|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
In Reply to: RE: Spectulation about the ion tweaks posted by May Belt on May 17, 2011 at 08:00:21
is based on my experiences and the various devices employed. For electron transfer within the human body, consider that electrons are really beta particles, and a sheet of paper will block them. In the past you have claimed that the "effect" was working on the human body. Yes, it does, to the extent that you can hear it, but I do believe the electrons are actually working on the equipment, not the human body.
Electrons are the only subatomic particle that we, as humans, can effectively utilize. Couple that with the battery ground tweak where we "unbalance" the electrical balance between positive and negative, and the ionizing devices are doing much the same, at least that is my speculation.
Stu
Follow Ups:
> > “In the past you have claimed that the "effect" was working on the human body. Yes, it does, to the extent that you can hear it, but I do believe the electrons are actually working on the equipment, not the human body.” < <
It is the words “ON the human body” I am reacting to. I do not say that the effect is ON the human body, I say that the human being is REACTING to what is going on in their environment.” - Which is something different.
> > “Electrons are the only subatomic particle that we, as humans, can effectively utilize. Couple that with the battery ground tweak where we "unbalance" the electrical balance between positive and negative, and the ionizing devices are doing much the same, at least that is my speculation.” < <
You talk about “unbalancing” the electrical balance and that is how the battery ground tweak works. But, Unclestu, just the mere PRESENCE of a battery – in the listening environment – adversely affects the sound. The battery, just by being a battery (i.e a polarized object) is a problem. As is a magnet – also a problem just by being present in the environment
You say that using the battery ground tweak will give you improvements in the sound. Which you would no doubt describe as :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
I have no reason to challenge your observations. But, you can get identical improvements in the sound without using the battery in a ‘grounding situation’. !! Take ANY battery which is in ANY device (say a remote control, a smoke alarm, a walkman device just passively laying around in the room, etc) and ‘treat’ that battery and you can then have the ‘treated’ battery in exactly the same position, still with exactly the same ‘polarity’ but now no longer creating an adverse effect. One of the simple (and free) ‘treatments’ is to put that battery through the freezing/slow defrost treatment and you will have an identical improvement in the sound - i.e identical to the description you have just quoted when using a battery as a ‘ground tweak’ !!!
Tell me, Unclestu, in the situations described, when the actual objects involved can be metres and metres away from any audio equipment, how on earth can they be “affecting the signal travelling through the audio equipment” or “affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations” ???? Situations where you are NOT using the battery in a ‘grounding situation’ but getting identical improvements in the sound ?
Anomalies such as those are what I am talking about. ,
The adverse effect (on the sound) of the presence in the environment of such as batteries, cannot be explained by those batteries having a DIRECT effect on the human body – i.e. ‘beaming through or to the body’. So, if it is the human observer who is being affected then the effect must be from a reaction to those objects being present in the environment.
I have been actively involved in the audio industry for over 50 years so I am fully aware of such things as capacitance, inductance, resistance, electromagnetism, RF interference, Microwave energy, the dielectric effect, microphony, vibrations, static etc. etc and how the various things COULD affect the audio signal on it’s journey through the audio system but I also know, even stretching imagination to the extreme, what would NOT be affecting the audio signal to the extent to give such descriptions of improvements in the sound as :-
> > “Better pace & rhythm, better air and space around instruments, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements.” < <
To get any further along the journey of discovery, you have to look far more seriously at the anomalies one encounters.
Anomalies are the brick wall one comes up against. The best person to read on the subject of anomalies in science is Thomas Kuhn !!!!!!!!!!!!
Either researchers choose to ignore the anomalies because they are too difficult (for the researcher) to ‘deal with’, or the researchers ‘do not have time to investigate but intend to look at them later’, or they try to push, pull squeeze, bend, stretch the anomalies they are observing to try to fit in with their conventional training and conventional understandings.
So many so called ‘tweaks’ are not giving improvements in the sound by adding something, they are giving improvements in the sound by reducing an already existing adverse effect !! You can’t add new information to the orchestral score of Dvorak’s New World if that information is not already encoded on the recording.
So, the information which gives you the improvements you describe of :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
MUST have already been there, available, all the time. Until you did this, and that, and that and that TWEAK !!!!
And, therefore, if you can experience IDENTICAL improvements of :-
> > “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” < <
From doing things which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be having an effect on the audio signal or having an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves, then whatever it was you do/did must be considered as doing the same thing – i.e reducing an already existing adverse effect !!
THAT is when you start on the path of discovery. By NOT avoiding, dismissing, ignoring anomalies !!
I see someone calling themselves edbk has just described ‘feeling’ worse AND actually hearing the sound ‘worse’ :-
> > “with all the rocks on the table I had a bigass midrange suckout for the few minutes I listened.” < <
With a variety of crystals positioned on a table in his listening room!!
It was one experience (a significant experience but one of many such) 30 years ago with something on a table spoiling our ‘sound’ that gave us certain clues as to what might be ‘going on’ in the modern environment !!
You are ‘thinking about’ positives and negatives, you are ‘thinking about’ polarities in an attempt to explain what you have observed but I still challenge you that you are pushing, pulling, squeezing, bending, stretching what you have observed to fit in with ‘something affecting the audio signal as it travels through the audio system’ or ‘something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room’.
Positives and negatives can still be under consideration as can polarities because, yes, they are present in the environment. But not ALWAYS affecting the audio signal and not ALWAYS affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room.
More and more people are HAVING TO consider the human beings reaction within the modern environment as a strong explanation for the ‘changes in the sound’ which many people experience.
Take for example Russell Lichter’s review of the LessLoss Blackbody device (StereoTimes July 2010).
> > “There are things going on here that I can't explain, that challenge my fundamental preconceptions of how electronic devices work. And some of those challenging concepts turn out to be quite audible in my stereo but have nothing directly to do with circuit type or design or components or room treatments, things that normally 'make a difference.' We have irrevocably entered an age of man-made electromagnetic radiation with the blind confidence conferred by hubris. ……….Our living rooms are no exception. If we could actually see these wavelengths, we'd be claustrophobic.” < <
And, during a lengthy discussion on the Stereophile Forum on the improvements in the sound heard from the tiny ART room devices, even John Atkinson was beginning to resort to suggesting “could it be the human being who is doing the reacting ?”
And I haven’t even touched on the subject of the effect (on the sound) of such as the Schumann Resonance device !!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
that it is you who has blocked out further investigation, claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter.
Details of music may well be already contained in the information encoded on a disc or LP: that 100% retrieval of that information is already accomplished is another factor. There are many factors which affect that information retrieval, acoustics, component design, etc.
In other posts on Tweaks, I have noted that adding more batteries to more components in a system soon reaches a point of diminishing returns, where very little gain ( virtually nil in the parlance of se)is noted in the s/n ratio. I suspect it is the point where the information retrieval has been maximized by this particular tweak.
Now the addition of the battery gives a seeming 2 dB increase in volume, Do your tweaks do the same? In fact have you tried this particular tweak yourself, are are you basing it completely on the experience of others or past experimentation on other battery factors?
The fact is the ground tweak is mounted directly onto the circuit of the component. Your removal of batteries does not involve them directly inserted into a circuit of the audio chain. And to tell you the truth, since I have purchased batteries by the bulk ( I have 45 batteries sitting in my "listening" room right now), I hear no degradation in sound from their presence. I would submit that your position should also incorporate such "anomalies" and possibly a change in your position.
Then again having products for sale may preclude you from making a change in position until such product inventory is exhausted.
If you carefully read my past posts, I have never advocated mass distribution of crystals in a room. In fact my realization of the harm of such a practice triggered my experimentation: a large quartz cluster in the center of my listening area adding a harsh upper frequency "ring" to all my music. 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. The center of a room is generally not a locus of an EMI field. Here, you are taking things out of context, and loosely applying it to suit your argument.
And it is silly to say that the human listener is not reacting to the changes. Of course the human ear is reacting, but it will react to many different changes. The key here is to understand the why's and how's of creating such changes. You can claim morphic resonances, but morphic resonances do not aid predictability, nor effectiveness of such changes.
Just take your boy, GK, who often posts to try this and to try that without making any prediction of how those applications will change sound.
He's simply shooting off in the dark, seemingly without being very precise despite claiming to be a "scientist". Its like reading those claims put forth by the believers of Nostradamus: they can always see events which have already occurred as being predicted, but can't predict in advance.
In fact your post has me very puzzled. You are modifying your previous position in that now you are claiming that the body is reacting to changes in the environment. Now, how can that NOT be so? I've always claimed that the sensitivity of the human body far exceeds most instrumentation we have. Consider the example I've always used: that the best "noses" can distinguish one part per trillion as determined by spectrographic analysis of a cubic volume of air. Since many people seem to be more sensitive to sound than smell, how and what does that translate to hearing?
Stu
"I submit that it is you who has blocked out further investigation, claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter."That's really funny considering that you have no idea what the Belt products are or how they work. "You submit?" Ha Ha Ha!
"Details of music may well be already contained in the information encoded on a disc or LP: that 100% retrieval of that information is already accomplished is another factor. There are many factors which affect that information retrieval, acoustics, component design, etc."
Well, now we're getting somewhere!
"In other posts on Tweaks, I have noted that adding more batteries to more components in a system soon reaches a point of diminishing returns, where very little gain ( virtually nil in the parlance of se)is noted in the s/n ratio. I suspect it is the point where the information retrieval has been maximized by this particular tweak."
Odd you haven't noticed how batteries hurt the sound. Oh, well.
"Now the addition of the battery gives a seeming 2 dB increase in volume, Do your tweaks do the same? In fact have you tried this particular tweak yourself, are are you basing it completely on the experience of others or past experimentation on other battery factors?"
What does her trying the tweak have to do with the price of spinach? Have you measured the 2 dB increase? Show us the data!
"The fact is the ground tweak is mounted directly onto the circuit of the component. Your removal of batteries does not involve them directly inserted into a circuit of the audio chain. And to tell you the truth, since I have purchased batteries by the bulk ( I have 45 batteries sitting in my "listening" room right now), I hear no degradation in sound from their presence. I would submit that your position should also incorporate such "anomalies" and possibly a change in your position."
You had better get your hearing checked Pronto! Actually, it's understandable you wouldn't notice the detrimental effect of 45 batteries sitting in your listening room as you've undoubetedly always had a lot of batteries in your house/apt/cave/whatever.
"Then again having products for sale may preclude you from making a change in position until such product inventory is exhausted."
Whatever the heck that means.
"If you carefully read my past posts, I have never advocated mass distribution of crystals in a room. In fact my realization of the harm of such a practice triggered my experimentation: a large quartz cluster in the center of my listening area adding a harsh upper frequency "ring" to all my music. 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. The center of a room is generally not a locus of an EMI field. Here, you are taking things out of context, and loosely applying it to suit your argument."
You jumped the gun *assuming* that EMI fields are involved with the quartz cluster between the speakers. Did you meaure the EMI fields? Anyway, completely understandable considering you see RFI/EMI behind every rock. That's what happens when your belief system doesn't allow you to consider any evidence that conflicts with your foregone conclusions.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." ~ old audiophile saying
"And it is silly to say that the human listener is not reacting to the changes. Of course the human ear is reacting, but it will react to many different changes. The key here is to understand the why's and how's of creating such changes. You can claim morphic resonances, but morphic resonances do not aid predictability, nor effectiveness of such changes."
Uh, Stu, she's not talking about the accuracy of human hearing, or the sensitivity of the human ear, she's taking about the human mind/body reacting to the surroundings. Geez, how many years have you been posting on this forum? .
"The more things change the more they stay the same." Old audiophile saying
"Just take your boy, GK, who often posts to try this and to try that without making any prediction of how those applications will change sound. He's simply shooting off in the dark, seemingly without being very precise despite claiming to be a "scientist". Its like reading those claims put forth by the believers of Nostradamus: they can always see events which have already occurred as being predicted, but can't predict in advance."
I take back what I said earlier, that now, we're getting somewhere. A scientist is willing to consider other, contradictory evidence and arguments, unlike yourself. You're simply being argumentative, the hallmark of close minded pseudo skeptics everywhere. In fact, you apparently don't even understand the proposition you're arguing so strenuously against! LOL
"In fact your post has me very puzzled. You are modifying your previous position in that now you are claiming that the body is reacting to changes in the environment. Now, how can that NOT be so? I've always claimed that the sensitivity of the human body far exceeds most instrumentation we have. Consider the example I've always used: that the best "noses" can distinguish one part per trillion as determined by spectrographic analysis of a cubic volume of air. Since many people seem to be more sensitive to sound than smell, how and what does that translate to hearing?"
You fail to understand her position, which nis that the mind/bidy react to the surroundings. Her position has precious little to do with how sensitive the human ears are. You're just being argumentative without understanding the position you're arguing about.
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." old audiophile saying
Edits: 05/22/11 05/22/11
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: