|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
67.68.5.65
In Reply to: RE: Hand Cream and static. posted by zanash on July 24, 2007 at 00:11:06
>>Just to say I'm open minded on the pwb thing ...some things have worked for me and others have not. All I will say is that if the pwb creams work half as well as the "hand cream tweak" then they should be a good investment. <<
PWB's "Cream Electret" is -far- more effective than hand lotion (even though, IMO, both work on the same principle). AFAIC, given the accessible price and how little you need for it to be effective, it's one of the best investments you can make in audio today. (BTW US: it does not contain any ingredients harmful to CDs. People have been using it for many years on their CDs).
>>I've only treated on cd to prove the effect..the idea was passed on to me by a freind. Its relatively messy and makes the cd hard to handle ...think off trying to put an eel into your cd draw !<<
That's because you're not using it as I advised. Mine are not messy at all, and I can barely tell, if at all, that there was anything applied to the disc.
To address UncleStu and Enophile's concerns: I have placed my treated CDs in a bag as advised by Enophile, it's been a few days, absolutely no difference. They work fine and as I said, I (still) can't really tell there was anything applied.
BTW, you should always handle your CDs by the edge. Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound.....
>>As to the static explanation...its possible but I feel theres more going on than that. Such a fundamental alteration of the sound by the aplication of a lipid based product seems odd in the extreme.
May be those who propund the static idea could test a cd with a"gold leaf electroscope"<<
Again, those who propose the static idea do not have to buy a "gold leaf electroscope" (or rather, try to steal one from a museum, since these things came out in the 18th century...), let alone know how to operate one. They simply have to follow the simple steps that I advised! In seconds and at no cost to you, you will be able to tell whether the effect is due to static or, as I have stated, Beltism.
>>I'm more inclined [though I have no evidence] to think is more likely a molecular force ...van de waals forces ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
Though again why this would be affect cd play back is beyond me.<<
Wayyyy off. It's Beltism.
>>Remember I only posted this as I was able to hear an effect, I don't pretend to have any answers.<<
Do the test, you'll have the answers."silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Follow Ups:
Typical behavior.
clark
Sir, how is my question about calling something an "electret" different from yours to May Belt about the effect of placing the jar of her cream in a listening environment?
I believe that a product's name may be indicative of its function.
Do you take issue with that post and that question?
Was the "attitude" not to your liking, or was there some nebulous feeling you had with regard to the use of the term "electret?"
I'm glad to know that you are now the "Discussion Monitor." Self appointed, no doubt.
Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
The use of the term "electret" in the product name does imply some sort of magnetic or electrical effect.
I find that interesting, because there are so many people who believe in demagnetizing discs or removing electric charge - and can hear the benefits - yet this product, by definition, implies the "addition" of magnetic material or electrical charge.
Perhaps the product is meant to take advantage of some sort of selective "magnetization" or "addition of electric charge" to what it's applied to, but this seems counter to the goals of other products.
You'd think that users would be warned not to demagnetize or "destatic" items in a system where this cream has been used to add the very effect that our procedures are meant to remove.
Very interesting name for the product.
_
On the fun side, I must quote you...
"Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound....."
Are you rejecting that without trying it?
That doesn't seem like you.
Perhaps that is a great idea and you're missing out!
*I'm purely goofing off, but I am a little satisfied to see you reject something out of hand. We may make a skeptic out of you yet!
;)
Best wishes.
> > Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet. < <
I'll forward this to Peter and see if he can make any sense of it. ;-)
> > The use of the term "electret" in the product name does imply some sort of magnetic or electrical effect. < <
I agree, it does. However, that doesn't mean you're correct about that. You're only speculating.
> > I find that interesting, because there are so many people who believe in demagnetizing discs or removing electric charge - and can hear the benefits - yet this product, by definition, implies the "addition" of magnetic material or electrical charge. < <
I agree. However, "implies" doesn't mean it does. It only means that's how you interpret something, no matter how justified you think you are in interpreting it that way. When you say "By definition", you mean by -your- definition. Electrets may have zip all to do with this cream, just as "Olay" is not an ingredient in "Oil of Olay". Or, it may simply mean the cream had such treatments. Following purely Beltist principles, there is an expectation that treated objects (ie. cream) can transfer most if not all their treatments on to other objects. That's the idea behind all of Belt's products.
> > Perhaps the product is meant to take advantage of some sort of selective "magnetization" or "addition of electric charge" to what it's applied to, but this seems counter to the goals of other products. < <
Indeed. Magnetization can be harmful, or it can be beneficial. It all depends on how you use it and how much you understand of its effects.
> > You'd think that users would be warned not to demagnetize or "destatic" items in a system where this cream has been used to add the very effect that our procedures are meant to remove. < <
Again, you're going beyond speculation here and assuming your speculations are correct. Not a wise thing to do, if you're even pretending to be a truth-seeker. Especially if you have done no research at all on the product you're speculating upon. There are warnings about the product from the manufacturer. They are however, of a different nature.....
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/cream/cream.html
> > On the fun side, I must quote you...
"Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound....."
Are you rejecting that without trying it?
That doesn't seem like you.
Perhaps that is a great idea and you're missing out! < <
> > *I'm purely goofing off, but I am a little satisfied to see you reject something out of hand. We may make a skeptic out of you yet! < <
Not today, you won't! I was not rejecting or accepting anything above, since I made no conclusion as to whether the fingerprints on a CD (label side of course) can harm (or improve) sound (or do nothing, of course). I was merely speculating on the possibility that of the two possibilities, "harm" is one of them, and thus it may harm sound just to have fingerprint oils on the CD. This is an educated guess, based on the fact that I have not deliberately placed anything on a CD, that did not change the sound (and usually, for the worse). Hence if I had to guess, I'd guess that if this changes the sound, it will be for the worse. But I would not -conclude- anything without trying it. However, I'm unlikely to try this idea, because it's not an interesting one to me. (Let's say it does change the sound, better or worse. It's very difficult for me to control how many fingerprints will end up on a disc, so not a very practical idea, even if it does do something).
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...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 by Herr Rorer.
-RW-
but your doing just the same !
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 by Herr Rorer.
-RW-"
Ho boy. I suppose you expect applause for your performance, now? A Cannes d'Or medal perhaps? I doubted your claims rlw because, as I showed in detail in my lengthy reply recently, I don't think you did any test of the sort. It's clear you're only intention here was to bash what you have called "wacky and implausible tweaks", as you have been shown to do on these forums over and over again. I simply noted what others have noted; you're an insincere troll with a well-known anti-tweak agenda on AA, engaging in your usual games of playing victim, feigning outrage, and impressing no one. Comparing me now to a Nazi only confirms and emphasizes your true trolling character. I invoke Godwin's law upon you, and a blast of Troll-B-Gone spray in your general direction. [psssssshhhhhhhhhht!]
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Is troll a favorite word of yours? Or is it your go to when you have no real argument? You have used it just under 50 times in this thread alone?
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-
I haven't seen that invoked in ages!
Hey, what is opinion of homeopathy?
Would you consider that Beltian?
**I haven't seen that invoked in ages!
Hey, what is opinion of homeopathy?
Would you consider that Beltian?**
No connection whatsoever that I can see, other than the fact that they are both alternative "remedies" to common problems. I have no experience with homeopathic medicine, but I have a relative who practices it and have heard of many helped by it, and if it does so, its perfectly fine by me.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
And SO sincere sounding...it doesn't get much better than this. :-)
The *least* you could do would be to come up with a new, witty one. However, most of us have gotten used to you doing the least you can get away with.
Carry on...
-RW-
"Most of us posers and trolls" -- I'll fill in the blanks for you, no charge.By the way, I see you're stealing Pogie's tactics; you have much in common....as in Common Troll. (We won't mention that you both can'tt hear as that would be rude.)
It's a weekday; shouldn't you be slicing bread somewhere?
...but I did cut a nice big slice last night, and she was absolutely scrumptious. Thanks for asking.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot to ask - when can I cash in my Teleportation Tweak chit? Cheapskate that I am, I just bought my dog a mid-fi system and he's dying to upgrade it. And please, cast no aspersions, his ears are *excellent*...
BTW, the dog doesn't have a phone yet (imagine that!), can we use mine instead?
-RW-
Not a pretty picture at all.
Cockroach Elvis
And what answers might those be?
You seem to have plenty of hunches about positive and negative energy that humans can detect, but these appear to be no more than wild hunches since the ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas.
How are humans able to detect these positive and negative energies? Will someone hear the benefits of having Peter's special sauce rubbed on their cables if that someone does not know his cables have been sauced?
If odds are generally good and evens generally bad, is it important for the listener to always be apprised of the count? Is it still considered odd if the listener loses count and believes it is even?
-Pete
> > And what answers might those be? < <
Petey, Petey, Petey, Petey, Pete. I'm gonna have to subtract some marks off from your score for this. The "answers" I was referring to in my convo with Zanash when I said "Do the test. You'll have the answers", was in response to him attributing the effect of hand lotion on CD's to everything from static forces to "van der waal" forces. I was telling him that if he did the test I suggested, of applying the lotion to a passive CD (assuming he hears the same improvement I did), he would have his answer. The clue was in the phrase "Wayyyy off. It's Beltism.".
Let me take the opportunity to point out that there have been a LOT of people discussing all these theories about how the hand lotion works. Most of them have not even done a single test of the lotion, to see if they can even hear its effect, according to what was posted. Including you, btw. So far, myself and Zanash are the only two that have even tested this tweak (not counting the false claims of a certain known loud troll with a hidden agenda...). And of all the people talking about this tweak and how it might work, so far, I'm the only person that tested it to find out how it does work. I'm pretty confident I'm right, but I'm not out to "prove" anything to anyone, I'm saying people should prove it to themselves, and here's a simple cost-free method how, which takes 20 seconds to do. So I guess the obvious question is, since you're interested in what I wrote about how it works, why haven't you tested it according to my suggestions?
> > You seem to have plenty of hunches about positive and negative energy that humans can detect < <
I don't know what you're talking about. I don't have any such hunches. The closest thing to what you describe that I know of, are my -facts- about such energy, from much experimental data.
> > but these appear to be no more than wild hunches since the ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas. < <
I can understand how they "appear to be wild hunches" to someone who doesn't have clue one as to what Beltism is and how it might work. So believe it or not, I'm not that shocked by your reaction. How about we make an agreement? Why don't you do hundreds of Beltist research experiments for a 20 year period, like I have, and then come back to me on this, and tell me what your conclusions are? If you find all your conclusions are just "wild hunches", then I will begin to respect your informed opinion.
As for your claim that I have no validation of my confirmation of these ideas, what the heck would you know about that? Where you overseeing all of my experiments? I certainly don't recall discussing them in detail with you. Probably because I didn't. More importantly, I'm not stopping you from doing your own experiments.
> > How are humans able to detect these positive and negative energies? < <
They detect them subconsciously via the senses; we're born like this. To become aware of them requires a conscious effort. As with most things in audio (unless you've traded someone's ProAc Tablettes for Duntech Sovereigns without them noticing....).
> > Will someone hear the benefits of having Peter's special sauce rubbed on their cables if that someone does not know his cables have been sauced? < <
Something tells me you're confusing Peter Belt for Ronald McDonald. Are you having a Big Mac Attack (tm) or something, Pete? If I read correctly through your bemusement, the answer is yes. Rubbing Peter's 'special sauce' without someone knowing what I did is one of those "validation of the ideas" you claimed I never did. It was done several times in an SBT. IOW, no, none of this is a placebo, despite what your prejudices are hard at work telling you right now. That however, does not mean you can secretly treat someone's cables and two days later when they turn the stereo on, they'll be so blown away by the dramatic change in sound, they will be able to SMELL the musicians in the room.
