Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

Isolation Ward

Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES?

80.177.28.171

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display Email Next ] [ Isolation Ward ]

My reply will be a long one (at the risk of having my reply moved to some unknown place !!! as has just happened ???) but with over 50 (literally hands on) experience in the audio industry, I think I have quite a unique perspective of many areas appertaining to audio.
To pick just one area listed by 'Axon' - i.e "5. A bunch of people at an AES convention in 1991 tried to get the high-end cable industry collectively dragged out and shot, or something like that."
To engineers, steeped in conventional electronic theories, other people claiming that they can 'hear' different cables give different sounds appears nonsensical, particularly when it can be a half a metre (20 inches !!!!!) length of cable being listened to Conventional electronic theory dictates that any changes to an audio signal that (might) occur along a half metre (20 inches) of cable would be so insignificant that no one, no human being, could possibly hear any changes, let alone describe those changes in the way people do - greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of instruments and so on. Now, if those same people described hearing changes in different cables ONE MILE LONG, then the conventional engineers would concede that, yes, people might be able to hear the effect of different 'losses on the line'. But, cables half a metre long 'sounding different' - NO WAY !!! End of discussion. And, as for suggesting that there can be directionality in wires - better hide behind the parapets !!
If those same conventional engineers had NEVER had the experience of hearing different short lengths of different cables give different sounds then, of course, they can easily dismiss (and do - aggressively) others experiences.
This leads me to another aspect of some of the replies on Prop Head Plaza.
Some people appear to resent being given examples of past conflicts of past controversy from the history of various sciences. But, the examples are given, not because of those particular sciences but because the examples illustrate, so clearly, the reactions of many of the human beings involved at that time in history and they illustrate the difficulties some people have in coming to terms with new discoveries.
ALL is NOT known about everything - in any age, in any era !!! There are still discoveries to be made !!
So, the examples of the reactions to such as Dr Joseph Lister (Germs in the air concept) and Dr John Snow (cholera is spread by contaminated water and not by the foul air) are highly relevant - even today.
But, for the people involved 100 years ago, merely being told about the new concepts was not sufficient - to understand more fully people had to be aware of the background, to know the story as to why those particularly concepts emerged in the face of the contradictory beliefs held by the majority of that time. Some people were interested enough to do their own experiments, to try to get to know the background story, others just dismissed the new concepts out of hand !! Sorry, correction, 'dismissed' is too weak a word - "attacked and ridiculed" are much better descriptions of some peoples reactions !!
Now to the thorny subject of 'threads' being relegated to what has been called the "Isolation Ward".
I can fully understand when certain people wish to discuss a subject from a purely technical base. I can fully understand that such as motor cycle enthusiasts want to discuss technical aspects of motor cycles and do not wish their debates to be interspersed with such as food recipes !! And, as such, I would fully respect their wishes - except when they choose to extend their discussions to which are the best transport/motorway eateries !!
But, from what I have observed on reading the many postings on Prop Head Plaza, the 'technical' people do not choose to restrict THEIR discussions to purely technical aspects.
Yes, they start by discussing such as the technical pros and cons of circuit design and the technical pros and cons of electronic components but they THEMSELVES do not stay within those restrictions - they then wish to expand the discussion on HOW these circuits and HOW these components SOUND (or should sound) !! Which then brings in many, many more people who wish to contribute to this expanded discussion. People who have identical technical expertise but who also have an opinion and expertise on how the circuits and components SOUND, plus people who have a basic technical understanding of the discussions but who also have an opinion and expertise on how the circuits and components SOUND, plus people who wish to bring THEIR knowledge and experience on how circuits and components SOUND, even if they are only the audio equipment consumer !!!
Let me give a hypothetical example to illustrate what I mean. As I say, I have observed that some people resent references to the blinkered approach of some scientists throughout the past history of science but the references ARE entirely relevant - not because of the various sciences involved but because they illustrate how the human beings involved can react to new discoveries.
Let us go back 100 years to when the belief structure of the medical profession was that the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia were 'in the patients own bad blood' - that it was up to pure chance whether the patient developed septicaemia or not !!
Let us imagine that there existed, at that time, the Internet and an Internet site called Medical Asylum with a separate section headed Prop Head Plaza. That various skilled surgeons and doctors wished to discuss the technical aspects of any advances in carrying out operations and have discussions on who manufactured the sharpest surgical instruments. So far, so good - others would not have any desire to join these (technical) discussions. But, these skilled surgeons and doctors now choose to extend their discussion to the area of patient survival rates. This now opens up a whole new area of discussion - a discussion area where many, many more people would wish to participate. Where many more members of the medical profession would have similar technical expertise as the surgeons but who also have considerable experience and knowledge of patient survival rates. Plus many other people without the technical expertise of the surgeons but with extensive experience and knowledge regarding patient survival, plus the very patients themselves and THEIR experiences !! ALL would have valuable contributions to make to the discussions - particularly those familiar with Joseph Lister's (then) revolutionary concept that the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia were "In the Air" and familiar with his recommendations for using antiseptic techniques when carrying out operations and antiseptic gauzes for applying to open wounds !!
Imagine now the discussions which followed being eventually relegated to an "Isolation Ward" section.
What would the reason be for such a relegation ? If the subject of patient survival rates is brought into the discussion, then the discussion cannot concentrate any more on the purely technical aspects of surgical operations and surgical instruments. The subject of patient survival rates becomes as serious a contribution to the discussion as the surgical skills - even though there may not be any available technical proof to substantiate people's experiences !! In exactly the same way, when the subject of what audio circuits and components and audio equipment SOUND like, then the discussion can no longer concentrate purely on the technical aspects of circuit design and components. Getting the very best SOUND from the audio equipment is as serious a contribution to the discussion as the technical aspects of circuit design and component design.
If the "Isolation Ward" means 'isolation from general discussion', why would one want to 'isolate' discussion on 'patient survival rates' or, similarly, why would one want to 'isolate' discussion of how things 'sound' ?
Is AES really as John Curl suggests ? - to quote
>>> "Also, they won't let anything that has not been 'proven' by an ABX test be published in the Journal these days. It is mostly a waste of time for real design engineers." <<<
Is it another version of "Isolation Ward" but under the banner heading of Audio Engineering Society ?
Regards,
May Belt.

Follow Ups:

geeeeee. looooonnnnngggggg post! - jeromelang 02:54:47 05/14/07 (2)
haven't got to the end of your post yet. but just wanna say : even on a short cable of just 15 centimetre, such as those we would use as jumper cables between the high and low freq input terminals of a bi-wirable speaker, its directionality is audible - even to an audio novice (like a girl who worked as a clerk in our office!) so i ended up using her to double check the wiring correctness of the jumper cables for all seven speakers we setup for demo. those jumper cables weren't marked by the way.
- Re: geeeeee. looooonnnnngggggg post! - May Belt 08:27:26 05/14/07 (1)
  Jerome,
  I am sure I have made it clear, on many occasions, that it is not me who doubts your observations !! I would fully go along with the experience you have quoted.
  As I said in an earlier posting, on quoting from an audio magazine article from 23 years ago on the subject of directionality in wires, the words written then are still relevant today.
  Regards,
  May Belt.
  - Laws of nature goes for ever, but how freezing-all related to it - cheap-Jack 12:50:39 05/14/07 (0)
    Hi.
    is yet to be explained by you, the 'phenomena' discover.
    Of course, please don't try to fool us by the "King's new dress" analogy.
    c-J
    PS: I know it would be too much to ask for any scientific evidence today. We just need some rational or explanation why such 'phenomena' can take place.
    Likewise, I can tell the world, to take heed: the sky would fall down one day.
All rights reserved for "Isolation Ward" - a "medical thriller" - cheap-Jack 08:34:26 05/14/07 (1)
Hi.
- as per Joe Harlaub, the reviewer of this medical fiction.
Put aside yr motive of mentioning this very best selling detective novel currently, what is "isolation ward" (I de-capitalized it to avoid possible infringement on copy rights) to do with AES?
An isolation ward is a place to save lives inflicted with epidemic diseases, by hook or by crook.
AES is place where audio priofessionals presented their research papers to improve the level of audio engineering.
Reading between the lines, this is your another attempt to sell your fantastic ideas of freezing-all which has made quite a few here ZZzzzz already?
When are you going to stop your commercials here in AA?
c-J
- IF May is doing a commercial... - Wellfed 09:50:25 05/29/07 (0)
  What do you call the activity of her detractors—public service announcements?
Why the long face on the AES? Kai's powergoo - tomservo 08:59:45 05/14/07 (25)
Another interesting post.
“A bunch of people at an AES convention in 1991 tried to get the high-end cable industry collectively dragged out and shot, or something like that."
“To engineers, steeped in conventional electronic theories, other people claiming that they can 'hear' different cables give different sounds appears nonsensical, particularly when it can be a half a metre (20 inches !!!!!) length of cable being listened to Conventional electronic theory dictates that any changes to an audio signal that (might) occur along a half metre (20 inches) of cable would be so insignificant that no one, no human being, could possibly hear any changes, let alone describe those changes in the way people do - greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of instruments and so on. Now, if those same people described hearing changes in different cables ONE MILE LONG, then the conventional engineers would concede that, yes, people might be able to hear the effect of different 'losses on the line'. But, cables half a meter long 'sounding different' - NO WAY !!! End of discussion. And, as for suggesting that there can be directionality in wires - better hide behind the parapets !!”
Well fwiw, I’m not an engineer I am inventor but I was an invited speaker at a number of AES and ASA conventions and a member until 1996 when I let my membership lapse.
I had presented a number of papers by that point and had attended most of the main conventions as a result of already being at the trade show for work
My impression was that it is a way for manufacturers to gather respect for new technology (assuming it works etc) and it is a way for engineers to hear what others in the fields have to say, this is one of the very few places where an engineer from JBL might present technical breakthroughs followed by someone from EV or Servodrive.
I quit because it seemed to be more of an academic forum as opposed to “news” and inventions, at the time heavily weighted by the “supporting” companies.
I had presented a paper on eliminating power compression at the same meeting Doug B. from JBL presented the first paper on it.
I presented a paper on a rotary motor driven loudspeaker and demonstrated it, the QA time went over an hour longer than scheduled.
I presented and demonstrated both a low frequency (as in Phoenix Gold Cyclone) and full range full rotary loudspeaker drivers (Quantum Sound), again very long QA time.
All of these things were totally new transducers / designs, genuinely worked but none were selected for publication in the AES journal.
I finally made me wonder why am I busting my butt writing these things and showing these people anything I’m doing?

I do not recall a lynching event like above. I do recall a number of challenges where people compared wires blind and many were puzzled why they couldn’t hear the difference they heard when they knew which wire was which.
I do recall discussion about the properties of wire and how that could impact the transmission of a signal.
Just as there are those who ridicule them for “not hearing the obvious”, there were those who ridiculed the customers of many hifi business that used snake oil tactics to effectively steal from the customer.
Keep in mind, while you mention Snow and Lister as examples of someone finding something new, I think the connection to modern day high end audio is fallacious as both of these guys were scientists, using scientific method and discovery.
In the case of Lister, he noticed carbolic acid killed germ cultures and thought to spray it in the air before surgery, Snow used statically analysis, realizing when seeing a distribution map that there was as distinct pattern.
London’s famous sewer system with its massive steam engine pumps and surgery without near certain death were results.
Both discoveries were readily reproducible and passed “blind” analysis as well.
This is simply inspired men using science to work at discovery.
The disparaging frame engineering is ALWAYS painted in with the “hifi” types is particularly curious.
ALL of the electronic world outside of “hifi” is governed by the “rules” which seemingly don’t apply in audio.
The engineering view might be that 20 inches of speaker cable has an effect, it has resistance which will ALWAYS produce a voltage potential across it proportional to the current flowing. There are effects limited to frequencies above DC ( 0 Hz) too.
The impact of these is frequency dependant and these kinds of properties are measured with a network analyzer.
An equivalent circuit can be formed with this information and its accuracy can be examined by comparing the output of the circuit to the item under test.
At high frequencies like those in your computer or cell phone, these products couldn’t exist without this kind of design approach.
At audio frequencies, the engineering argument would be to say as long as the signal coming out was similar enough to the input signal, that there could be no electrical reason to hear the difference claimed.
The logic being that in order for a signal to be audibly different, there would also have to be that same difference showing up when the input and output were compared.
That is not to say there aren’t other non-electrical mechanism’s that can cause an obvious difference in some situations.
As with the disparaging reflex towards the technical, the hifi types also tend to pretend ALL pf what is know about perception, desires and Bl;ind testing outside of hifi similarly don’t apply in hifi.
These folks seem to think they are 100% aware, in control and are “so confident” of that that they go nuts when you say “ok, prove what you say by demonstrating it without prior knowledge”.
Meanwhile as one might imagine, automotive engineer types react similarly when “a believer” tries to tell them they get better gas mileage when they wrap there radiator hoses with Velveeta cheese. And yes, they may well get better gas mileage.
So, what’s the deal with the frozen music, has the thread cooled enough to let folks know which tracks were which?
Best,
Tom
- Re: the difference they heard when they knew which wire was which. - KlausR. 09:15:00 05/14/07 (1)
  That's a question that probably has been asked many times yet has never been answered: what sonic information does the knowledge of the identity of the component being tested provide?
  Has anyone ever had a look at brain activity of audiophiles during sighted and blind listening to see what brain areas are affected by such knowledge and if they are somehow linked to the perception circuits?
  
  Klaus
  - I'd like see some research on galvanic skin response... - Wellfed 23:11:34 05/14/07 (0)
    No one can deny goose bumps exist and it seems likely that they are the product of perception in some form.
- "...but none were selected for publication in the AES journal." Buddy, you were lucky to get in at all! - clarkjohnsen 10:25:04 05/14/07 (0)
  My essay above tells why you didn't make the cut.
  As for that famous Convention, I was there (and delivered a paper), and I can assure you that in a panel discussion on stage a representative of the NY State Department of Consumer Fraud told us that he was recommending that the government investigate these wild and absurd claims of wires being audible. On the same panel a professional psychologist told us that it was all in our heads, these differences. I spoke to him afterwards; he was a crazee.
  clark
- "what’s the deal with the frozen music, has the thread cooled enough to let folks know which tracks were which?" Alas... - clarkjohnsen 10:29:43 05/14/07 (20)
  ...the whole project thread was found worthy of removal by the moderators. All gathered data, out the window! This Belt stuff is *controversial* don't you know?
  Pity, the first real experiment carried on here at PHP (so far as I know) has been scuttled. I too would have liked to have seen the results, and many members were participating.
  clark
  - "Pity" are those who litter the forum with commercials?? (nt) - cheap-Jack 11:02:49 05/14/07 (4)
    .
    - Although littering with crap is a far worse offense, who did that which you claim? nt - clarkjohnsen 13:37:10 05/14/07 (0)
      a
    - The question is repeated. Where is the answer? nt - clarkjohnsen 08:43:32 05/15/07 (2)
      a
      - Wake up & smell the coffee ! - cheap-Jack 11:27:34 05/15/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: The question is repeated. Where is the answer? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on May 15, 2007 at 08:43:32:
        
        Hi.
        Who is selling freezing-all, labels, blah blah blah day in day out here? They use AA their free marketplace, don't you see?
        c-J
        
        So, who then? The only person around here who has 'em for sale is May, and I've *never* seen her make a pitch. nt - clarkjohnsen 14:32:33 05/15/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Wake up & smell the coffee ! posted by cheap-Jack on May 15, 2007 at 11:27:34:
        
        ,
  - Re: "what’s the deal with the frozen music, has the thread cooled enough to let folks know which tracks were which?" Ala - tomservo 06:56:24 05/15/07 (14)
    Hi
    Well that’s too bad if that is what happened.
    I wonder how attempting to apply “science” to quantify what happened when the disk was frozen is too controversial?
    I see too that Posy’s posts seem to evaporate now too umm.
    I suppose it is one hallmark of the whole thing here is that there is such a strong scent of “fundamentalism” obvious on BOTH sides of the hifi divide.
    As in Religion or Politics, fundamentalism is a drastic reduction of annoying details in favor of a few simple rules, a self blinding process in a way.
    As with the more common instances, reality tends to be hidden in the details and as a result the extreme position on anything is very rarely also squarely on target.
    Best,
    Tom
    - "Well that’s too bad if that is what happened." That's what happened alright. - clarkjohnsen 08:05:15 05/15/07 (13)
      A lot of sincere and painstaking effort was wiped out at the flick of a switch, all because it was "controversial".
      Perhaps you didn't notice, but that wholesale deletion cast such a pall over the place, there wasn't a new entry for nearly a week.
      clark
      - Re: What's the rumpus? - geoffkait 09:21:23 05/15/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: "Well that’s too bad if that is what happened." That's what happened alright. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 15, 2007 at 08:05:15:
        
        All we're talking about is freezing a CD. Even a caveman can do it.
        
        Data was being gathered, at some effort by concerned and curious inmates. - clarkjohnsen 09:41:37 05/15/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: What's the rumpus? posted by geoffkait on May 15, 2007 at 09:21:23:
        
        That the whole project was quashed, was a slap in the face for those who participated. Who in the future will care to spend the time, knowing that the moderators so bleakly view anything that smacks of "controversial"?
        clark
        
        Re: Data was being misinterpreted and maligned by "skeptical" inmates - geoffkait 05:35:23 05/16/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Data was being gathered, at some effort by concerned and curious inmates. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 15, 2007 at 09:41:37:
        
        and the only reason anyone (one inmate) got to the point of actually posting results was constant badgering by Posey Rorer. The project was not quashed, it simply died for lack of interest.
        
        "The project was not quashed." Oh? Then where is it now? nt - clarkjohnsen 09:18:04 05/16/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Data was being misinterpreted and maligned by "skeptical" inmates posted by geoffkait on May 16, 2007 at 05:35:23:
        
        s
      - You know very well why that material was deleted... - SF tech 10:45:04 05/15/07 (8)
        
        In Reply to: "Well that’s too bad if that is what happened." That's what happened alright. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 15, 2007 at 08:05:15:
        
        Efforts were made to civilize the discussion, but your buddy wasn't having it. Maybe next time he'll try to behave like a grown-up...
        Besides, like Geoff said, nothing is stopping you from freezing a CD yourself. "So easy, a caveman can do it!"
        That's actually pretty funny...
        
        Re: You know very well why that material was deleted... - The Bored 14:05:16 05/15/07 (7)
        
        In Reply to: You know very well why that material was deleted... posted by SF tech on May 15, 2007 at 10:45:04:
        
        > > Efforts were made to civilize the discussion, but your buddy wasn't having it. Maybe next time he'll try to behave like a grown-up...
        Exactly. Plus the fact that Rod's policy is to delete on sight those who use proxy services in an effort to hide their true identity.
        
        Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum, et cetera, et cetera...
        Memo bis punitor delicatum! It's all there, black and white,
        clear as crystal! Blah, blah, and so on and so forth ...
        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        
        Who was trying to hide their identity?... - Wellfed 19:15:32 05/16/07 (6)
        
        In Reply to: Re: You know very well why that material was deleted... posted by The Bored on May 15, 2007 at 14:05:16:
        
        I was traveling a bunch when the deletions were made.
        
        Whoever was posing as "Posy" ... - clifff 03:54:20 05/17/07 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Who was trying to hide their identity?... posted by Wellfed on May 16, 2007 at 19:15:32:
        
        spoofed IP address at a German University, although climed to be US based.
        
        Could he have been traveling?... - Wellfed 09:33:34 05/17/07 (4)
        
        In Reply to: Whoever was posing as "Posy" ... posted by clifff on May 17, 2007 at 03:54:20:
        
        In any event, the action of deleting posts for this seems like an odd way of dealing with the matter. Was he warned ahead of time that such action would ensue? This all leaves the impression as being an act of spite. If that's the case, what's the cause for this spite?
        
        you are JUMPING to big conclusions - clifff 09:38:37 05/17/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: Could he have been traveling?... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 09:33:34:
        
        He was warned many times, but I am not going to waste time on this guy.
        His behavour demonstrated real social problems.
        
        Not a conclusion in sight, questions and impressions is all... - Wellfed 10:45:07 05/17/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: you are JUMPING to big conclusions posted by clifff on May 17, 2007 at 09:38:37:
        
        I was traveling extensively when these events took place.
        Speaking of Posy, you wrote
        His behavour demonstrated real social problems.
        When you stop and think about it, don't most of us here? ;-)
        Have you noticed how Analog Scott is treating May Belt as we speak? Is his behavior any better than Posy's?
        
        Hmmm... - clifff 12:00:42 05/17/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Not a conclusion in sight, questions and impressions is all... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 10:45:07:
        
        "This all leaves the impression as being an act of spite. If that's the case, what's the cause for this spite?"
        How can the absense of something lead to an impression of an act spite?
        You came to a conclusion on the basis of nothing.
        "When you stop and think about it, don't most of us here? ;-)"
        Yes, of course, including me.
        But, as others have found here, really nasty personal and spiteful tirades get slapped down, especially afer weeks of warnings.
        Anyway, enough said, these are all IMO.
        
        I haven't drawn any conclusions... - Wellfed 13:25:20 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Hmmm... posted by clifff on May 17, 2007 at 12:00:42:
        
        Had I done so my commentary would be more like
        Why has the bored acted out of spite?
        The 'potential' act of spite is the mass deletions of Posy Rorer's posts and the other postings deep sixed along with them. Perhaps there were very good reasons for this, if so, I missed them. I missed the warnings you allude to, presumably because I wasn't around here much at the time.
        My personal opinion is that Posy Rorer is VERY good for this place. Heaven knows, we have enough of the opposite polarity to contend with. Please make allowance for the fact that I may not have seen anything nasty because of my absence. Allow too that I may not have viewed a post as nasty because of some bias. There's no question in my mind that bias blinds.
        If I were to draw a conclusion, it would be that 'squeeky wheels get greased'. I have hit the comment button a number of times myself and have found the moderators actions to be appropriate. I think they do a great job around here. I do wonder some about this Posy matter though. It would be good to know the details. Therefore I ask.
- Re: Why the long face on the AES? Kai's powergoo - May Belt 10:57:48 05/14/07 (0)
  > > > "So, what’s the deal with the frozen music, has the thread cooled enough to let folks know which tracks were which?
  Best,
  Tom" < < <
  Sorry, Tom, you are asking the wrong person that question. I was not involved in that project so I cannot answer your question!!
  Regards,
  May Belt
"ALL is NOT known about everything - in any age, in any era !!!" You'd think people would catch on. - clarkjohnsen 10:16:55 05/14/07 (1)
But no, there they go again and again, braying against any apple-cart-upsetting views.
Beautiful analogy there with a Medical Asylum -- one can so easily imagine Lister, Koch, Pasteur, Semmelweis et al. getting shouted down by the miasmists and these "controversial" (can't have that !) threads being removed.
clark
- The AES is a hoax! - Lord Clark "Kelvin" Johnsen (nt) - AJinFLA 16:31:02 05/14/07 (0)
  --
  
  The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES? - Analog Scott 10:18:47 05/14/07 (17)
> > Some people appear to resent being given examples of past conflicts of past controversy from the history of various sciences. < <
I have yet to see any "resentment" towards that but I have seen plenty of legitimate criticism about it's relevance.
> > ALL is NOT known about everything - in any age, in any era !!! There are still discoveries to be made !! < <
But this is not the same thing as nothing is known. One does not need to know everything to know something.
> > So, the examples of the reactions to such as Dr Joseph Lister (Germs in the air concept) and Dr John Snow (cholera is spread by contaminated water and not by the foul air) are highly relevant - even today. < <

Relevant to what? I see no relevance to anything in the audio world that is hotly contested. Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports a specific audio tweek you have no relevant analogy. That just sin't going to happen. Not because all tweeks are bogus but because it simply isn't important enough to warrent legitimate scientific research.
> > Now to the thorny subject of 'threads' being relegated to what has been called the "Isolation Ward".
I can fully understand when certain people wish to discuss a subject from a purely technical base. I can fully understand that such as motor cycle enthusiasts want to discuss technical aspects of motor cycles and do not wish their debates to be interspersed with such as food recipes !! And, as such, I would fully respect their wishes - except when they choose to extend their discussions to which are the best transport/motorway eateries !!
But, from what I have observed on reading the many postings on Prop Head Plaza, the 'technical' people do not choose to restrict THEIR discussions to purely technical aspects. < <
May, this has been explained to you more than once. The Isolation Ward is a forum for tweeks that are CONTROVERSIAL. It has nothing to do with the level of technical content in the posts of a given thread.
> > Imagine now the discussions which followed being eventually relegated to an "Isolation Ward" section. < <
Imagine the placement in various forum of certain threads making any difference in medical research. It is rather absurd. Your analogies totally off base. Better yet, imagine the scientific community giving equal ceadence to all new ideas to those ideas that have stood the rigors of the scientific method. This seems to be what you are advocating. That would be the end of science.

> > If the "Isolation Ward" means 'isolation from general discussion', why would one want to 'isolate' discussion on 'patient survival rates' or, similarly, why would one want to 'isolate' discussion of how things 'sound' ? < <
May that isn't what it means. You may as well ask if we are required to literally wear propeller hats to participate inthis forum.
Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind?
- Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES? - May Belt 09:25:32 05/16/07 (16)
  > > > "Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind? " < < <
  
  I would (obviously and sensibly and logically) never say NEVER !! So, I could never say that a change in the sound when using a Belt Tweak may NEVER be a change in the listeners state of mind. I am not that stupid to make a declaration like that !!
  But, Analog Scott, your question shows that you have not yet reached a level of understanding about our concepts. You are still making the wrong presumption. When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
  Some people have been following the Belt story since the beginning and the ones interested can (more or less) understand what the reasoning is behind our concept and how it has come about (although I also appreciate that they can struggle sometimes). Others have no understanding at all, do not want to understand, do not want others to understand - leading to such comments as AJinFLA's "Dismissing such things as utter nonsense, and possible signs of mental illness."
  The relevance today of the examples given from the past history of science is because many people are aware that the parallel is still happening - today - and that is why the examples continue to be given. Your sentence "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports a specific audio tweek you have no relevant analogy" show exactly that. Your sentence is no different to, 100 years ago, someone saying to Dr John Snow "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports your specific challenge to the conventional belief, you have no case."
  No different to the reaction to Edward Jenner.
  Edward Jenner was a doctor in Gloucestershire UK. He decided to test his theory, drawn from the folklore of the countryside, that milkmaids who suffered the mild disease of cowpox never contracted smallpox. In 1709, Jenner inserted pus taken from a cowpox pustule on the hand of a milkmaid called Sarah Nelmes and inserted it into an incision on an eight year old boy's arm. Jenner subsequently proved that having been inoculated with cowpox, the boy was now immune to smallpox. Jenner coined the word vaccine from the Latin vacca for cow, and called the process vaccination.
  After submitting a paper to the Royal Society describing his experiment he was told that his ideas were too revolutionary.
  The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule. Critics, especially the clergy, claimed it was repulsive and a satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads. !!!
  What is the difference between this reaction to Jenner 200 years ago and AJinFLA's reaction dismissing some things as 'voodoo, witchcraft' in 2007 ?
  As I have always explained. If there is a phenomenon to be discovered then more people, other than Peter and I, will discover it - and that is what I described in a 'posting' a few days ago which was mysteriously deleted. I explained that others had been discovering things which affected the 'sound' but had given their findings other explanations, even though the explanations do not hold up under further scrutiny.
  No different to Bazelgette who, some 100 years ago, built the London sewage system. Even though Bazelgette knew that his sewage system had halted the spread of cholera, he died still believing that the halting of the spread of cholera was because his new sewage system had got rid of the Foul air. The observation (that the spread of cholera was halted) was correct, but the explanation (that cholera was spread by the Foul air) was not !!! The same place (London), the same cholera, the same people, the same sewage system - but a different explanation (that the spread of cholera was caused by contaminated water) eventually moved the world forward !!
  Regards,
  May Belt.
  - Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES? - Analog Scott 16:52:52 05/16/07 (14)
    > > > "Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind? " < < <
    > > I would (obviously and sensibly and logically) never say NEVER !! So, I could never say that a change in the sound when using a Belt Tweak may NEVER be a change in the listeners state of mind. I am not that stupid to make a declaration like that !! < <
    O.K. So you acknowledge the possibility that the percieved differences made by Belt tweeks may in any given instance be the result of bias effects. That would seem to be a step in the right direction. But, alas you do go on to say things here that kind of expose the fact that you have not really taken that step.
    
    > > But, Analog Scott, your question shows that you have not yet reached a level of understanding about our concepts. < <
    
    Sorry May but it does no such tning. It_was_a_question. It was not any kind of a statement about my undrstanding of your tweeks.
    
    > > You are still making the wrong presumption. When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, < <
    And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory. Even worse, you have done nothing in 25 years to test the possibility that it was mere bias effects. Bias effects are well documented and esily demonstatable. How on earth can anyone spend 25 years promoting such a wild concept when it is sooooo easy to test whether or not it is the result of a common and well researched effect? What you have done quite frankly is the equivalent of assuming leggless dogs are deaf because they don't come when you call them. It is inexucable not to test the likely cause and then assert unknown forces are at work.
    
    > > I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain. < <
    I get what you are saying. What I don't get is how any reasonable person could jump to such a conclusion in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest your "concept" is at work. You are making claims of a biological effect with absolutely no known possible mechanisms. This is simply particularly absurd in the face of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence showing that bias effects do exactly the same thing you are claiming your tweeks do without any need for some unknown undiscovered mechamism of causality.
    > > Some people have been following the Belt story since the beginning and the ones interested can (more or less) understand what the reasoning is behind our concept and how it has come about (although I also appreciate that they can struggle sometimes). < <
    
    Sorry May but I have been following this stuff since the late eighties and I have to say all I see is a complete lack of reasoning.
    
    > > Others have no understanding at all, do not want to understand, do not want others to understand < <
    
    "Understand?" What am I not understanding? For 25 years you guys have been coming up with tweeks that you assert affect a biological change in the listener but you have no idea what the mechanism much less the physical forces at work. You have done nothing to test this assertion of a biological affect and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause.
    
    > > - leading to such comments as AJinFLA's "Dismissing such things as utter nonsense, and possible signs of mental illness." < <
    
    I think he is over the top and even out of line. But I think there has been at the very least a complete lack of reasoning or due attempts to investigate likely causes for what is quite frankly a highly improbable assertion of a biological affect of these odd, profoundly unextraordinary and widely varied tweeks.
    
    > > The relevance today of the examples given from the past history of science is because many people are aware that the parallel is still happening - today - and that is why the examples continue to be given. < <
    The problem here May is that there is no science going on with the Belt tweeks so any comparison to any previous scientific discoveries are meaningless.
    
    > > Your sentence "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports a specific audio tweek you have no relevant analogy" show exactly that. < <
    
    NOOOOO. It is simply dead on since you are citing actual scientifically tested phenomenon to Belt tweeks.With Belt tweeks Where's the science?
    
    > > Your sentence is no different to, 100 years ago, someone saying to Dr John Snow "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports your specific challenge to the conventional belief, you have no case." < <
    
    That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
    
    > > No different to the reaction to < <
    
    Sorry May. Gotta cut you off here. Until you guys do the science all comparisons to previous scientific discoveries are irrelevant.
    
    > > What is the difference between this reaction to Jenner 200 years ago and AJinFLA's reaction dismissing some things as 'voodoo, witchcraft' in 2007 ? < <
    Scientific investigation???? What is the difference between your assertions and the assertions of cold fusion before it was put to the test?
    
    > > As I have always explained. If there is a phenomenon to be discovered then more people, other than Peter and I, will discover it - and that is what I described in a 'posting' a few days ago which was mysteriously deleted. I explained that others had been discovering things which affected the 'sound' but had given their findings other explanations, even though the explanations do not hold up under further scrutiny. < <
    And what others have numerously explained to you is that for any new "discovery" to be taken seriously by SCIENCE it needs to survive the rigors of real scientific investigation and scrutiny. Belt tweeks have not been put through the rigors. They have no SCIENTIFIC leg to stand on thus far. If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
    - May never mentioned bias effect... - Wellfed 19:10:07 05/16/07 (13)
      Why do you respond to her as if she did?
      - State of mind, bias effect, same thing. nt - Analog Scott 21:01:40 05/16/07 (12)
        
        In Reply to: May never mentioned bias effect... posted by Wellfed on May 16, 2007 at 19:10:07:
        
        nt
        
        I think you are making a gross assumption. [nt] - Wellfed 21:02:46 05/16/07 (11)
        
        In Reply to: State of mind, bias effect, same thing. nt posted by Analog Scott on May 16, 2007 at 21:01:40:
        
        nt
        
        How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? - Analog Scott 21:40:26 05/16/07 (10)
        
        In Reply to: I think you are making a gross assumption. [nt] posted by Wellfed on May 16, 2007 at 21:02:46:
        
        Perhaps May made an assumption about it but since I asked the question it's pretty hard for me to have made any false assumptions about what I meant. But I suspect she knew very well what I meant by state of mind. Can you think of any alternative interpretations given how I used it in my question?
        
        You ask... - Wellfed 00:09:06 05/17/07 (5)
        
        In Reply to: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? posted by Analog Scott on May 16, 2007 at 21:40:26:
        
        Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind?
        She answers your question pretty directly IME when she says
        When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
        Your response then is to go all obnoxious and insulting on her. Exhibit A
        Some select examples
        And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.
        Where is your proof, not to mention your manners?
        That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
        I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.
        If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
        I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.
        
        AMEN! to that. nt - clarkjohnsen 08:14:38 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: You ask... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 00:09:06:
        
        a
        
        Re: You ask... - Analog Scott 10:03:54 05/17/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: You ask... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 00:09:06:
        
        > > Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind?
        She answers your question pretty directly IME when she says
        When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism, I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.
        Your response then is to go all obnoxious and insulting on her. Exhibit A
        
        Some select examples
        And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory. < <
        Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
        > > Where is your proof, not to mention your manners? < <
        The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
        
        > > That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method. < <
        WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
        
        > > I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about. < <
        
        I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.
        
        > > If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
        I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really. < <
        I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
        
        Re: You ask... - Wellfed 11:06:03 05/17/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: Re: You ask... posted by Analog Scott on May 17, 2007 at 10:03:54:
        
        Some select examples
        AS: And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.
        AS: Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
        WF: Facts are what YOU make them? Pretty hard to respond to anything specific under those circumstances.
        WF: Where is your proof, not to mention your manners? < <
        AS: The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
        WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal.
        AS: That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
        AS: WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
        WF: You make the rules AND establish the facts? Well good for you. I put this stuff in the obnoxious classification, not the insult.
        WF: I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.
        
        AS: I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.
        WF: And you know they're not being considered how exactly?
        AS: If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
        WF: I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.
        AS: I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
        WF: Unlike you, I'm not so presumptuous. Don't worry, you'll learn about presumption when you get to the 5th grade.
        
