|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.68.30.45
In Reply to: RE: So... Styrofoam bad, Felt good! posted by rick_m on June 30, 2007 at 12:20:49
I love these kinds of questions, so I'll pretend you're sincerely interested and give it a shot, in my own opinions.
>>How about a short list, say twenty common household items with their "adversity" levels enumerated? <<
Would you like that double-spaced, and on heavy bond or will foolscap do? Should the enumeration be in roman numerals or arabic? I'll have my research team draw that up to your specifications, but in the meantime, let's just say that magnets, ferrite rings, batteries and bleach would be somewhere near the top of the list.
>>How does PVC compare with Polycarbonate?
Find out for yourself. Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate (if you don't have one handy, just smash a Celine Dion cd, and use one of the fragments. In doing so, you'll be advancing both audio research and the world of music). If you can hear differences, I think you'll probably find they both do sucky things to your sound.
>>Are there actually any beneficial things that we can strew about to help reduce the overall adversity? <<
Yes, actually. There are about a hundred of them here: www.belt.demon.co.uk
>>And how does distance affect adversity? To be safe, do adverse items need to be a meter away? In the closet? In the next room? In the driveway?<<
Do I get to move on to the next level if I get the answer right? I pick: the driveway (to be perfectly safe). But not the -car- in the driveway, no. Otherwise, imperfectly safe requires you remove the offending material from the listening room.
>>Speaking of removal, how do you tote up the layer count of bonded material such as plywood and other laminates? <<
Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good. How to tell which in the case of plywood? Well that's easy. Simply unbond the layers. I suggest using a high-powered laser for greater accuracy. Then once you've done that, you simply listen with one layer removed, and then replace the layer, to see which wins out. After the test, just rebond the layers. (I suggest using a high compression pressing machine, such as can be found in any auto manufacturing plant, and I recommend using the same industrial glue as was originally used in your plywood. Otherwise you may not meet up to the manufacturer's original specifications, which could void the warranty for the plywood, and/or decrease the performance)."silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Follow Ups:
> > More than four adversity ratings would be helpful, I suppose Zbeads and magnets have a high perm in common and batteries and bleach are both high conductivity liquids. Not a large enough sample to conclude much. < <
You're sniffing down the wrong trail.....
> > "Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate". Wouldn't the relatively large polycarbonate mass of the CD dominate the influence of the chip of material placed upon it and throw off the test. Why not just put the stuff directly on the player? < <
Well if you -must- know.... I suggested the CD because I knew that wherever you place the object, it won't be far from the CD logo. The logo is a 'hot spot', and a good place to test your "Beltist" sensitivity to things.
I can't say what polycarbonate fragments on a polycarbonate disc would sound like, as polycarbonate and PVC are not things that would interest me for testing. What is interesting? At the moment, its Ziploc bags. Specifically, the plastic from the bag. I started getting interested in the sound of the bag today (for a second time), after listening to its influence during my "Once-Removed Theory" test, which I wrote about here recently. One of my tests was to cut a small piece of the bag, and tape it to a CD logo. It's a good example of what I talked about, of objects being both "adverse & beneficial". While it degrades the sound no doubt, this Ziploc brand bag has an interesting characteristic in its sonic signature that increases the musicality component (making music more engaging). That doesn't happen every day, I can tell you that...
As for your PVC test, assuming you can hear the influence of the PVC material, then the switching with the polycarbonate fragment will tell you at least what the PVC sounds like, if the polycarbonate has no sound of its own. I think (to the keen ear) it likely will however, simply because of the location of the fragment.
> > Thanks for suggesting their site, I'll look for a list of beneficial stuff. < <
You sure do like lists, I note. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you won't find such a thing. You will however find some free ideas that will afford some opportunities to test out the phenomenon in various creative ways, and possibly learn a bit more about it, in a less abstract and more tangible way. Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to. As far as our senses are concerned, the object may be considered adverse or beneficial, but I think its more accurate to say they're a combination of both, and some objects might be (subjectively) more adverse, some less.
It gets more complicated than that, because the energy can be less or more adverse, depending on where that object is located, or whether or not you treat it. The idea behind the entire line of products that PWB creates is to treat adverse products, change their energy patterns, and create beneficial patterns from that. The closest you might get to a simple "list" that you're seeking is to read their discussion group and/or newsletters, and sometimes someone might talk about adversity of different objects in their descriptions of treating them. (ie. gas meters, breaker boxes, water pipes, clocks, mirrors, etc etc)
> > Now, the most interesting question: Why not the car? If the car is special, how far does it need to be driven to be OK? < <
Apparently, it's not the distance that matters, it's the car. While I haven't personally tested it, others have, and as I've come to understand, there's some morphic connection between car & house. That's why I suggested the driveway, but fwiw, when I am doing testing and I want to be sure that a "device" is not having an inlufence, I simply place it right outside the door (this I have done tests on). But you don't just go and move everything in your home that might be having an adverse effect on your sound outside your door, otherwise you'd be mostly living in an empty house. The audio system itself is going to have an adverse effect, (especially the speakers I'd imagine, as they contain large magnets). The trick is to deal with the most adverse objects, and that will win you the best results, on a sonic level.
> > Finally, you say: "Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good." So, does that mean it's not a reliable principle? < <
Oh no, it's a -very- reliable principle. It keeps coming up in everything I do, whether I want it to or not. For understanding purposes, it's comparable to switching polarity under conventional audio theory. However, I must admit I've not come across the "even good" phenomenon yet. Well I don't think so.... (Yesterday I was doing reef knots and for once it was the even number that sounded better. However, there's a small possibility that I may have lost count of one, which means it could have been odd). So if May has, then I would have to take her at her word. Which means that the rule can change, depending on what you are testing. Example, toothpicks may follow the odd rule, cherry Lifesavers may be even. As scientists have discovered in quantum mechanics, the phenomenon doesn't really care whether it makes sense to humans or not. It plays by its own rules, like it or not, and you have to adapt to them if you want to have even a hope of understanding it.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Hi, thanks for information.
I may be indeed sniffing down the wrong trail, but at least for right now it's really the only trail I'm interested in treading. It may not always be.
"Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to." You bet, however I take it that you are not referring to anything which I would recognize as energy.
I tend to believe that humans can have amazing sensitivity to small stimuli but I've yet to see evidence that we need to posit some magical form of energy to account for it. Historically we dump everything we don't understand well into a metaphorical pit we call magic. The scientific revolution has mostly emptied that pit now because once we understand how the items in the pit work, or at least can predict their behavior, they become respectable.
Sorry to wax philosophic here, my point is that in addition to enjoying home audio, I am keenly interested in what makes it tick. The only way I know to do that is to apply the scientific method. Since we invented it to help us with this very process, it's quite well suited. So now you see my reluctance to accept mystical explanations? If I do, I'm stuck in the pit!
Thanks for the input and I will indeed check out their discussion groups.
Rick
> > I may be indeed sniffing down the wrong trail, but at least for right now it's really the only trail I'm interested in treading. It may not always be. < <
Hey, your dime, your time. I'll just say that in trying to find a chemical or otherwise physically known connection between adverse objects under Beltist rule, without even having done listening tests (I presume...), is something like trying to find clues to the secrets of the great pyramids by listening to a Mariah Carey album. If you haven't yet established for yourself whether the phenomenon exists by doing the experiments, there doesn't seem much point in analyzing it beyond that.
> > > "Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to." < < <
> > You bet, however I take it that you are not referring to anything which I would recognize as energy. < <
I am referring to Beltist phenomenon, in which it has been discovered that all objects posess an energy field that human senses are sensitive to. Change the energy field, and you change the acuity of your senses (thus your audio system sounds better, your tv looks better, your wine tastes better, etc).
> > I tend to believe that humans can have amazing sensitivity to small stimuli but I've yet to see evidence that we need to posit some magical form of energy to account for it. < <
Don't call it "magical" because you can't understand what or why it is. I am not in the habit of wasting my time doing years of research on a phenomenon that doesn't exist, and fwiw, "magic placebo pills" do not work hundreds of times over, each and every time, with predictable results. There's plenty of working theory as to why it is.
> > Historically we dump everything we don't understand well into a metaphorical pit we call magic. < <
I don't. I don't believe in "magic" and I never did. I believe in what's real, and everyone has their own determination of that, according to their beliefs. Which may or may not be accurate (theology anyone?).
> > The scientific revolution has mostly emptied that pit now because once we understand how the items in the pit work, or at least can predict their behavior, they become respectable. < <
I'm not interested in what's "respectable" either, only what is real, to the extent one can determine such. Science has barely scratched the surface of what's out there, and there's a kind of arrogance in assuming that we pretty much know everything by now. As for the items in the Beltist pit, even though I may not fully understand how or why they work, I can predict their behaviour and have been doing so for years. Yet those items are not "respectable" to the people on this board, and science in general, which for the most part, has not done the same research. In fact, most skeptics -refuse- to do the research on the grounds that Beltist practices sound like nonsense, do not appear to be based on previously known principles, and haven't been scientifically validated yet -- so are therefore not worthy of investigation. (A position hardly "scientific"...).
So "science" is a crock o' crap if you ask me. Because you can not separate "science" from the "scientific establishment" which declares what is and isn't "science", according to those who adhere to "the rules" (of the "scientific method"). The scientific establishment is made up of humans, who have foolish prejudices, who make mistakes, who go down wrong paths, who have throughout history dismissed valid phenomenon (sometimes for political reasons...), etc etc. Yet people hold everything that's declared scientific as sacrosanct, and everything that isn't as "magical", "mystical", "metaphysical" rubbish. In another post, Stu talks about "Chi". I believe in "Chi", I have felt its effects in my body. Billions of people in the world have believed in and practiced ways of Chi for thousands of years. Does your "science" believe in "Chi", and is it "respectable" now? Hardly. Sorry, crock o' crap! I believe in the concept of science, not the religion of science, which is unfortunatley what you see being promulgated all over internet audio forums.
> > Sorry to wax philosophic here, my point is that in addition to enjoying home audio, I am keenly interested in what makes it tick. The only way I know to do that is to apply the scientific method. Since we invented it to help us with this very process, it's quite well suited. So now you see my reluctance to accept mystical explanations? If I do, I'm stuck in the pit! < <
ALL revolutionary scientific breakthroughs begin in "the pit". That's what we're dealing with here when we talk about Beltism, a revolution in science & sound. You're trying to take cheap shortcuts already, when you haven't even started on the proper path! That's why I suggested you start with the basics by trying the free techniques listed on PWB's home page, in order to try to understand that there is such a phenomenon that exists, and it isn't "magical", and its possible that others can hear what you're hearing. *Everyone* on the discussion forums tries to understand Beltism theoretically, before they even think of trying to understand it physically. That's not the way to go about understanding this revolutionary phenomenon. All you're going to understand that way, is how many prejudices you have built up over the years from what you were taught under conventional training and education. Those prejudices don't help you to understand this.
Trying to find chemical connections between adverse objects thinking you're going to come up with your own "correct" explanation for all of this will only lead you down wrong paths, and is a waste of time IMHO. (Especially if you haven't even researched the hypotheses PWB has put forward - which is far better fleshed out than any alternatives I've ever heard). I don't think you have any idea of the extent of the phenomenon. It goes far beyond mere "household objects". It touches light, water, language, nature, colour, shape, symbol... -everything!-. But if you are thinking about applying known laws of "science" to ruminate over a phenomenon, you should at least know the basics of it first, no?! I understand the idea of wanting to understand what makes something tick, but I also understand that for too many audio hobbyists, "science" becomes a security blanket, which they are afraid of being without. And because of that, science becomes a crutch, not an advantage, for such audiophiles.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments and insights!
Learning "what makes home audio tick" for me is understanding in more detail the subtleties of the electronics and how it affects our enjoyment. I've ran across a few things, and read about many more that I think would be fun to pursue, time permitting.
I'm sort of like the guy whose only tool is a hammer... Electronics is my field and I've spent a long career doing product design. Although I've never done consumer audio equipment I have worked extensively on technologically similar stuff which possess equivalent subtleties.
Actually I'm not as blind or unexposed to the issues being raised as I may seem. They simply aren't my focus. I am more concerned than I was that these other factors which affect the listening experience may add to the difficulty of evaluating designs.
I am a staunch believer in the scientific method, it works. It's a good technique. As for those who attempt to turn science into a religion, they offend both. I too find them annoying, especially those who fancy themselves "skeptics".
Like Stu, I seek and expect to find at least some, if you would, "scientific" explanations for my observations. I think we're all in the same boat, science is a tool we can us to help understand our observations, not a dogma that precludes them.
Rick
I believe you have a good philosophy that more ought to take up. Very often understanding a phenomenon may lie beyond the scope of any one individual, but others can contribute their experiences and knowledge and then the whole field can advance. Bickering does little to advance any cause.
While not a staunch numbers man (the attitude that I won't believe it until you can show me a test with numeration), there are many aspects to sound which are difficult to measure, difficult to communicate about, and difficult to resolve. The scientific method is not only necessarily creating a test or obtaining the instrumentation to measure something, but also understanding the principles which can involve an aspect of audio. Once having a theoretical understanding, then the tweak or principle can then be applied and the quality of the results, good or bad, observed. This in itself can help prove or disprove the theory.
Stu
Rick, you say you are interested in knowing what makes 'home audio' tick.
No one is asking you to "accept mystical explanations".
Can you see my reply to unclestu below?
Regards,
May Belt.
There are some interesting Eastern philosophies and beliefs in this regard. One of the foremost is the concept of "Chi" or "Ki", in Japanese. I met a Chi 'master' a couple of times through a friend. Interesting fellow, born and raised in the US, although of Chinese ancestry. My friend told me they met at the badminton courts, but after a short time no one would dare play against him. All he had to do was make a few 'funny' motions with his hands and you'd either miss the shuttlecock or stumble.
He demonstrated his power to me at his home: he had three of us stand in a tight triangle with hand stretched out over and under the adjacent persons but not touching. Then he asked us to close our eyes. Within a few seconds, I felt really dizzy and when I opened my eyes, he was simply moving his finger in a downward circular motion. My friend's wife was standing but her entire body was swaying in a circular motion.
In the conversation that followed I asked him about this 'power' and his reply was he thought it was magnetic in nature, because the effect would change if there was a strong magnet nearby. He also admitted that not all responded to his 'power'.
In another incident, I was talking to a Stanford graduate in medicine, an MD whose specialty was bio-electricity. This doctor was from Japan and I asked him about this unusual specialty and how he decided to specialize in it. His response was that he had trained in Jiu-jitsu as a child and knew all the pressure points. While all the other Western born students struggled with the concept, he recognized the locus of the electrical pathways as being the pressure points in the martial arts.
Interesting and because the human organism has many varied responses, sensitivities, and variations, it would behoove all of us to look at things in a different light. There may be many alternate explanations than having to resort to mysticism, even though meaningful measurements may be difficult to obtain.
Stu
> > > "I suggest a brushing up on physics basics. Electron flow and magnetism are inextricably bound together." < < <
I KNOW about electron flow and magnetism being inextricably bound together !!!
However, I think we may share some common ground. You list very many things which you can hear 'affect' the sound. I am sure you can double that list, even treble or more - as can I.
At least you are not moving in the world of "it must be suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing, effective marketing". At least when I say that this affects sound, and that, and that, and that, you do not 'throw a wobbly'.
Where I part company with you is that you believe that many of the things you list are changing the 'sound' because many of them affect the 'acoustics' - however small the object !!
I have a problem in replying fully because as a manufacturer 'posting' on the Audio Asylum sites I am not allowed to advertise our products - I am only allowed to answer questions or reply to comments.
You will also be aware of the numerous things which can have an ADVERSE effect on the sound but again, your belief will be that they are, to a great extent, having an adverse effect because of an 'acoustic effect'.
From over 25 years of extensive experiments I have to challenge that belief.
If you, for example, find that placing the "magic brick" on top of (say) an amplifier, over the transformer area, gives an improvement in the sound because it is dealing with (stray) magnetism, then if you remove the "magic brick" you will (obviously) reintroduce the adverse effect and the sound will be worse. Now, if you apply (say) a small amount of our Cream-Electret on the equipment case, in exactly the same position where the "magic brick" had been or, in the case of 'thetubeguy's' amplifier which has no case, directly onto the transformer, back will come the good sound !!!! Not by any stretch of the imagination could our Cream be 'adding any weight' nor could it be 'dealing with stray magnetism' but it will have restored the good sound !!!! So, there has to be another explanation !!!
This beneficial effect I describe, which so many people have experienced, will take place if the same Cream is applied in exactly the same position on the identical but PASSIVE amplifier - just sitting passively on a shelf !!! Again, not by any stretch of the imagination could 'treating' the PASSIVE amplifier with a tiny amount of Cream possibly have any effect on the 'acoustics'. So, there has to be another explanation.!!
> > > "As far as actually placing the brick on a shelf, several other manufacturers, (Enacom, Argent, Roomtunes, Shakti, Shun Mook) have effectively demonstrated that placement of anything within the room can have an effect on the reflected acoustic wave, however small." < < <
Yes, I would agree entirely with the fact that these things will 'affect' the sound but I disagree that the effect is an 'acoustic' one. Let me try to explain further.
One problem with (such as) our Cream is that once it is applied that is that - it has done it's job, it cannot be removed. So, particularly with the Cream, you are not able to do before, after and back to before experiments. Over 20 years ago whilst struggling to find a way to demonstrate the effect of our Cream with before, after and back to before demonstrations we discovered that colours are important. Change the colour, you change the sound.
So, going back to such things as Roomtunes. In no way do I challenge that Roomtunes can give a perceived improvement in the sound but your belief would be that this is because it is ONLY 'dealing' with acoustics. But, if you have exactly same Roomtune in exactly the same position in the room, made of exactly the same material but you change the COLOUR of that same material, you will change the sound !!! If you DO do this experiment and find that the sound changes when the only thing you have changed is the colour, would you actually claim that it is the acoustics which has been changed ?
Going back again to the effect of the "magic brick" and, (incidentally) the Shakti Stone (both are claimed to have an effect on the audio signal when positioned on top of equipment therefore improving the sound).
If you remove the "magic brick" or the "Shakti Stone" back will come the adverse effect on the sound - i.e the sound will be perceived as 'worse'. Instead of replacing either the "magic brick" or the Shakti Stone, write yourself a beneficial message and stick it onto the equipment in exactly the same place where the "magic brick" or the Shakti Stone had been. Back will come the 'good' sound. Not by any stretch of the imagination can the effect of a 'beneficial message' be because of it's 'weight', or because it is dealing with magnetism, or because it is doing something with the 'acoustics' !!! So, there has to be another explanation !!!
I would suggest you read of Dave and Carol Clark's experiences trying the 'beneficial message' technique. I included an extract from their article in my recent article in positive feedback online i.e "Myth, Mirth or Magic? - The Peter Belt 'Snake Oil' Fallacy." You can do your own experiments just as Carol Clark did, you don't need OUR devices to carry out your own initial experiments.
Now to the subject of such as Styrofoam.
> > > "Styrofoam has high amounts of static, check out those 'peanuts' your shippers use. Foam, which I wrote, can be fabricated from many different materials with various properties." < < <
Yes, such as Styrofoam has high amounts of static and yes, the presence of Styrofoam in the listening environment has an adverse effect on the sound - but again, the effect on the 'sound' has nothing whatsoever to do with static or to do with acoustics !!
Again, do a similar experiment as described previously. Leave exactly the same piece of Styrofoam in exactly the same position in the room (obviously still having it's adverse effect on the sound) 'P.W.B treat' it and you will reduce it's adverse effect considerably so much so that the sound will be perceived as 'much better' - WITH THE PIECE OF STYROFOAM STILL IN POSITION.
The Styrofoam and so many other man made materials are made of different mixtures of chemicals - chemicals which we (human beings) react adversely to. To name but a few.
Polystyrene, bextrene, P.V.C, polythene, polyethylene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon, acrylic, nylon, perspex, BAF, all manner of adhesives, paints, lacquers and so on - the list is endless !!!
To quote you again 'stu'.
> > > "In general, natural substances work better acoustically than synthetics, Maybe its because they are generally neutral electrically, but also because they have a certain amount of 'randomness'." < < <
You use the word 'maybe'. Do I detect a 'chink' ? Do I detect an uncertainty ? Do I detect that you are not REALLY certain why natural substances work better, that you are not REALLY certain why synthetics are not good ? When faced with all these questions why do you think Peter and I have done so many experiments, over so many years - surely to TRY to find out why !!!
> > > "The one thing I will say in parting is that the human body's sensitivity is quite astonishing, although not every one shares that sensitivity." < < <
You can say that again, and again, and again. The more you say it, the more you might be prepared to investigate it more thoroughly.