That's a hobbyist mistake typical of amateurish thinking in audio. You can change a person's actual cables and they are unlikely to notice it, if you don't tell them you changed something. That's because there's a huge difference between critical listening, and casual listening (that's why we note the difference with a change in adjective). In critical listening, you're listening for changes and in casual listening, you're just listening to your system to enjoy the music it plays. Unless you are hyper-aware of the SQ of your system on a day-to-day basis (like me), which requires great listening skills and attention to details, you are unlikely to notice any such changes from either conventional or advanced audio techniques. (Of course, you would go ahead and argue that if you told someone a change is taking place, then we're all supposed to assume they will automatically take it as a positive change, even if you did nothing). And so the merry-go-round goes, and everyone continues doing as they have been.
> > If odds are generally good and evens generally bad, is it important for the listener to always be apprised of the count? < <
Yes, but only if they care about having the best sound. It appears to me that most Belters don't notice it. Note that each treatment improves the sound incrementally as under conventional laws, but where treatments are susceptible to the odd/even rule, each other treatment will improve in the -wrong way-.
> > Is it still considered odd if the listener loses count and believes it is even? < <
Again, not a placebo, so NO. If you're counting 52 cards in a deck and you're at your 27th card but you missed registering one, does that mean you have an even number of cards in your hand, despite the fact that you're really holding 27? I did not know anything about the odd/even rule theory prior to when I came across it in my own experiments. I only discovered it existed, later. That's a hell of a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...and not once did he provide any test data or "validations". How useless can you get? ;-)
clark
which led him to the conclusions. E=mc^2 and all that, remember? Perhaps you have a mathematical model, too?
8^)
Stu
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Validation: substantiation; confirmation; proof
That's exactly what Einstein's 1905 theories lacked until c.1920, and even that stuff was fudged by Eddington.
The original poster's point was that without such "validation" the Beltist theories are inconsequential. I was offering a counterexample, for which certain ugly personalities of low mental horizons will call me a dim bulb.
Like I said, weasely.
clark
No biggie for me ;^).
Einstein's paper, Lemaitre aside (didn't he work closely with some astronomer?), was a theory, remember? That observational and practical proof (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those tests in the SW) came much later shows that there was a basis for the mathematical model he created. While physical proof was not immediately available, that mathematical model provided the basis for experimentation and observation which were made later. The bending of light gravitationally was made observationally by, hell, you are the NASA optical engineer and you ought to be familiar with that.
So, by your position, I believe you can state something more definitive than than sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is? The example you picked is interesting because it was a model upon which further experimentation yielded predictable results. As a physics major, you know that, or at least, you should know that.
Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal? I do not find that so, although admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks. Some have no effect in my experience, while some do, adding further confusion. In addition, there are alternate explanations in my experience and measurable also.
As a science major, I would have hoped that was ingrained upon you. Perhaps you do know more than you let on. A model of the Beltist theory would be a nice start, and while a mathematical basis would be greatly appreciated, even a general written model would certainly be very nice. Something which would have predictability and be universal would be extremely nice to have.
Stu
> > Einstein's paper, Lemaitre aside (didn't he work closely with some astronomer?), was a theory, remember? That observational and practical proof (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those tests in the SW) came much later shows that there was a basis for the mathematical model he created. While physical proof was not immediately available, that mathematical model provided the basis for experimentation and observation which were made later. The bending of light gravitationally was made observationally by, hell, you are the NASA optical engineer and you ought to be familiar with that. < <
Whereas you're the Beltist researcher, and you ought to be familiar with the fact that there is observational (and practical) proof of the phenomenon. My point in bringing Lemaitre into this, was to show that even the most brilliant scientists can dismiss mathematical models (Einstein said Lemaitre's calculations were "bad physics"). Just as on the other side of the coin, they dismiss observational and practical proof. While purely objectively measurable proof is not yet available (I'm not assuming it will ever be), Peter's hypothetical model can be the basis for experimentation and observation. Keep in mind, the story of Einstein is just one example of how science works; it's not the blueprint for the way all scientific acheivements are made. I don't think building a nuclear bomb is quite the same as improving your audio system....
> > So, by your position, I believe you can state something more definitive than than sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is? The example you picked is interesting because it was a model upon which further experimentation yielded predictable results. As a physics major, you know that, or at least, you should know that. < <
You're looking to Clark to understand Belt's odd/even rule better than me? Ohhhhkay. Unless you are willing to do the research, taking odd theoretical stabs in the dark at this is not going to bring you any closer to understanding it. It will more likely bring you further and further away, and it will also make Beltists laugh at you. What research have you done on the odd/even rule? It's not enough. You're going to have to do more research than Peter if you want to do more than pretend to understand this, because so far, -no one- can state anything more definitive than "sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is". (And you didn't get that from me, because I've never confirmed what favours even). Also, it hasn't even been officially stated that the odd/even rule applies to everything. You've got your work cut out.
> > Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal? I do not find that so, although admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks. Some have no effect in my experience, while some do, adding further confusion. < <
Not unlike other reports I've heard, where some hear the effects of some tweaks but not others, or some tweaks only when repeated x number of times. Myself, I would have to say all the Belt tweaks are truly predictable* and universal, because I've never had one not have any effect. *(Depending on what you mean by 'truly predictable'.... Sometimes a normally beneficial tweak doesn't produce the predicted beneficial effect, depending on what you apply where. This is usually corrected by reapplications elsewhere).
> > In addition, there are alternate explanations in my experience and measurable also. < <
You''ve been able to measure these tweaks? How so?
> > As a science major, I would have hoped that was ingrained upon you. Perhaps you do know more than you let on. A model of the Beltist theory would be a nice start, and while a mathematical basis would be greatly appreciated, even a general written model would certainly be very nice. Something which would have predictability and be universal would be extremely nice to have. < <
I really shouldn't do this.... especially since it isn't my work (Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days and agree to do his housecleaning for 3 weeks!). But it's all in the interest of advancing science, right? Here is what you are asking about, and I truly hope it is appreciated and will help you to further understand the mysteries of Beltism:
E = PB^2
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...would seem to dictate a policy on your part of simply ignoring his impotent sallies. Your wit would be better saved for the miserable likes of rlw and SF Tech, truly *stu*pendous targets.
clark
PS Glad to see the rational dialog ongoing with rick_m.
when a man who claims to have a degree in physics, and claims to have been a project engineer for the Mars landers accepts Posey's mathematical model. It is doubly sad when that man, who has for years been avoiding any 'hard' answers, claims to be a 'scientist'. To resort to name calling and insults is not really the 'scientific' way, nor is it productive in any way. It is simply a reflection of that person's character and his utter contempt for the sharing of knowledge and a refusal to move forward.
Over a year ago I warned you that such outbursts actually demean your reputation and casts you in a very unfavorable light, ruining your credibility. That was offered out of sincere respect and concern. That you have chosen to ignore such warnings with rather flippant replies and seem to have to constantly make "stalker" alerts, well, makes you appear even more ludicrous. It is a conscious choice which you and only you have made.
What you may not know is that Posey and I have had pleasant exchanges off forum. I would rather preserve such a relationship, as it were, rather than to lash out for a few seconds of vindication, which, in the overall scheme of things is meaningless, trifle, and childish (at least to me).
I ask difficult questions sometimes, and it may frustrate some. In my thinking, saying 'I do not know' is no mortal sin. Some of my most brilliant friends, PHD's in various fields from molecular biology to cosmology will say "I don't know." I do not hold it against them, and I rather admire their honesty in saying so.
In your example, I thought it rather poor because at the very least Einstein and Lemaitre or whomever, demonstrates a predictability of events even before practical application proved the theory right. I find that very important in determining causality. The fact that the math was difficult to disprove makes it easier to verify, but I am sure as a physics major that would and should have been very obvious to you.
It is possible to create a mathematical model before 'proof' is found, and it is also possible to have observational data and then to construct a working hypothesis and then a model, usually mathematical. This does not rule out any Beltist observations or tweaks. I was simply questioning the causality and there is where I have my doubts, from my experimentation and observation.
As far as a search for 'improved' sound, I am not afraid to try unusual 'tweaks', and I have reported such observations here and elsewhere. I do my own speculation and these are based on usually years of trial and error. PWB states that they have had 25 years of experience I can honestly say I have the same amount of time and perhaps even more in certain applications. Does that make for any further validation? In my mind, no, it does not. I do have a working hypothesis for some effects, however, and it should be measurable and replicable, even if I lack the required instrumentation.
I simply do not not understand your fear to confront the unknown. It takes work, and it takes time, but it is nothing to be afraid of.
Stu
Clark:
Well you should know, UncleStu has never been an "antagonist" to me. In fact, I'm not sure why he is to you, so I must have missed that. Seems you two have a lot more in common than not, particularly wrt each of your views on all things Belt. While I certainly think he's taking the wrong paths to understanding the tweaks, I certainly -don't- think he's a "dim wit", and I understand why he chooses the ways he does. For now, it's what "works for him". I also respect his right to follow his own ways and don't fault him for it. I especially admire the fact that he stumbled upon new aspects of Beltism that I haven't (well 'possibly', as I don't know anything of his findings). Nevertheless, I can't say that of too many audiophiles. Although me adn Stu will perhaps never agree on the subject, we don't have to be antagonists because of that. Perhaps, whatever it is you both disagree on, you two don't have to be antagonists either. Take it under consideration. And this as well....
{CONE OF SILENCE ON}
(...Read quickly, because I will never admit this in public again, and will in fact deny it later, if asked): There can be more than one right answer, and therefore, more than one person correct.
In the case of our silly, geeky dispute (were either of you actually taking any of it -seriously-?!), we are ALL right! And we're ALL wrong! Lemaitre, the Belgian priest, was indeed dismissed by Einstein in his proposition of an expanding universe. Despite offering a mathematical model, it was considered "bad physics", and for a certain time, considered "disproven". The mathematical model was in fact a valid means of proof, it just took a while for Einstein to overcome his ego you might say, and admit error on the part of his own calculations, and accept the proof offered. This proves both the fallibility of "science" (or the "politics of science", more accurately), and the validity of science. And it proves (our) point that sometimes it can take a while for real science to be validated. Until then of course, it's just "mystic crystal revelations" and unicorns gliding across rainbows....
What everyone on these forums who claims to be an ally of "science" needs to understand is that "science" isn't simply an abstract concept that you can use to measure the validity of a given phenomenon with perfect precision every time. ie. "So long as you have objective proof, such as a proven mathematical model, you will always win out". That is merely the blind advocation of science, without acknowledging the deadly -politics- of the scientific community. Not only do you have to present an incredibly overwhelming degree of evidence to persuade a group of overwhelmingly rigid minds, you have to overcome all the biases inherent in the scientific community you are presenting to. And they don't seem to be too eager of sea changes. That's why it can sometimes take longer than the rest of your life, and even your next two or three lives, if you reincarnate, to fully prove your propositions. Even both Einstein and Stephen Hawking are not immune to this. So I certainly don't envy the situation Belt is in.
{CONE OF SILENCE OFF}
> > Your wit would be better saved for the miserable likes of rlw and SF Tech, truly *stu*pendous targets. < <
While I agree there are few around that are more miserable than those two manic mental cases, happily, there's enough to go around for everyone.
> > PS Glad to see the rational dialog ongoing with rick_m. < <
Rational ongoing dialogue? Why that doesn't sound like me at all... Actually, I don't recall having any dialogue with rick_m. (They say that there's something that's the first to go when you get older, but I forget what that was).
Stu:
Count me among those who appreciate your contributions and hope you don't drop out of the discussions on this forum. Particularly when there are so few who are even willing to seriously discuss controversial audio concepts without coughing up the usual, stupid, mindless knee-jerk reactions. Speaking of which... I'd like to take another stab at a question you raised, and give a more honest, less knee-jerkish response:
Q. Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal?
I would have to say, in my opinion (which I wouldn't dare state as "fact" because life is too short to try and prove that....), "YES". They are all truly predictable well in advance, and truly universal; that response comes from both my experience and my gut instinct, based on such. So why can't you hear them sometimes? Because although the effects of the products or techniques may be predictable and universal, human listening experiences aren't. Too many factors involved, especially listener sensitivity. Hearing the effects of these tweaks for everyone is easy, because it is (literally) second nature with us. Hearing them consciously is another matter. I believe one can help this along by learning how to apply the products effectively, and therefore create a more significant impact.
unclestu:
"It is a sad time... when a man who claims to have a degree in physics, and claims to have been a project engineer for the Mars landers accepts Posey's mathematical model."
My mathematical model wasn't meant to be "sad", it was meant to be "funny". I take your comemnt here as meant to be hyperbolic rhetoric in response to Clark's hyperbolic rhetoric of you "weaseling out" of something. I'm quite sure that Clark took my model in the way it was meant, as humour. So I don't think your comments about him will stick. I would also hope that you took my "mathematical model" in the same vein, as droll humour, nothing more. (Guess what the "PB" stands for?). It was not intended as a slight towards you, it was only a remark made in good-natured humour. Given the escalating surreal nature of the conversation, your proposition of a mathematical model of Beltism, founded upon these conversations of Einstein et al. just seemed so absurd to me, that I couldn't imagine reacting any other way. I can't even begin to fathom how one could possibly posit a mathematical model on the completely abstract and non-technical phenomenon that is Beltism. You couldn't ask this of Peter Belt, let alone asking this of someone who isn't even known for his Beltist research.
You are of course, free to propose your own "models, with a mathematical basis, or simply a generally written model, which would have predictability and be universal". I can't begin to guess what it would look like, but I know it would have a lot of hurdles it would need to jump before being seriously considered by serious researchers. When you proposed your relatively simple theories of EMI/RFI and/or static, they were not able to pass my hurdle of working on passive devices, even theoretically. (Indeed, you did not report any attempts to even put them to my challenge of passing the passive device test). What I find more compelling about Belt's theories is that they are -not- relatively simple. (In fact, they are often criticized for this alone). However... what you (and others) don't find compelling about them, is that they are not "technical", which is something you apparently feel more comfortable with. Perhaps they stray too far from audio, or what you know and/or believe. But the more you understand the Beltist phenomena, the more they make sense, I feel. I think you also need to know more about them before you can rule them out and try to come up with alternative theories, as it doesn't seem you understand the working theories that well to begin with. I suggest looking into Rupert Sheldrake's "The Presence of The Past" for further insight.
I feel there that in today's Beltism, there IS "observational and practical proof", where experimenation can yield predictable results, and Peter's approach is about as scientific as you can get on the matter. There is observational data, and there is a working hypothesis for Beltism. All of your comments seem to suggest otherwise, and it's there if you want to see it, but for whatever reasons, you don't seem to want to accept it. Like I said, you're free to draw your own conclusions and I for one would love to hear them! You implied that you have a different working hypothesis, one that is both measurable and replicable. Why not share it, if you feel it is just as valid as Peter's, assuming you haven't already? I applaud your courage for trying what you call "unusual tweaks", your curiousity for wanting to understand them, and I also hope you don't stop asking questions; that's always a good path to progress in any discussion.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
No one is. I can't even say when he began, but his remarks have descended into such overt unpleasantness that I have only once broken my (wise) policy of ignoring his nasty nipping.
Nasty, and highly illogical as well. Did you see David Aiken's brief takedown of him? "There are 2 logically wrong claims in this statement alone ."
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/486855.html
David shared with me the observation that he could have continued with other statements, but it would probably not elicit any corrections. Nor was he wrong about that.
Somewhat later David expanded on his views, however:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/486881.html
Our man quickly responded, with his first sentence reading: "You are correct, however, you are also not complaining about polarity issues as Clark does."
He never misses the opportunity to malign. Lord knows why, but I've had my fill of him. Nevertheless I shall proceed in my defense of polarity as the sine qua non of correct audio practice. Free, too!
clark
Stu: "The fact that the differences exist proves one thing: CJ has not defined polarity."
(Written in "objective mode":...)
Without having read The Wood Effect, I can see that Aiken is right in his counterpoint against Stu's argument. The fact that people disagree on what polarity is, is not proof positive that Clark didn't define it (nor is the counterpoint proof that it was defined by Clark). For the same reasons, you can't say "that some are aware of polarity and that some have different views of it, is proof that despite the publishing of "The Wood Effect" twenty years ago, CJ has merely reiterated someone else's work without providing real illumination or understanding.". This statement is a personal opinion only, it hasn't been proven by Stu, nor disproven by Aiken or anyone.
If you really want to get into it, there are two more unproven claims by Stu, which are implied as factual..... here: "Come to think of it while various reviewers have praised the works and some are actually on the forum, I see no one backing up CJ. Perhaps that can be taken as proof that his work is insufficient in nature. "
and here:
"And then there are those who simply proclaim that the effect is negligible or scarcely worth the trouble to flip a wire or two or even a switch. Their admission speaks to the knowledge they have gained about the phenomena from CJ."
Followed, ironically, by: "But never fear, I only write lies, and am totally illogical, too."
So yeah, I agree from further reading of his posts on the matter, Stu does bandy about the word "proof" a little too much, which his words don't back up, in order to try to jack up the value of his words to more than their worth (not that I don't do that myself, as I'm known to use the phrase "It's a fact!", quite liberally. But I just do that to annoy the pseudo-objectivists). Although it is hyperbole and less than purely objective (he also goes to extremes on the other side to make his point, such as when he says "I only write lies and I am totally illogical too. My perceptions have totally been false."), I can also see the point that Stu (and it seems others) make here - they came from a real place.
I don't disagree with some of the things Stu's been saying, either, so I mean it when I say I can see his point. And I've seen some of the past arguments on polarity on AA spiral out of control very quickly and get nowhere. So the comments Stu and others make about it are at least based on genuine concerns to further the discussion, seeing that it always descends into fruitless arguments, and it's not mere trolling attacks on the part of Uncle Stu. Again, I don't see how you two have that much differences, since you both have an interest in understanding things like polarity! So maybe Stu was right when he wrote: "It would seem that we have more points in agreement than in contention."
> > He never misses the opportunity to malign. Lord knows why, but I've had my fill of him. Nevertheless I shall proceed in my defense of polarity as the sine qua non of correct audio practice. Free, too! < <
And of course I fully support your defense of polarity, as I feel there should be no disagreement as to its importance in a quality sound system; it is as important as speaker positioning or all the rest of the basics you should get right, if you even pretend to call yourself an audio hobbyist. But I don't think Stu's as hard-headed as you picture, and you say "Lord knows why", but I think the reasons for his antagonism is something he made pretty clear:
Stu:
"Unfortunately I simply do not see any attempt from CJ to do so and his criticism of people who try annoys the hell out of me at times (music is not a life or death situation, so I try not to get so worked up for the most part)."
I also don't understand why it's so hard to define, either. Until my recent excursions to AA, I never saw or thought of audio polarity as a controversial thing. I thought normal polarity and reversed polarity was pretty well accepted. Dave Chesky taught me what it was via his sampler. So I don't know if I want to get this involved (and I can understand Stu's apprehension if you post an opinion on this!...), but perhaps I should still take this opportunity now and go ahead with my 2 bits on what I understand of polarity:
Although there may not be a "de facto" or "de jure or "de lissio" definition of polarity, it seems pretty obvious to me when (conventional) polarity is reversed. No matter- if we're talking about "absolute polarity" (which requires you throw a polarity switch on a DAC or amp), or speaker polarity (inverted phase at the speaker terminals) or AC polarity (inverted plugs on non-polarized equipment). It all produces the same effect at the speakers (or headphones). Correct polarity, as I've always understood it, can be heard by detecting the sound of certain instruments, such as horn or drums. Again, I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subject (nor am I eager to be), and this is only my understanding of it: Under correct polarity, the kick drum will move toward you, under inversed polarity, it will move away. Likewise with the horn, etc. All instruments of course have their own tonal characteristics, that are inverted when polarity is inversed. There is also a sort of inversion occuring on voices, perhaps less easy to define. This, to me, is how you can tell correct polarity without ever requiring a detailed transcription of the recording session, or a special light on your equipment that goes 'ping!' whenever it's inversed, or staying up nights drinking lots of scotch and rum, worrying about the polarity of the last song you heard, and staining the couch with your profuse sweating....
Perhaps a lot of the controversy over polarity comes from the fact that it can only be determined subjectively, and subjectively-only measures appears to be something that frightens the dickens out of most AAers. It means they actually have to learn how to listen, in order to measure. I have, and usually know immediately when AC or speaker wire (at the terminals) polarity is inversed. Of course, if you (unlike me) are not certain whether your polarity is incorrect and want to be sure that polarity is inversed (or normal), you have to compare your sound to the inverse by reversing polarity. Can I prove that I am always right when I determine polarity is inversed? I suppose not, nor do I care to, for anyone. I worry about my own sound, I let others worry (or not) about theirs. When we talk about "absolute polarity" (which I've come to understand as the polarity of the recordings), the subject has limited interest to me. For one reason, even though I have a polarity switch on my Theta, it means having to get up off the couch each time. But even if I had a switch on a remote, I still wouldn't use it. I may be an audio fanatic, but I'm not Enid Lumley. I'm not going to sit there and test each song that comes on for polarity. If I did, I would constantly be listening critically, and not, as my friend Rochlin says, "enjoying the music".
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
While subjective is the way most of us will go (and yes it gives the pseudo-objectivists the screaming heebie-jeebies), you must remember that polarity is an acoustic phenomenon and therefore susceptible to measurement (cf. Richard Heyser's admirable proposal in 1979).
As for my antagonist's unwonted and numerous misrepresentations, his proven illogicalities notwithstanding, I shall deal with those below -- or, not.
clark
PS New thread forming on General!
Posy,
I think you are are correct that flipping the speaker leads, or polarity switch CAN affect the sound, and that flipping the power cord CAN also.
However I believe that their only relationship is the they both may affect the sound and both may, in broad terms, be referred to as polarity. The mechanisms are quite different and the results probably aren't correlated. To equate the two is, well, mockworthy!
Rick
> > I think you are are correct that flipping the speaker leads, or polarity switch CAN affect the sound, and that flipping the power cord CAN also.
There's no "CAN" about it, actually. It DOES, every time, at least in the case of switching wires. Whether one can hear this or not, doesn't change that fact. (The existence of an audio phenomenon is not dependent upon someone hearing it, just as a tree that falls in the forest will make a sound, even if no one is there to hear it).
> > However I believe that their only relationship is the they both may affect the sound and both may, in broad terms, be referred to as polarity. The mechanisms are quite different and the results probably aren't correlated. < <
Yeah, cj tried to drum the technical distinctions into my head, but in my head, there is only room for one definition of (conventional) polarity. It encompasses ALL ways the sound can be inverted; speaker wires, non-polarized AC cords, the original recording, etc. Because at the output (whether speakers or headphones), it all sounds the same. My head doesn't actually care whether "the mechanisms that produce the given polarity status are quite different". It appears that all reversed and normal polarity music have the same characteristics, despite the origins of their polarity status.
If you really want to comb over the specifics, there's a reason why I specified "conventional" polarity. For there is yet another type of polarity that no one talks about (er, probably because I'm the only one who knows about it...), which I like to call "advanced polarity", or "The Posey Effect" (reg. tm.). With advanced polarity, you might say the mechanism is quite different and the results probably aren't correlated (with conventional types of polarity), but that all depends on what the true workings of conventional polarity are. (Which is to say, is there a Beltist connection? I haven't explored this).
"Advanced polarity" is in fact, a Beltist effect. For unlike conventional types of polarity inversion, it has no direct connection to the signal. So an example of what I refer to as "advanced polarity" is say, the flipping of a non-polarized power cord. On your toaster. Or your power drill, if you prefer. Or your lamp, your Barney Snuggles (tm) psychedlic night light, your electric toothbrush recharger, or your Justin Timberlake Rappin' Sounds (tm) clock radio. In every case, the sound will 'flip' along with the flip of the plug.
(And they say conventional polarity is controversial! Ha!)
> > To equate the two is, well, mockworthy! < <
Yes, very nice. While I encourage you to popularize my term, despite the examples I gave, I don't think you've still got the gist of it. If you feel there is an example where it can be used on me, then you have not understood the term properly because by definition, it actually can not be. Sorry. :-(
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility.
From the beginning Clark has shot me down. No biggie, but he has likewise stated that I do not understand polarity issues which implies I do not have a definition of it. Likewise he has disputed the proposed AES standards, as well as attempts by others, including George Louis, at tackling the issue. Mind you, we were, in essence, backing him up.
If you read the AES proposal, it has a rather elegant method for determining polarity by defining the movement of a microphone diaphragm and the associated electrical output, and then follows this signal all the way through the audio chain. Clark disputes their definition and flat out declared it as being useless, with no further elaboration.
That is no problem but when pressed for elaboration, he has provided nothing.
Finally in the last month he restated his definition. His restated definition is identical to the one that the much maligned George Louis has posted, and identical to the AES proposal without the electrical definitions. He quoted directly from his 20 year old text, which I had read, but his denials of everyone else's definition had led me to believe he had altered his definition in the 20 years since he published his pamphlet. It has taken only a year and a half of pressure to have him spell it out.
We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause.
If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue.
As for insights into why the issue is difficult for many to hear, he has provided precious little information. Research into the recording process is actually quite simple and there are numerous written documentary material out there. A brief research into crossover designs is also very fruitful. I do not believe Clark ever attempted a discussion of those points, which are necessary for an understanding of the issue.
All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. You can not get that in a one liner for an answer, which as you know CJ is very good at. Sidestepping and insults are his standard fare when pressed (just look at his actions here). He proclaims that everyone else lies, calls people names, insults and berates them. That is simply not how to move forward on any issue.
Most individuals who have attempted a contribution to the subject have simply given up. I've noticed his method of browbeating anyone posting on the subject has been relatively successful in silencing any other opinions or questions. No forward progress has been made in the two decades that have followed printing of his pamphlet, despite his claims of reviewers, designers, and others who have written glowing praises of his work. I refuse to knuckle under his attempts at suppression.
I brought up the subject of peer related validation because CJ listed a number of prominent audio personalities that he claims have read his work and support him. Discounting those who have died, I do not see many of those luminaries offering support, even when many frequent AA.
Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered.
Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects.
Stu
> > I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility. < <
Thanks, I think I'll take up your recommendation...
> > We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause. < <
I understand your concern, that there is still a lot of controversy here about what consitutes a correct or incorrect polarity.
> > If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue. < <
Well, being the pragmatic, realistic type, I'm not convinced myself that anything can be done about the issue of inverted polarity. If most audiophiles don't think much of it, what chance of recording engineers to take pains to get it right? But even those that do, it seems it would do little good, when there are so many ways it can be inverted throughout the chain (absolute polarity, speaker polarity, AC polarity, etc). If there is no easy, quick, objective way for the typical audio consumer to recognize when it is wrong and correct it, chances are it won't get corrected.
> > All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. < <
That's a fair assumption.
> > Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered. < <
There's a medical condition now, that prevents you from being able to ensure that discussions on polarity will be productive? What is that called, "polaritis"? I'm sure cj has his own reasons for whatever he does, his own thoughts on the matter, and they may (or may not) have any relation to your own perceptions of such. They're only your perceptions, they are not absolute truth. You are free to think what you will, but I doubt cj cares about "proving you wrong", enough to even find out what that entails. While you both have an interest in the subject matter (which I think is a good thing), he may simply have different ideas than you about what can or can't, should or shouldn't be done about the problem. It's no different than being in the AES. They try to adopt standards collectively (and do their own share of arguing about audio criteria), but all don't agree on what the rest think. As it should be.... (I'm not one to believe in the "majority is right!" rule).
> > Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. < <
Exactly. Which is why I feel that you still disagree with me, May (and other Beltists) about the causality of the tweaks you've experimented with. It appears you haven't yet performed the tests that would negate your theories (not that I can predict whether you will come to the same conclusion as we have, even if you do the tests). We should all at least agree that it's important to test a contradicting hypothesis (where it's easily possible), in order to progress in our understanding of a given phenomenon. If you were certain, say, the hand lotion tweak worked by static discharge, it would be incumbent on me to test this notion, if it contradicted my own.... unless, that could already be disproven by a greater (more encompassing) theory.
> > And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects. < <
Yes, of course. I fully understand. So email it to me.... ;-)
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity.
He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon.
We can talk about recordings, but unless you state which recordings you use, you can always say you used something else and avoid any chance of being incorrect, which, again, in my opinion, is no great sin (being incorrect, that is).
I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. I believe this is essential for the listening community to experience the effect and to establish legitimacy. I have also pointed out speakers and actually named names for designs which have drivers in inverted polarity with respect to each other. In researching the whys I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements. Such measurements and the timing issues are clearly exhibited in Stereophile's tests reports on the speakers reviewed.
Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside.
Stu
Hi Stu,
I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying that folks emphasize amplitude measurements rather than time domain ones because they are more important, or because they are less revealing and make the speaker look better?
Rick
Elsewhere it has been called the "crossover catastrophe", which really puts an edge to it.
clark
I believe the amplitude measirements make for better ad copy and is easier to achieve. Time domain issues are more delicate to balance. Take Sterophile's test reports, for example. A frequency response sweep is much easier to interprete than the impulse test.
A time aligned system will show one upward spike and a slowly dimishing signal following the sharp rise. Most systems show a series of spikes, some with downward (negative) movement. Not a good indicator of time alignment. Considering the microphones are set up 1 meter away and the intervals for most of Stereophiles tests cover 5 milliseconds (IIRC). Well, you can do the math. An impulse test is supposed to act on all drivers simultaneously.
Many buyers want to get 'all' of the music, meaning all the frequencies possible. There is a great desire and emphasis to have a full frequency response in any design. I find for long term satisfaction, however, timing issues are quite important if musical nuance is important to your listening. Great musicians are better because they have command of the subtleties of their voice or instrument. I can live with a speaker of limited FR is it captures the fine nuances 'better'.Of course, YMMV.
Stu
Great Stu,
I thought that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure. I completely agree with you. I use two-way speakers (Celestion 3's) in the study and early on flipped the tweeter wiring so it would be in phase with the woofer. Sure it caused an on-axis notch at crossover but the result was well worth it. And I don't listen on-axis anyway.
My theory is that we are used to tuning out FR variations because they also occur in nature from things like foliage absorption. Timing problems on the other hand are less common, and much of the information we rely upon to survive in the wild, or on the street is encoded temporally. Yes, a flat FR looks good. And it IS good all else being equal, but it's only one view.
Something of interest to me currently is learning the frequency range where we are the most sensitive to timing (and hence harmonic alignment errors). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't extend all that high but may go lower than one would think. I've been toying with how to measure it but haven't hit upon an appealing scheme yet. Thoughts welcome. Heck, SWAG's at the result are welcome. For instance, I'm guessing that the upper critical frequency is ~8KHz.
Regards, Rick
of a driver in a system designed with it inverted actually creates a hump, rather than a notch. The inverted driver, being reversed to the polarity of the adjacent driver will generate cancellation where the frequencies overlap, and thus give the system a perceived steeper roll off at the crossover point.
I find the humps generally acceptable as it is not always that there is music in that overlap range. In your case, I would guess that the crossover is in the 2K to 3KHz range. Being that tuning A is about 440 Hz, you're in the fourth harmonic range for the most part.
As for hearing sensitivity range, calculate the distance between your ears (seriously !). That would translate to a wavelength of about 2.2 K Hz or thereabouts. Hearing sensitivity should be centered on about that frequency. Also consider the range of human voice: about middle C (~260 Hz) and up three octaves to about 2.1k Hz. Piano scale runs about 30 Hz to about 10k Hz. Because of the logarithmic nature of hearing, human perception is remarkably skewed to the bottom end of the scale, numerically.
Stu
Wow Stu, that may be THE answer.
I've read that hearing peaks around 3KHz but it never occurred to me that it might be tuned to match head thickness. I've also read that we can resolve interaural timing differences of 20uS, but didn't put the two together! I just bet you're right, that we are the most sensitive to phase and timing in that area also. Cool. It really makes sense, higher frequencies would be more difficult to analyze because the next wave coming along would cause interference, lower frequencies would provide worse timing resolution due to the slower slopes. And as you point out, instruments have plenty of harmonics in that area, probably because they were invented by humans!
In fact, your answer is such a good one that I'm just going to believe that it's correct and press onward. What a simple, elegant answer: The hearing range that matters the most for music is the voice range. I owe you a few, I like the brew and view at Whalers brewpub but it's a ways out of town for me...
Inverting the tweeter did cause a mild peak as I recall, but it's fairly benign. Think it sounded just a tad "brighter" than stock but it's been a long time. The notch is of course much more noticeable being deep and narrow. Of course the notch can approach infinity while the peak's limited to around 3dB. Since I listen off axis I don't notice the notch and overall find the sound is more satisfying.
Regards, Rick
d
s
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
a
Nope. Never even heard of it... I just read the plot summary on IMDB and it sounds wretched.
I find it a solid comfort being out of the popular culture. The minor downside is that even though I live in Springfield, I don't get most of the references on the Simpsons. Which actually makes perfect sense...
Rick
...I think it's stupid.
And so's Seinfeld!
clark
Clark, I don't have a clue of which you speak.
If I'm a being messed with, "they" are doing a great job because I don't know who's doing it, what they are doing, or in what manner I'm being influenced. Tell me more, perhaps my brain has been so skillfully laundered that I don't even recall the trip through the wringer...
I'm actually inclined to feel that I just gained an excellent insight from Stu with no effort on my own part. How can it get better than that? By golly, this forum is both fun AND informative!
As far as crossover's go, their compromises and trade-offs are hardly a secret or new news. I'm not a 'speaker guy' so I wasn't trying to optimize the design, just choose a different compromise. I believe that "speaker guys" are typically better informed and upfront about the tradeoffs of their designs than are "electronics guys". (And I'm one of the latter!)
Regards, Rick
If not, then they're not being terribly "upfront" about it are they?
As for their being "better informed", while they may (or may not) be aware of the havoc they wreck polarity-wise, is their being informed about it helpful to anyone?
clark
No, I think Stu nailed it: Frequency response is easier to relate to and sell. Perhaps due to the efforts of the FTC. However if the phase thing can be boiled down to something meaningful and possible then it could become a real marketing factor. And a factor in improving design as well.
I suspect that the key to it is identifying a subset of the audible bandwidth that provides the most meaningful polarity cues and specifying acceptable temporal performance over that bandwidth (the voice range?). Trying to do it full-range is insane unless you keep your head clamped or wear headphones. Perhaps nut-case audiophiles could help promulgate a standard. You would make an excellent point man to sell the concept.
I think audiophiles underestimate the importance "real" people attach to our opinions. Not that they would ever wish to be one, or associate with one for that matter, but still they want to have gear that is "audiophile quality" or "audiophile approved".
Rick
And it was all thoroughly covered in The Wood Effect (1988). I blame the magazines for neglecting this aspect; the old Audio used to do speaker reviews in which the phase distortion was measured *and published* in easy form, not the rather more confusing (albeit revealing) Melissa plots of today.
clark
Sorry, couldn't resist Clark...
Yes, I've read them. Heyser did a good job yet I don't recall them being particularly useful, maybe I'm just too superficial of a reader. I subscribed to Audio from ~1973 until they folded. Guess I mostly read magazines for interest and entertainment and largely ignore them when purchasing equipment.
Are you saying that you described a temporal metric that had good alignment with what listeners experienced? If so maybe I WILL have to spring for a copy.
Regards, Rick
Nothing however about temporal metrics -- saving that for a later day.
clark
The definitive statement on polarity written 20 years ago. It ignores simple impulse tests, it ignores many EIA standards in regards to microphones and headphones already in publication, it ignores the more recent AES 26 and other standards. It ignores new media such as laser discs, MP-3, and such, as one would expect from a relatively ancient and not well researched document. Now we are to await further details in an upcoming article, details of which can not be shared until publication. Clark's attempt to enlighten the general public shows his true colors: money before sharing of knowledge.
Such hubris
Stu
> > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
> > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). There must be other test CD's that contain such a test.
> > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
> > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
> > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case.
You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact.
> > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
> > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility. A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
> In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
True, up to a point. But in the case of polarity one has elements in the system to contend against, that obscure the phenomenon, viz. phase-incoherent loudspeakers (most of 'em are) and ineffectual switches.
> > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. [CJ has proven it. / cj] Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. [On the contrary, The Wood Effect names 52. / cj] I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, [Why must this point be stated over and over? "Absolute Polarity" does not inhere to any recorded medium -- only polarity, one way or the other. / cj] simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). [Done -- 52 times, in print, and more to come. / cj] That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. [Doesn't seem to have helped so far, in the twenty years since publication. / cj] It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
> On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. [No kidding! / cj] (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). [Problem: How does he know either a) What's "in" on the disc or b) What's "in" on your system? Eh? Eh? / cj] There must be other test CD's that contain such a test. [There are, but (shocking news!) they are not in total agreement. / cj]
> > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
> Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
But it's true of the hundreds of Japanese LPs I own, with a few truly auspicious exceptions; I am planning an article on this.
> > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
> You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
No, he means that he hasn't bothered to listen to any of my 52 enumerated polarities on records.
> > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
> There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? [Regrettably yes, but not too many among the "better" stuff. / cj] Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case. [Depends... if you make Amanda McBroom out-of-phase then you can listen more happily to the band! / cj] You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact. [Sadly true. Just another instance of what ignoring this effect has accomplished. / cj]
> > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not in any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
> Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege [Indeed, all I ever did was write a frikkin' book on the subject -- and now I find myself wasting time on nasty little nippers -- not you, Posy -- so maybe I should retire and let them stew . / cj] (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
Guess they'll just have to, eh?
clark, grateful that you understand
that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre.....
As for the 52 recordings you have previously listed, perhaps you could please list just a few which have alternating polarities?
Just wondering, as I have not seen any recordings listed in any AA forum.
Stu
UncleStu:
"It is good to know that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre....."
Ya see... you might get farther with him, and this subject, if you quit the sniping. That crack wasn't necessary, and I don't even think it was accurate, just a reflection of your prejudices. I don't believe Clark is paid for his articles, he does it as a labour of love. You asked him for a listing of identifiable recordings, after complaining that he wouldn't supply any, and he just agreed to provide one, in an upcoming article. But that's not good enough, you want it right away. Well, I think he's in his right to delay publication, it's certainly not out of order for an author to do this. You imply the reason he's not favouring your demand and publishing the list before his intended plans, in order to please you personally, is because of his selfish interest in the "filthy lucre". And, while I can see the reasons for your antagonism toward him, do you really see no good reason why he would behave this way toward you? cj's done a lot to help the audio community, not the least of which is having "written a frikkin' book" on the subject of polarity, helping audiophiles get the basics right for the cost of a free tweak. The results of which seems to have received more flack than appreciation, in general. I know exactly where he's coming from, since in the last couple of years I've done my own little efforts to help the community improve their sound for free, and received far more flack than appreciation. So I can understand how one's tolerance for "snipers"will diminish considerably over time, as one is faced with this kind of attitude, over and over again.
I still think you both have a lot in common and can have many productive discussions, but you -both- have to want it. You just gotta lose the attitude.
(ME telling someone to lose the attitude.... now -that's- irony!)
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing.
Stu
> > For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing. < <
From what I have read of his posts and responses to it, in current and past threads on polarity on this and other AA forums, I think, as I have said, you both have valid points to make. But if you can't get beyond the antagonism, neither of you will be able to communicate productively. Which is too bad because it appears you both have a lot to talk about, of mutual interest. I think he could be more forthcoming in some of his explanations, but he shouldn't have to keep repeating himself if the answers can be found in his book. That's why one writes a book. It isn't "shilling" to ask one to "RTFM". That's also why FAQs were invented, because newbs keep asking the same questions over and over, and it gets tiring for experts to keep wasting time responding to the same things. For example, I believe the information you were asking about the 52 recordings can be found in his book, which is why they were not listed on AA.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!
clark
I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu
CLARK WROTE:
"The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!"
STU RESPONDED:
"I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.
Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
Stu"
STU WROTE (EARLIER):
"The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner."
....Well, I tried. Good luck with your polarity issues.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
v
Never answer any question directly,...sidestep, sidestep. But that's fine: since I am merely a stalker, and a dimwit to boot, simply nipping on your heels with attitude (all descriptors taken directly from your posts).
Your actions speak for themselves and I am not intimidated by them or by your perceived credentials, nor your 'attitude'. Still I detect an infinitesimally small shift in attitude on your part in attempting to engage May in a dialogue. Maybe further stalking will actually have you answer simple questions on the topics you claim to be an expert in. Maybe salvation is around.....ahh, I'll just have to be patient,...very, very patient.
We have all tried to be nice and accommodating, but that approach was very brusquely pushed aside and taken, seemingly, as an open invitation for a continuation for rude and contemptuous commentary with no information. If you want respect, please remember the Golden Rule: you do know that one don't you? It does not demean the person using it. You don't even have to practice that with me, just apply it to others who post and in a consistent manner.
Until then, I'll have to remain the "dog nipping at your heels" (your quote).
8^)
Stu
s
disappointed you. Still the 'man' refuses to answer any questions even when directly put to him, and now he states he is coming up with a future article or book. What is the purpose of participating on a forum, if the only answer is 'buy my book from 20 years ago.' Check out his response on General asylum when a perfectly valid question appears and advice is asked for. The central questions are sidestepped and there is little or no attempt to share experiences or observations. Look at his posts to Rick above. I am sure the information in them is very enlightening.
As I have told you, we can disagree, but at least we share observations and there is a furthering of knowledge in that simple fact, even if we question the causality. The same applies to May Belt and GK. They can state things and I can do so and still disagree on causality, but at least there is verification of certain observations. Oh we may quibble on certain applications, but there is commonality of certain experiences.
Even those who do not believe in the 'tweak' have another avenue of exploration, which may appeal to their sensibilities rather than an outward condemnation based on a theory they may think not true.
I am not against polarity at all. I have been told out right by Clark that I do not understand the true issue. For a long time I stood back and said nothing, until I realized that a man who claims to have taken the works of others in order to put polarity on the map was not really interested in enlightening any of the AA members.
It is akin to Chicken Little running about proclaiming "The sky is falling" but refusing to elaborate. The confusion surrounding the issue is rife with inaccuracies and nebulous statements.
Addressing the issue is simple to me: first you establish that the effect can exist and is audible. There are certain caveats necessary to do so: a phase coherent speaker certainly is one factor. Secondly is a definition of what is supposed to be correct.
Under pressure, Clark recently restated his definition from 20 years ago, which had been also iterated by George Louis and further electrically defined by the proposed AES standard. Any movement towards standardization meets vehement refusal and denials, however, hardly helpful to a settlement of the issue.
Yet since I have been on AA (about 5 years), he has steadfastly negated everyone else's attempts at understanding. No examples have been provided (unless you purchase his precious book). That book is 20 years old, and it ignores most video conventions and applications and does not take into account new formats, some of which have come and gone. Now he says, in essence, stay tuned while I write up something new....
Those actions are what galls me. It does not attempt to share any real understanding of the issue: it condemns anyone else who strives to do original thinking on the subject, demeaning them and thoroughly disgusts most who strive for an understanding of the subject and who attempt to question or post on AA. Many simply quit in disgust.
Look at his harsh attacks of Truthseekerprime, who is making an honest attempt at an understanding of the audibility of polarity. There is no encouragement, no hints, no observations or examples offered to further his understanding and testing methodology.
Now in my thinking, this is a good sample of the audio Inquisition: where only one dogma can be acceptable. I do not mind divergent paths in thinking and in experiences. We are, after all, human and thinking will often be divergent. If I firmly believe in something, as you do, I am willing to state my experiences with it and will share the application and understanding of it.
Mind you CJ did not invent or discover the phenomena, he merely published a pamphlet based on the observations and writings of others. It is not to me, a proprietary 'tweak' nor is it something that no one else has noticed before. It is not patentable, and CJ did not have or claim primacy in writing of it (that's why he called it the Wood Effect).
I do not know why he even interjects in discussions of the subject because there is precious little that he does contribute. He could have been a leader in the subject but he seems to be a major stumbling block. He constantly harps about the attitude of others, not realizing that it is his own attitude that draws such reaction.
Too bad. As I have stated before, at first, I allowed him to browbeat me, and I turned silent for months. Now I refuse to allow him the satisfaction of being the 'grand inquisitor', allowing the preaching of only the dogma of 'Clark.'
Stu
that you have learned from Clark's posts.
8^)
Stu
That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? They were pretty consistent before and appeared to be in 'correct' polarity. After the Kenny Rankin disc, they flip the polarity relative to previous recordings, even on their second test CD. It parallels the change of their recording equipment to George Kaye's stuff, not that I am accusing him of deliberately inverting polarity. Of course I have only checked out the discs to the first 100 titles or so, so I cant vouch for any other discs.
One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct.
Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads.
See what I mean about naming recordings? I have never seen anything similar from CJ. My high school teachers always accused me of writing of "glittering generalities" and not substantiating my statements with specific examples. I may be bad, but others can be worse and may be deliberately avoiding the issue completely.
Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent.
Stu
> > That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? < <
Nope, I don't even know what JD-63 is. The only Chesky stuff I have is that test CD, and I think another sampler. I'm not sure how you would know, if there's so much controversy about whether polarity is correct or not. A polarity switch light on a DAC?
> > One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct. < <
I don't get how the CDN version has its polarities reversed. Their pressing may be different, but assuming they are using the same master tape, isn't the order of polarity locked into the recording?
> > Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. < <
Which is...?
> > Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads. < <
Of course. But I can see where it can get complicated if "some" instruments have reverse polarity, relative to others on the same track(s), and pressings from some countries have inverse polarity, relative to pressings from other countries. And then you have take time to argue about which pressing is the "correct" polarity, when both contain multiple reversed polarities.
> > Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent. < <
BTW, I've always agreed with your assessment elsewhere, that time is the more important measurement than amplitude, and I can wholly believe that frequency response is only popular because its easy to measure. I think there are a lot of things important to audio that are either hard to measure or can't be, and yet all the focus is on those that are easy to determine, at the expense of everything else.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Anyway, not necessarily. That's part of the joke -- on us all!
clark
JD-63 is the Chesky catalog number.In another post I made the observation that on my EZ CD creator software, if I placed a ripped file into the hard drive and then recorded from it later, the recording was inverted in relation to the original file. A friend with the latest Mac reports the same.
I do not know why this is so as I have never bothered with reading the lines of code. I can work around the limitations.
The point about the HCT recording is that in one orientation, the piano is extremely clear and in another it is muffled and distant. The same occurs for the other two members of the trio, inverted to the piano, of course. Which is correct: well, what instrument or voice do you want to hear? Now, overall, having two members of the trio in 'correct' phase is usually preferable than having only one.
A nationally distributed magazine and it's staff comes out and proclaims one version of the recording 'sounds' better. Had they been aware of the issue, such a statement would not have been printed. While I'm sure the Canadian manufacturer was pleased with a boost in sales, it confounds the general public.
The same occurs with LP collectors. Certain pressings are deemed 'hot' stampers and often become highly sought after pressings, commanding higher prices. Sometimes the differences may be simple polarity swaps. You can tell that I'm a cheapskate: I really do not like paying high digits for something which can simply be resolved with a flick of a switch at times.
Preserving polarity in a piece of electronic gear is fairly easy. Signal generators can produce impulse tests quite readily. It can be 'iffy' with recordings, but a careful engineer can maintain polarity all the way through the manufacturing process. Ray Kimber says the easiest way to insure it is to fire a cap pistol at the recording session. You have a reference for the recording which can be followed through the chain. You can even use an oscilloscope to measure it as it proceeds through the recording and playback chain. Of course denial of any convention or standard leads to many inconsistencies and problems.
The question is thus: do you wish to see a cure or not? If you do not care or refuse to accept that a solution can be worked out, then absolute polarity should not be bandied about, and it becomes a non issue. If you do care, then an understanding must be established, and then listeners will be able to recognize and create a demand for better recordings.
I do not accept the attitude that constant grumbling about the issue but doing nothing is somehow OK. If it is of importance, then education is the key, and that will lead to a demand for change. Nebulous claims and statements, like recordings are 50-50 in nature, do nothing to aid the situation, as most readers will have no desire to create change, having little to reference their listening preferences to. I find it imperative to have lists of recordings in one polarity as compared to others in another. That gives everyone a reference point from which to start.
Stu
Ah, but I did take your response as humor. That's why I didn't really answer. You were sort of poking fun at me, but that indeed is no biggie in my book. I most definitely was not trying to 'weasel' out of anything as accused, I simply had really nothing productive or funny to add.The 'sad' was in no way directed at you or your comments. Despite our contrasting views as to causality, your passion is duly noted and I, for one, have no doubts that you are sincere in what you write of.
As for your tests, well, I have posted on some things which lead me to such conclusions which I have come to. I will reiterate a few.
I've a several friends who leave IC's and wires coiled in their sound rooms, a la Belt. One listener has had severe issues with RF entering his TT system, audible not only as static type noise but as a bona fide radio station. He accidentally discovered that placing a coiled up IC on top of his preamp eliminated the RFI. The wire was not hooked up to anything, BTW.
In an old ham radio text, we found a recipe for reducing RFI reception: an octopus arrangement of wires, with each leg trimmed preferably to a fraction of the offending frequencies. We've tried this and it works extremely well, once you figure out the wavelengths. However, a simple random arrangement also works fairly well also
I have used ERS, link provided below, for some time now. The specs and description of it are on the websites, but essentially it is a paper sandwich with a carbon fiber web upon which shards of nickel plated CF are sprinkled. The random lengths of the shards serve as minute antennas for RF which are then grounded to the CF mesh. It is a basis for some of the 'Stealth' technology employed by the military. It works well in areas where the 'Rainbow foil' seems to work best.
RFI has been a large stumbling block for digital/video audio since it's inception. I have been using copper foil tape since at least 1990 to shield every single semiconductor in my CD players, with significant increase in sonic quality. My experiments reached Positive Feedback's writer Doug Blackburn and he actually wrote an article about these mods, however, I had asked me to keep my name out of it at the time. A piece of foil on such chips seems to be effective although I do prefer the ERS.
I routinely advice my customers to ground their metal racks and speaker stands. In my case I have a ladder type rack which actually is an excellent simulation of a Yagi antenna. At any rate grounding the rack seems to create a lower noise floor.
In addition I place small magnets on the supports, midway between the ends. As long as the TT is not on the rack, the result is an improvement in dynamics and subtle tonal textures. Here I know that the magnets are restricting the magnetic induction created by the proximity of the power transformers to the ferrous legs of the rack.
Similarly grounding a metal top plate of a speaker stand seems to 'speed' up the sound. It may be subtle at times since the effect is obviously dependent upon the distance from the magnet structure to the top. Additional experimentation with grounding of the metal speaker driver baskets have yielded positive results. In the case of the ubiquitous stamped steel baskets the ferrous material has a much greater effect on the magnetic field generated from the speaker itself than say a cast aluminum or magnesium basket.
Of great interest is the fact that some speakers are now using composite baskets for even greater performance by a lowering of the magnetic induction. I once discussed this with a noted speaker designer who laughed and told me that he was not surprised since he could measure the magnetic field f his 12 inch woofers five feet away. In this case we were discussing the fact that using non magnetic screws to secure the drivers to the cabinet generated noticeably 'better' sound. The use of such screws is also of benefit any where magnetism is present: transformers are a good target. Replacing the steel bolt in a toroidal transformer mount with one of Nylon or even brass creates a significant 'ease' to the sound, greater midrange, and less high frequency anomalies. As for those steel bolts holding the laminations of the standard EI cores together, they are an abomination. I like to switch them out to brass screws, especially if they are output transformers.
About 25 years ago, I had purchased mu metal and was experimenting with it, building shields for transformers and such. Because mu metal sheet requires a re annealing in a pure hydrogen atmosphere after fabrication, I gravitated to foil and simply used multiple layers.
It is fascinating to see what can be accomplished by 'channeling' magnetic fields. Not in any spiritual sense, but channeling in that magnetic fields would rather enter and remain in a ferrous object rather than enter air. A simple toroidal ring placed over (or under) a motor greatly reduces the size of the field of the motor.
Used under a TT motor the effect is immediately noticeable and greatly beneficial. Centered over the spin motor of a CD also yields great audible benefit, and I have tried this on machines from a the infamous RS portable to the the latest $15K Esoteric machines, with positive results.
The use of this on a CD/DVD player is understandable as the laser head is in very close proximity to the motor. In a TT, the motor can be a foot or even further away, and yet the effect is immediately noticeable. Older VPI's and SOTA's have an external cover upon which you can place the toroid while in play. I can hear the sound changing even before I set the toroid down. Placing a magnet on the steel rack is instantly audible too, but in a negative way, because the steel 'channels' the magnetic field to distances far greater than you would think possible and it affects the field of the cartridge. This is measurable, BTW.
While EMI and RFI fields are relatively mundane and have no 'mystery' to them, the true wonder is the sensitivity of the human organism. While large variations do exist, the defining sensitivity of the human body has yet to be set. I have commented about this on several occasions. The sensitivity of some individuals can be quite amazing, and I do NOT claim such sensitivity by any means.
Stu
> > Ah, but I did take your response as humor. < <
Glad to hear. (No really, I'm very glad that I am able to hear. It makes being an audiophile so much more enjoyable...).
> > The 'sad' was in no way directed at you or your comments. < <
Hmmm... would I have still found it as funny as I did, knowing that? Probably.
> > I've a several friends who leave IC's and wires coiled in their sound rooms, a la Belt. < <
Not sure what you mean by "a la Belt". Don't recall anyone advising this, and I doubt you're talking about reef knots. Perhaps because Belt was a radio engineer in the RAF, he -wants- people to listen to radio stations?
> > One listener has had severe issues with RF entering his TT system, audible not only as static type noise but as a bona fide radio station. He accidentally discovered that placing a coiled up IC on top of his preamp eliminated the RFI. The wire was not hooked up to anything, BTW. < <
I thought it was pretty well known that coiled wires are a likely culprit of RFI, which is why its always advised to keep your wires straight as possible.
> > I have used ERS, link provided below, for some time now. The specs and description of it are on the websites, but essentially it is a paper sandwich with a carbon fiber web upon which shards of nickel plated CF are sprinkled. The random lengths of the shards serve as minute antennas for RF which are then grounded to the CF mesh. It is a basis for some of the 'Stealth' technology employed by the military. It works well in areas where the 'Rainbow foil' seems to work best. < <
So that seems to be a key reason why you feel the Silver Rainbow Foil works by EMI/RFI. You're assuming the ERS product works solely with EMI, because that's what the technology indicates. Perhaps it does. But, have you ever considered the ERS papers may have an effect under Beltism, and this is the reason why the SR foil works well in the same places? The key to sorting the puzzle out is easy: try the SR foil in areas where the ERS papers don't work, but where the SR foil is effective. A mirror or a dead battery in another room, might be one place to start.
> > RFI has been a large stumbling block for digital/video audio since it's inception. I have been using copper foil tape since at least 1990 to shield every single semiconductor in my CD players, with significant increase in sonic quality. My experiments reached Positive Feedback's writer Doug Blackburn and he actually wrote an article about these mods, however, I had asked me to keep my name out of it at the time. A piece of foil on such chips seems to be effective although I do prefer the ERS. < <
It was probably around 1990 when I acquired thin strips of copper to shield the clock crystal and such in my D/A converter. Still have it, but it's one of many such ideas I never got around to testing. I think I tried foil on chips in CD players and such, and didn't succeed at getting good results from those locations (I can't quite remember if it was morphic messages or both, though). I see no reason why copper foil tape wouldn't have a "Beltist" type effect as well (and by that, I don't mean it will improve sound, necessarily). Again, only way I know to test that is to use it on something or somewhere the RFI theory wouldn't hold water. A glass of water, perhaps? ;-)
> > I routinely advice my customers to ground their metal racks and speaker stands. In my case I have a ladder type rack which actually is an excellent simulation of a Yagi antenna. At any rate grounding the rack seems to create a lower noise floor. < <
Again, that reminds me of something I used to do, which is ground the components to the metal rack (just taping a wire from a screw on the back plate to the leg of the rack). At the time I felt it improved things, but the last time I tested that, I had a bit of a change of mind. It screwed something up, can't remember what.
> > In addition I place small magnets on the supports, midway between the ends. As long as the TT is not on the rack, the result is an improvement in dynamics and subtle tonal textures. Here I know that the magnets are restricting the magnetic induction created by the proximity of the power transformers to the ferrous legs of the rack. < <
Magnets on the middle of the legs of the rack?
> > Similarly grounding a metal top plate of a speaker stand seems to 'speed' up the sound. It may be subtle at times since the effect is obviously dependent upon the distance from the magnet structure to the top. Additional experimentation with grounding of the metal speaker driver baskets have yielded positive results. In the case of the ubiquitous stamped steel baskets the ferrous material has a much greater effect on the magnetic field generated from the speaker itself than say a cast aluminum or magnesium basket. < <
I have also done a similar experiment to my friend's speakers. Except I connected the ground wire from the positive terminals of each driver, at the xover, with all wires combined at their end and connected to the amp's ground terminal screw. That and all the silly Belt experiments I did on the speakers really opened the sound up.
> > Of great interest is the fact that some speakers are now using composite baskets for even greater performance by a lowering of the magnetic induction. I once discussed this with a noted speaker designer who laughed and told me that he was not surprised since he could measure the magnetic field f his 12 inch woofers five feet away. In this case we were discussing the fact that using non magnetic screws to secure the drivers to the cabinet generated noticeably 'better' sound. The use of such screws is also of benefit any where magnetism is present: transformers are a good target. Replacing the steel bolt in a toroidal transformer mount with one of Nylon or even brass creates a significant 'ease' to the sound, greater midrange, and less high frequency anomalies. As for those steel bolts holding the laminations of the standard EI cores together, they are an abomination. I like to switch them out to brass screws, especially if they are output transformers. < <
Of course, the theory of the non-magnetic screw follows the same theory of reducing eddy currents, as practiced by Eichmann, Dennis Moorecraft and other pioneering audio engineers.
> > It is fascinating to see what can be accomplished by 'channeling' magnetic fields. < <
Oh yes, I know all about that....
> > The use of this on a CD/DVD player is understandable as the laser head is in very close proximity to the motor. < <
For similar reasons, when I mod a CD player, first thing I do is try to take the transformer as far out of the player as I can. That alone can raise rez.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Clark has offered no mathematical model, apart from one in The Wood Effect concerning polarity (hitherto unmentioned), and there were no landers on any moon of Mars.
clark
sidestepping, sidestepping... The phrase I used was "Mars lander". Are you saying that you worked on a unsuccessful Mars Lunar lander?
8^)
Stu
As I understand it, that was just an undergrad major (which at least to me would mean nothing).
I trust I will be corrected briskly and brusquely to the extent my sources are wrong! (Right?)
TL
Kind of like Ratso and Joe in "Midnight Cowboy"... Sad and pathetic, but at least you have each other!
(Cue sad harmonica music)
Have a wonderful day!
You're like two trolls under the same bridge. How romantic!
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
"...and agree to do his housecleaning for 3 weeks!"
Thanks for confirming that you are Clark's cabin-boy. Of course, I already knew, but it's nice that *you* finally acknowledge it!
:-)
How nice of you to deliberately follow me on to this forum and without provocation from anyone, add your usual stupid ad hominem attacks to an ongoing audio discussion that I and others were in the middle of. So why are you -still- sniffing around my butt, little fanboy? And this is after how many times you said you were "ignoring me", jr. troll? LOL! With all this stalking and inane trolling you're doing, it's hard to tell who you're more obsessed with, Clark or myself. But I do know that when either of us makes a joke that's too subtle for you, you confirm and reaffirm your general level of stupidity by completely missing it, and taking what is said seriously, and on face value. I'm sorry you don't understand what a nitwit you are jr., but that's what makes you funny. Of course, a lack of any refined sense of humour is a kind of hallmark of pseudo-objectivist skeptics of your persuasion. Seems your kind are all too slow to get anything you're not bashed over the head with, ie. you'll laugh at dirty limericks, all right. So then, since you've crashed the party looking like your usual drunken self, this should make a bitter old sod like you a bit happier... tell me if you've heard this one, "SF Tech"....
There once was a troll from San Fran
Obsessed with a much wiser man
He thought himself clever
Although he was never
'Cos he kept his head in his can
Now if I'm cj's "cabin boy" according to you, then by your bitter obsession with me and the desire to scratch and claw your way to the top of the Posy Rorer Addicts Club, it's clear that you're mine. So go fetch me the sun tan butter cabin boy, and be quick about it. I got a surprise waiting for you in my cabana....
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Man, that's pretty creepy.
What kind of surprise can I get in your cabana?
Are you human?
What the hell is your problem?
I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
Later
The SF Tech troll reaches a crisis in his obsession with me, and has a nervous breakdown......
> > Man, that's pretty creepy.
What kind of surprise can I get in your cabana?
Are you human?
What the hell is your problem? < <
[sigh]...
PR:
..."But I do know that when either of us makes a joke that's too subtle for you, you confirm and reaffirm your general level of stupidity by completely missing it, and taking what is said seriously, and on face value. I'm sorry you don't understand what a nitwit you are jr., but that's what makes you funny. Of course, a lack of any refined sense of humour is a kind of hallmark of pseudo-objectivist skeptics of your persuasion. Seems your kind are all too slow to get anything you're not bashed over the head with "
> > I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
So, can we safely assume that you've gotten help with your obsession with me and I am finally back on your "ignore list"?
> > Later
Uh-oh. That's not very reassuring....
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Like watching a train wreck in slow motion...
So, let's have another few thousand words of gibberish!
C'mon! I know you can do it, Posy!
If your text isn't preceded and followed by at least a thousand "smiley faces", he's not even going to get a whiff of the humour it may contain. So guys, this could turn out to be a pricey proposition.... but Mr. Tech is one of my favourite Posey addicts (not to mention one of the most confused and persistent of the lot...), and it could change his life around for the better. By that, I mean maybe he wouldn't be so angry and miserable allatime, and always ready to boil over. Who knows, one day he might even be able to see the perfectly legitimate humour in me making fun of him.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Good on you! Now, tell me why I should take you seriously...
Later, Tater
nt
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
That's comforting to know as there are more than 70 PWB products. I'm betting you were thinking the number was somewhat less than that. :-)
~ Cheerio
I have explained my postion many times. If have not tried it myself, I avoid comment, I have not tried everything, and with some things I have tried, I get negative or no results. Is that so complicated, and are you claiming to be able to read my mind? Betcha you wouldn't be able to know what I am thinking right now. Again, I have never claimed to be omniscient (you can ask Clark about that one....8^) ). I was simply restating the obvious.
Oh yeah, tried your clock on the window sill of an open window. Sounded worse than in the center of the floor in front of the amp.
Stu
I try not to generalize too much regarding results, esp. negative results.
That was no generalization, merely an observation. I was assuming your recommendation of the window sill was a generalization, though. But again, no biggie. In fact,if you notice, I generally post posiive rather than negative results.The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner.
Think I'll simply drop out of further discussions on the subject.
Stu
Not that I really matter in the big scheme of things, but locally I do and I'm getting more interested in arriving at a conclusion concerning things "Beltist".
Your success with the clock, which is ostensibly one of them, has piqued my interest. I can't afford to buy one at this point, but hope to satisfy at least some of my curiosity with some controlled testing on the cheap.
Your experiences are very valuable to me as I believe them to be the most dispassionate and unbiased ones being posted.
Regards, Rick
> > > "Think I'll simply drop out of further discussions on the subject" < < <
It is a pity unclestu because I feel you are quite close to getting to the quite revolutionary point (in audio terms) which we reached over 25 years ago. But, I feel it will only happen when you do some experiment which you CANNOT explain in any of the conventional ways you have been doing so far. Only when it actually happens to you will you begin to realise that "there is something else going on" which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories - no matter how much one stretches, pulls, pushes, squeezes them to try to make sense of what you are hearing.
I have seen your latest responses on Tweakers Asylum re 'degaussing'.
Quote from your response in Tweakers Asylum section.
> > > "Yeah, I know it sounds pretty bizarre, but at least I am not claiming 'morphic' resonances here. In my experiences, magnetism is a an often overlooked factor in many electronics: not simply from an actual magnet but also by induction. Small field build up can affect the significantly larger fields, like a cartridge. If you have a powerful enough degausser, try degaussing a TT platter (I hear positive effects from doing it to an LP-12 aluminum platter and even to VPI acrylic platters !)." < < <
Followed by cheap-Jack's response :-
> > > "So to claim applying a strong magnetic field by using a demagnetizer on a PVC record is a parapsychological effect, like unfounded sonic improvment by some rainbow films & by freezing a picture, & the likes." < < <
The response by cheap-Jack to your experiences is similar to the responses we get to our experiences i.e it MUST be parapsychological. I, you (and many others) know that your experience (and ours) is NOT parapsychological - the point where I differ from you is not regarding your observations and experiences but regarding the explanations as to why.
If you have tried 'treating' (by degaussing) the aluminium platter of the LP-12 and gained an improvement in the sound I think you would find that this is a similar improvement we (and others) gain from 'treating' the platter of the LP-12 (but we do NOT do it by degaussing). Try the experiment of degaussing the aluminium platter of a PASSIVE LP-12 - just sitting passively on a shelf (not connected into the AC supply or to the audio system) and THEN explain any positive effects in the sound you gain !!!
Ditto with the acrylic platter. Try the experiment of degaussing the acrylic platter of a PASSIVE turntable - just sitting passively on a shelf (not connected into the AC supply or to the audio system) and THEN explain any positive effects in the sound you gain !!
Your conventional explanation to do with degaussing a vinyl record seems to be to do with 'having an effect on the stylus/cartridge' and therefore on the audio signal ----------->
> > > "Since they claim there is momentary melting when the stylus runs through the vinyl: that, coupled with the strong magnetic field of the cartridge will, I suspect, slowly reorient the polar molecules over time and repeated play. Applying a degausser will partially return the vinyl to an amorphous state, instead of having a magnetic orientation which can create induction." < < <
I.e 'something affecting the audio signal'. But, how would you explain 'something affecting the audio signal' when there is NO audio signal being picked up by a passive stylus/cartridge/turntable ?
20 years ago we were demonstrating 'treating' passive turntable platters (aluminium/acrylic/glass/epoxy type/you name it) on turntables just sitting passively on a shelf and improving the sound to the amazement of all concerned - retailers, reviewers, manufacturers, distributors.
Your reply to kenster was also quite illuminating !!
> > > "Try using the demagnetizer with the record in the sleeve or even in the jacket. The AC field will reach the vinyl. I normally use a hand held Geneva which claims to have a strength of 2800 gauss, the strongest (they claim) for a hand held unit." < < <
I would suggest you try another PASSIVE experiment. Try the experiment of taking the vinyl record OUT of it's jacket and demagnetising only the jacket cover, then listen and you will experience an improvement in the sound by merely having demagnetised the vinyl's jacket cover !!!!!!! Explain THAT !!
I like your reply to cheap-Jack regarding him having a negative experience with such as the demagnetising procedure :-
> > > "Obviously your experience was negative. My experiences have not been negative at all, and others who have tried it report similar results to mine. I will not speculate as to why your experience was so negative," < < <
I think I would like to copy that response as my general reply to everyone who asks ME why they are not able to hear what we and many others can hear.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
I very much enjoy your posts, and would like to try and discover if I can hear the effect of "treating" things in the room not directly in the audio chain.
I've been following the threads, read your website and contemplated the info. I guess you could call me a hard-bitten engineer and as such am very sensitive to the importance of conducting experiments properly to try and "get a handle" on what's happening. You've experience is in the same vein so you know the importance of correlating cause and effect by trying to change only a single variable at a time and evaluating the result. A key issue is being able to reset the variable to avoid confusing interactions.
Most of what I've read so far concerning the application of your discoveries don't provide much useful information. ("you just have to try everything", seems to be the result.) Except for Stu, no one seems to be trying to control the experiments. So I'm looking for no more than three things I can try that tend to have the grossest effect. And are resettable. Is there one or more of your free tweaks that you would suggest as the most obvious, reliable and resettable?
You repeatedly mention treating identical or similar devices to the operating ones as proof that something unusual is happening. Does that similarity have an effect on the outcome or is it just an attempt at consistency? For instance I have a power amp sitting around with a steel case but not being used. If I degauss it or align it's screws or paste a sticky note on it with a positive thought will that be more likely to affect my perception than doing the same thing with a steel strongbox?
Finally I have an unrelated question: Since you have made it clear that what is affected is the listener, why not treat the listener directly? I'd be tickled to have a pin or tie-bar that would make things sound better. I could even use it at the symphony.
While I'm unimpressed with the extent explanations, that doesn't mean that the effect may not be real. Like you, I'm also unimpressed with the majority of the the extent explanations on AA. So what? I've found any number of things in my life that have proven true despite having iffy explanations.
Thanks, Rick
Rick, There is no one a more ' hard-bitten engineer' than Peter !!
> > > "So I'm looking for no more than three things I can try that tend to have the grossest effect. And are resettable. Is there one or more of your free tweaks that you would suggest as the most obvious, reliable and resettable? " < < <
It is extremely difficult to suggest which of our free tweaks would be guaranteed to give the 'grossest', 'most obvious or reliable' effect. People react differently to different things. Some swear by the beneficial effect of placing a plain piece of paper under one of the four feet of a piece of equipment (I would emphasise - under ONE of the FOUR feet - not under one of three feet or under one of five feet but under one of four feet !!). But some might not hear the beneficial effect of tying a Reef knot in a cable (again I would emphasise it must be a Reef knot, not a Granny knot or any other knot). Others might not hear the effect of the plain piece of paper under one of the four feet but have Reef Knots tied in as many cables (all over the house) as possible to great beneficial effect. Others hear both 'tweaks' and many of the other 'tweaks'. It is not possible to guarantee which will have the grossest effect but most of our free tweaks can be removed (take you back to square one) so you can do before, after and back to before listening experiments. Another peculiarity is the following. Sometimes people THINK they might have heard an improvement in the sound but are not sure until as soon as they remove the particular 'tweak' and listen again, they cringe at their sound because it is perceived as much worse!! They then realise that the improvement in the sound HAD been there, but they had not been absolutely sure, had been uncertain, until they had removed the beneficial 'effect'.
> > > "You repeatedly mention treating identical or similar devices to the operating ones as proof that something unusual is happening. Does that similarity have an effect on the outcome or is it just an attempt at consistency?" < < <
The similarity is mainly to do with consistency. If you believe that some 'treatment' is to do with RF interference or EMI or static (affecting the signal going through the equipment) and you do the same 'treatment' on a passive but NON identical piece of equipment and get a similar effect - there will always be someone who will claim that the result of the experiment is null and void because the NON identical piece of equipment might be quite different in other respects and THAT difference would account for an effect.
Referring to some of the experiments I described for unclestu. There is an interesting mention relating to this subject in an article on P.W.B. treatments written by Jimmy Hughes in October 1987 issue of Hi Fi Answers. Jimmy describes 'treating' the spindle of the (passive) Linn LP-12 turntable whilst listening to the Compact Disc player and improving the sound - of the Compact Disc player !! And vice versa - 'treating' a (passive) Compact Disc player and improving the sound whilst listening to the LP-12 !! Jimmy goes on to describe how he demonstrated such a technique to Mr. X from one of London's top specialist dealers, to "looks of utter incredulity". Jimmy's article was entitled "New Horizons - Prepare to suspend disbelief" and was written 20 years ago !!
> > > "For instance I have a power amp sitting around with a steel case but not being used. If I degauss it or align it's screws or paste a sticky note on it with a positive thought will that be more likely to affect my perception than doing the same thing with a steel strongbox? " < < <
Now, this is a difficult one to answer without you have some understanding of the concept of 'morphic resonance'.
Let me try. You have to visualise the power amp in a steel box and a steel strongbox in the environment as both being a problem (for us). So, treating both will be effective. Or, put another way. If you 'treat' the amp in the steel box first and gain an improvement, then you can go on to 'treat' the steel strongbox and gain another improvement.
Now comes the part to do with 'morphic resonance' (and morphic messages). In addition, attaching a beneficial note to the amp in the steel box will give a greater improvement - particularly if the amp has a Brand name. Beneficial message should read as follows.
Say the amp is a Pioneer amp. The beneficial note should say THIS PIONEER AMPLIFIER PRODUCES GOOD SOUND > O.K. Naming the Brand name (if there is one) is more effective that not. With the steel strongbox, the beneficial message would just be STEEL STRONGBOX > O.K.
Read Dave and Carol Clarks experiences when they experimented writing similar 'morphic messages' with our Red 'x' Pen. I repeat their observations in my article "Myth, Mirth or Magic?" in Positive Feedback Online
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/belt.htm
Dave Clark's experience was to react immediately as soon as the beneficial message Carol had written was changed to one which read "Bad".
In Carol's article about the Red 'x' Pen, she describes using our specially treated pen and writing beneficial messages with great effect.
Also, in my article "Myth, Mirth or Magic ?", in the third paragraph, there is a link to the 60 or more pages of discussion I was involved with in the Stereophile Chat Forum where I described many of our experiences.
> > > "Finally I have an unrelated question: Since you have made it clear that what is affected is the listener, why not treat the listener directly? I'd be tickled to have a pin or tie-bar that would make things sound better. I could even use it at the symphony." < < <
A difficult question to answer again until you have had experience with such things as our 'treated' Foil and heard a beneficial effect on the sound. That is why we describe many 'free' techniques to try to get people to experience, for themselves, just what can be achieved. Once you have had positive experience with such as our Rainbow Foil, things will not appear as 'strange'- then I can suggest that the next time you go to a musical concert, you 'treat' the watch you are wearing with a strip of Rainbow Foil etc. Do you carry credit/store cards in your wallet.? Do you carry anything in your wallet with a bar code ? All these can be 'treated'. Would you buy a programme at the concert ? This can also be 'treated'. We DO have a 'treated' pin - a CCU 'treated' safety pin (for attaching to carpets, curtains and cushions and upholstery) - in fact Dr Richard Graham (who compiles and edits our Newsletter) always attaches one of these 'pins' to his theatre seat when he visits the ballet, the opera or a concert.
Regards,
May Belt.
Thanks May,
The reef knot and paper it will be. I definitely like the idea that they can be reset reliably. It's a lot harder to know if you've managed to remove chemicals.
I'm pleased that there isn't seen to be special relationship between the active player with the "passive" unit being treated. Other than being yet another thing in the room. Seems bit more straightforward.
I am a firm believer in superstition, more precisely the power of suggestion. They are the basis of success of many of our most profitable enterprises. I also think that we are very sensitive to others around us, unconsciously observing and reacting to subtly clues. The biggest difficulty I see in conducting clean tests is removing these factors. I won't be able to do so initially, but it should be fun anyway.
Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my questions.
Regards, Rick
...it appears that the vast majority of May's (and Posy's) antagonists here are subject to that very power -- except with them, it's a negative power.
Nowhere have I seen any hint from them that they too might be susceptible to psychology; no, it's only us!
Whattalaff.
clark
Subjectivists, Objectivists, Objectionists... all human. Our keen eye for correlations and open minds have done much to make us such a successful species. The dark side is that it also makes us putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks.
Question your beliefs. Question Authority. Keep an open mind. Have a beer.
The secret to life is having the right platitude...
Rick
> > Subjectivists, Objectivists, Objectionists... all human. < <
Yes. Some more than others...
> > Our keen eye for correlations and open minds have done much to make us such a successful species. < <
Our closed-mindedness (by "our", I mean society in general and not myself of course....) has also made us a failure as a species.
> > The dark side is that it also makes us putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks. < <
No. Only those with minds of putty to begin with are putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks. If we're still talking about audio, all you need is a good set of ears and an ability to think for yourself. Then you don't need to worry about any of that.
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Failed species???? Not yet, probably not ever. But I think we could do a lot better.
Putty-wise, you are right. It was a hackneyed expression but it seemed close enough compared to the lengthy, boring diatribe that would have ensued if I had tried to express what I was thinking. Clearly mind manipulation is a perfected craft and none of us seem totally immune to it. If one were really "closed-minded" it might provide a certain level of protection, rather like a computer firewall.
On another topic, I'm pleased that you don't recall our "rational dialog", me neither. It's a load off. Not to say that we may not have had one...
I'm enjoying "mockworthy".
Rick
> > Failed species???? Not yet, probably not ever. But I think we could do a lot better. < <
What do you call a species that has slaughtered millions of its own in the name of religion, racism, jealousy, envy, misogyny, politics and other closed-minded values? I call that "failed".
> > Putty-wise, you are right. It was a hackneyed expression but it seemed close enough compared to the lengthy, boring diatribe that would have ensued if I had tried to express what I was thinking. Clearly mind manipulation is a perfected craft and none of us seem totally immune to it. < <
It's really not that big a deal. Just be more vigilante than the marketers and you'll be immune to it. Trust me when I say I'm aware of every possible aspect of "the machine" trying to sell me things (products or ideas). It's not a coincidence that I own a VCR with a commercial killer. I'm the guy that can't enjoy himself at an Eric Clapton concert for those damned ads they display on the screen or around the arena.
> > If one were really "closed-minded" it might provide a certain level of protection, rather like a computer firewall. < <
Well, it's a lot like love. You can be extra super careful to avoid it, so you don't get your heart broken. But then you don't get any love, either. In the end, who wins?
> > On another topic, I'm pleased that you don't recall our "rational dialog", me neither. It's a load off. Not to say that we may not have had one... < <
Now that's -two- people that seem to be confirming it. I'm gonna have to give the notion some serious consideration. I'm sorry, what we're we talking about?
> > I'm enjoying "mockworthy". < <
Glad to hear that. I'll put it in a sentence for you, so you can get a feel for context:
"Richard L. Wainwright is a mockworthy person."
"silence tells me secretly, everything..."
Thanks for the kind thoughts!
-RW-
e
That's good advice... but not when selectively applied (except maybe the beer part, might want more than one on occasion!) That just defeats the purpose, eh?
Just remember, Clark's dogmatic pronouncements require the existence of a "Them" as well as an "Us".
Fall a bit wide of the mark (in his assessment, of course), and you can expect to become yet another object of his derision.
Hope you've got a thick skin!
Cheers
Stu
later apologized to Lemaitre, but I didn't post anything about Einstein first, Clark did. The fact that he used Einstein, who did have a mathematical model ( and I am not excluding any one else) means that there is a means for devising an experiment with predictable results. Even without the experimental proof, there was a means for creating an experimental basis testing the theory.
For many other events, I see no attempt at a numeration or a possible mathematical model. Not that one is absolutely necessary, mind you, but it would be nice to have in a description of effects. Nebulous statements and predictions, fill me with a certain, ah, apprehension, and not because of the uncertainty. I find that it sometimes (note: sometimes) indicates a certain lack of understanding of the full causality. A lack of complete understanding is also of no cause for alarm for me either. There's a lot of things I don't understand.
Stu
Every Bozo with a bad idea says, "Well, Einstein failed math, " or "Einstein pubslished before measurements were done," as though their dumb ass idea is of similar quality.
Remember, for every Albert Einstein, there are 1,000,000 Alfred Einsteins.
Cheers, guys. If I had posted what you did, some dim bulb egotistical guru wannabe would have posted "STALKER ALERT!"
No names named, just behaviors described.
I've been called a dim wit and worse. No biggie, though.
Stu
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: