 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: RE: Hand Cream and static. posted by May Belt on July 23, 2007 at 12:43:07
...that does *not* implicate a Belt effect? I mean, even just *touching* something, fer Heaven's sake!
Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect?
And finally, when one destaticizes a CD or LP electromagnetically (or with a Bedini thingie), no cream, no touching, doesn't that surely suggest a non-Beltian attribute?
clark
Follow Ups:
Now Clark, regarding your comment "Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect? "
Let us now look at the subject of double, triple or more explanations for a reported effect.
Let us use the example of a simple 'tweak' - tying a Reef knot in an AC power cable.
Tie a Reef Knot in a power cord of (say) the amplifier or CD player and listen. You will perceive an improvement in the sound (I have described what I call an improvement in an earlier posting). There can be many explanations given - such as 'something to do with EMI', or 'something to do with RF interference', or 'something to do with inductance' - those are just three explanations to begin with !! In other words explanations associated with 'something affecting the audio signal'.
Now, say you have a pair of Quad Electrostatic speakers just standing passively in a passageway or corridor outside the listening room. Tie a Reef knot in the power cables of the electrostatics - don't forget, these power cables are just dangling passively - not connected into the AC power supply - and then return to the listening room and listen again. You will now perceive a further identical improvement in the sound i.e even better height, width, depth, separation of instruments, resolution. Because nothing can associate the PASSIVE power cords of the Quad Electrostatics with the audio signal in the listening room, then other explanations will be put forward. Explanations such as 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing' or 'effective marketing'. We now have SEVEN different explanations for the same perceived effect !!
If you want to take one - RF interference - then any explanation to do with RF interference MUST be able to explain both what happened (to the sound/audio signal) by tying a Reef knot in the power cord of the CD player or amplifier AND with tying a Reef knot in the power cords of the passive Quad Electrostatics outside the listening room. The 'RF interference explanation' has to explain how the audio signal is affected and how the 'sound' can be changed. It does not make sense to have one explanation (say RF interference) for the effect of the Reef knot in the amplifier, a different explanation (say EMI) for the Reef knot in the CD player, yet another different explanation (say inductance) for the Reef knot in the DVD player, and yet more different explanations (say suggestion, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing) for the effect of the Reef knot in the power cords of the Quad Electrostatic loudspeakers !!! Yes, you can have a general explanation which explains everything I have described and that is 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing', or 'effective marketing' but if other people, present in the room and also listening who hear all the improvement in the sound which you hear but have not the slightest idea what you were doing or even that you were doing anything at all, then the explanation using such as 'suggestion' is not valid.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
Hope you had a good holiday!
I very much enjoy AA and the spirit of folks trying to actively improve their systems. While you were gone I also took the time to read most of the PWB website. I must say that I really don't see much difference between attributing a perceived effect to RFI, inductance, electrostatic buildup or an adverse energy field. Without further support the explanations are right up there with saying "the fairies done it".
Lacking the results from controlled experiments, or correlation with measurements and data, I bundle them all into the category of idle speculations. In areas where I have lot's of experience, and I do with EMC stuff, it's quite easy to tell if the conclusion is supportable by the experience. Usually the writer is merely speculating. They MAY be correct, it's just that it's not possible for anyone, including them, to know for sure based upon their methods and observations.
Not to say that we can't take advantage of techniques that work without knowing the why, explanations often lag practice. But we should be honest with ourselves when we do it.
Regards, Rick
...other explanations look very weak indeed. But if I may say, that's rather unfair!
Counterexample: If one aligns a cartridge more accurately to the groove and hears increased spatiality and less distortion, would *that* be a Beltist effect? Or if one replaces well-used tubes with new ones, would that?
See, we can both come up with examples galore. It just happens that CD treatments fall somewhere in the middle, which is what makes them so interesting. I simply am saying that you can not adduce Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects here -- anyway not until more, much more is known about how the damn things (CDs) work.
clark
PS I have seen on the market CDs that claim to have actual "healing" sounds or music (more likely, "music") on them. Maybe they've been treated?
> > ...other explanations look very weak indeed. But if I may say, that's rather unfair!
Counterexample: If one aligns a cartridge more accurately to the groove and hears increased spatiality and less distortion, would *that* be a Beltist effect? Or if one replaces well-used tubes with new ones, would that? < <
Speaking of unfair explanations! There are well known causes for sound improvement for changing audio cartridges and tubes. What is the well known cause for improving sound by tying a reef knot in a passive cable?
> > See, we can both come up with examples galore. It just happens that CD treatments fall somewhere in the middle, which is what makes them so interesting. I simply am saying that you can not adduce Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects here -- anyway not until more, much more is known about how the damn things (CDs) work. < <
You don't need to know how CD's work or even what a CD is, to determine the cause of the effects of hand lotion on CD's. All you need are 3 things: 1) Working pair of ears. 2) Listening threshold high enough to hear the effects of the hand lotion 3) My post in the hand cream and cd's thread, which I wrote days ago, that explains how to test if its a Beltist effect.
If you can hear the effects on a passive CD, it eliminates all other theories posited on this phenomenon. For, as I already claimed, **it has nothing to do with CDs**. The hand lotion tweak will probably work just as well on the battery in your remote.
> > PS I have seen on the market CDs that claim to have actual "healing" sounds or music (more likely, "music") on them. Maybe they've been treated? < <
Not with Beltist product IMO, as I don't see Beltism as "healing" anything, or purporting to do so.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...sort through the possible contributions of each element, particularly difficult in the case of CDs (or records).
clark
....Which has yet to be confirmed or denied by any other experimenters (who are able to hear the effects of the tweak on a playing CD).
It took me seconds to confirm this (and I admit I suspected it even before those seconds). Call me biased, but I chalk that up to experience. I do not believe the lotion has any destaticizing or demagnetizing effect, that is affecting the signal, so I do not believe that is part of the Belt effect. I believe it contains ingredient(s) we are reacting to, that affects senses, not signals. I don't believe it has anything remotely to do with van der waals force, EMI, RFI, or anything else posited within these forums. I believe people are looking in wholly wrong directions and at wrong objects (CDs, records etc) in trying to understand this simple tweak.
I believe the confirmation of my argument is easy to do, costs nothing (as opposed to the thousands of dollars some people's ideas will cost to test out....), takes a few minutes (as opposed to the weeks some people's ideas might take, in order to implement), and I gave instructions on how to do that days ago. (I do not however, believe everyone who does the tests will hear its effect. Too many factors involved to predict that. Including, as Isolation Ward's troll "rlw" has shown, "attitude". (e.g. If you're a good-for-nothing emotionally-retarded insincere tweak-bashing Godwin's law-breaking a--hole troll who's only intention is to disrupt discussions on Iso with fake reports of tweaks tests you never did, then chances are you're not going to hear anything from the test you never did, and will report accordingly).
I believe that if many people did the test according to my suggestions, the majority of those who could hear its effect, would likely find it is just as (more or less) effective on passive objects as on active ones. It's not difficult to eliminate the "possible contributions" of CDs or records, if you apply the lotion to, say, a battery, as I also suggested. You should find (theoretically, as I haven't tried this), that the sonic signature is similar. That will give you an indication that the effect in place has to (or fine, "is likely to" if you really want to be scientifically safe....) be derived from the same cause. If there were 2 causes affecting the sound (ie. Beltism and destaticizing), then the sound would change in two different ways. (Especially since nothing working under conventional principles changes the sound quite like Beltism).
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
s
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
re
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
In other words, what's the distance at which this sort of thing no longer works? Or, is it an ownership-territory thing?
clark
> > > "What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) In other words, what's the distance at which this sort of thing no longer works? Or, is it an ownership-territory thing?" < < <
Regarding 'Belt' techniques it is an 'ownership-territory' thing. We (human beings) are very territorial so regarding reading/sensing our environment for energy patterns associated with danger or reading/sensing our environment for energy patterns associated with reassurance then the immediate room we are in takes precedence - but we are still (if you like for want of a better phrase) 'keeping a wary eye/ear' on the other rooms in our territory - right up to our boundary - and the boundary is whatever we have designated as our boundary.
Regarding conventional techniques then if you are talking about the actual acoustics of a room, then these will be concerned purely with the immediate room. Having said that there is now (and really always has been but people in the world of audio have not been prepared to acknowledge this) some confusion as to what people are going to call 'conventional' !!
If you read an article published in 6 moons - Re Acoustic Systems resonators it describes the designer of the Acoustic Systems resonators demonstrating them to the journalists :-
> > > > When Franck reappeared, he admitted that he'd removed a resonator outside the room in the courtyard. So a resonator behind at least two panes of glass still influences the perceived sound. < < < <
Further quotes from this particular article.
> > > "But the strangest -- and for the likes of James Randi & Co. most nonsensical -- places to put a resonator was still to come. Franck asked where the refrigerator was. He placed a resonator inside on the bottom ledge.
Call us crazy, all you naysayers, but until you experience it, keep your comments to yourselves.
So what can we say about these little contraptions that when mentioned in audiophile surroundings cause a lot of eyebrow to wrinkle? Franckly, they work exactly as advertised. Maybe our homebrew explanation of how and why they work is not covering all bases but there is neither voodoo at work nor snake oil magic. It is pure Physics based on resonance distribution, partial cancellations and human perception.
With all these positive effects and our profound satisfaction with the results, the big question naturally remains. How the eff do these things work? One side of our brains doesn't give a damn. Of all things in life, science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work. < < < < <
************
The authors of this particular article admit that they do not know how the resonators change the sound but they believe 'there is neither voodoo at work nor snake oil magic'. They squeeze, stretch, pull, push, bend conventional explanations in an effort to try to explain what they have heard. But, what they write (and describe) in 2007 is a parallel to how so many audio journalists in the UK described their experiences with P.W.B. devices and techniques 20 years ago - and we (at P.W.B.) DO NOT use resonating techniques. We use other techniques but get similar results. So, how come we can obtain the same effect (an improvement in the sound) as the authors of the article mentioned describe if there is not 'something going on which cannot be explained from conventional electronic or acoustic theories' ? And, gain the improvement in the sound as they had by doing 'something in other rooms' ?
I will repeat again what the authors of the article referred to said because it is really so important.
> > > > "With all these positive effects and our profound satisfaction with the results, the big question naturally remains. How the eff do these things work? One side of our brains doesn't give a damn. Of all things in life, science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work." < < < < <
How true that is !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
...thanks for the explanation (if such it be).
clark
Hi, Posy.
I like rlw, and can understand the bar he uses for tweaks. He very understandably wants people to keep in mind things like "placebo effect" or "power of suggestion" when discussing audio tweaks. Asking us about whether or not we are fooling ourselves is an important mission.
He gets criticized for being eternally skeptical, but then those he criticizes claim infallability - who wouldn't be a bit skeptical?
He's also probably been around long enough to put two and two together when certain "experts" or "marketeers" pop in with self-serving scams.
I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion.
However, I really dig your posts and the way you discuss your experiences, too. Your posts show more thought and lack of personal defensiveness than any other 'guru' or 'salesman' on this forum.
I am even progressing through some cream trials this week because of you.
I admit to not being sure if you are for real, to tell the truth. If someone were to partake of this debate as a piece of performance art, I could see you as being capable of that. I know that won't sound right to you, I don't really have precise enough language to describe that feeling I get from your posts. I like your way of posting, but it seems so implaccable that it makes me wonder. Is that fair? Again, I mean no disparagement.
Since many of the main proponents of some of these tweaks have fiscal or social incentives to obfuscate on the impact of certain tweaks, it has probably made me overly suspicious of others, even when they don't seem to have obvious motives. I apologize if my cynicism about certain others kept me from being as open to some of your points as I might have been.
All in all, I think it's great getting to read your posts and I hope you keep at it.
Final note: regarding the creams. I want to have some audio buddies listen, can I have them audition blind?
Thanks but, I don't think I deserve the A+. It was pretty weak by my standards, I wasn't really putting my heart into it. Plus this is AA don't forget, and there are more secret police watching you than old mother Russia.
> > Hi, Posy. < <
Hi, Eno.
> > I like rlw, and can understand the bar he uses for tweaks.
You mean the long lead pipe he uses to bash them with? Maybe if I painted a GSIC chip on his forehead....
> > He very understandably wants people to keep in mind things like "placebo effect" or "power of suggestion" when discussing audio tweaks. Asking us about whether or not we are fooling ourselves is an important mission. < <
Important mission? Give me a break! Don't get me started... For one thing, it's a blatant waste of time for all involved, and an extremely patronizing attitude -at best-. RLW, like all other boring trolls of his backward mentality, do this just to be annoying. And they -know- they're being annoying, that's what they want to be. It's not up to any pseudo-objectivist troll to decide whether someone is fooling themselves or not, and there isn't a soul here who doesn't know damn well what a placebo is and how that works. They are not posting on Isolation Ward because they need some deceitful, disruptive troll with his big clowny head up his ass, who doesn't have the first clue about the tweaks he's trolling you over, to tell them they might be fooling themselves. All this does is create flame wars and divide the community. You can see this on Iso in the posts of rlw, bjh, SF Tech, powermatic, porky pig jr. etc. It's not a "service to the community" these anti-progress aholes are offering us on Iso Ward, and it's not up to anyone else to tell someone what they should spend their time or money on, in contradiction of what they say they might wish to spend their time or money on. That's just being antagonistic, and it NEVER does anything to further audio progress.
Finally, for those dingoheads who believe everything in audio sounds the same and everyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves, guess what? People also have the right to fool themselves. And that's why I support the right of such self-deluded fools to believe that everything sounds the same. I wish them and their boring audio systems long prosperous lives together.
> > He gets criticized for being eternally skeptical, but then those he criticizes claim infallability - who wouldn't be a bit skeptical? < <
And this helps audio progress HOW exactly?
Tweaker (posting on a "hard-core tweakers" forum, after his type have been rejected from all OTHER audio forums, including the Tweak Forum, for bothering the skeptics): I heard this thing improve my sound today.
Skeptic (trolling the hard core tweaker's forum): No you didn't.
Tweaker: Yes I did!
Skeptic: No you didn't!
Tweaker: Yes I did!!
Skeptic: No you didn't!!
Tweaker: Yes I did!!!
Skeptic: No you didn't!!!!
Tweaker: Yes I did!!!!!
Skeptic: No you didn't!!!!!
Tweaker: STFU!!
Skeptic: YOU STFU!!
Tweaker: No, YOU STFU!!
Skeptic: No, YOU STFU!!!
ad nauseum....
So exactly when are these "people" going to decide they're too old for this childish shit? When their arthritis can no longer argue this same tired old subjectivist/objectivist crap for decades over, and their eyes are too far gone to see the screen?
If rlw or other tweak-bashing trolls don't wish to believe me then fine, don't believe me. But STFU already, with your autosuggestion mantra. You're not gonna save my soul in the name of pseudoscience with your tired old arguments, you're just gonna make an ass out of yourself and an enemy out of me.
Anyways, my problem with rlw (so far), isn't his bible-thumping tweak-bashing preaching, it's his lying and deceit about tweak tests he never performed, only claiming he did to bash them, their adherents and their manufacturer. I've seen enough lying, tweak-bashing trolls like him in 20 years of dealing with pseudo-objectivist anti-audiophiles, to know when I'm seeing another one. And when rlw says "End of discussion", you know the troll is just getting warmed up....
> > He's also probably been around long enough to put two and two together when certain "experts" or "marketeers" pop in with self-serving scams. < <
Oh please... GMAB Pt. 2. I've never seen a "self-serving scam" from any expert or manufacturer on AA. The "self-serving scam" is coming from rlw, and other pseudo-objectivist bible thumpers of his ilk. Whether or not rlw is making money off his agenda doesn't mean his preaching isn't a self-serving scam. He's just like Jehova's Witnesses who rap on your door and suck up your time. They may not ask for money outright, but they're serving their ideological needs, in opposition to yours. It's a power struggle, at the very heart of it.
Typical of idiots like rlw, is that his whole belief system is something he entirely pulled out of his arse. It's all bad theory, that's all they ever spew at us. Whenever I question these fools, I inevitably end up finding out that they don't even have a fraction of the experience doing critical listening tests on tweaks that I do, and 9 times out of 10, don't even have a second of experience with the tweak's they're bashing. So they just don't get it and never will. In order to get to a point where you can understand whether something you heard might be an illusion or something you can have good confidence as a positive ID, you need -years- of experience doing a great many such critical tests listening to all kinds of audio phenomenon. It isn't arguing silly ideologies on audio forums that's going to get you there. But build up the skill to do that, and I guarantee you, placebo's will no longer be the big worry they are for those who only theorize about audio. While they might be something to be aware of, you will scoff at those who can't stop preaching about it after 35 years of experience in audio, even though they are still now where you were 25 years ago.
> > I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion. < <
I hope the troll keeps it on another forum. Otherwise, I'm gonna do my part and kick his can, wherever I see fit.
> > I am even progressing through some cream trials this week because of you. < <
Good. What kind, hand lotion or CE? Remember that less is more, but where you apply this stuff is important. CD logo's are a good place to start, even on passive (non-playing) CD's.
> > I admit to not being sure if you are for real, to tell the truth. If someone were to partake of this debate as a piece of performance art, I could see you as being capable of that. I know that won't sound right to you, I don't really have precise enough language to describe that feeling I get from your posts. I like your way of posting, but it seems so implaccable that it makes me wonder. Is that fair? Again, I mean no disparagement. < <
Sorry, I'm not following you. I only understood what you said about me being 'real', and indeed, a lot of people have accused me of being all kinds of things (and people), and questioned my motives in every possible way. But those who know me know that I'm quite sincere in the beliefs I espouse, and have no ulterior motives above that of any other audiophile on these forums: they include sharing ideas, beliefs and a desire to help audio progress. I don't speak for anyone but myself, when I do. I have a particular interest in audio tweaks, because I think that's where it's at today. You can do more with tweaks than you can with components.
> > Since many of the main proponents of some of these tweaks have fiscal or social incentives to obfuscate on the impact of certain tweaks, it has probably made me overly suspicious of others, even when they don't seem to have obvious motives. I apologize if my cynicism about certain others kept me from being as open to some of your points as I might have been. < <
Your cynicism is understandable, but you have to also understand that -everyone- has something to sell on these forums. Since no one is allowed to sell product, -all- are selling ideas. Some are selling Newtonian ideas, some are selling Beltist ideas, some are selling Maxwellian ideas, some are selling Johnstonian ideas, some are selling Clarkian ideas, some are selling ideas they scraped up off a package of corned hash. All would like you to believe them.
If you "buy" what the cynics try to sell you, then it's a sure-fire guarantee you will not advance in your understanding of audio, and your system will not advance either. Because in their anti-progress rants, they're saying "Don't try it, and if you do, don't believe what your own two ears told you! Instead, believe us, when we tell you it can't work. We know, we wouldn't fool you!". So you if you buy their 'wares', you have no chance of moving forward, only sideways. (And if you're anything like me and you actually heard their audio systems, you would probably never listen to a damn thing they ever told you for the remainder of your life). If you buy what the proponents are selling (on the pro side of the issue), who are saying "Try it" (free or guaranteed), then you have more options available to you from that choice. Then you -may- advance in your understanding of audio and quality of sound. Or you may not. That all depends on how the trial went, and what you made of it!
It doesn't matter what people's motivations here are, no matter if they are manufacturers or professionals or dealers or reviewers or just yer basic garden-variety audi-o-file. You're the one who should decide for yourself whether something is valid or not. And my argument has always been that you should do that by -listening- to it (whatever "it" is), and not just to what people say about it (good or bad). At best, people's opinions should only be guidelines. I will put a lot more stock in the opinion of someone who has actually tried the device or technique, than some loud-mouth who can think of 50 ways to tell me why it can't work, but really hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about. Even though he may convince those easily persuaded by technical aspects, that he does.
The hand lotion tweak we've been discussing is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is something I'd never heard of before, until Zanash mentioned it, and said he had tried it, and it improved his sound. Then you get your usual trolls (or "skeptics" as you quaintly call them....), mocking the idea they never tried, simply because it doesn't fit with what they know of the world. Snapshot of them mocking Zanash:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/isolation/messages/1386.html
So they try to discourage progress, try to discourage people from getting into it, by making fun of those that do. Since the only person that actually did try it got positive results, I listened to him, and found positive results myself (and I often reject other people's ideas for tweaks as unusable...). Plus, I (believe) I furthered progress on the tweak by identifying it's cause. Both of us (me and Zanash), did our part to progress audio. Isn't that what it's really about?? Remember that if I wanted, I can use this little tweak to produce incredible improvements in all of my audio systems. That's if all I do is multiply it by the number of CD's I have. Yet on the way to progress, I see more roadblocks. No sooner do I share my findings, when the "rlw" troll mocks me for doing so:
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/isolation/messages/1424.html
Then rlw decides to pull the same stunt he pulled on the Teleportation Tweak, by pretending to test the hand lotion (like as if we should now believe this rabid tweak-bashing troll could possibly suspend his disbelief long enough to actually do that), so he can rally against it. Which he later does in his loud, brash manner (making sure he will warn the people sleeping in New Zealand), screaming out "IT DOESN'T WORK!!!"
So if both Zanash (who sounded perfectly sincere in his initial post on hand creme) and rlw are both trying to sell me on their ideas, I think Zanash was a hell of a lot more credible than rlw, the screaming troll. Zanash sounded less like he was trying to sell me an idea (than rlw with his loud, insistent rant against the hand lotion idea), and more like he just wanted to share the idea, talk about it and learn about it. -That- is again, what progress in audio is about, and what these forums are supposed to be here for.
> > Final note: regarding the creams. I want to have some audio buddies listen, can I have them audition blind? < <
If you're asking me whether you and your buddies will hear the effects of cream (still not sure which we're talking about) under blind conditions, that's a big "maybe", or a maybe not. I can still hear such things under blind conditions, but I'm not a fan of blind tests, they can make identification of sounds significantly harder, due to the way the brain is behaving under this type of test. If someone starts with less than stellar listening skills, an effect that might be "relatively subtle" and thus not going to poke you in the eyes, and then adds the stress of a blind test, then I feel they are making things harder for themselves and might end up concluding the idea doesn't work, when under different conditions they might not. I would say try the blind test if you want to feel more confident you aren't imagining things, but try normal casual sighted test as well, to see if there's a difference.
Whether you're in fact talking about hand lotion or cream electret, I believe they work under Beltist laws, as I've stated. This means, you are better to do trials where you do not use copies of discs, and just listen to the same disc first untreated, then treated (the treatment should be as I previously advised, less than a drop rubbed into the CD logo on the disc). That first precaution will eliminate variances in copies. (You -only- want to listen to the change effected by the cream, and nothing else). Second precaution, is not to compare one treated disc while another treated disc is in the house. This is because a treated disc not playing will have an effect on the sound of the disc playing. For this reason, if you want to eliminate this factor, you take any already treated CDs (other than the one being used for the test) just outside the door of your place. (If your intention is to test the effect on only one CD). However, for this same reason, you can simply treat passive CD's instead of the playing CD, and if you don't remove any of them from the listening room, then what you are testing each time you treat a (passive) CD is the effect being increased slightly, in increments (it should sound better only after odd numbers of treatments, so you can do 2 at a time, if you are planning to test multiple treatments).
I hope that wasn't too confusing!
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Poser posits:Tweaker (posting on a "hard-core tweakers" forum, after his type have been rejected from all OTHER audio forums, including the Tweak Forum, for bothering the skeptics): I heard this thing improve my sound today.
Skeptic (trolling the hard core tweaker's forum): No you didn't.
Tweaker: Yes I did!
Skeptic: No you didn't!
The problem with this little charade, Poser, is that's not how I see it or call it. The Tweaker can hear *whatever* he like to hear, doesn't bother me one bit. I don't try to tell them what *they* hear. I do, however, tell them what I hear - or don't hear as the case may be.And *that* is what causes you to go ballistic. It bothers you to no end that I do not hear what you claim I MUST hear. Sorry, dude, I calls 'em as I hears 'em. Get over it.
"If rlw or other tweak-bashing trolls don't wish to believe me then fine, don't believe me. But STFU already, with your autosuggestion mantra."And there you have it, folks - Poser's having a fit and wants me to STFU. Not gonna happen, homes. Get over it.
"You're not gonna save my soul in the name of pseudoscience with your tired old arguments, you're just gonna make an ass out of yourself and an enemy out of me."Pseudoscience? You're the one slinging the pseudoscience about. Jars of rocks, hand creme on CDs, strips of colored aluminum foil, and on and on. It really is *quite* amusing.
And as for making an enemy out of you - like I care. You really wanna make this up close and personal? You already have my name - Richard L. Wainwright. Now make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep (Google me, I'm there) while runnin' yer big mouth - I guarantee you won't like the outcome of that encounter, little man.
"Anyways, my problem with rlw (so far), isn't his bible-thumping tweak-bashing preaching, it's his lying and deceit about tweak tests he never performed"
Well, there you go again, spouting off. I simply post that I do not hear the effects of these tweaks and he has a fit. Calm down, Poser, you're gonna bust a blood vessel and then you'll die and we'll all feel real bad about it. Heh, heh.
"The "self-serving scam" is coming from rlw, and other pseudo-objectivist bible thumpers of his ilk. Whether or not rlw is making money off his agenda doesn't mean his preaching isn't a self-serving scam."Oh yeah, I'm profiting *immensely* from these exchanges. I expect to retire sometime soon from the bucks I'm banking on this. If you promise to calm down a bit, I might even have you aboard my yacht, we'll party on the Mediterranean, dude!! No, you may not bring your jar of rocks or colored foils, I gotta draw the line *somewhere*.
"Whenever I question these fools, I inevitably end up finding out that they don't even have a fraction of the experience doing critical listening tests on tweaks that I do"Folks, I give you Poser Roarer, the most experienced Audiophile on these here fora. And he don't cotton to others laughing about that so-called "experience", no sir.
> > I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion. < <"I hope the troll keeps it on another forum. Otherwise, I'm gonna do my part and kick his can, wherever I see fit."
Bring it, little man...
-RW-
You kill me. You can bet that it's a slow news day on AA, because I actually got around to skimming this wild rant of yours. You remind me a lot of your counterpart, Richard Bassnuts. Except now instead of claiming to be threatened, you're making threats. And when you are making threats, you are one funny little troll, you are. With you foaming at the mouth like this....
"You already have my name - Richard L. Wainwright. Now make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep (Google me, I'm there) while runnin' yer big mouth - I guarantee you won't like the outcome of that encounter, little man."
..... you remind me of a little barking chihuahua doggie. One who overcompensates in his barking, when confronting the bigger dogs.
So then, Dick.... sounds like you don't like me "runnin' ma big mouth" about you and your phony tweak tests, and now you want me to "Google you", find out from Google where you live, take the time and effort to travel to where you live and show up on your doorstep, and then start runnin' ma big yap on your doorstep. At which point you will, quote, "guarantee that I won't like the outcome of that encounter". "Little man". Why? Please elaborate, I find this fascinating. Tell me, what are you planning on doing, exactly, if I live out your fantasy of showing up at your doorstep? If you insist I go to all that trouble to contact you, at least give me a good reason why I should. Are you planning on boring me to tears? Inviting me to look at your gay porn collection? Beg me to keep you company because you haven't been able to cope since your dog left you? Are you planning on showing me your Tupac-inspired tatoo, that says "Troll Fa Life"? Are you gonna put on a wig of dreadlocks and brown shoe polish and try to convince me you're a "gangsta from the hood"? LMAO! God, even Bassnuts had more sense than this, and wasn't as desparate to impress, as you so obviously are.
Yep, yours is the stupid posturing of a small geek dog, for certain. If you really wanted me to go after you, you would have already emailed me your address, instead of playing footsies with me and publicly demanding that I "Google you", in a transparently desparate effort to show everyone how castrated you feel. But the mere fact that you think I care so much about you and your verbal diarrhea as to actually travel hundreds or thousands of miles to find you and do you in (not to mention the minor fact that I never expressed any desire whatsoever to do so), reveals more than a few little defects in your personality. One, it shows that you're an egomaniac, who overestimates his importance in the world by about 50,000%. Two, it shows that you're a frightened little doggie, who barks first and barks loudest.... because he already knows he's too impotent to actually do anything more than bark. Three, it shows the depth of how insecure a man you are.... which must be the basis for your rancor towards tweakers and their tweaks. (While you pretend to feign interest by lying about tweaks you never tested, which is pretty damn pathetic in itself).
Speaking of your insecurities, I decided to humour you (slow news day, remember?), and Google your name. This may come as a shock to you since you think that the world revolves around you, but there appears to be more than one "Richard L. Wainwright" in the world. Which raised the question, which "Richard L. Wainwright" were you? Which name in Google represented the same lying, dumbass troll that tries to annoy people on audio tweak forums? Was it the "Richard L. Wainwright" who was afraid of SPIDER MITES? Was it the "Richard L. Wainwright" featured in the "Rogues Gallery"? Or are you the "Richard L. Wainwright" at the bottom of the first Google page, where it says:
"Isolation Ward
The troll's name is Richard L. Wainwright, and he's a cross one must bear, if one has any non-conventional insight into audio."?
Something tells me that one's you. No address or phone no., but I definitely recognize it as the right self-righteous Dick Dwayneright the Third. Of course, even if you attempt to identify yourself in Google as another "Richard L. Wainwright", how do we know you're not lying, as you are wont to do?
Speaking of lying btw, the word is "holmes", holmes. Not "homes". Some words are actually not spelled the way they sound. Isn't that silly? Silly but true. However, I don't think there's anything sillier than a white geek on a computer named "Richard L. Wainwright", trying to sound tough using ebonics that he picked up from teenagers on a bus, on the way to his job at the corrugated box factory.
Here, I'll even help you sound "tougher" for next time, so make me proud:
http://www.dolemite.com/ebonics.php?do_proc=1&look_in=B&options=word&search_term=
Now respond dutifully, as I know you are eager to, and we'll see if you know any other tricks, my little doggie friend...
"Richard L. Wainwright"! Geez, even the name is funny.....
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
You two should hook up, I'm sure you have a lot in common. Well me, for one. You're both touched in the head and have quite an obsession with me. You both declared you would ignore me, and like the Posey junkies you are, neither of you can do that to save your sorry lives. Sure is funny to hear you squawk about it though. You're both pretty slow on the uptake, so I don't think either of you will have a problem understanding the other.
What else? Well, you're both pencil-necked geeks that are threatened and angered by me, as well as (of course) being in denial of such things. Also, you both have irrational fears of audio concepts that you're both baffled by, a strong desire to attack anyone who advocates such concepts, and you both share a complete lack of experience in these subjects that receive so much of your collective derision. Which nonetheless doesn't stop you from pretending to know something about it, oddly enough. Plus, you both spew so MUCH BS on such a consistent basis, that between the two of you, I'm sure you junior trolls could figure out a way to solve half the world's energy problem.
So I'm sure you're gonna love rlw's post here. You can see by the sheer length of his latest Posey-rant that he went to a lot of trouble to impress me. Unfortunately for him, I never read his post. But you read it, and then he'll feel acknowledged and "important" that someone is listening to him. And isn't that what all lonely little trolls like you two are always seeking? LOL!
Have a nice day.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
You are certainly committed to your cause... And I salute you. You have taken the *long* way around!
Cheers
> > > "Counterexample: If one aligns a cartridge more accurately to the groove and hears increased spatiality and less distortion, would *that* be a Beltist effect? Or if one replaces well-used tubes with new ones, would that? " < < <
I get this all the time. People will keep giving me real, conventional examples from traditional audio thinking - things which follow strict and easily understood audio thinking. I am not claiming that everything which affects 'sound' is a Beltist effect. Usually people give the example of something like :-
Someone will describe how a CD would not play so they describe washing it carefully and polishing the playing side and then playing it. Lo and behold - it plays !! Of course it does. If the playing surface had gotten smeared or oily and the laser beam could not read the information correctly, then washing the CD would quite likely solve the problem !! This isn't Beltist this is straight conventional audio thinking. The examples you give are
1) conventionally mechanical,
2) conventionally electronic.
Another example from conventional audio/electronics. If the audio equipment suddenly does not work and you replace the surge fuse in the mains plug because it BLEW and - lo and behold - the audio equipment works again.
Or, if one has RF (or the hum of the AC mains) interference and one creates a metal (Faraday) shield (usually inside cabling) and the RF or mains hum is stopped - that is straight conventional electronic thinking.
As I say, I get this all the time.
I KNOW conventional audio and conventional electronics. I know all about resistance, capacitance, inductance, the dielectric effect, microphony, RF interference, vibrations, static, room acoustics etc, etc. I also know when an effect is likely to be a conventional electronic or acoustic effect. But I also know about numerous other things which change the sound which CANNOT be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories.
So, I don't think I am being unfair with my examples. Nor am I claiming "Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects" - the examples I give and the explanations I challenge are the ones I have particular experience with.
Regards,
May Belt.
> > > "Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect?
And finally, when one destaticizes a CD or LP electromagnetically (or with a Bedini thingie), no cream, no touching, doesn't that surely suggest a non-Beltian attribute? " < < <
Of course there can be double or even triple reasons for something's effect. But, at some point one has to come to some sort of conclusion or you just end up floundering about. As a 'professional in audio' one cannot 'flounder around', one has to at leasst have a firm basis (some good understanding) with which to work with.
But such as 'destaticizing' a CD or LP and gaining an improvement in the sound is believed that it works by doing 'something to the audio signal - doing something to the information on the disc'. It is when you do exactly the same thing - destaticizing or demagnetising PASSIVE CDs, LPs, audio tapes, video tapes, pick up cartridges, even (as has been suggested) audio cables - just present in the listening room - and gain exactly similar improvements in the sound - whilst playing another CD or LP or audio tape - that you have to ask "Just how is the sound being affected ?" That is when you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. That is when you have to begin to question everything !!
So, Clark, I ask you "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room ? How are you going to explain how the audio signal, or the audio information stored on the (playing disc), or the acoustic air pressure waves in the room are affected. ?"
Regards,
May Belt.
"What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room?" Well, that would be the elimination of static charge! As on a cable, say, where the electron (or signal) flow can/could be molested by residual charge in the insulation. Or as on a CD, where a moving (whirling) static charge can erect a magnetic field (a la Maxwell) and hammer (a la the Beatles) the coils that drive the laser, sending them into mild conniptions unanticipated by audio designers and the Redbook people.
I'm not denying Beltism, but as an ex optical systems engineer I always attempt to identify and isolate the variables.
clark
> > "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat
or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room?" Well, that would be the elimination of static charge! As on a cable, say, where the electron (or signal) flow can/could be molested by residual charge in the insulation. Or as on a CD, where a moving (whirling) static charge can erect a magnetic field (a la Maxwell) and hammer (a la the Beatles) the coils that
drive the laser, sending them into mild conniptions unanticipated by audio designers and the Redbook people." < < <
When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor.
My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound - i.e could affect the information on the (playing) CD or affect the signal travelling along the (working) cable. Your answer (re the cable) was about (signal) flow being molested by residual charge in the insulation. Surely that answer is to do with the 'working' cable - the cable carrying the signal NOT to do with the passive cable I am talking about - i.e the cable strewn passively on the floor - not carrying any signal !!
The question I asked was for you to give me your explanation as to how eliminating the static charge on a PASSIVE CD - on the table next to you - or eliminating the static charge on the outer insulation of the cable strewn passively on the floor could affect the sound of the playing CD or affect the signal travelling along the working cable or - the other alternative - affect the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.
It is when you can 'do something' such as applying a chemical to the label side of a PASSIVE CD or apply a chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable and gain an improvement in the sound that you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. THEN you will begin to question such explanations as "eliminating the static charge". That is all I have been doing - challenging such explanations !!
In exactly the same way that the explanation that the spread of cholera was caused by the Foul air had, eventually, to be challenged when one doctor removed the handle of a communal water pump and halted the spread of cholera in that particular district - even though everyone on that district STILL breathed in the same Foul air !! With further knowledge and further experience the original explanation was no longer valid !! The Foul air was still the same as it always had been, the cholera was still the same as it always had been - only the explanation had changed !!
I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism.
You say you look at things with the eyes of an 'ex optical systems engineer' so I would presume that you would explain the effect of marking the edge of a CD with a green pen as 'somehow dealing with the way the laser beam reads the digital information on the CD - i.e refraction or reflection of the laser beam'. But, when you can mark the outer edge of a vinyl record and gain a similar and identical improvement in the sound from the vinyl record then any explanation to do with 'reflection or refraction of the laser beam' is no longer valid and has to be challenged !! Ditto audio or video cassette.
Regards,
May Belt.
"When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor." Indeed. And I moved erratically from that, to non-passive. Sorry!
"My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound." OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?
But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
"I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism." Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way.
clark
> > > "My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound."
OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?" < < <
Because it alters the energy pattern (for want of a better word) which you are reacting adversely to within your environment. To enlarge on this. If destating or demagnetising something passive IMPROVES the sound, then prior to destating or demangnetising the effect MUST HAVE been adverse !! On you.
In other words, it is not the audio information which is being affected - it is the way YOU are interpreting what is going on in the environment. You are already being affected (reacting to the environment) before any destating or demagnetising is done and then being affected DIFFERENTLY after destating or demagnetising is carried out. If the sound after is perceived as better, then the effect of destating or demagnetising must have been beneficial !! To you.
> > > "But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
"I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism."
Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way." < < <
************
I have no problem with you being "kinda tricky about Beltism". I would say that that is many people's reaction. Intelligently sceptical but interested.
Let us look at your question re the Cream, the jar, the CD or cable and the room.
The room is the room - meaning that if the room was completely empty then the adverse conditions would be lower than in a normal everyday modern room Fill the room with all the things belonging to the modern world and the room becomes more hostile (for want of a better word) and because of all these things you (the human being) - programmed by evolution to be constantly reading/sensing your environment in order to 'sign it off as safe' - are no longer able to do exactly that - sign it off as 'safe'. So, you stay under tension - which then affects the way you interpret the sound information.
This is the discovery we made over 25 years ago. We had, over many years, accumulated numerous experiences of the sound altering where we could not explain those changes. If you like, look on it as having numerous random pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which do not fit together to make a recognisable picture. Then, gradually, other experiences (other pieces of jigsaw) present themselves until finally they all fit together to make a coherent picture. But, it is not a coherent picture which the world of audio is familiar with.
Some of the random pieces of the jigsaw were different chemicals changing the sound, different colours changing the sound, different shapes changing the sound, etc. What made it all begin to come together was discovering that one chemical we had casually used on a coffee table and which had ruined our sound was being described in an article about plants as a 'stress' chemical produced when a certain plant was under 'stress'. The picture that emerged from the random pieces of the jigsaw coming together was that it was us (human beings) who had been (subconsciously) reacting to that 'stress' chemical and gone under tension ourselves - which in turn had affected the way we were interpreting the sound information we had been listening to. From that discovery we searched and searched for what might be the opposite - a 'reassuring' chemical. Hence the Cream.
We then began to discover some of the 'tricks' (techniques) Nature uses and were then able to incorporate them gradually into our devices.
> > > "Wouldn't the presence of the Cream, just in the room, be sufficient ?" < < <
I wish !! You are asking a lot of a jar of Cream !! Although your reasoning is correct. If the Cream is providing a 'reassuring' energy pattern, allowing us to gradually begin to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe', then the presence of the Cream, in the room, could/might have a beneficial effect - in fact - some people can actually 'feel' the atmosphere begin to 'ease' before they even start to 'treat' anything.
Say, hypothetically, there are 1,000 things in the modern environment which are a problem (causing tension) for us, human beings - i.e not allowing us to relax, not allowing us to 'sign off the environment as safe'. You are asking a lot for the Cream, by just simply being in the room, to provide enough reassurance for us (human beings) to ignore all the 1,000 adverse things. But, having said that, begin to 'treat' with the Cream, the CDs, the equipment, the cabling, the different plastic materials (different mixtures of chemicals) the this, the that and gradually the tension eases, you begin to be more reassured, you begin to interpret much better the musical information which is there, in the room and which has been there all the time.
Let me take it out of audio for a moment and describe it by using a different example. Say a cat has peed in many different areas in a room, over quite a long time. There will be a dreadful, obnoxious 'cat' smell in the room. You ask me "Can the small air freshener you sell 'deal' with that problem.?" I would have to answer that you are asking a lot from a small air freshener to 'deal with' such a large problem - although someone MAY be able to detect a beneficial effect from just one squirt. I would have to recommend that the freshener spray is used in a few of the individual areas where the cat has peed in order to make a recognisable beneficial effect. I know that 'a cat peeing' is not a term used in the audio world but I see the problem in the modern environment (which we are reacting to) as just as adverse.
I also know that the example of the 'cat pee' is not brilliant (but it is the best one I can think of at the moment) because others in the room would be able to detect the adverse effect (the obnoxious smell) as well as you could AND, they would be able to detect when that adverse effect was being 'treated'. Where it IS a good example is that it can give one an idea of how there can be adverse conditions which will not allow you to 'sign off the environment as OK' until those adverse conditions in the environment have been 'treated'.
If you still stay with the hypothetical concept of there being (say) 1,000 adverse things in the environment that does not mean that anyone just 'treating' one thing would definitely hear an improvement in the sound. Someone 'treats' (say) 8 things, they may still not hear any improvement in the sound but, after treating two more things they suddenly say "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Yet a different person may have heard an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only 3 things !!! Again, someone may describe hearing an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only one thing - the CD which is playing. Someone else, trying exactly the same thing may hear no improvement but as soon as they then 'treat' (say) the AC power cord of the electric fire suddenly says "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Human beings are so diverse and their life experiences are so different and their reactions to different conditions are so different that it is difficult to guarantee what and where and when people will be able to hear improvements in the sound. They have to experiment for themselves.
The whole story is well known and has been repeated often - at least it is well known by people who are seriously interested !!
Regards,
May Belt.
I've been gone for a few days or I might have said more, and earlier.
clark
Good question!
How have people who have heard the effect of the tweak been reporting the effect of brining the whole jar into the room/house?
This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream.
That was an excellent point, Mr. Johnsen.
Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system?
Again, well done, Mr. Johnsen.
__
Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system?
> > This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream. < <
Actually, the question of the effect of the presence of PWB products in a room has been raised by otheres and addressed. I would know, I've responded to them numerous times. Maybe not right here, not right now, though.
> > Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system? < <
....But then, I'm not even sure if we're talking about the cream electret here (I assume that's what you refer to by "jar") or some unnamed hand lotion. Yes, certainly I have tested the effects of moving PWB products around the house, and in proximity of the system, and I'm sure that includes the jar of cream electret. AFAIK, all PWB products have an effect by their very presence in the house, particularly in close proximity to an audio system. Some more than others. In fact, I have tested the effects of the presence of these products in recordings that I make. "An effect" however, is not necessarily "the effect". What both of you should understand is the effect had by Beltist products is a combination of (at least) two factors: the product, and the object it's to be applied to. The "magic" starts when you apply the product to an object that has had no such previous application (and yes, it can continue if you apply it in stages over various areas of the product).
Usually, less is more, and this cream is effective at 1 micron thickness. What if you dump a pound of it on top of your cd player? You should not expect better results, but worse results, than if used effectively. It may not make much sense when you are looking at the problem with a conventionalist POV, but that's simply how the phenomenon works (and what it responds to). It doesn't care what you think makes sense to you. Look at what's happening when a jar of CE is in the room. A (relatively) large quantity, inside a jar (I dont think it matters much whether the top is off or on). The glass jar is sitting on an object (say, your desk). The creme is in contact with the jar. It's having a (relatively mild) effect on the jar (due to the quantity), the jar is (presumably) having an effect on the desk. This is all pretty diluted, as far as effects are concerned. In audio, you want to maximize effects. So the cream must be taken out of the jar and applied directly to an object, to create the real effect it was intended to create. And the effect is further maximized, depending on the quantity, the object you treat, and the location on the object.
> > Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system? < <
It doesn't NOT affect the sound of the system. So long as it's in your house, your system is affected in some manner.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
I'm working on auditioning some OTC creams this week and will report.
Cheers.
Let us have a look at the explanation to do with 'static'.
If you want to say that "Of course, getting an improvement in the sound by applying such as a hand cream to the label side of a CD is because the hand cream (the chemical) is 'dealing with' static build up on the disc." - then you have to describe just what had been happening to the digital information encoded on the disc BEFORE applying the hand cream (chemical). You have to try to explain just why you had not been able to 'hear' this additional information (giving the improved sound) prior to applying the hand cream (chemical).
Was the build up of static on the CD not allowing the laser beam to read all the digital information correctly ? If the laser beam WAS actually reading the digital information perfectly correctly then where else in the CD player was this information (which had already been read correctly by the laser beam) being adversely affected by the static build up on the CD ? Then, when you feel you have successfully explained that, this same explanation has to also be relevant for applying the same chemical to a PASSIVE CD - not playing and not in the CD machine and getting a similar improvement in the sound !!
Before I go any further let me explain what I mean by 'having improved sound' due to being able to hear additional information. I mean the working memory receiving additional information which allows it to create a better 'sound picture' to present to the brain. The better 'sound picture' being greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of instruments, better resolution etc.
Back to the subject of the Nordost chemical which is also claimed to be dealing with the build up of static. All the same questions asked above regarding CDs apply to the claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of CDs gives an improvement in the sound because the Nordost chemical is claimed to be 'dealing with the problem of static'.
Similar questions have to be asked regarding the claim by Nordost that applying their chemical to the LABELS of vinyl records gives an improvement in the sound (because the chemical is 'dealing with the problem of static build up'). Prior to applying the Nordost chemical what was preventing this additional information being read/picked up by the stylus ? If the stylus WAS reading/picking up this additional information from the vinyl record perfectly adequately, then where else on the turntable/cartridge/pick up arm was this additional information being adversely affected by this problem of 'static'?
Now to the question of applying the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables. Nordost claim that by applying their chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables, one can gain improved sound because there is a build up of static on the outside of a cable which is adversely affecting the audio signal travelling along the cable and their chemical 'deals with' this problem of build up of static. One has to ask the question "How, exactly, is this static on the outer insulation of cables having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling along the audio cable ?" When you think you might have adequately explained that, then this same explanation has to explain how applying the same chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable gives a similar improvement in the sound !!
All the claims so far have been about information stored on CDs or vinyl records and about the audio signal travelling along cables being adversely affected by 'static'. But, now we come to an even stranger claim. Nordost claim that applying their chemical to the outer insulation of AC power cables ALSO gives an improvement in the sound. That their chemical 'deals with' the static build up on AC power cables. One has to ask the question "How is a build up of static on an AC power cable having an adverse effect on either the information stored on a CD or vinyl record or travelling along an audio cable - when there is NO audio signal travelling along an AC power cord. Just what is being affected inside the AC power cord by a build up of static on it's outer insulation - which then, in turn, affects the 'sound' ?"
Even stranger. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric clock on the shelf or to a PASSIVE AC power cord just dangling from the table lamp (the AC power cord on the table lamp NOT connected into the AC supply socket) you will get a similar improvement in the sound as you got from 'treating' the cables belonging to the working audio system !!!!! Explain THAT !! Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cable of the table lamp can be affecting the 'sound'.
Even stranger still. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric food mixer, stored in the kitchen, you will experience a similar further improvement in the sound in the listening room. Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cord of the food mixer in the kitchen can be affecting the 'sound'.
I repeat. I am NOT challenging Nordost's (or other people's) observations that they have heard improvement in the sound by doing the treatments described. I am challenging the explanation that "it is to do with static". If this leaves many people with observations but without adequate (conventional) explanations then so be it - it will not be the first time in the history of science that this has happened !!
To be continued.
Regards,
May Belt.
build up on the insulation of a cable will manifest itself as capacitance. Supposedly that is one reason why most IC's have a certain amount of C which never really seems to be eliminated. Some cable manufacturers are using a conductive sheath in order to 'ground' this build up and lower the capacitance of their cables.
You could claim, instead, a reduction in EMI effect is observed and many explanations then fall into place, however small they may be.
Stu
...that a change is heard.
"It is when you do exactly the same thing - destaticizing or demagnetising PASSIVE CDs, LPs, audio tapes, video tapes, pick up cartridges, even (as has been suggested) audio cables - just present in the listening room - and gain exactly similar improvements in the sound - whilst playing another CD or LP or audio tape - that you have to ask "Just how is the sound being affected ?"
Well, if one does not hear a difference the first time (when the original CD was treated), and then does not hear a difference the second time (when a PASSIVE CD is treated) I suppose one could say that the treatment had no effect whatsoever, correct?
Or do you have to have a certain "attitude" in order to hear a difference? Surely, if the treatment has an effect that is clearly audible - as many of the Inmates have claimed, one's "attitude" should have no bearing on whether they hear an effect or not.
If one's "attitude" *does* have an effect, then you should be able to elucidate what the attitude must be and share that with us so that we can then proceed with an "attitude adjustment" in order to hear the effect.
I'll wait while you collect your thoughts...
-RW-
That is when you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. That is when you have to begin to question everything !!
So, Clark, I ask you "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room ? How are you going to explain how the audio signal, or the audio information stored on the (playing disc), or the acoustic air pressure waves in the room are affected. ?"
> > > "Well, if one does not hear a difference the first time (when the original CD was treated), and then does not hear a difference the second time (when a PASSIVE CD is treated) I suppose one could say that the treatment had no effect whatsoever, correct?" < < <
No. Not correct. All it means is that if YOU do not hear a difference on either of the occasions described, then you do not hear a difference. If others can hear differences on either or both occasions described, then the treatment works for them. All people can do is to try for themselves.
> > > "Or do you have to have a certain "attitude" in order to hear a difference? Surely, if the treatment has an effect that is clearly audible - as many of the Inmates have claimed, one's "attitude" should have no bearing on whether they hear an effect or not. " < < <
You (anyone) does not have to have a certain attitude - one's 'attitude' to the situation has no bearing on whether they can hear an effect or not.
There is something condescending and patronizing about your questions, your 'attitude' to me however. How many times, when others have described hearing an effect from some particular 'tweak', have YOU asked THEM "if you have to have a certain 'attitude' in order to hear a difference" - obviously implying that one has to be a 'believer' first !!
Regards,
"How many times, when others have described hearing an effect from some particular 'tweak', have YOU asked THEM "if you have to have a certain 'attitude' in order to hear a difference" - obviously implying that one has to be a 'believer' first !!"I'm simply trying to get to the facts of the matter. You say "attitude" has no bearing. Great, I suspected as much. However, Posy directly contradicts this, hence my questions to you. He does a lot of speaking for Belt effects and I figured it would be best to actually hear from a Belt on the truth of the matter.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Posy, you got some splainin' to do.
-RW- I can't *wait* to see Mr. Rorer's tap dance around this one...
> > > "I'm simply trying to get to the facts of the matter. You say "attitude" has no bearing. Great, I suspected as much. However, Posy directly contradicts this, hence my questions to you. He does a lot of speaking for Belt effects and I figured it would be best to actually hear from a Belt on the truth of the matter." < < <
*************
Methinks you are just being argumentative - you seem to be wanting to be argumentative over the word "attitude".
My reply was that you do not have to be a 'believer' to hear the effects of our treatments.
I, however, think that Posy, if he mentioned 'attitude', must have been meaning that if you have a definite 'attitude' of absolute disbelief, going into an experiment or into a situation, then that 'attitude' must play a part.
Just as if you went to hear an opera but went with a dislike for the composer, or a dislike of the particular conductor of the orchestra, or a dislike for the particular theatre seat you have been allocated - or all three - then it would not be surprising if you came away not having enjoyed the performance !! Alternatively, it does not mean that if you went to the performance liking the composer, liking the conductor, liking the particular theatre seat it would be guaranteed that you would enjoy the performance.
When intelligent people are holding a discussion, then such things are taken 'as read', as so generally understood that they are not mentioned, it is presumed (giving the people you are discussing with the credit of having intelligence) that it is already understood that such things take place so they don't need to be referred to or explained EVERY TIME.
Similarly, regarding the response "If you heard changes to the sound which we cannot understand, then it must be suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing or effective marketing." When intelligent people are holding a discussion, then such things as taken 'as read' - as so generally understood that they are not repeated over and over again. It is already understood (between intelligent people) that those are the FIRST things intelligent people will consider, then the second, then the third, then the fourth, then the fifth. Only THEN, after all those things have been considered repeatedly and found not to be the explanation, do people ask "What else can be going on ?"
Regards,
May Belt.
A direct quote from you:
"You (anyone) does not have to have a certain attitude - one's 'attitude' to the situation has no bearing on whether they can hear an effect or not."
And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints.
I am, admittedly, a skeptic. But, I can be convinced *if* I hear what everyone is claiming to hear. So far, despite repeated attempts, I have yet to hear any effects whatsoever, beneficial or otherwise.
I will continue to try the freebies and listen intently. If I do hear an effect, beneficial or otherwise, I'll report on it. I will *also* report when I try something and hear no effect. Posy and the rest can attack all they want, but they look childish by attacking the messenger because they do not like the message...
-RW-
...I have already proven this in another post on this forum, using quotes from your various "contributions" to these forums on this topic. You are again not being sincere with us when you describe yourself as an admitted "skeptic". I agree with what others say about you, which is that you are an -eternal skeptic- on the subject of what you have called "wacky and implausible tweaks". Not only do you, without provocation, attack those discussing such 'tweaks', but you attack those who merely express thoughts that stray from your most conservative views on audio. And while most naysayers are upfront about their hatred toward alternative audio, you do it in the most deceitful ways of any other eternal skeptic I've seen on these forums. I also agree with what others have said about you being a "devious troll". You only pretend to be interested in alternative audio concepts, to undermine all those (like me) who genuinely are, because what you really think is, it's all a "snake oil scam". A dynamite bomb blast wouldn't budge your true opinions on that, so spare us the phony interest you drum up just to disrupt the discussions of mature and sincere audio hobbyists, and put us off track.
Now as to the dross you wrote.... the first obvious question that comes to my mind is, if the record speaks for itself, then why do you need to put words in my mouth and twist May's around? The answer is obvious: you're trying to harm the reputation of PWB and anyone who advocates their products. That's why you're arguing semantics over what has become a key word for you, "attitude", which you intended to use as a weapon (as it seems May had already suspected about you). Perhaps May was basing her suspicions on this:
QUOTE:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rlw:
".that if you happen to disagree with Posy's findings - or fail to hear what he claims to hear, he'll immediatley cast aspersions on your hearing, your belief system, and your attitude. There is no room for dissent from the party line as dicatated (sic) by Herr Rorer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....where you used the word "attitude" as a weapon, comparing me to a Nazi. When I called you out as not only an insincere troll, but a most OBNOXIOUS and deplorable one for resorting to Nazi comparisons in a discussion about a hand cream tweak, your response was: "Not Hitler, you dolt, it's the Chermans, Tommy! How can we trust you for anything if you can't even get that right? Now get back in your bunker and take a timeout, young man. - RW".
Needless to say, I ignored you after that, so you then went to pester May Belt to get her to argue with you over that precious word of yours, "attitude". If nothing else, you going after May to explain something that **I** said to you, clearly demonstrates that you are damn near insane and not to be taken seriously. Particularly since my opinion on your attitude has nothing to do with hand cream lotion or her company's products (as much as you were desparately trying to make a connection here). It's a general POV that could be ascribed to anything in audio.
But even though you knew that, your transparent intention here was to try to convince others that none of her company's products work, because if people test them and find they can't hear changes, the spin you were trying to get out was that you'd be told you required a certain attitude to hear these changes. Hence the reason for this phrase:
"How can we trust you for anything if you can't even get that right?"
As deceitful a troll as you are Richard L. Wainwright, trust me when I say,you're not a very clever one. If you were, I would not have a problem giving you credit for that. But after twenty years of dealing with sewage like you, cement-headed anti-audio nuts who are irrationally hostile to tweakers, I've seen enough to know that you've got no game. The above is one of many examples from you of amateurish debating tricks I've seen many times before, that various lowlifes use when battling their ideological enemies on the net. It's not new, it's not original, it's not clever. It's only deceitful is all.
So as we continue to see, you go on with your little games....
rlw:
> > And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints. < <
"Most certainly" and the word "attitude" is being emphasized by you to "prove" the spin you're trying to shove down people's throats. Which is that there can be no dispute that tweakers will adopt a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position against any who claim they heard no effects (which in turn is supposed to prove your position that all 'wacky and implausible sounding' tweaks are snake oil, of course). Because the Richard L. Wainwrights of this world, and other such weasels, certainly wouldn't have people take the risk and find out for themselves. So you make yourself as much a nuisance as possible here, trying to do their thinking for them. Even though you do it in such an insidious manner. Here's an example of you dredging up a thread that died nearly a month ago, just so you could take another cheap shot at Geoff Kait, who's time and efforts you deliberately wasted, just so you could later have a plausible reason to take as many cheap shots at him as you could want to:
posted by Richard L. Wainwright on 07/25/2007:
"The Teleportation Tweak makes the Intelligent Chip look like real rocket science. Hold onto your money, son"
The first thing that came to mind when I read all this desparate trolling of yours on the word "attitude", is: "Well why do you care, exactly?" Why should it matter to you what my opinion is on "attitude" or May's? Yet it mattered -so much-, that you found it appropriate to compare me to Hitler, on this issue. Implying that I'm a German fascist dictator, for offering my opinion in an audio tweak thread that the wrong attitude can lead to the wrong conclusions. You thus implied that if someone were to try the hand cream tweak and find no changes, I would have them murdered in the gas chambers and use their skin for a lampshade.
There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but out of respect for certain members of my family who -were- murdered in Hitler's gas chambers, I chose not to respond to your scumbag-level remarks. Thereby using the memory of their suffering as a tool to get ahead in the ideological wars of audio, as you have no problem doing. Then after pestering May with the same issue, you wrote: "Posy, you got some splainin' to do. I can't *wait* to see Mr. Rorer's tap dance around this one..". Showing that this wasn't about the sincere desire to be informed, this was about **fighting the enemy**. Who is anyone that advocates "wacky and implausible tweaks", to you. There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but again, for good reasons, I chose not to respond to your blatant trolling.
If I did, the most obvious response to your obvious trolling games would be: Are you not capable of forming your own opinions about these things? Or are you that empty-headed that you must follow someone else's opinion, but you're genuinely confused because you're too slow to realize that me and May are saying the same thing in different ways? No, despite that you are slow, I think you can perfectly well come to your own conclusions about a tweak you did or didn't hear. Yes, even one you never actually tested but pretended to on an internet forum, so you can annoy the adults discussing it.
May got it right when she wrote: "But I get the impression that you don't want to see both interpretations.". And even though I'm under no obligation to do so, I agree with her saying:
"My interpretation of the word 'attitude' was that you don't have to be a believer to hear our devices work."
In fact, I'm already on record many times now on AA for having said that I tested people who did not know that PWB devices were in place (or even what PWB devices were), and they heard the effects of the PWB products - even under blind conditions, when they didn't know whether any device was in place.
And even though I'm under no obligation to do so, I am also in agreement with her second interpration (while fully realizing that you are trying hard to ignore the fact that there can be more than one facet to the issue of "attitude" in listening tests):
"But, as I explained with my example of going to the opera if you have a dismissive, negative attitude when you go to the opera (for whatever reason), then that 'attitude' can be a factor in preventing you enjoying the experience."
Except I go one further to say that one who has demonstrated that he won't stop at desecrating the memory of 6 million Jews in his efforts to bash tweaks and tweakers, is probably not going to hear the effects of the tweaks that the creep has spent his lifetime bashing. Especially if he lied about doing the damn tests in the first place. In case it isn't obvious yet, yes I'm talking about you, Richard L. Wainwright.
I've exposed you as a tweak-bashing troll just out to harm the reputations of those who are "diametrically opposed" to your audio religion. As you tried to do with Geoff and others..... until you met up with me. From here on in, it's gonna be a bumpy ride for you, if your intention is to keep your charade up. And by that, I mean disrupting our serious conversations with your deceitful tweak-bashing trolling. If you want to continue being a rabid tweak-hater who will stop at nothing to fight tweakers, while at the same time pretending to also be a sincere, open-minded individual who will let no inbuilt prejudice stop him from trying tweaks, no matter how "wacky and implausible" you think they are, then I say, save yourself and us a lot of grief and just don't get involved with this forum. Don't try ANY tweaks (or if you do, don't tell us about it). Tweaks are not for you. Go back to fiddling with your EQ knobs and your SPL meters, let us discuss alternative audio concepts on AA without your belligerent disruptions, and everyone will be happy.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
"You thus implied that if someone were to try the hand cream tweak and find no changes, I would have them murdered in the gas chambers and use their skin for a lampshade."Yep, that's *exactly* what I did - at least that's how you have interpreted it. Others might see that I was making a reference to the movie "Snatch", much as you did to Blade Runner. But no matter, *your* interpretation is SO much more fun, and also allows you to get all huffy and such, so let's go with that one. However, you forgot the part where I implied that you would inscribe their forearms with tattooed numbers. Don't forget that part, it's real important.
"There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but out of respect for certain members of my family who -were- murdered in Hitler's gas chambers, I chose not to respond to your scumbag-level remarks. Thereby using the memory of their suffering as a tool to get ahead in the ideological wars of audio, as you have no problem doing. "
This is EVEN BETTER - you now claim to NOT have responded to my post - BY RESPONDING TO MY POST! And, by throwing in the reference to victims in your own family, well that's the best part. You can feign outrage, hurt, and even get off an insult or two. All while appearing to "take the high road" by saying up front that you're NOT going to do that. Brilliant, simply brilliant.
My basic plan from this day forward is to sit back and watch you rant and froth over every slight you suffer here on these fora, real or perceived. And the Text Value Ratio (tm - TVR) you provide is really quite high. If I post just the right messages, your responses spew forth like a big ol' gusher a comin' in, Pa! I can fire off a 50 word post and you'll respond with *thousands* of words. Granted, most of those posts show a lack of any real, clear logical thought process, and they generally quickly devolve into name-calling and such.
But you know something, I'm quite happy with that - just watching you go, girl, gives me *quite* a bit of satisfaction. And, based upon the emails I've received from other Inmates, they, too, are deriving real pleasure from your eruptions. It's kinda like having our own personal Vesuvius to watch. Only you're MUCH more reliable. *And*, you can be made to erupt several times a day.
The *coolest* part is that even though you may tire of sparring with me, I know, for sure, that someone else will poke the Poseybear and I can enjoy your responses vicariously. You can't help it, and I'm bankin' on it! Keep it up, my good man, you are providing a valuable service to all of the Inmates. I know my day was lookin' pretty gloomy and boring until I logged-on here and found your responses. Thanks, dude, you're the gift that keeps on giving.
And giving.
And giving.
And giving.......
-RW- Love ya, babe, don't change a thing!
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
> > > "And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints." < < <
***********
I still think you are being argumentative. I think that both interpretations of the word 'attitude' can be correct - within the context it is being written. But I get the impression that you don't want to see both interpretations.
My interpretation of the word 'attitude' was that you don't have to be a believer to hear our devices work. But, as I explained with my example of going to the opera if you have a dismissive, negative attitude when you go to the opera (for whatever reason), then that 'attitude' can be a factor in preventing you enjoying the experience.
The reason why I enlarged on my previous answer is that I do not wish any sentence of mine to be used as a 'tool' - a 'stick with which to beat someone else'. So, I always try to make myself clear (and unambigious).
Regards,
May Belt.
I'm collecting my thoughts on your attitude to Mrs. Belt.
I was wondering when you might chime in. So, now it's "patronizing, condescending, AND fatuous" to ask for *any* explanation of how one should approach these experiments?
Sorry you feel that way, I'm sure you'll get over it quite soon. In the meantime, I'll continue to wait for Ms. Belt's thoughts on the matter.
Thanks for adding your illuminating comments.
-RW-
x
This is the 2nd time today that someone here has commented on my "attitude". It's a good thing that I have those questions out there to May about that, I'm sure she'll have something of value to offer.
Thanks for caring, it means the world to me.
-RW-
That's pretty funny, May.
Your explanations for all things Beltian are different from floundering....how?
-Pete
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