You are already so far along the path 'stu', you are already aware of so many things which can 'affect the sound' - which others are not !!
With your latest description. If you had been listening to music at the same time as the friend was doing his demonstration of Chi, the 'sound' would have been changing !! NOT because the acoustics had been changing but because YOU had been changing !!! I have explained in earlier 'postings' how even telling (or thinking) a lie will spoil the 'sound' for everyone who is listening in the room.
It is really refreshing to see someone (join the club) saying :-
> > > "Interesting and because the human organism has many varied responses, sensitivities, and variations, it would behoove all of us to look at things in a different light. There may be many alternate explanations than having to resort to mysticism, even though meaningful measurements may be difficult to obtain." < < <
We DON'T have to resort to mysticism we just have to study the human being more !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
First, I try not to post anything on tweaks, or products I have not personally tried for myself. I have not tried nor analyzed your electret cream so I will not comment nor even attempt any intellectual exercise as to their function, because it would be patently unfair to assess judgement with out experimentation, both on my part and for your sake (in order to be truly objective).
In the case of the Shaktis, VPI bricks, and even the Shun Mook discs I have fairly extensive experience with them all and have analyzed, x-rayed, and even taken them apart to examine their inner workings. Ben Piazza of Shakti has a patent on his designs. The workings and explanations definitely lie in the realm of hard basic science.
Now my reference to things like Chi does not mean that I believe that this force is something mystical. There is a science behind it even though we may not understand the true causality as of yet. I try to keep my thinking open even though I may lack the instrumentation or the procedure to measure exactly what is going on.
Again please do not infer that because I say one thing about a VPI brick, and I must add I have talked to Harry Weisfield about the product, that my comments must necessarily reflect on all the products that you manufacture. My comments are purely about the product specifically mentioned.
The only product of yours that I have analyzed is a piece of the 'rainbow foil'. I find that I can duplicate it's effect on my own and extremely cheaply, I may add, but I do not print what process I employ (you may have some other process, but IMHE, the effect is the same or at least 99% as effective, at least judging from a comparison to a sample a friend obtained from your company) because I feel, ethically, it would be unfair for your company and father who have first brought it to attention.
Here, I suspect the foil is actually working on small amounts of RF and the foil itself is acting almost as a constrained layer dampening for the RF absorbed, dissipating that energy absorbed. The amounts are very small, but can be noticeable to at least a few individuals (sensitivities and awareness vary widely, as you well know).
The experimentation with placement and such convince me so, although I lack the instrumentation to verify this. In addition, a customer who lives in a high rise apartment facing several radio and television transmitting towers reports a complete reduction of RF on his TT after installing an aluminized mylar window tint. The process to manufacture the window tint is similar to the one used for the foil.
I use the word maybe in speaking of natural substances, because, quite simply I have not tried everything out there. Since the statement implies an assumption on my part, I would rather not be so dogmatic about it veracity.
If you have experimented with the Combak (Enacom) plastic stick ons which you place in the corners of a room you will understand what I mean about acoustics. It works in a similar manner to the Corner tunes Mike Green sells but is much, much smaller and thus significantly more unobtrusive.
I took a more direct approach and simply eliminated the corners of my older sound room using drywall. The effects are extremely similar, but obviously an A-B comparison is not really possible.
I am very much aware of the change in properties imparted by dye lots, which essentially are contaminants. I have made numerous posts about the color of electrical insulation, and the changes in both electrical and mechanical properties imparted by the dye lots. The same observations also apply to your advocating, what was it?, red zip ties. Again I do not post any thing about increasing the effect out of respect to your original research. as it were.
I make no claim about being first in the matter of dye lots, as Stan Warren pointed this factor out to me almost 20 years ago. I struggled with the concept and an explanation for many years until a painter pointed out to me that most paints are bases to which dye lots are added. He then proceeded to detail the chemical composition of those dye lots.
Mysteries are that until a logical explanation can be found and then experimented with to verify. In the case of the wire, I found a manufacturer who was willing to provide samples in various colors (8, IIRC), and helped my experimentation significantly, particularly since the insulation all used the same base plastic.
Now, I firmly believe that while science may not have all the explanations readily at hand, it can be applied in order to understand the workings of many things. It may not be as romantic, but for the most part, it is not mystical. Again, I have not examined, nor do I claim to be an expert in all things, so I can not say anything definitively. I can make some generalizations, but that may not be universally applicable as I have not tried everything out there.
The one thing that is amazing, is that human sensitivities can be trained, and recognition and awareness can be enhanced, if you desire it. You can not conceptualize riding a bicycle and simply jump on one and expect to ride like a pro. The same applies with something like drinking a mug of beer: it is only after a lot of practice will you discern differences in taste and such. If that is what you mean in terms of 'affecting your mind', then we are on the same page.
Stu
To be honest, I don't know what I am, perhaps interested but not sincere... Clearly I'm interested enough to read posts about it and thus appreciate your input which has raised some questions, to wit:
More than four adversity ratings would be helpful, I suppose Zbeads and magnets have a high perm in common and batteries and bleach are both high conductivity liquids. Not a large enough sample to conclude much.
"Place a small piece of PVC on a compact disk (outside of a cd player), and then compare with a small piece of polycarbonate". Wouldn't the relatively large polycarbonate mass of the CD dominate the influence of the chip of material placed upon it and throw off the test. Why not just put the stuff directly on the player?
Thanks for suggesting their site, I'll look for a list of beneficial stuff.
Now, the most interesting question: Why not the car? If the car is special, how far does it need to be driven to be OK?
Finally, you say: "Odd good, even bad. Except in cases where it's odd bad, even good." So, does that mean it's not a reliable principle?
Rick
is shatterproof, hence its use in 'bulletproof' glass. I have dropped a few CD's and have had them crack: a clear indication that manufacturers are using far cheaper materials in CD manufacture. Among other properties, (high electrical resistance, part of the reason that plastic caps for binding posts were originally made using polycarbonate) polycarbonate when pressure is applied normally does not turn white as normal plastics do. The 'soft' nature of polycarbonate simply 'gives and leaves a relatively smooth, clear impression making it easier for the laser to track through small imperfections.
Styrofoam has high amounts of static, check out those 'peanuts' your shippers use. Foam, which I wrote, can be fabricated from many different materials with various properties.
In general, natural substances work better acoustically than synthetics, Maybe its because they are generally neutral electrically, but also because they have a certain amount of 'randomness'. Synthetic fibers tend to be mono filaments of identical diameters: natural silk and cotton, for example, will have slight but important unit to unit variations.
Stu
Hi Stu,
Well... I really don't know if CD's are pure PC or some sort of blend. As you point out PC has desirable optical characteristics similar to glass. It certainly acts similar when you exceed it's elastic limit. I had a defective CD that I decided to break in two so it could never plague me again. Well it had the last laugh, it was tough to get it to break and after I did I spent half an hour picking out slivers of it from the carpet. I suspect that the shatterproofness of bullet proof glass is largely a function of it's thickness.
I bet you've put your finger on it regarding "natural" substances being better acoustically due to randomness. That really makes sense to me. Especially since I believe that the primary coupling mechanisms are likely to be acoustical or electrical rather than a mystical energy field.
I find it amazing that audiophiles of all people would discard the most likely mechanisms if favor of mystical ones just on the basis of measurement difficulty. If there's anything that distinguishes us from 'normal' folks it's that we aren't very surprised to discover stuff that matters to our enjoyment that may seem unlikely at first blush. Often because the threshold level of the effect is far lower than one would suppose.
Regards, Rick
I have strips of polycarbonate which I used to use as fairing strips or as french curves when I worked as a shipfitter loftsman. A 1 inch wide strip of polycarbonate, 1/8 inch thick and three feet long was flexible enough to tie knots in it. At the shipyard, we used to put the polycarbonate in a sheet metal bender and bend pieces into right angles or even greater with no shattering at all (making custom covers for equipment and such). In order to make a 90 degree bend, we had to bend it way over, by about 45 degrees or so.
I believe many current CD's are regular plastic with possibly a very thin sheet of poly on the label side, although I definitely have had one CD where the only coating on the label side was the paint. That would explain why your disc was hard to break. But I do use polycarbonates like Lexan and Tuffax, for making adapters for chassis to convert from terminal strips to 5 way binding posts a lot. Never had a cracking problem working them drilling as well as bending. I guess you would be right, there has to be a limit to which it can take a bend, but I never approached it.
Stu
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: