|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
130.89.36.224
In Reply to: RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) posted by May Belt on May 31, 2011 at 04:45:18
"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..
Follow Ups:
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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: