Isolation Ward

From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

Return to Isolation Ward

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth)

72.253.179.5
Posted on May 27, 2011 at 16:41:19
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 In regards to Quartz "wands" exposed to light. Using an LED flashlight with UV, green, white and a red laser, I've experimented with shining the LED down a quartz crystal (based on an second hand description of the Stein device).

Shining the light through the six sides of a quartz wand produced poor sound quality (M faces) Shining the light down through the top produced much more audiophile sonics. Illumination on the sides actually sort of clouded the sound: illumination from the top produced various effects depending primarily upon the frequency of light. This is with the crystal mounted on a sofa 5 feet from the components and not in contact at all with the components.

UV (400nM)produced the most upper frequency information. Next was light (broadband, obviously), then Green ( about 560 nM) and then the red laser ( 650 nM) with the frequency range being affected dropping as the wavelengths increased.

With the battery ground tweak, or the ground tweaks in general, the following observations were made.

As voltage of the battery goes up ( seriesing the batteries), the upper frequencies get emphasized, to the point where running three 9 volt batteries in series lead to an unbearable top end tilt. Increasing the current ( ampere hours) seems to help the bass.

Adding a capacitor certainly adds to the bass, but then the charged cap is akin to adding extra current capacity to the battery.

I haven't tried it, but Elizabeth has written that adding a ferrite to the ground loop made a significant difference in sound. She has not described the affect, but I suspect that adding a ferrite is equivalent of adding an inductor, making the electron discharge from the wire more consistent and "even". The effect, without actually having tried it myself, I suspect, would be in the bass regions. A bit of elucidation from Elizabeth would be greatly appreciated here.

The funny thing about the ground wire tweak is that the loop is critical to the performance. Early on, I made the ground loop tweak with some copper foil , four inches wide, figuring that since Bud Purvine said the surface area of the wire was critical and that Litz wire was the best. The foil was too wide for an RCA so I soldered one RCA to each end of the 6 inch long foil. Plugging one RCA produced a very minimal difference in sound, however plugging in the two RCA's produced a much more noticeable and positive difference. The surface area of the wire ( foil in this case) has not changed, just the loop.

I suspect the loop adds a slight inductance to the Purvine "electron cloud". This would explain why Elizabeth's use of the ferrite is also beneficial. It also could mean that spiraling the wire to simulate an inductor would also be of benefit.

More later


Stu

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 29, 2011 at 08:39:02
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “This is with the crystal mounted on a sofa 5 feet from the components and not in contact at all with the components.” <<

Why don’t you try that experiment with the crystal 20 feet away from any audio signal and then try explaining the effect as “having an effect on the audio signal” !!

I would think that we both share one common outlook. That such as RF energy, microwave energy, electromagnetism, a surplus or deficiency of ions, static etc are all creating (put simply) mischief or creating (exaggerating) havoc in the modern environment.

However, then we differ. Your view is that so many of these things are creating mischief TO THE AUDIO SIGNAL !

My interpretation (yes – put simplistically in order to be brief) of what you try to describe is that when you position such as a crystal somewhere in the environment and hear an improvement in the sound, you think that that crystal must somehow be absorbing some (much) of (say) the RF and therefore preventing that RF interfering with the AUDIO SIGNAL which it had been (or might have been) doing before (and that is why the sound is now better) !!

That if you (say) position another type of crystal somewhere in the environment and the sound is perceived to be worse, that you think that that crystal must somehow be accepting the RF and then regurgitating it out again to cause even more mischief (havoc) on the audio signal (and that is why the sound is worse !!)

And, you hold this viewpoint even though you might have positioned a crystal or other ‘tweak’ or treatment some 20 feet or more away from any audio equipment or from any audio signal !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, that the effect of using different crystals which give different results to the ‘sound’ are just reacting in their own different ways in absorbing or regurgitating RF and therefore that is how they are affecting the audio signal in their different ways.

It would appear though that as soon as it is ‘suggested to you’ that, on so many of the occasions, it could be the human being who is doing the reacting, and NOT the audio signal, you can only think along the narrow lines of “of course the human being can be reacting but only reacting to any changed ACOUSTIC information reaching the ear drum !!!!!

>> “to the point where running three 9 volt batteries in series lead to an unbearable top end tilt.” <<

Haven’t you ever come across a peculiar “odd and even rule” in Nature ? Sometimes odd numbers are good, sometimes even numbers are good. It becomes a case where you have to experiment with both odd and even numbers each time when the sound differs from what you might have expected to see if such rules are ‘in play’!!

If you are experimenting with “loops”, then I would suggest you seriously experiment with Reef Knots. Only Reef knots, not Granny knots and not any other kind of knot – Reef knots only.

Tie a single Reef knot in ANY cable (interconnect or AC power). The sound will be better. Then try tying TWO reef knots in the same cable (even numbers) and the sound will be worse ! You will either have to tie a third Reef Knot for the sound to come back to being good or you will have to undo the second Reef Knot and go back to a single one only !!

>> “claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter.” <<

Whilst you are busy “mocking” Peter’s work and discoveries, the effect on the sound of such as the Reef Knot technique was written about (and even illustrated) in UK Hi Fi magazines over 20 years ago !!!!

And, YES, Peter HAD discovered many of the things which are being discussed NOW.

>> “I have submitted my speculation about crystals and their preferred positioning based on the fact that many are truly piezoelectric, and their positioning should be placed in areas where there is a strong EMI field.” <<

Let me describe a true situation which encompasses both a piezoelectric device and how some people (engineers in particular) ‘deal with’ anomalies.

You have a skilled engineer (Peter) who had already spent 30 years as a professional in the audio industry, both as a retailer and also as a manufacturer of moving coil, electrostatic and orthodynamic transducers. One day (some 25 years ago) he discovered that placing a piezoelectric device, passively, on top of a loudspeaker cabinet, changed the sound. On ‘treating’ the piezoelectric device he then finds that the sound is much improved and describes the improvement in the sound exactly as you, Unclestu, have described:-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

The skilled engineer demonstrates the effect of this PASSIVE piezo device to other audio engineers, to audio equipment retailers and to audio equipment reviewers. They also hear EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

but they shake their heads, they cannot cope with the experience of such a simple PASSIVE device giving improvements in the sound, particularly products which they themselves have designed or are trying to sell.

So, the skilled engineer now selects a super tweeter which incorporates a similar piezoelectric device, ‘treats’ the piezoelectric device and places that super tweeter PASSIVELY, in exactly the same position on top of a loudspeaker cabinet (i.e. NOT connecting it to the loudspeaker system, but just standing it passively on top of the cabinet). This is demonstrated to the same audio engineers, to the same audio equipment retailers, to the same audio equipment reviewers and they again hear EXACTLY the same improvements as before :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

They shake their heads, they are STILL unable to ‘cope with’ the experience of such a PASSIVE device giving such improvements in the sound !!

Only when the skilled engineer attaches WIRES to the super tweeter and connects the super tweeter via those wires to the loudspeaker input terminals and stands the super tweeter in EXACTLY the same position on top of the loudspeaker cabinet as previously are the audio engineers, the audio equipment retailers and the audio equipment reviewers NOW prepared to accept EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound – identical to the improvements heard previously:-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

They can ‘cope with’ the experience of improvements in the sound if the super tweeter is connected in the conventional way to the actual loudspeakers system but disconnect the wires and only have the super tweeter incorporating a piezoelectric device again standing PASSIVELY on top of the loudspeaker cabinet and they can no longer ‘cope with’ EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound of :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <

Now. I would suggest, Unclestu, that YOUR understanding of the various experiences I have just described would be that the piezo electric device was in a strong electromagnetic field (on top of a working loudspeaker cabinet) and therefore affecting the signal and the performance of the loudspeaker. But, the SAME piezo device (the ‘treated’ but passive super tweeter) could be positioned in an NON electromagnetic area (such as on a table in the middle of the room) and it would provide EXACTLY the same improvement in the sound !!

YOU have, yes, moved from that very early stage of not being able to ‘cope with’ a passive device like a piezo device giving improvements in the sound but you appear ONLY to be able to “cope” if that device is positioned within a high electromagnetic field and you can then explain the result as “having an effect on the audio signal”!!!!

But, place such as a piezo device in a non (or very low) electromagnetic area such as on a table in the middle of the room where a beneficial effect on the sound is still being observed and you are stuck !!

>> “Curiously it does not work as well over the battery or capacitor terminals, however.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ when you find that one of the (previously good sounding)‘tweaks’ does not work as well in another situation !! I use the expression “stuck” because if you understood more fully, you would not be finding it “curious” when it did not work as well in that position.

>> “we did coat some sugar balls with nail polish, both clear and a colored one. The sound got progressively worse, losing dynamics and transient attacks and generally increasing in muddiness as the colors darkened. The naked sugar cubes seemed to work best.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ when you find that coating sugar balls with a lacquer (and a colour!!!!) makes the sound worse !! Why don’t you experiment further and find a lacquer to coat the sugar balls which DOES improve the sound and why don’t you experiment further to find a colour to apply to the sugar balls which DOES improve the sound ??? And, then, when you DO find a lacquer which when applied to an identical sugar ball and which IMPROVES the sound, you have to then explain HOW that lacquer can change the sound !!! When you DO find a colour which when applied to an identical sugar ball and which improves the sound, you then have to explain HOW that colour can change the sound!!

Peter Belt discovered such things over 25 years ago. Completely independently Dieter Ennemoser also developed a lacquer (his C 37) which improves the sound when applied to things and it appears that Sonus Faber have also found a lacquer which they describe as being “friendly to audio” (meaning it ‘sounds good’).

THEN, Unclestu, when you find which lacquer is best for which situation and you find which colour is best for which situation, and you are able to then work out WHY from the various clues you might have observed, then you will begin to realize that you don’t NEED the actual sugar cube, you don’t NEED the actual crystal, you just need the specific lacquer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, the specific colour !!!!!!!!!!!! To get exactly the same results !!!!!!!!!!!!! Which then leaves all your explanations regarding the sugar cube (crystalline structure or geometric shape) somewhat “in the air” when you can gain the SAME results (on the sound) from a particular lacquer or a particular colour !!

>> “Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ (surprised) when you alter the GEOMETRIC SHAPE of a sugar cube from spherical to cubical and the sound was ‘very bad’ !!

>> “And just where did you ever get the idea that ionizing a CD player and LP improved the sound? I attribute the effects on CD and LP to degaussing.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ (you can’t understand) how aiming such as a tourmaline source (sometimes a hair dryer), at a CD can give a similar improvement in the sound as applying a demagnetizer !!

>> “The Japanese market a product called phiten which is claimed to help increase your body's circulation. They make it into bracelets, necklaces, elbow pads and such as well as adhesive tape. I've tried the tape on audio gear, like in my CD player tray and it does have a positive effect, although a relatively small one.” <<

You have tried something which the Japanese use which they claim aids a human being’s WELLBEING and HEARD a small positive effect on the sound !!! Are you going to explain the bracelets, necklaces, elbow pads, adhesive as “having an effect on the audio signal” if wearing such things gives an improvement in the sound for the person wearing them ???

The Schumann resonance device was initially developed and used as an aid to a person’s WELLBEING !! Only later was it introduced as a device which “improves the sound when positioned in the listening room”.

Just HOW MANY CLUES do you need ????????????????? To move your constant emphasis away from “something having an effect on the audio signal” or “something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room “ ???

As soon as you realized (as you should have done many years ago when you began the ‘hear’ changes in the sound by doing some things which did not initially make sense from a conventional electronic or acoustic point of view) that you were ‘dealing with’ adverse conditions in the environment, then you should have been asking yourself, from DAY ONE – WHAT is going on, WHAT is being affected, HOW is it being affected, WHY is it being affected and you should have been confronted with clues which should have pointed you to explore different paths to try to gain a better understanding (i.e. different to “an effect on the audio signal”).

If you have not YET been confronted with such clues, then I apologize for my expectations that you would have been further along the path of understanding than you actually are-

I do appreciate that there are yet numerous people who do NOT realize, or who do NOT want to realize, who do NOT want to acknowledge (even faced with unusual experiences of their own) that they are not ‘hearing’ (resolving) all the wealth of information which is already available from their existing equipment and that YOU have been attempting to show them this from your numerous descriptions of so called ‘tweaks’. The attempt to get more people to experience this, I applaud. I want people to explore for themselves.

I have seen (on another AA site) John Atkinson quoted as saying that he cannot understand how some people can prefer the sound of a piece of equipment which does not have excellent measurements against another piece of equipment which has excellent measurements.

If you can move away from ‘something affecting the audio signal’ and consider that it is the human being who is doing the reacting, then such things can begin to make sense.

I will describe a hypothetical example, but as many people will already know, my hypothetical examples are very, very close to the truth !!

I will use a technique I have used before in my various talks. The example of a Snakes and Ladders board.

You have two CD players. One made by Joe Bloggs which people like the sound of but which does not have such good measurements. The other is made by Bill Brown which has excellent measurements but which people do not really like the sound of. They much prefer Joe Bloggs CD player but no one can understand why.

Looking at it from a human being’s point of view. Bill Brown has used extremely low tolerance polyester film capacitors in his CD player because they measure well. But, human beings react adversely to the particular chemical mixture of polyester !!!! On the other hand, Joe Bloggs has always preferred the sound of polyurethane film capacitors so has always preferred to use those particular capacitors, even though they do not have the extremely low tolerance of polyester film capacitors. Human beings do not react quite so adversely to the particular chemical mixture of polyurethane so that is why the sound of Joe Bloggs CD player is usually preferred !!

Now, using my snakes and ladders board example. Bill Brown has advanced along the board and, in fitting the extremely low tolerance polyester film capacitors has advanced one square (from a technical point of view) but has landed on a square with a SNAKE (from a sound point of view)– which shoots him down the board – below where Joe Bloggs player sits !! Whereas Joe Bloggs, in using the polyurethane film capacitors has landed on a LADDER square which shoots him up the board (from a sound point of view). – above where Bill Brown’s player sits.

All you have to do is to ‘treat’ the polyester film of the capacitors in Bill Brown’s CD player so that human beings do not react so adversely to them and the sound of Bill Brown’s CD player will now be improved and LIKED !!! And to prove that it is NOT the audio signal being changed, you go to an identical Bill Brown CD player sitting passively on a display shelf metres away from any active audio equipment – not connected into the audio system, not connected to the AC power supply, just sitting there, passively, and ‘treat’ the identical polyester film capacitors in the PASSIVE CD player and you will get a further identical improvement in the sound !!

As for your snide (throwaway) comment :-

>> “Just take your boy, GK” <<

I don’t for one moment think that GK is anyone’s BOY !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 30, 2011 at 05:10:46
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 Personally I'm starting to believe most in the crystals vibrations are effecting my perception of the audio signal, I have direct experience with a big bunch of mixed crystals making me feel uncomfortable. The placements of the crystals and varying effects might very well be their vibrational interaction with the music signal affecting my perception. Placing in specific parts of the room might produce stronger or weaker effects at the listening position, placing on say interconnects might at vibrations the the electrical signal being amplified by the whole system?

On the other hand I have been doing a fairly simple experiment with a few large chunks of tourmilanated quartz and my cellphone. 5 bars reception with any of those crystals near, cellphone placed on top of one of them the reception drops to 3 bars, sandwhiching between 2 the reception drops to 2 bars. FWIW ;-)

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 30, 2011 at 06:49:48
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 I am not quite clear, edbk, what it is you are suggesting is going on with the crystals.

Are you suggesting that the actual audio SIGNAL, travelling through the audio system, is being adversely affected by the big bunch of mixed crystals, placed on a table, and that the resulting adverse effect on the audio signal is causing you to “feel uncomfortable” ?

Or, are you suggesting that the big bunch of mixed crystals, placed on a table, are vibrationally affecting the ACOUSTIC information (i.e. not the audio SIGNAL), causing you to “feel uncomfortable” ?

In other words, where exactly are you suggesting the big bunch of mixed crystals, on the table, are having their adverse effect ? I ask because you then refer to “the listening position” – which infers an ACOUSTIC position.

Even more confusing, you then go on to refer to placing crystals on “say interconnects” which then brings it back to the subject of “an effect on the audio SIGNAL” again !!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 30, 2011 at 07:06:47
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 The bunch of crystals making me feel uncomfortable actually have nothing to do with acoustics at all since they are in a seperate room and I actually feel uncomfortable being in close proximity to the whole lot. I dont know if there's actually just one type, more types or if its a lot of mixed types being responsible for the effect but it's a friggin big lot, I'd say around 20 lbs and maybe 30-40 different types.

However since they effect how I feel (nautious) unrelated to a musical signal they might actually just effect my person without having any effect on the actual musical signal.

Suppose they vibrate at certain frequencies depending on type, size etc they could transfer these vibrations to the actual music signal when placed on top of say interconnects.

Just offering as an alternative theory on their workings since there seems to be no concensus whatsoever on that on these boards ;)

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 30, 2011 at 10:09:12
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “The bunch of crystals making me feel uncomfortable actually have nothing to do with acoustics at all since they are in a seperate room and I actually feel uncomfortable being in close proximity to the whole lot.” <<

Can we stay with that for the moment. I would also suggest that if you were listening to music in the same room as the bunch of crystals, then you would experience the sound as being worse (something like it being ‘harsh, shouty and aggressive’).

>> “However since they effect how I feel (nautious) unrelated to a musical signal they might actually just effect my person without having any effect on the actual musical signal.” <<

Consider the effect not DIRECTLY on you but them altering the environment which you are in and then you reacting to the changes in that environment i.e “An effect once removed”

Can you ‘handle’ that concept if I take it further ?

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 01:10:11
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 "Can we stay with that for the moment. I would also suggest that if you were listening to music in the same room as the bunch of crystals, then you would experience the sound as being worse (something like it being ‘harsh, shouty and aggressive’)."

Yes I tried that, it causes a big midrange suckout.

"Consider the effect not DIRECTLY on you but them altering the environment which you are in and then you reacting to the changes in that environment i.e “An effect once removed”

Can you ‘handle’ that concept if I take it further ?"

Please do..

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 04:45:18
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 The reason why I asked if YOU could ‘handle’ that concept before I took it any further is that sometimes I can easily detect when someone else is just casually taking part in a discussion merely for the sake of it, and at other times not. In this occasion I felt genuine interest in the subject but was not absolutely sure.

Part One.

Staying away from audio matters for the moment for background purposes.

Let us look at the human being (or rather, let us first look at Nature and evolution).

Let us look at the concept of evolution programming us (and most other creatures) to read/sense/monitor our environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour of every day of our lives. To stay safe, ‘readings’ have to be done so regularly, each different ‘reading’ creating a memory of that ‘reading’ and each new reading/memory compared with the previous reading/memory to make sure that no changes have taken place or to judge what changes have taken place.

To spell it out more using a hypothetical example and an ‘early creature’.

The ‘creature’ is at the edge of a clearing – with a tree on the left, a rock in front and a bush on the right. The ‘creature’ takes a ‘reading’ of that scene at 10.56. Everything is still, no changes are happening. That ‘reading’ is committed to memory timed at 10.56. At 10.57 another ‘reading’ is taken, that new ‘reading’ is committed to memory timed at 10.57 but, at the same time, it is compared with the previous (10.56) memory and the conclusion from comparing the latest reading with the previous ‘reading’ is that nothing is changing. The same thing happens at 10.58. And also at 10.59. Each new ‘reading’ compared with the previous (timed) memories. However, at 11.00 when the latest ‘reading’ is taken and compared with the previous memories, a change is registered – something has changed at the edge of the clearing between the tree and the rock. The creature is immediately alerted and prepared for flight, fight or freeze. Each subsequent ‘reading/memory’ is compared with each previous reading/memory so that the creature is now able to ‘track’ whatever had caused the change !! Is it moving to the right, is it moving to the left, is it staying parallel, is it moving away, is it moving forward, or is it staying stationary ? The creature will STAY under tension until the danger has gone away !! The creature, programmed, by evolution, will stay under tension (on the alert), continually comparing each new reading/memory with the previous memories until such time as it can ‘sign off it’s environment as safe’.

But, the important thing is that there had to have been “stationary” (stable) ‘readings’ (at 10.56, 10.57, 10.58 10.59) for the creature to have been able to KNOW (become aware) that something had changed at 11.00 !!!!! It is that COMPARISON with all the different ‘readings’ - (timed) memories i.e memories in chronological order - which is the important thing.

Nature has developed, over millions of years, numerous techniques to be used as “Watch out, there’s danger about” signals. But, also, Nature has developed numerous techniques to be used as “It’s OK, you can relax now, the danger has gone away” signals, because Nature cannot have creatures left ‘under tension, on the alert’ unnecessarily because that would be too wasteful of precious energy !!!! There has to be a signal (or signals) which are used in Nature meaning ‘it’s OK, you can relax now’. So, as well as being ‘programmed’ to read/sense the environment for signs of danger, creatures (and us) are ‘programmed’ to be searching the environment for signals of reassurance !! It would appear that Nature has used various techniques (including chemicals) for both purposes.

To be continued.

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 04:52:56
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 "To be continued."

I cant wait for you to connect the actual dots :)

Visual readings are out but it seems you're taking this to a whole different level anyway..



 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 06:47:22
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 Part Two.

We now come to the human being, getting ready to settle down to listen to some music.

Of course the human being will physically GLANCE around, checking for danger, for intruders, for predators. And when they SEE nothing untoward, they consider that the environment is safe enough and that they should be able to now relax enough to listen to the music. That everything in the environment is SEEN to be still (stationary – nothing untoward happening) – so let the music commence.

But, we are STILL programmed, by evolution, to be reading/sensing/monitoring our environment every millisecond of every second of every minute of every hour !! And, we still require the readings to be of a stationary nature before we can “sign off our environment as safe”. My concept (from our discoveries) is that we cannot do that now – we cannot now ‘sign off our modern environment as safe’ because things ‘are NO LONGER stationary’ in the modern environment. And Nature dictates that whilstever we cannot ‘sign off our environment as safe’, then we must remain under tension until we can !!!!!

Let us look at just ONE thing in the modern environment - the AC power supply. Not even considering, for this example, additional energy such as electromagnetism from other sources, RF energy and Microwave energy etc !!!!

The last time I talked about the AC power pulsating away, Enophile reacted to my use of the word “pulsating”. He said that he had been standing next to such a cable and had not FELT any ‘pulsating’ from it !!

The AC power supply is going through it’s full cycle 50 to 60 times per second – so – what words would people like me TO use ??? Pulsating ? Changing? Fluctuating ? Moving? Alternating ? - YOU choose !!!

Whichever word you choose, it is still NOT stationary !!! So, in the modern environment, we will never now be able to read/sense/ a stationary state – so that means that we will not be able to ‘sign off our environment as safe’ and if we cannot do that, then Nature dictates that we remain under tension until we can. So, what ‘stress’ chemicals might that state of affairs be producing in the brain ? Could such ‘stress’ chemicals be actually interfering with the electro-chemicals (positive and negative ions) which carry the audio information of (say) Dvorak’s New World along the auditory nerve to the working memory – because it is the information which reaches the working memory, to be identified by the working memory which is the ACTUAL sound – i.e the final information to be received by and resolved by the working memory so that it can present the best ‘sound picture’ to the brain. It can, therefore, cease to be exactly the earlier information presented into the room by the audio equipment and loudspeakers and then carried by the acoustic air pressure waves which then arrived at the ear drum !!!!!!

Now, all is not lost.

Much of our discoveries point to the concept that as well as Nature requiring us to read//sense/monitor our environment for danger, predators, intruders, - every millisecond of every second etc - Nature also requires us to monitor our environment for signs of ‘reassurance’.

If you can superimpose, on offending objects/areas within the modern environment, some of the techniques which have been used by Nature to denote “reassurance”, then you can lessen the adverse effects of problem areas within the modern environment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which, in turn, will lessen the tension (stress chemicals produced in the brain ???), which in turn will reduce any effect on the electro-chemicals carrying the complex musical information along the auditory nerve, which in turn will allow the working memory to resolve far more of the complexity contained within the music and so present a better ‘sound picture’ to the brain !!!

Which, in my opinion, is WHAT people have been doing, with so many of the various and different ‘tweaks’ – without realising it !!

Hence the IDENTICAL descriptions of the improvements in the sound:-

The following words have been cut and pasted from something recently written by Greg Weaver in PFO but these words so clearly mirror other people’s descriptions and experiences from various and completely different ‘tweaks’ that, with apologies to Greg, I just had to use them. These words are as clearly descriptive as Shakespeare’s were and, if need be, I would feel the same necessity to have to use Shakespeare’s descriptive words.!!!

>> every sound seems to blossom more fully.

reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.

While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.

more "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” <<

Such identical descriptions have been given by different people, listening in different listening rooms, using different audio equipment, listening to different music and applying/using different types of ‘tweaks’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don’t think it is as simple a case of ‘tension on, tension off’. I think there will be varying degrees of tension and therefore different concentrations of ‘stress chemicals’ being produced.

Let us say that (hypothetically) in an untreated listening environment there is created (say) 50 units of stress. ‘Treat’ or install or position or add certain things which can mimic some of Nature’s ‘reassuring’ signals, then the 50 units of stress could be reduced to (say) 40 units of stress. And the person will feel better and the sound will be better. It is the human person being able to COMPARE a situation (different ‘readings’ taken of the environment) with now 40 units of stress against the previous 50 units of stress which is the crucial thing. ‘Treat’ more things in the environment, install more (beneficial) things, position more (beneficial) things, add more (beneficial) things and the stress units can be reduced further to (say) 30 units of stress. And so on !!!!!!!

Remove all those (beneficial) things and back comes the level to 50 units of stress and the sound will now be worse !!

What I have suggested does not negate people’s experiences with such as crystals (or many other ‘tweaks’) in the room. The crystals could still (as has been suggested) be reacting to such as the RF energy, but that reaction changing the ENVIRONMENT which we are constantly ‘reading/monitoring’ and NOT actually changing the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment !!!!

The concept I have put forward better explains how some ‘tweak’ or other or some ‘crystal’ or other can have an ‘effect on the sound’ even though positioned many metres away from any audio or electronic equipment !!

Monitoring our environment is not only concerned with ‘seeing’ what is going on. The necessity to ‘read/monitor’ the environment was established, by Nature, long before the usual senses (sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch) as we know them now evolved !!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 06:56:04
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 That is a very interesting view. Maybe thats why geoffkait likes white cables ;)

Anyway really interesting, I'm gonna ponder a bit on how to try improving my listening experience from this point of view and see if I can make some progress out of it.

 

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth), posted on May 31, 2011 at 14:43:11
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
I had recognized, from the experience you have had with the bunch of crystals, that you might be able to consider another way of looking at people’s experiences.

You see, it was one similar experience which confirmed to us that we should look ‘out of the box’ to try to find an explanation for a particular experience we had 30 years ago and this approach has been extremely helpful in finding explanations for many other listening experiences

We had spoiled our sound by applying a chemical to a stain on a coffee table in the centre of the listening room. We had no explanation as to why that had changed the sound but Peter realized that he could not carry on with his serious listening experiments with that table still in the room, so the table was banished to the garage. But, it had been such an unusual and unexpected experience that we could not forget it or dismiss it. It was a few months later that I just happened to be reading an article – an article on plants - and in this article it mentioned that when a certain plant was under stress, it produced the chemical ABC – and chemical ABC was one of the ingredients in the chemical we had used on the table !!!!! Here was a chemical we had used now being referred to as one of Nature’s “Stress chemicals”. When I read this article out to Peter, he suddenly said “I wonder if it had been us (human beings) who had ‘sensed’ this ‘stress chemical’ in our environment and had gone under tension ourselves – so making the sound worse.

He decided to investigate further and did what all good experimenters do, he searched every drawer, every cupboard, every shelf and tried every chemical he could get his hands on on the very same spot on the coffee table. Some chemicals were not as bad as chemical ABC but none of them brought the sound back to being good UNTIL he found chemical XYZ. After applying that chemical XYZ, the sound was now much better and Peter judged that the sound was now better than he had ever had it before.

A lot of this background story was told by Greg Weaver in his April 1999 article “Itty-Bitty UK Foil” in the internet magazine SoundStage.

From our original experiences with chemicals (and their effect of changing the sound) Peter began to look far more seriously at just what is involved and used in audio and the listening environment.
JUST looking at the list of chemical mixtures used in the various insulation materials of cables (interconnects and AC power), one can seriously consider “Are these a serious contender as an explanation as to why various cables CAN ‘sound’ different ?”

Chemicals such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon. To then add other chemical mixtures found in both audio equipment and the listening environment :- acrylic, nylon, polyester, vinyl, polycarbonate, Perspex, BAF, glues (adhesives), paints, lacquers and so on !!

A few other investigators have ‘found’ good sounding chemicals and lacquers but the effect of these chemicals (on the sound) is always attributed as “ having a dielectric effect”, as “an aid to dealing with static” or as “an aid to dealing with resonances”. !! Even when applied to things metres and metres away from anything remotely associated with audio equipment or with the audio signal !!

You mention the colour white for a cable insulation as a good sounding colour. Colours are extremely important regarding sound but colours are more than what one can see visually !! If the scientists are correct, then each colour is of a different frequency. If the scientists are correct, then when you can see a specific colour, then that means that all the frequencies except one have been absorbed by the object, leaving the one frequency not absorbed !! I ask seriously.

Are we (human beings) far more sensitive to such frequencies associated with colours than has previously been realized ?

Over the past 30 years we have become more and more aware of just how sensitive human beings, are to all that is going on in our environment than many people are fully appreciative of.

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

Seems we've, posted on June 1, 2011 at 13:13:58
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 been through this before. I ground my thinking and speculations on what is scientifically acceptable and provable. I really have seen no proof, for example, for Sheldrake's morphic resonances, although much of what he writes about can be explained by quantum theory. There is one undenying advantage of quantum theory, however, in that it is statistically correct and thus predictable. This, is to me a very significant aspect. With quantum theory you need not really need to experiment, but can make predictions. Much of the experimentation is to confirm the aspects of the theory

Coating the sugar cube was predictable to me to be inferior sounding. I went ahead simply to confirm my prediction. RF is a fact of life today: wifi, radio, TV, cell phones, etc. The use of such devices has increased logarithmically in the past decade or so. I can not see why you deny its presence. Reduction of RF even away from audio gear is clearly audible: I have done experimentation utilizing quarter wavelength antenna arrays not hooked up to audio gear but placed over it where there is a significant reduction in RF energy being picked up by the audio components.

Take your stance against batteries. Is it the chemical nature of batteries or is it the energy storage. If it is chemical then there ought to be a difference between carbon/zinc, alkaline, lithium ion, lead/acid, etc. types. If it is the energy storage, I am sure many audiophiles have had the experience when accidentally turning off an amplifier before the preamp and source material, to hear the music playing for up to several minutes. Does that mean that capacitors are bad? If so, then all electronic componentry is bad , because there is scarcely a single a component I know of which does NOT use a capacitor.

The just look at the human body. Your respiratory tract converts energy by catalyzing glucose through enzymes to convert and create ADP and ATP by creating a sort of organic battery in the mitochondrial cells generating .15 volts within the cell. Should we eliminate all animal activity, therefore?

GK himself, in defending you, on this battery thing, places himself in a paradox. His Clock obviously uses a battery. And his claim that his "teleportation" tweak will help sound even if applied to a cell phone, which uses a battery is sheer contradiction. Plus consider the fact that most land lines are powered by batteries.

Your example of CD players and measurements underscores one significant fact. Like you, I believe that measurements are not the end to all. simply because we can not measure everything that a human is susceptible towards. IT would take a room full of machines and we still could not adequately measure everything, nor can those very machines determine what proportion of factors are aesthetically pleasing to a specific individual.

Truth be told, I do believe there are rational factors which can explain the perceived changes. Even EDBK's feeling towards the crystals on a personal level can be partially explained by the simple fat that the human organism is essentially an electrical device. I've said this many times and, in fact, had recommended the book The Body Electric by Becker as a introduction to the workings of the human body.

It has been suggested to me that certain New Age practices, like meditation holding a crystal, may have its roots in the piezoelectric effect absorbing certain electrical frequencies generated by an individual.

As to whether the electrical effects can influence thinking, that is another story. Your cortex covers the external brain and is triggered by nerve synapses. In a sense, the neural network forms a "faraday cage" of sort around your brain. If the electrical energy could significantly affect your perceptions and thoughts, I believe the widespread use of MRI's and CAT scans and such should have clearly presented cases to that effect. I know of no documented cases of enhanced or decreased perception following such procedures.

Indeed your very questions addressed to me could similarly be addressed to yourself. One does not rest on your laurels, so to speak, and say everything known has already been addressed.

In my case, I took college physics in the 1971-72 school year. However, a crucial part of quantum theory was postulated in 1964: (Bell's theorem or Bell's inequality). First experimental verification was made by Clausser and Freedman in 1972 and further verification (experimental) confirmed in 1982. The theorem, mathematically predicted, deals with non local causalities. Because of the timing of my education I missed the verification and learning of it. In fact, a quick perusal of a 2004 Physic text ( Thomsen) for "Scientists and engineers" makes no mention at all of this theorem, considered by some to one of the most fundamental of the new age of physics.

As I have stated before, a change in the processing in equipment will create a change in what is perceived. Quite obviously, not all of your tweaks will be universally perceived, either. I do believe I address the what, why's, and how's better than any explanation I have read from you. I do not make the claim that I know all the answers, and in fact my posts clearly show my search for enlightenment.

Stu

 

RE: More observations , posted on June 1, 2011 at 13:18:51
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 I have written before that the ratio of ground wire to positive certainly affects tonal balance. More ground=more bass: more positive= more treble.

This was illustrated by Kimber's Interconnects. The PBJ uses two ground wires to one positive. However in the silver three wire braid for digital, Kimber runs two positive and one ground. The old Tara Labs space and time speaker cable also ran an extra strand of ground wire.

It seems to me that these products actually illustrate Bud Purvines Ground wire tweak.

More later

Stu

 

RE: More observations , posted on June 1, 2011 at 17:02:51
edbk
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 25, 2011
 Hmm different scents could also be an interesting experiment to see if it alters our perception, etheric oils for example or pheromones. Certainly gives new grounds to explore!

 

Cool! (I am on sabbatical) and am just mellowing out on music, holiday from all that stuff, posted on June 1, 2011 at 20:04:40
Elizabeth
 I have not abandoned the pigtail tweak at all. i just had enough for awhile.

though your work is VERY interesting and would give me something to 'chew' on while on holiday.
Thanks for thinking of me, and keep up the work.
(the only thing i have done to my setup is add some RCA caps. And that only because i found a new vendor at a great price.

 

I'll, posted on June 2, 2011 at 15:22:49
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 be incommunicado during the month of June, but am curious as to what you heard (changes in sound)when you placed the ferrite on the ground wire.

Stu

 

RE: More observations , posted on June 3, 2011 at 08:51:42
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “Hmm different scents could also be an interesting experiment to see if it alters our perception, etheric oils for example or pheromones. Certainly gives new grounds to explore!” <<

Yes. I agree.

We have not done serious experiments with scents (smell) regarding ‘sound’ but we have done experiments with taste (as have others)!! One wonders if one smells gas whilst listening to music whether the sound would be worse or if one smells smoke whether the sound would be worse. The times when we have smelt gas, we haven’t been listening to music and when we have smelt smoke, we haven’t been listening to music. Logic says that IF one was listening to music and one smelt gas, one would immediately get up to investigate the source of the gas – NOT continue listening to music. Ditto with the smell of smoke !!

Certainly Nature uses smells (scents) as signals (both for danger and reassurance).

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

RE: More observations , posted on June 3, 2011 at 09:18:50
geoffkait
 If you don;t mind my telling you this story, I have made some PWB water bottles for some friends at the local Spa where I go quite frequently. The plastic water bottles are specially prepared using several PWB products and techniques. If ordinary tap water or specialty bottled water like Evian, Fiji or my favorite, Acqua Panna, are poured into the PWB water bottle the water the water from the PWB water bottle will taste better - crisper, slightly sweet, and go down smoother, and there will be less of an unpleasant taste and odor, especially noticeable in tap water. Of the three people I gifted the PWB water bottles to at the Spa, one was afraid to try it (I'm pretty sure), one couldn't tell the difference, and the third loves it and keeps in on the desk where she works at all times.

Cheers

 

RE: Seems we've, posted on June 7, 2011 at 09:37:36
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “RF is a fact of life today: wifi, radio, TV, cell phones, etc. The use of such devices has increased logarithmically in the past decade or so. I can not see why you deny its presence.” <<

Where on earth have I ever denied the presence of RF ???????????????????????

I made it perfectly CLEAR when I said “That such as RF energy, microwave energy, electromagnetism, a surplus or deficiency of ions, static etc are all creating (put simply) mischief or creating (exaggerating) havoc in the modern environment.”

That sentence of mine is hardly DENYING the presence of RF !! Please don’t misrepresent what I say.

I am perfectly aware that some electromagnetism can have an effect on the audio signal (hence the hum of the AC mains which can be heard sometimes when picked up by the audio system (particularly with a turntable) and how such as an unshielded pick up arm wire can pick up a radio signal if in close proximity to such. And, how service engineers, in trying to find the site of a fault in a circuit, are known to physically touch components in that circuitry with their finger and as soon as they heard the hum of the AC mains they would know that the fault would be in the circuitry before that part - because they had used their own body to induce some signal energy into the circuit.

What I challenge is the way you always wish to explain the changes in the sound you observe when doing numerous things in the environment as “having an effect on the audio signal”, including doing things which are metres and metres away from any audio signal or any audio equipment.

>> “Take your stance against batteries. Is it the chemical nature of batteries or is it the energy storage. If it is chemical then there ought to be a difference between carbon/zinc, alkaline, lithium ion, lead/acid, etc. types. If it is the energy storage, I am sure many audiophiles have had the experience when accidentally turning off an amplifier before the preamp and source material, to hear the music playing for up to several minutes. Does that mean that capacitors are bad? If so, then all electronic componentry is bad , because there is scarcely a single a component I know of which does NOT use a capacitor.” <<

I believe it is the polarity of batteries which is the major problem – for us (human beings). We, human beings don’t like that type of polarity in our environment. Ditto magnets. And, yes, capacitors are also bad. As are transformers. But I am not talking here ONLY about such things being a problem in audio equipment. They are a problem JUST being present, PASSIVELY, in the room. !!!!! Batteries are polarized objects – whatever their shape and whatever they are made from. Magnets are polarised objects – whatever their shape and whatever they are made from.

>> “GK himself, in defending you, on this battery thing, places himself in a paradox. His Clock obviously uses a battery.” <<

If GK has any sense, and has learned anything from our work, he should be ‘treating’ the battery.!!!!!!!!!!!

>> “As to whether the electrical effects can influence thinking, that is another story. Your cortex covers the external brain and is triggered by nerve synapses. In a sense, the neural network forms a "faraday cage" of sort around your brain. If the electrical energy could significantly affect your perceptions and thoughts, I believe the widespread use of MRI's and CAT scans and such should have clearly presented cases to that effect. I know of no documented cases of enhanced or decreased perception following such procedures.” <<

Surely your paragraph, with it’s reference to a ‘faraday cage’ being created by the neural network taking place in the cortex is STILL centred on the theme of electrical activity in the environment having a DIRECT effect on what goes on in the brain and with the hearing mechanism !!!

How many times do I have to say it.??? When I refer to electromagnetism, RF, Microwave energy etc, present in the environment “having an effect” I don’t mean a DIRECT effect. It merely has to just BE THERE to cause problems – problems for us !!. Meaning it’s very presence is a problem if it prevents us from ‘signing off our environment as safe’.

>> “Indeed your very questions addressed to me could similarly be addressed to yourself. One does not rest on your laurels, so to speak, and say everything known has already been addressed.” <<

Believe me, sir, there is certainly NO “resting on our laurels”. I have never said, or claimed, that everything known has already been addressed. We have never stopped working at it or discovering !!!!!!!!!!! What I DO say is that Peter was amongst the first to discover many of the things now being discussed, as was Enid Lumley, as was Jean Hiraga, as was Ed Meitner.

>> “Coating the sugar cube was predictable to me to be inferior sounding. I went ahead simply to confirm my prediction.” <<

So, your prediction was that coating the sugar cube would give you inferior sound. Now, Unclestu, what are you going to do when you coat the sugar cube with some other lacquer and you UNEXPECTEDLY get an IMPROVEMENT in the sound ???

Are you really saying that you can predict, in advance, whether the sound will be better or worse with all the experiments you do, or are you ever taken by surprise by something happening CONTRARY to what you would predict. It would appear that you can’t always predict or you would not use the word “curiously” !! If you are able to predict the outcome, then you would not have found it curious, you would have already known what the outcome would be.

>> “Curiously it does not work as well over the battery or capacitor terminals, however.” <<

If you say such things like “you went ahead simply to confirm your prediction”. then that is really not always regarded as “experimenting/investigating” to see what happens !! It is merely confirming what you are expecting to happen. If you use the word “Curiously” then that means that you HAD NOT predicted, that you had not expected what actually happened.

>>“While not my idea, originally, I believe I was the first to post that black was detrimental on Tweaks Asylum;” <<

“Whilst not your idea” !! So, could you possibly have read that snippet of information in the British Hi Fi magazines way back in the 1980s ??????????

>> “All other colors involve additional color doping, including the water clear variety, thus all other colors have the dye lots affecting the dielectric properties.” <<

You are still on with the theme of ‘colours affecting the dielectric properties’ because of the dyes involved.!!

Why don’t you try experiments with wires, keeping exactly the SAME coloured insulation but improve the sound by just ‘treating’ that SAME outer insulation ? Or improving the sound by putting the wire through the freezing/slow defrost procedure ? Or, even better do those same experiments of changing the sound but this time with a PASSIVE mains wire with black insulation on (say) a table lamp, with the table lamp sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any audio equipment, with the passive cable not connected to the AC power, just dangling loosely from the table lamp. Will the explanation of “the dielectric properties being affected because of the dyes involved” explain the sound being improved when the cable belonging to the table lamp in THAT experiment is not involved, in any shape or form, with or anywhere near the audio system ?? How can it be ‘having a dielectric effect on the signal’ ?

>> “If you are referring to to the color of the insulation, black insulation generally has carbon added to it, which is slightly conductive and thus the signal will enter the the insulation and return at a delay in in time. Wrapping the wire merely changes the inductance and capacitance by adding a layer of damping. The color still makes a difference, however, because of the dye lots employed.” <<

What has all that got to do with such as the passive cable belonging to the passive table lamp Which is not carrying any signal? We have carried out numerous demonstrations during the late 1980s. Such as when Hi Fi Retailers always had Quad Electrostatic speakers in stock and they were not needed for demonstrations on any particular day, the Quads were usually stored in a corridor or passageway, outside the demonstration rooms. You could ‘treat’ the PASSIVE cables of the PASSIVE Quad electrostatics, sitting PASSIVELY in an outside corridor with the PASSIVE cables NOT connected to the AC supply and improve the sound of whatever audio equipment was being demonstrated in the actual listening room !! Explain THAT by ‘an effect on the audio signal in the listening room’ or by ‘having a dielectric effect on the signal’!!

We were investigating the sound of various metals when used as conductors way back in the late 1970s. And THEN we investigated the sound of various insulation materials to place around those metal conductors. In fact, Peter’s investigations were referred to by Martin Colloms in his 1984 “Cable Controversy” articles. – 27 years ago !!!

The COLOUR of the insulation material is significant even when the cable is not carrying any audio signal and is not connected to the AC power supply!! As are the chemicals involved in the various plastic mixtures !!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

White insulation, posted on June 12, 2011 at 20:30:45
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 has more to do with the dye lots. The color of natural plastics is a milky translucent color. Every other color including clear involves chemical additives. It is these additives which affect the electrical properties of the insulation. In general the lighter colors are more benign, Black very often involves the addition of carbon, which is slightly conductive, and thus transforms the insulator into a terrible conductor.

This was pointed out to me by designer Stan warren in the very early 90s.

Stu

 

Take civilization,, posted on June 12, 2011 at 20:54:56
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Say the discovery of fire some 500 000 years ago. Early man could use fire to cover his back in the darkeness of the night to prevent those feral feline carnivores from sneaking up behind him. The fire extends his night vision.

However fire completely overcomes the sense of smell. In addition a roaring fire crackles a lot eliminating a great deal of the sense of hearing.

Considering the most evolutionists consider 50 000 years the time needed for genetic change, a natural evolutionary drift, I would submit that mankind has consciously made a shift to the visual realm being predominant.

Indeed reading This is Your brain on Music by Levitin, the most common survival reflex is the startle reflex when it comes to the auditory realm. That is hardly the case when it comes to listening to music, however. Levitin advances the theory that music lays the foundation for communication an important aspect of civilization.

Current fMRI studies show that the brain recognizes pitch first and then subdivides the signal into separate areas of the brain for more detailed analysis, the cortex, amygdala, and the cerebellum. However, current brain tracking indicates the auditory circuit then cues the visual circuits to engage. I would say that your explanation is far from complete and needs to incorporate some of the latest brain scan date.

stu

 

That's weird, posted on June 13, 2011 at 18:24:47
geoffkait
 All of PS Audio's (Stan Warren's company) cables seem to have black jackets. Oh, well, must be one of those "do as I say, not as I do" things. LOL

Let me guess, you have black cables too, am I right? LOL

 

Wood gets all soggy like and hard to light, posted on June 14, 2011 at 11:42:24
geoffkait
 Early man would have been in a great deal of trouble when it rained, since wood is impossible to light when it's wet. So all the predators would have had to do for supper is wait for a rainy night. Predators were not born yesterday. Fortunately for early man, his keen sense of hearing allowed him to detect the approaching predators in the inky black of night, their distance, speed and direction.


 

RE: Take civilization,, posted on June 26, 2011 at 08:31:57
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “Current fMRI studies show that the brain recognizes pitch first and then subdivides the signal into separate areas of the brain for more detailed analysis, the cortex, amygdala, and the cerebellum. However, current brain tracking indicates the auditory circuit then cues the visual circuits to engage. I would say that your explanation is far from complete and needs to incorporate some of the latest brain scan date.” <<

OF COURSE my explanation is far from complete. NO explanation is ever complete !!!!!!!!!! I merely explain my concepts in the best way I know how. But no brain scans I have seen show how the latest “reading/sensing” (memory) is being checked against previous memories – which is one of the crucial points I was attempting to make. THAT is the basis of the survival mechanism – whether it is sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell. And which, I might add, has been the basis for survival long before sight, hearing, taste, touch or smell ever existed !! Whatever tiny memory such as bacteria or viruses possess, they are still mainly able to survive different environments and replicate and evolve !!

Of course the auditory circuit will cue the visual circuits to engage – “the existing memories have to be checked out and compared against the latest memory for the best “picture of the environment” to be built by the brain – that is the point I have been trying to make. But the process of ‘checking existing memory details against new happenings’ existed long before the evolution of the hearing and sight senses as we now know them. As far as I am aware, the hearing system which exists now evolved from an original jaw bone (and from whatever function that jaw bone had) and I firmly believe that as soon as the sense of sight evolved, sight proved SO successful from a survival point of view that Nature allowed it more priority in the evolutionary stakes. So, obviously, ‘sight memories’ will be accessed even though it could be sounds which are being heard.

I don’t think one can start at any given point in evolution and say that that is the start of the present state of evolution because at whatever point one would wish to start from, there has to have been ‘something’ already existing for any new stages of evolution to build from. AND, those earlier stages must have been successful in whatever they did because they had survived to that point!!!!

>> “Indeed reading This is Your brain on Music by Levitin, the most common survival reflex is the startle reflex when it comes to the auditory realm. That is hardly the case when it comes to listening to music, however. Levitin advances the theory that music lays the foundation for communication an important aspect of civilization.” <<

The “startle” reflex IS exactly what I was attempting to get over. But, you can only have the “startle” reflex if, previous to that event which caused the ‘startle’, there had been ‘readings/sensings (and subsequent memories) of stability’ (i.e. nothing to create a “startle”). If you don’t like the term ‘stability’, then how about a ‘state of equilibrium’, or ‘a stationary pattern’, or a ‘state of ease’, or a ‘state of peace’ or a ‘state of stillness’? It is the “COMPARISON” between a ‘state of stillness’ and ‘something then causing a startle’ which creates the survival reflex. If there were continuous ‘crackling of twigs’, or continuous ‘shrieks of danger’, then all creatures would be ‘on the alert’ (under tension) continuously and would remain under tension until signals of ‘reassurance’ were sensed. If no signals of reassurance were sensed, then the creature would still remain under tension i.e. not able to ‘sign off their environment as safe’ THIS is the point I was attempting to make – that in the modern environment there is now no longer a ‘state of stillness’ so we are now under various degrees of ‘tension’ –(i.e. not able to ‘sign off our environment as safe’) and that ‘tension’ is not conducive to fully resolving the wealth of information contained in the music being presented to us by the Hi Fi equipment.

In the early 1950s, our own household had electric light, a radio, a one bar electric fire and an electric toaster. Nothing else electric !! Just look at what people have NOW, in their households in 2011. I am sure that you and I would agree that the mass of electromagnetic energy, the RF energy, the microwave energy etc around today, in the modern environment, is not conducive for fully appreciating the complexities of music. Where you and I part company is that you want all that to be having an effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment !! And to give that as the explanation why improvements in the music can be heard from such various so called “tweaks”.

I am fully aware that some electromagnetism, some RF, CAN affect the audio signal, but when similar (sometimes identical) improvements in the music can be experienced from such as different chemicals, from different colours, from different crystals, from different materials etc, and from considerable distances from any audio or electronic equipment, then surely one has to stretch ones thinking further than “an effect on the audio signal”???

If Nature used specific chemicals in the past as danger signals, why can’t we be sensitive to those same chemicals now ? If, for example, we are just sitting reading a book, then we might not register the effect of such a chemical being introduced into our environment (or alternatively, removed from our environment) but if we are doing something intensive like listening to and following an intricate piece of music, then “an effect” could be registered !! - increased tension (worse sound), lessened tension (better sound).

The “startle” result when there is a sudden improvement in the sound is a look of amazement or a smile and the “startle” result when there is a deterioration in the sound is a cringe. The cringe is the working memory ‘shouting, kicking and screaming’ because the standard has suddenly gone below what it has been used to (i.e. what is in it’s memory). I am sure that you are aware of this, only you believe that it is always the audio signal which must have been affected !!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

You ignore, posted on July 6, 2011 at 13:21:48
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 several important factors.

One: the human body is polarized as our muscle tissue and neural synapses all work on negative voltages.

Two: You ignore and apply YOUR interpretation of many factors, and then apply them to many of my observations without further investigation. For example, I have never claimed the dielectric of a table lamp cord will affect the sound of your stereo components. Also, I've owned Quad 57's and have had them outside my listening area and never noticed any deterioration in sound. They do form huge capacitors however, and it is a well known fact that the original quads would take up to a month to ave the panels fully charge up. Incidentally Wayne Piquet, who rebuilds Quad 57's in Florida, claims one of the key factors in improving the performance involves strip[ping the black paint off the panels the factory sprayed on in order to reduce the reflection which made the panels visible through the grill.

Three: All lengths of wire act as an antenna. Bob Fulton in the 80's manufactured cables of usual lengths because he claimed that the standard one meter length of an interconnect just happens to conform to the length of a car antenna, making it an ideal antenna for RF.

As any wire acts as an antenna, whether terminated or not, an since power cords are not coaxial, there is a certain amount of charge which two parallel wires running side by side can store as capacitance.

AS a matter of fact, as I live in a formerly extremely high RF area, so high that the first generation Yamaha CD players could not play longer than 30 seconds, an interconnect coiled on top pf the CD player or preamp could significantly reduce that RF and make the machines playable. Discovered accidentally, I later found reference to this technique in an Antenna handbook, BTW.

So now according to your dictates and pronouncements, we are to eliminate all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets. Yeah by eliminating all electronics in a room I'm sure the silence will be exquisite. Just how do we eliminate the Earth's magnetic field, BTW, or perhaps you have a means of treating the planet.

Indeed your statements are often preposterous. Coating a sugar cube, for example, do you believe it is remotely possible to try every substance in the world? I have already stated that it was not my idea that black insulation was bad, and you criticize me for saying that? That is sheer stupidity. Having read your website many years ago, I do not recall any pronouncements that black insulation was bad, not any explanation for it being so.

You quote about wrapping the wire is ludicrous because it is taken out of context. That reply was given to GK's statement that wrapping black wire with white teflon tape made it sound better. For a "theoretical physicist" with nothing more than a bachelor's degree, he certainly ignores a lot of possible and well known factors in attributing the performance gain to the white color of the tape. If you similarly ignore those factors and the so called "scientific method", then your assertions are also open to tremendous doubt.

Do you really believe that freezing only affects the insulation color properties? You don't believe that an anti static fluid or treatment will have greater affect on a leaky insulation than a better one? You statements ignore a multitude of factors which may or may not be related to sound improvement. I found that your statements ignore many of the possible causalities, and literal;y leap to often unfounded conclusions which may attributed elsewhere.

Stu

 

That's funny...., posted on July 6, 2011 at 13:29:28
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 Stan Warren left PS Audio in the mid or late 80's. The current PS Audio has really nothing to do with Stan Warren, although that may not be obvious to a "theoretical P\physicist".

And nope, All my components utilize non black insulation, although I do have many black generic power cords lying around. My last major sound room even had the in wall romex utilizing non black insulation.

But as a "theoretical physicist", I really admire your great scientific acumen in attributing the white of the teflon tape wrap you used in treating a sound improvement and in ignoring any other possible factors, particularly those factors electromagnetic.

That was some schooling you must have gotten to become a theoretical physicist of that caliber.

Stu

 

Better take a read of, posted on July 6, 2011 at 13:47:22
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 some of them more recent advances in molecular neurology. Take Crick's The Amazing Hypothesis, for example. Although he concentrates on the visual aspect of the brain, much of what he writes about involves hearing. in fact he points out that the startle reflex goes to the visual location portion of the cortex, usually making the subject turn towards the sound source to identify and place the noise.

The synaptic connections go from electrical in the nerve cell, to chemical between nerve cells within the synaptic cleft, and that chemical process is primarily triggered by glutamates although those fascinating neuro transmitters like dopamine are also very important. So now I understand you frame is attributing the advances in sonics due to the chemicals in plastics affecting those neural transmitters?

And you likewise deny the possible affects of all those RF producing electronics? It is nice to see you finally admit that the world of electronics has created an RF nightmare, but you likewise seem to mired in your world of the 50's. Modern transistors, in particular are specifically designed to have very high frequency response, primarily because many are specifically engineered for RF work, particularly in computerized applications. They are unusually prone to picking up RF, especially when compared to the tubed type amplification devices or even early transistors ( the 2N3055 comes to mind here).

Chemical nature of smell is interesting because it is the only sense that bypasses the LGN portion of the brain. However, we don't really smell our stereo, and, as a matter of fact, you will notice a great deal of our auditory vocabulary employs visual terms.


Stu

 

Actually,, posted on July 6, 2011 at 17:58:44
geoffkait
 I did not offer an explanation why white cables sound best, but nice of you to offer something as "obvious" as electromagnetism. Just like a good little wannbe scientist.

 

RE: Better take a read of, posted on July 10, 2011 at 04:09:09
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 681
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >> “It is nice to see you finally admit that the world of electronics has created an RF nightmare,” <<

Please DO NOT misrepresent what I say !! For over 30 years, Peter and I have been saying that the modern environment is A MESS !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am not FINALLY (in your words) admitting an “RF nightmare”.

>> “Modern transistors, in particular are specifically designed to have very high frequency response, primarily because many are specifically engineered for RF work, particularly in computerized applications. They are unusually prone to picking up RF, especially when compared to the tubed type amplification devices or even early transistors ( the 2N3055 comes to mind here).” <<

What has any effect (or no effect) from RF on certain components in an audio chain got to do with such as the (reported by you) effect of a sugar cube on the sound ?

I don’t challenge what can be ACTUAL effects on components and the audio signal caused by RF interference, electromagnetism etc. You suddenly want to bring into the discussion some effect on a component (i.e an effect on the audio signal) when the general discussion (and possible disagreement) has been around “numerous other things in the listening environment having an effect on the sound” – like a sugar cube - coated or not !!

It was you who introduced the sugar cube (and lumps of rock sugar) and their effect on the sound (good and bad) into the discussions.

>> “Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself.” <<

>> “Coating the sugar cube was predictable to me to be inferior sounding. I went ahead simply to confirm my prediction.” <<

YES, lumps of rock sugar DO have an effect on the sound as do lumps of rock salt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It is WHY and HOW they affect the sound which is what is crucial to the whole issue.

Let me attempt to outline the ‘nitty, gritty’ basics.
1) IF improvements in the sound can be observed by doing certain things in the environment, then PRIOR to doing those things, there must have been adverse conditions in the environment and that there ARE some things which can be done to alleviate those adverse conditions. Pure logic !!!!

2) Some people do not believe (or do not want to believe) that there is ANYTHING adverse in their listening environment which can possibly have any effect on THEIR sound.

3) Most of the time it is not possible to have any meaningful discussion with such people because they will usually not have actually tried anything which could be regarded as unusual (i.e regarded as ‘way out’) and therefore will not have observed changes in their sound taking place !! Or they fully believe that they are hearing everything which their equipment is capable of producing and that only a change of actual audio equipment would provide further improvements.

4) For the people who HAVE observed changes taking place , then it is a matter of trying to work out what is having an effect on what, to create the changes in the sound being experienced!!

5) If the sound has got worse, then what has made it worse and why ? If the sound has got better, then what adverse effect has been alleviated and how ?

THIS (5) is the point where you and I take some different paths.

>> “So now according to your dictates and pronouncements, we are to eliminate all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets. Yeah by eliminating all electronics in a room I'm sure the silence will be exquisite. Just how do we eliminate the Earth's magnetic field, BTW, or perhaps you have a means of treating the planet.” <<

That statement is facetious !! It is facetious because of course all plastics, all capacitors, all batteries, all magnets etc cannot be eliminated from the modern environment!!!!! It is facetious because, by saying it, you imply I don’t know such basic things !!!!

We cannot eliminate such things from the modern environment but we CAN go to some lengths to alleviate the problems caused by them. But first you have to gain an understanding as to WHY they are a cause of problems regarding sound and then HOW to go about alleviating the problems.

>> “For example, I have never claimed the dielectric of a table lamp cord will affect the sound of your stereo components.” <<

But you HAVE stated that static, present on a passive power cord on a passive table lamp, (not connected to the AC supply) just sitting passively on a table, and positioned metres and metres away from any Hi FI equipment could be a problem for “sound” and, as you are always associating any changes to the ‘sound’ as being from ‘something affecting the audio signal’, then believing that static present on a passive power cord of a passive table lamp can affect the sound implies that it must be affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio system.

You saying that static (anywhere in the room) could be a problem for sound took place during a previous discussion on problems caused by static. After you had claimed that static can be a problem regarding ‘sound’ I introduced into the discussion the Nordost chemical. Nordost claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of a vinyl record, to the outer insulation of cables (including power cables) one can obtain an improvement in the sound.

Their explanation is that their chemical is ‘alleviating problems caused by static’. Knowing you want every change in the sound to “be an effect on the audio signal” I described how one can apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of a passive power cord of a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment and one will gain an identical improvement in the sound to the improvement gained by applying the very same Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of cables which are physically associated with the Hi Fi equipment.

Using those observations, I asked, therefore, if you still believed that any “static” problem on the passive power cord on the table lamp, metres and metres away from any Hi Fi equipment could possibly have any effect on the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment and you replied YES – static anywhere in the environment can be a problem for ‘sound’ !!!!!!!!! THAT is why I keep bringing up the example of a passive cable on a passive table lamp, sitting passively on a table, metres and metres away from any audio equipment !!!!!!

Because :-
You can achieve an improvement in the sound by applying a specific chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE power cord (one not connected to the AC power supply, just dangling passively from a table lamp), sitting passively on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.

Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by changing the colour of the insulation on a PASSIVE power cord just dangling from a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.

Because you can achieve an improvement in the sound by tying a REEf Knot in the passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal.

Because you can put that passive power cord of a table lamp, on a table metres and metres away from any audio signal through the freezing/slow defrost procedure and achieve an improvement in the sound !!!!!!!!!!!