        Re: You ask... - Analog Scott 11:32:55 05/17/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: You ask... posted by Wellfed on May 17, 2007 at 11:06:03:
        
        AS: And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory.
        AS: Well if a statement of fact is an insult thenwhat does that tell you?
        WF: Facts are what YOU make them?
        No. But if I am mistaken then May is free to correct me. She has made some sort of reference to a DBT of a treated hearing aide. I have since asked her for some details. The devil often resides there. If She provides a reasonable account or better yet a varifiable account then I will stand corrected. 25 years and one DBT that did not involve any high end audio equipment. I wait with much anticipation for her account of this DBT.
        
        WF: Pretty hard to respond to anything specific under those circumstances.
        
        Actually it shouldn't be hard at all for May to correct any mistakes in fact on my part.
        
        WF: Where is your proof, not to mention your manners? < <
        My proof lies in May's many posts. She is involved in this thread. If I am wrong and they do actually do tests for bias effects and have done some real scientific investigation into their "concept" that Belt tweeks work via some biological mechanism she is free to set the record straight and give us a detailed acount. If I am wrong I will happily take it all back. But if I am worng it strikes me as really odd that May would spend all this time withholding all this information.
        AS: The proof is in her own words over many many posts here on AA. Tell you what I've got a thousand dollars that says I'm right and that the Belts have neither done any meaningful scientific investigations into either theri "concept" or the possibility that bias effects are at work. Do you want to take that bet? I'm serious, I'll put up a thousand bucks.
        WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal.
        AS: That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.
        AS: WOW you think that is an insult? I don't know what to say. You must suffer a great deal when reading posts on a forum that is supposed to be oriented towards science and technology if the very fundimental rules of science offend you.
        WF: You make the rules AND establish the facts? Well good for you. I put this stuff in the obnoxious classification, not the insult.
        Talk about manners. I guess that is aone way street eh? No, I don't make the rules. Maybe you are unfamiliar with the scientific method? I didn't invent it. Look it up some time.
        
        WF: I suggest you study the concept of empirical observation if you really want to know what old fashioned science is all about.
        
        AS: I suggest you look up scientific method. You will find that there are a few steps that follow the observation stage. Their kind of important too.
        WF: And you know they're not being considered how exactly?
        By a complete lack of any reports on them. Why on earth if May is doing regular tests for bias effects and doing meaningful scientific research into her assertions of a biological mechanism as an explination for Belt tweeks would she not report that here and now?
        
        AS: If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.
        WF: I would say that if something bothers YOU, then YOU should go out and do the work necessary to ease your distress. And I mean really.
        AS: I would say this response barely rises to the typical fifth grade level of "I know you are but what am I?" Bottom line is just as I stated. If the Belts want their tweeks to be respected on a scientific level then they must go through the rigors of the scientific method and do the proper testing and publishing of that research. They_Dont_Get_A_Fre_Pass.
        WF: Unlike you, I'm not so presumptuous. Don't worry, you'll learn about presumption when you get to the 5th grade.
        Another "I know you are but what am I" response. You could at least try to be witty.
        
        Missed this little gem - Analog Scott 13:02:41 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: You ask... posted by Analog Scott on May 17, 2007 at 11:32:55:
        
        > > WF: Sure, ditch the subjective term meaningful and you've got a deal. < <
        
        Interesting. As if "meaningful" were a "subjective" term when it comes to scientific evaluation of evidence, protocols and test results. Let me take the "subjectivism" out of it since the term "meaningful" doesn't seem to have any specific meaning to you in this context. May is constantly comparing her "concept" with the work of real science. So lets just set the standard right there. I will bet that the Belts have done no research that rises to the level of rigor or meets the protocols that science demands of all research and that has been met by all the science she has compared her "concepts" to. Is that clear? Does that take the subjectivity out of my bet well enough for you? All I suggest in my claims that the Belts have failed to properly investigate their assertions is that her assertions have not been put through the same rigors of the scientific method as have those scientifc discoveries she keeps alluding to. Is that not fair? Would you accept that her analogies should exempt from the rules of double standards? Let me know. My bet stands. Thousand bucks says her "concepts" haven't stood up to the scientific scrutiny of any of the scientific discoveries she has likened to Belt tweeks.
        
        Re: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? - May Belt 04:17:55 05/17/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? posted by Analog Scott on May 16, 2007 at 21:40:26:
        
        It is non constructive to argue against truisms so I do not.
        Yes, it would be nice, helpful (and advantageous) if people could have proof - scientific proof - irrefutable proof - for concepts or techniques they may wish to put forward. But, truisms are a discussion stopper. So, instead of arguing against truisms, I prefer to give examples so that these truisms can be placed in context. Life (and science) is not straightforward.
        And, Analog Scott, it is like you demanding proof, proof, proof, scientific proof from Jean Hiraga (the editor of the French Hi Fi magazine) when over 25 years ago he stated that he could hear different cables sound different - thus starting the cable controversy - which is still raging today !! Or, 25 years on, demanding he keep quiet until he HAD that proof. And, even more arrogantly, asking him if he thought that the differences in the sound he was hearing MIGHT be in his mind !!!
        Or, like you demanding that the person who wrote the (23 year old) article I quoted from recently regarding them 'hearing' directionality in wires should provide scientific proof or keep quiet until they HAD that proof. Or asking them if they thought that the differences in the sound they were hearing MIGHT be in their mind !!
        Over 100 years ago the well known French chemist Louis Pasteur made his own wine and found that when he left wine bottles open to let the fermentation bubbles escape, his wine 'went off'. So Pasteur devised a contraption to fit over the tops of the wine bottles which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but did not allow the air to get in. After that, his wine was OK. From that experience Pasteur deduced that there must have been 'something in the air' (what he called 'vibrios') getting at his wine to make it 'go off'.!!
        Presumably, if you had been around then, you would have insisted on proof, proof, scientific proof to back up Pasteur's concept that 'there is something in the air which is adverse to wine' before you would take any notice of what he was suggesting !! Presumably you would have demanded that until he HAD that proof, then he should keep quiet. And, even more arrogantly, you may have asked him if he thought that he MIGHT have imagined it all !! And, one gets the impression that you would never, never do any experiments for yourself (even though you might actually brew your own wine or beer) until irrefutable proof had been presented for such an outrageous suggestion that there might be 'something in the air'!!!
        A 25 year span in history is not a long time span for concepts to be considered.
        To quote from a book on Pasteur "While it took others so many years to understand Pasteur's work, Lister saw immediately that Pasteur could be right."
        10 YEARS after Lister's first successful case was published in the British medical journal and after numerous other surgeons' successful cases using Lister's antiseptic techniques had also been published, the medical profession in the USA were STILL ANTI Lister !!!!!
        > > > "since you are citing actual scientifically tested phenomenon" < < <
        Please, Analog Scott, don't say that again. I can feel the early pioneers shouting and screaming from their graves when they remember all the attack and ridicule aimed at them (sometimes for decades) BEFORE any scientific tests confirmed what they had been suggesting !!
        > > > "In the face of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence showing that bias effects do exactly the same thing you are claiming your tweeks do " < < <
        Analog Scott, if there is such a MOUNTAIN of evidence that bias effects DO improve the sound - giving greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - then surely all the audio industry has to do is to manufacture basic, workable equipment and then SUGGEST that it will give greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - and bingo - if it is as easy as THAT, then there will be no need any more for equipment reviews, magazine articles etc advising people how to get the best sound !!!
        How I wish, all those years ago, all we had to do concerning our daughter's impaired hearing problem was to give her a hearing aid and SUGGEST that it would 'sound good' !!!!
        > > > "I have been following this stuff since the late eighties" < < <
        If your 'claimed' understanding is the result of following our work since the late eighties, then there is really nothing more I can add. If others can 'grasp' it, then I fail to understand why you cannot !! Maybe, for other people, it is because our work (and results) confirm and reinforce, independently, their own (listening) experiences. THAT is, in effect, how much of science works !!
        > > > "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." < < <
        That is really quite arrogant on your part. The FIRST thing an intelligent person considers is "Is what changed the sound suggestion or imagination at work ?" The SECOND thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the audio signal ?". The THIRD thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the acoustic air pressure waves ?"
        When the answer to all those three questions is NO - then what ? To say "It cannot happen, there is nothing in science to suggest it could have happened, therefore forget about it ?"
        Or, do you do what such as Pasteur did - and that is to tell people what happened and let them experiment for themselves ?
        > > > "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." < < <
        Actually, Blind Trials HAVE been carried out - on 'treated' hearing aids - but then you claim to know all that already i.e > > > "I have been following this stuff since the late eighties" < < <
        > > > "OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me." < < <
        So, is that what you would have suggested to Pasteur ? To say to people "I have no idea why stopping the air getting to my wine solved the problem of my wine going 'off'."
        Or, in your opinion, is Pasteur allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the air' which is causing problems for my wine" but Peter Belt is not allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the environment' which is causing problems for us (human beings)."
        Regards,
        May Belt.
        
        The arrogance of your antagonists seemingly knows no bounds. - clarkjohnsen 08:43:41 05/17/07 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? posted by May Belt on May 17, 2007 at 04:17:55:
        
        You put a fine point to it when you quoted, "While it took others so many years to understand Pasteur's work, Lister saw immediately that Pasteur could be right."
        Science, to succeed, must always entertain hypotheses, some of them outlandish even. In fact I'll wager that 90% of new "discoveries" were considered ridiculous by those "versed in the art" (as they say), until the weight of evidence overwhelmed the old fogies.
        A new scientific truth never triumphs by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
        --Max Planck
        Speaking of fogies, A. Scott earlier wrote, in what he no doubt hoped would be a capping remonstrance, "Scientific investigation???? What is the difference between your assertions and the assertions of cold fusion before it was put to the test?" Unfortunately the "test" he adduces was made by such as himself, believers in the old ways. All along, researchers in Japan and elsewhere have kept up with the phenomenon and at last some really interesting results have been reported. Pace poor, backwards Scott, look at this:
        Cold fusion - hot news again?
        05 May 2007, New Scientist
        Physicists scoff, but enthusiasts say they now have evidence that proves room temperature fusion is real.
        [Excerpts]
        Not everyone gave up on cold fusion, however. Electrochemists Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stanislaw Szpak at the San Diego centre's navigation and applied sciences department were intrigued. Fortunately, so was Gordon, their boss, who provided limited funding for experiments. Mosier-Boss and Szpak have now run hundreds of tests at weekends and during their spare moments, and have published more than a dozen papers in various peer-reviewed journals (New Scientist, 29 March 2003, p 36)...
        The sceptics are not having it all their own way, though. Several respected scientists at universities in the US, Europe and Asia are attempting to replicate the US navy's lab experiments. David Nagel, a physicist and research professor at George Washington University in Washington DC who has followed the cold fusion saga since its inception, reports a growing willingness by the US Department of Energy to consider funding experiments to follow up these tantalising hints.
        Nagel also detects a more receptive climate at US military research outfits like DARPA and the Office of Naval Research, where he served as administrator and still has close ties. It's not just global warming or the end of oil that's opening people's minds, he says. "It's the weight of the evidence," with new results encouraging physicists to reconsider the case that was so swiftly and firmly closed 18 years ago. "This could be the year when things change for cold fusion," he says. Then he pauses. "Or maybe next year."
        ____________________________________________________
        Pity for the old guard, so set in their ways -- and so argumentative!
        I leave you (and A. Scott) with this thought:
        All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
        -- Arthur Schopenhauer
        
        http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/mg19426021.000-cold-fusion--hot-news-again.html (Open in New Window)
        
        Be careful with that Schopenhauer quote... - Wellfed 10:17:03 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: The arrogance of your antagonists seemingly knows no bounds. posted by clarkjohnsen on May 17, 2007 at 08:43:41:
        
        I tried it once and look where it got me? ;-)
        Whiner's Woad (Open in New Window)
        
        Re: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? - Analog Scott 11:03:49 05/17/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Re: How so? What else would *I* have been refering too when *I* said state of mind? posted by May Belt on May 17, 2007 at 04:17:55:
        
        > > It is non constructive to argue against truisms so I do not. < <
        Not really sure what your point is here.
        
        > > Yes, it would be nice, helpful (and advantageous) if people could have proof - scientific proof - irrefutable proof - for concepts or techniques they may wish to put forward. < <
        It has nothing to do with being "nice." Why hav you done nothing to test your concepts of a biological mechanism? You seem to be skirting the issue here. You keep using "25 years of experience" as some sort of reason to believe your assertion is right but 25 years is just time wasted if the point was support your assertions. Why in 25 years have you chosen not to test for bias effects as a cause for the percieved changes manifested by Belt tweeks given the well known fact that it is a reasonable and likely cause?
        
        > > But, truisms are a discussion stopper. So, instead of arguing against truisms, < <
        What on earth are you talking about? Why not just address the issues I have raised?
        > > I prefer to give examples so that these truisms can be placed in context. Life (and science) is not straightforward. < <
        
        Unfortunately you habitually give examples that do not parrallel Belt tweeks. So you are basically supporting an assertion by a faulty association.
        
        > > And, Analog Scott, it is like you demanding proof, proof, proof, scientific proof from Jean Hiraga (the editor of the French Hi Fi magazine) when over 25 years ago he stated that he could hear different cables sound different - thus starting the cable controversy - which is still raging today !! < <
        
        NO IT IS NOT. This is yet another example of you using inappropriate association to defend your choices not to properly investigate your "concept." I have never demanded proof that people percieve differences with Belt tweeks. Please try to stick with the facts here May when you speak for what I think or do. It is your assertion that the mechanism is a biological change in the listener that I am talking about. And I am merely asking how anyone can for 25 years make such an assertion without doing anything to properly investigate that assertion.
        
        > > Or, 25 years on, demanding he keep quiet until he HAD that proof. < <
        
        No May, what I am doing here is nothing like that at all. I am all for people reporting their observations. I am all for people working towards an understanding of their observations. But_That_Does_Not _Stop_At_A_Hypothesis!!! That is clearly where you stopped. So you have a hypothesis that has gone untested for 25 years. Why? Even worse you have for 25 years largely ignored an existing known mechanism, bias effects, as a possible cause even though it fits perfectly. Why?
        
        > > And, even more arrogantly, asking him if he thought that the differences in the sound he was hearing MIGHT be in his mind !!! < <
        
        May that is not an arrogant question given the fact that years of real scientific research shows that this happens quite frequently. The arrogance lies in the person who firmly believes that they are above bias effects. How arrogant is it to be offended by the suggestion that someone MIGHT be subject to the same human limitations as everyone else?
        
        > > Or, like you demanding that the person who wrote the (23 year old) article I quoted from recently regarding them 'hearing' directionality in wires should provide scientific proof or keep quiet until they HAD that proof. < <
        May now you are just making things up about me. That is pretty pathetic.
        
        > > Or asking them if they thought that the differences in the sound they were hearing MIGHT be in their mind !! < <
        May, try to get your fact straight. The reality is that is a possibility in any sighted experience. It is arrogant for anyone to believe they are immune to the possibility of bias effects. Not just arrogant but also quite ignorant.
        
        (sniping another meaningless analogy) May why don't you understand that using real science to support your assertions of a biological mechanism as the explination for the percieved effect of Belt tweeks is not a reasonable argument? You can make the same mistake over and over again and it will still be a mistake. You have been told numerous times what is wrong with 25 years of asserting a mechanism with no meaningful scientific research to support that assertion and you have been told numerous times that there is plently of reasons to consider bias effects as the mechanism yet you never test for it. Then you go on to claim pointing these things out is arrogant on my part. That is a joke. The arrogance, ignorance, and irresponsibility clearly lies with the one's making an assertion of a biological mechanism and yet going 25 years without any meaningful investigation and then having the nerve to use analogies to legitimate science as support of those assertions.
        
        > > Presumably, < <
        > > Presumably < <
        > > arrogantly, < <
        Oh am I taking you out of context? Hmm.
        
        > > > "since you are citing actual scientifically tested phenomenon" < < <
        > > Please, Analog Scott, don't say that again. < <
        
        The truth hurts?
        
        > > I can feel the early pioneers shouting and screaming from their graves when they remember all the attack and ridicule aimed at them (sometimes for decades) BEFORE any scientific tests confirmed what they had been suggesting !! < <
        
        Oh Bullshit. You crap on them and their real achievements when you compare your crap to their legitimate work. Talk about arrogant. If they are shouting and screaming it is about you arrogantly trying to associate yourself with real scientists who actually did the work that is asked of everyone in science.
        > > > "In the face of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence showing that bias effects do exactly the same thing you are claiming your tweeks do " < < <
        > > Analog Scott, if there is such a MOUNTAIN of evidence that bias effects DO improve the sound - giving greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - then surely all the audio industry has to do is to manufacture basic, workable equipment and then SUGGEST that it will give greater height, greater depth, greater width, better instrument separation, better soundstaging, imaging and resolution - and bingo - if it is as easy as THAT, then there will be no need any more for equipment reviews, magazine articles etc advising people how to get the best sound !!! < <
        Oh dear what failed logic. First the fact that you used the word "if" clearly shows you have spent the past 25 years making outrageous assertions while willfully remaining utterly ignorant of the research I am refering to? Why May would you go 25 years and choose to ignore real research that is readily available to you? Lazyness? Religious conviction? But to answer your question first I must point out that you presume that I am saying "bias effects" are the only stimulus at work. It is not and I never suggested it was. The answer though is that manufacturers ARE doing just that. Or did you not notice that manufacturers are in many cases going to great lengths to make the most of their equipment's looks?
        
        > > How I wish, all those years ago, all we had to do concerning our daughter's impaired hearing problem was to give her a hearing aid and SUGGEST that it would 'sound good' !!!! < <
        
        May, many a faith healer dis just that much to the satisfaction of the "healed. Did you not know that?
        
        > > > "I have been following this stuff since the late eighties" < < <
        > > If your 'claimed' understanding is the result of following our work since the late eighties, then there is really nothing more I can add. < <
        
        So it would seem. Which explains the same flawed tierd rhetoric and the same avoidence of the obvious problems with your assertions.
        
        > > If others can 'grasp' it, then I fail to understand why you cannot !! < <
        
        Sorry May but this is like saying Columbus was wrong because others "grasped" why the world was flat. The fact is I do grasp the idea of observation, hypothesis......25 years of flase association with legitimate science. I just don't "buy" it. I think it is you that is failing to grasp things.
        
        > > Maybe, for other people, it is because our work (and results) confirm and reinforce, independently, their own (listening) experiences. THAT is, in effect, how much of science works !! < <
        You crap on science with this nonsense. It's bad enough with the crackpot objectivists doing this. May I really have to question your integrity at this point that you would continue to associate your assertions with real science when it has been explained to you soooooo amnytimes why your assertions are not scientific. You really can't claim ignorance at this point. This is how science works. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory. repeat again and again. WHERE IS THE EXPERMENTATION, THEORY AND REPETITION WITH BELT TWEEKS???? Any assoication made between your assertions and science is pure garbage.
        > > > "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." < < <
        > > That is really quite arrogant on your part. < <
        
        Oh really? Then I am sure you can cite a record of such tests. No? Lets see...
        
        > > The FIRST thing an intelligent person considers is "Is what changed the sound suggestion or imagination at work ?" The SECOND thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the audio signal ?". The THIRD thing an engineer considers is "Is what changed the sound somehow affecting the acoustic air pressure waves ?"
        When the answer to all those three questions is NO - then what ? To say "It cannot happen, there is nothing in science to suggest it could have happened, therefore forget about it ?" < <
        Indeed the answer was no. Sorry May but you are full of it.
        > > Or, do you do what such as Pasteur did - and that is to tell people what happened and let them experiment for themselves ? < <
        
        Please stop insulting real science by associating it with your nonsense. It is pathetic.
        
        > > > "and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause." < < <
        > > Actually, Blind Trials HAVE been carried out - on 'treated' hearing aids - but then you claim to know all that already < <
        
        Oh really? Do tell us about it in detail.
        
        > > > "OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me." < < <
        > > So, is that what you would have suggested to Pasteur ? < <
        
        May, it is pathetic that you would associate yourself with real science.
        
        > > To say to people "I have no idea why stopping the air getting to my wine solved the problem of my wine going 'off'."
        Or, in your opinion, is Pasteur allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the air' which is causing problems for my wine" but Peter Belt is not allowed to say "I think there is something 'in the environment' which is causing problems for us (human beings)." < <
        
        In my opinion you are a fraud. That is just my opinion. The only possibilities I see is fraud or a complete lack of reasoning and substatial ignorance. I think after 25 years the lieklyhood of such ignorance is unlikely. You asked my opinion and I answered. Sorry if it is insulting.
  - "[My] 'posting' a few days ago which was mysteriously deleted." It was controversial! - clarkjohnsen 08:10:53 05/17/07 (0)
    Controversy ist hier moderatlich verboten!
    Consider yourself lucky that the following has remained:
    "The immediate reaction to Jenner's work was ridicule. Critics, especially the clergy, claimed it was repulsive and a satirical cartoon of 1802 showed people who had been vaccinated sprouting cow's heads. !!!
    "What is the difference between this reaction to Jenner 200 years ago and AJinFLA's reaction dismissing some things as 'voodoo, witchcraft' in 2007?"
    Not a thing. Not a thing.
    clark