUDIO? My friend says you're talking to any one of the voices in your head, probably the lady with the 52D cups. I say you're talking to God. Which of us is right? Someone else wants me to ask you if you're "Gollum", but that's just a stupid question, so I won't ask. (You're NOT Gollum, right? You just act like him, yes?).
Also, when you say you have "plonked" SASAUDIO, or put him on "ignore", and you've asked others to do so as well, and then you go back on your own "plonking" over and over and over... do you do this because you're kind of "not all there" and don't remember having put him on ignore in the first place? Or do you go back on your empty "threats" to put people on ignore, because you simply don't have the willpower to maintain any of your vows?
Also, how embarassing is it for you to have said you were putting SASAUDIO on ignore 53 times, then "unignore" him 53 times again, and to have people see that nothing you say means anything, even when you say you're "plonking" someone, in your usual fit of indignant outrage? We'll go for the "scale of 1 to 10" measure, if that helps a speedy response. Thanks! And have a good day.
Your pal Michigan.
Here are some direct quotes from you. "I" "am" "full" "of" "it"
Thanks for admitting you are full of it froggy
There are lots of things you don't know about, Scotty. Every post you make proves that more and more to be true.
You claimed to know all there was to know about the mechanisms of the Belt devices when it was clear you did not. You still don't even understand "mechanism" though you won't honestly admit so much when you are asked a direct question. You claimed to have read the Belt webpages when it was certain you had not - which you actually admitted when you repeatedly asked for information to be copy/pasted to you so you could be led by the nose to water. And, with your track record of dishonesty and fraud, I strongly suspect you still have not read the Belt webpages even though you once again claim you have.
As to, "It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables", you again prove your uniquely-dishonest-Scotty inability to stay with the conversation. Those who contend all cables sound alike if they measure alike have looked at cables and measured cables and found similar measurements and thus proclaimed "no difference". Yet others have contended, due to their own listening experience, that marked differences exist between cables which measure essentially the same as far as common knowledge allows.
If a cable measures the same one direction as the other, you would expect no change in sound based on what you've been told to think even if you are in your case simply too intellectually lazy to have ever taken the time to have experience with the real event or too incuriously apathetic to read why others feel that should be.
And yet being that intellectually lazy you, Scotty, somehow feel a total lack of possession of any real knowledge or any personal experience gives you the right on this forum to argue against those who have actually taken the time and made the effort to try something. You, Scotty, being that intellectually phlegmatic, feel your doing nothing, reading nothing and knowing nothing gives you a pass on even entertaining contrary opinions because it's easier to just copy/paste "bullshit". You once again prove yourself to be a complete fraud and a uniquely dishonest individual.
Getting back to the cables, many experienced listeners - including many on this very forum - suggest existing knowledge does not provide sufficient clues to all the questions that should be asked. Their curiosity (look the word up, Scotty, it's work but you might find something you've never come across before) tells them so based on actual listening experiences and not just from telling us what they know from reading (some of us actually read things, Scotty, things we don't always agree with because that is part and pacel of learning something you didn't already claim to know) or taking easy measurements. Even more insulting is the fact that since actual experience or thought is hardly ever on the side of the most partisan of shouters such as yourself, what they have been told to think (or simply accept without thought because it's easier not to think at all and copy/paste epithets do everything they need to stop conversation from moving forward) simply is not the truth based on actual experience.
You're sounding more and more like a birther/deather evenagelical here, Scotty.
See what you're missing here, Scotty? Stop and think about it for awhile, I know you aren't the quickest on the pickup.
You haven't paid the least bit of attention to what May has presented here. Cables can measure one way and sound another - experience tells us as much when you actually take the time to do the experiment. However, you are very much like one (if not two) of the forum's most constant and fervent shouters, you don'need no stinkin'xperience 'cause you got copy/paste on your side! Facts escape you but copy/paste is your constant slave.
So the point is (pay attention here, Scotty, this one's important) "easy to take" measurements are not where we need to look for answers when so many hear changes yet measure nothing "easy" to find. Therefore, "It is easy enough to find measurable differences in different cables", simply reiterates May's point. It is not easy to find measurements that will provide clues to further questions when "easy measurements" do not provide ready or adequate answers.
Got it? It's a tough one for someone like you, because what you copy/pasted as one thing is actually another all together.
Take a minute to absorb that.
Done?
Good.
Glad we're all in agreement on that.
But you say you've not heard any shouting about measurements? That's not surprising in your case, Scotty. Not surprising at all. You don't listen, do you? Or read? Or think? So how would you expect to hear anyone else shouting when you're too lazy and incompetent to even hear yourself?
Glad we're all in agreement on that.
You are a copy/paste broken record, aren't you? It's been proven you know nothing about the Belt devices and cannot even so much as identify a mechanism but you fall back to copy/paste "bias effects" and "bullshit" as the only responses you can constantly shout in place of having an actual thought.
Since the bullshit you spout is too easy to knock out of the way of any real discussion we care to have - one such as May and WTL are having, an intelligent conversation where insults are not the basis for taking down the other side - we'll ignore anything you call bullshit simply because it is too easy for you to copy/paste the word without any proof or any thought. We know proof and thinking are not things you even make an attempt to produce. Copy/paste rules won't allow proof from you and require no thinking on your part.
So let's take your other copy/paste concept and explore where it takes us. Just for the sake of conversation you understand - and, Scotty, let's make this a civil discussion this time - why don't you answer one question?
Rather than "bias effects" which is a Frank Luntz type buzz word loaded with connotations one side uses as a hammer against the other let's call what is happening "expectation results" which I feel provides us with "friendly energy patterns". We can even assume the listener knows what has been done to affect a friendly energy pattern somewhere in the system/environment, and their preception follows that expectation for a change in their preception. IOW, they expect a change and a change results.
If that resulting change occurs every time the listener expects it should, what problem do you have with that?
The results are 100% in favor of the result when the expectation exists. What problem do you have with that?
The listener reports improved sound, more emotional connection with the music, more energy or being more relaxed at the end of the listening session - whatever it is they were expecting, they obtain those results. What problem do you have with that?
If the listener receives what they expected, what problem do you have with that?
Now, let's see if you can come up with a few complete sentences that make up real paragraphs, Scotty. Taking this post apart half sentence by half sentence will not be considered an appropriate response. You need to form complete thoughts and put them in place for discsussion of what you actually think - not just what you can copy/paste in opposition. If you do not or cannot tell us your position on this very simple matter, you will have failed at the easiest of questions that seek to find a real thought in your possession and you will have once again proven you are a complete fraud and a uniquely dishonest player with nothing to offer other than copy/ pasted "bullshit".
....Except you just finished saying that everything I said was "bullshit". Let me know when you've stopped contradicting yourself.
So much anger. So little substance. It must suck to be you.
Even a frog can get one thing right.
Brilliant, just brilliant. Just like all the other shouters.
Scotty, you got nothing and you're wasting people's time.
Pages