Because you can have identical improvements in the sound by doing the things I have just described – i.e identical to the improvements you would experience if the same things were done to cables which are actively carrying an audio signal. THIS has to be explained - which I don’t think can be explained by such things “having an effect on the audio signal”.

>> “So now I understand you frame is attributing the advances in sonics due to the chemicals in plastics affecting those neural transmitters?” <<

I am not suggesting that the chemicals in plastics DIRECTLY affect the neural transmitters. Please don’t (again) misquote my words. What I suggest is that the very presence of certain chemicals, in the environment, can cause a reaction in us (human beings) and it is the subsequent REACTION which alters the sound !!

Throughout evolution, Nature has used certain chemicals as ‘danger signals’ and other chemicals as ‘reassuring signals’ (beneficial chemicals ?)

Human beings can be reacting to the presence of RF in their environment but the RF does not have to actually be DIRECTLY penetrating their brain to present a problem!!

Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain chemicals in their environment but those chemicals do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on the chemicals carrying information in the brain to present a problem.

Human beings can be reacting to the presence of certain polarities in their environment but those polarities do not have to be having a DIRECT effect on their brain to present a problem.

All you seem to wish to see associated with the different chemical mixtures used in plastic insulation materials is their dielectric effect !! And for that dielectric effect to then be affecting the audio signal travelling through the cable.

Surely, given what chemicals Nature has used for signaling ‘danger’, there is more than a slight possibility that some, (or even many) of the following chemicals (mixtures of chemicals used in the plastic insulation of cables) may be still “sensed”, in that (danger) role, by us (human beings)?

Chemicals such as Bextrene., P.V.C., polythene, polyethylene, polystyrene, polyurethane, polypropylene, polyalkene, P.T.F.E, Teflon. To then add other chemical mixtures found in both audio equipment and the listening environment :- acrylic, nylon, polyester, vinyl, polycarbonate, Perspex, BAF, glues (adhesives), paints, lacquers and so on !!

Ditto colours. Because different colours are more than mere visual colours, they are also different frequencies !!

To give one brief example. Scientists at the Applied Physics department at the University of Bonn have discovered that when a leaf or a stem is sliced or damaged, the plant signals pain (or perhaps dismay –to use the scientists own words !!!) by releasing the gas ethylene over it’s entire surface. The scientific team also thinks plants warn each other about approaching danger. That the “alarm signal” is a chemical message.

And, it is also known that when a tobacco plant is attacked by the tobacco leaf virus, it warns the other healthy tobacco plants !!!

I would suggest that you look at the possibility of chemicals such as ethylene based ones, used in the plastic insulation materials of so many audio and AC power cables, as being behind 30 years of “the cable controversy” – i.e. reports of different audio cables (including different AC power cables) sounding different when no measurements of changes in the audio signal can be produced.

I would make the suggestion that such as the Nordost chemical which they claim to be dealing with static that they, Nordost, may, quite possibly, have actually “stumbled on” one of Nature’s “reassuring” chemicals, which when applied to the outer insulation of cables – anywhere in the listening room – could be alleviating to some extent the problem caused by “danger” chemicals being used in the making of the plastic insulation. Which, incidentally, (as is well known) was our own experience some 30 years ago !!!!!!!!!

Let me make myself clear – YET AGAIN. I am not saying that there is nothing in the environment which can ‘affect the audio signal’ or which can ‘affect the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room’. I am saying that not EVERYTHING which changes the sound can be attributed to changing the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment or attributed to changing the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room. I am saying that there is another dimension worth looking at – a reaction or reactions, by the human being, to what is going on in the modern environment!!

Quite a few people respond to that concept with “Oh, in that case, MRI scans should be able to show what might be taking place in the brain.” i.e. one should be able to ‘measure’ what is going on.
MRI scans may show which areas of the brain are activated when listening to the music of Dvorak’s New World. But, no MRI scans will SHOW the following differences in the sound when, after listening to Dvorak’s New World on the Sunday, then carrying out some ‘tweaks’, then listening to the same Dvorak’s New World on the Monday and hearing such improvements in the same music as :-

>> “Reduction of stridency to upper midrange and lower treble bands, a minimization of the "glare" - This is clearly discernable with bronze instruments like cymbals, which were at once rendered with a more "creamy" voice, and had more focus.

While the lowest registers are not any deeper, they are clearly more defined. Picking or fingering of strings in bass runs becomes much more apparent and discernable, allowing a greater ease in following complex bass lines and seemingly faster rise times, with clearer decay and fall off.

More "space" between instruments, and greater "air" around them, a more focused soundstage, with greater specificity to images. Staging is typically slightly wider, deeper, and taller, with heightened "illumination" of the rear left and right corners of the soundstage. The result is an overall perspective that is more honest, more faithful to reality, with better focus and more realistically sized.” <<

I can describe bringing the electric kettle power lead from the kitchen into the listening room and laying it on the floor. The sound of Dvorak’s New World will be observed as being ‘worse’. You would suggest that the electric kettle power lead might be acting as an aerial, receiving RF and that it why the sound is worse.

>> “All lengths of wire act as an antenna. Bob Fulton in the 80's manufactured cables of usual lengths because he claimed that the standard one meter length of an interconnect just happens to conform to the length of a car antenna, making it an ideal antenna for RF.

As any wire acts as an antenna, whether terminated or not, an since power cords are not coaxial, there is a certain amount of charge which two parallel wires running side by side can store as capacitance.” <<

I get the impression that if you attached one of your crystals to that particular passive kettle power cord and could no longer describe the sound as ‘worse’, that you would explain that result as :- The crystal was absorbing (or deflecting) the RF, therefore preventing the cable from acting as an aerial, therefore reducing any adverse effect on the audio signal travelling through the audio system.

However, you can have exactly the same electric kettle power cord in exactly the same position on the floor and apply a certain chemical to the outer insulation of that power cord and the sound will no longer be described as ‘worse’. And YET, the cable would STILL BE ACTING as an aerial, so the sound SHOULD still be worse (as per your reasoning) !!!!!!!!!!!!! But it isn’t !!!!!!

Ditto changing the colour of it’s insulation. Ditto putting the electric kettle power cord through the freezing/slow defrost procedure. The same power cord, in the same position will still be acting as an aerial (as per your reasoning) so the sound should be worse!!! But it isn’t !!!

>> “Chemical nature of smell is interesting because it is the only sense that bypasses the LGN portion of the brain. However, we don't really smell our stereo, and, as a matter of fact, you will notice a great deal of our auditory vocabulary employs visual terms.” <<

Who is claiming that we can ONLY detect chemicals by smell ????????????

Since when did Nature need a creature (or plants) to have the sense of smell in order to detect “danger” signals (or reassuring signals) ?

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.

 

Your arguements, posted on July 11, 2011 at 12:54:32
unclestu
Dealer

Posts: 5851
Joined: April 13, 2010
 are very speculative and have allowed virtually no verifuication in life.

Pray tell, how does the smell of teflon, invented by accident in the 30's IIRC, have anything to deal with the smell of danger. Surely primitive man did not have plastics when evolution dealt us the sense of smell.

Why is smell subjugated to the sense of sight?

Also please do not confuse your statements of observation with mine. There are many disagreements I have with your statements of things affecting sound ( say your freezing of photographs, for example). Again you make many statements but offer little in terms of verifiable causality. At least present a hypothesis that may be tested and also take into possible accounting other explanations.

Stu

 

More logical fallacies, posted on August 4, 2011 at 08:41:52
geoffkait
 "Your arguements (sic) are very speculative and have allowed virtually no verifuication (sic) in life. Pray tell, how does the smell of teflon, invented by accident in the 30's IIRC, have anything to deal with the smell of danger (?) Surely primitive man did not have plastics when evolution dealt us the sense of smell."

Perhaps it's like the smell of burning insulation or the smell of natural gas from the unlit gas stove. Man has always learned to adapt to new dangers. Like the sound of screeching brakes of an approaching automobile or the whistle of an approaching train at a railroad crossing or the color of a traffic light. Do you have to be struck by a train to understand that the whistle means danger? Of course not.

"Why is smell subjugated to the sense of sight?"

Simple, because sight was more important than smell to primitive man for pinpointing the location and direction and speed of a potential predator. Sight was also more important than sound for locating predators, which is why man's sense of hearing developed after his sense of vision. Follow?

"Also please do not confuse your statements of observation with mine. There are many disagreements I have with your statements of things affecting sound ( say your freezing of photographs, for example). Again you make many statements but offer little in terms of verifiable causality. At least present a hypothesis that may be tested and also take into possible accounting other explanations."

"Verifiable causality?" Love it when you pretend to talk like an expert. Of course, you could verify the freezing of photos by actually trying the experiment. But that would be too, uh, obvious.


 

Page processed in 0.057 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]