Isolation Ward

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

Return to Isolation Ward

Molecules of Emotion

63.16.12.203
Posted on August 4, 2009 at 00:57:24
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 Any one else read this book about the role of peptides in human sensory and emotional input? Candace Pert (former NIH rsearcher)is the author and she developed the first research linking the causality of such drugs like cocaine in the human brain. But the fact that nerve endings are found in such organs as the spleen which is traditionally viewed as part of the immune system and normally regarded as being separate from the nervous and cognitive system leads to the assumption that the human body is inextricably linked with the emotional state and well being and the cognitive state.

Being couched in a molecular biological explanation sort of takes away that mystical explanation many prefer, but it is quite interesting, nonetheless. Because both work upon each other, it laso interesting to investigate some of the alternative medicines, some of which use sound to stimulate healing and psychological respite. This would naturally have ramifications in the variability of the individual human perceptions.

Stu

Actually, there has been a notable shift in 'tweak talk' in this regard., posted on August 8, 2009 at 10:04:08
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 It used to be that certain tweakers would get angry over calling tweaks 'listener directed,' as opposed to 'system directed.'

They would bristle at the notion that a tweak 'only' affected the listener and not the actual system.

It's nice to see the evolution toward a tacit acceptance that certain types of tweaks are listener dependent, which would help explain why some need them and others not in order to achieve the same 'outcome.'

Just as a drug user might be using certain substances in order to feel like 'normal' people already feel, some tweaks may be remediating some 'defect' in perception/state that allows some users to hear as others normally do; or, at least to 'feel' as if they do, which is a pretty good approximation in a subjective hobby.

Your post also makes a good case for the phsyiologic basis of the power of suggestion, which has a perfectly "real" neurologic correlation!

With this sort of data, we may be able to achieve a synthesis for many tweaks!
"Just as a drug user might be using certain substances... to feel like 'normal' people already feel", posted on August 10, 2009 at 14:44:33
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28383
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 Just as tweaks are not to make the listener hear what "normal people" hear, so I doubt many drug users other than long term addicts take drugs to feel "normal".
The outer reaches of tweakdom are the inspiration, the far side of research and development (waaaaaaay before development) and have been the dark space from where a lot of now accepted ideas have emerged.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Once the idea gains acceptance it is as if it were always there and seems quite natural.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
I would venture to say that most drugs are designed to try to help people 'feel normal' or to approximate normal., posted on August 10, 2009 at 15:45:55
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 I think it's actually the exception that a given drug's purpose is otherwise.

You can pretty much choose a category.

For drugs of abuse, would say that that the drugs are being use to provide an experience that is superior to normal?

The drug/tweak analogy is of interest to me in that we need to ask what it is, exactly, we are trying to accomplish. ;)

Question for you:

If you try a listener directed tweak such as greasing a lampshade and hear no improvement or difference, are you missing out on the benefit or could it be that you did not require the tweak to hear what's already there?

If nothing happens, is the problem with you, or did you just not require the intervention to begin with?

That's pretty much all I'm asking. I postulate that some people do not require the remediation of certain tweaks to gain the same result.
and is your sky the same blue as mine?, posted on August 12, 2009 at 13:51:56
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28383
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 I suspect we would need to carefully define our terms before this got anywhere close to sensible.
I thought the previous post concerned illegal drug use and answered from that perspective.
It would also raise the question as to what is deemed "normal" though.
Is (your phrase) the use of "drugs of abuse" to obtain an experience "superior to normal"?
Almost certainly YES.
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
I don't know about that…, posted on August 15, 2009 at 13:39:14
Wellfed
Audiophile

Posts: 11220
Joined: January 11, 2008
 Obviously certain substances are mind altering, but…

My observation of drug and alcohol abuse has me thinking it's more likely these substances are being used as a palliative measure to help deaden emotional pain.

RE: Actually, there has been a notable shift in 'tweak talk' in this regard., posted on August 8, 2009 at 11:33:42
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
The problem with this 'remedial' approach to the effect of 'tweaks' ( some people need them, some people don't) is that it is just as narrow as the other approach i.e "it must be EITHER affecting the audio signal OR it must be affecting the acoustic air pressure waves".

The "some people need them, some people don't" approach surely cannot explain ALL the so called 'tweaks' which have been reported as 'improving sound' over these past 30 years or more.
To name but a few :-

P.W.B. Foils and Creams etc.
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Crystals and/or Brilliant pebbles.
Clever clocks.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.

And, attached to that list, Enophile, are all the 'professionals in audio' who have 'heard' one, more or all of those things listed give an improvement in the sound. Are you therefore suggesting that ALL those people, plus the 'non professionals' who have reported practically identical experiences MUST all be needing those 'tweaks' as a 'remedial' ?

That is what I mean by narrow. Even if it was a hypothetical 50/50 (50% needing the 'tweaks' as remedial' but 50% not), that would still leave 50% of all the people reporting improvements, over a 30 year period, to be awarded some other explanation. What other explanation ? The other common explanations put forward ? "Autosuggestion"., "the placebo effect"., "imagination"., "audio faith healing"., "effective marketing" and your own previously suggested ones "potions"., "elixirs"., "props"., "talismen"., "rituals" ???

The very latest report by Teresa Goodwin - "The Greening of SACDs, (gulp) CDs and other digital madness." in the current "Positive Feedback Online" Internet magazine has the re-emergence - in 2009 - of the subject of applying a specific colour to CDs - but this time by Sony engineers !! Would this ALSO still come under your 'the Sony engineers need this to be remediating some 'defect' their perception/state' which allows them to hear 'better' ?

Regards,
May Belt.

re :molecules of emotion, posted on August 9, 2009 at 11:30:19
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 It is imperative to note that the author does not link cognitive perception with emotion. Of course there can be influences ( the expression "blind with rage" comes to mind), but still the cognitive aspect can be made separate from the emotional.

However, there can be no doubt that for some, the emotional may cloud the cognitive aspects. Therein lies an important point, and one which I see many listeners ignoring. A certain tonal balance, in particular, specific to individual listeners' tastes, often seems to elicit the most favorable response. I notice many listeners, when they achieve this desired balance, seem to ignore facets of information which may become obscured or even lost in the gaining of that balance.

It has been my experience that further and sometimes extensive experimentation can retain that balance as well as the detail. However, the mental analysis of the changes must be cataloged very differently. I call it a listing of the delta X, in that I do not rate a change as being good or bad, but instead make a mental note of the exactly what was changed. It is far more complex in the beginning but it makes better sense the more you tweak and experiment.

In the perception of audio effects, I find it imperative to strive to be neutral, and note that certain aspects, while initially pleasing, may be of a greater appeal to the emotional sense than the true recitation of the performance. It is possible to combine the two and to achieve a detailed accurate playback and still retain the emotional satisfaction, however, it simply takes more work.

In many of the devices you list, there are rational explanations for their perceived effects. Many of these explanations are rooted in basic science, and while the effects may be numerically small, the vagaries of the individual human perception would easily explain while some will hear it and other do not. This, of course, would be in conjunction with the fact that certain set ups may not be conducive to the changes they do reveal.


Stu

RE: re :molecules of emotion, posted on August 10, 2009 at 08:35:36
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
Quote from Unclestu. And my reply 10/08/09

>>> "It has been my experience that further and sometimes extensive experimentation can retain that balance as well as the detail. However, the mental analysis of the changes must be cataloged very differently. I call it a listing of the delta X, in that I do not rate a change as being good or bad, but instead make a mental note of the exactly what was changed. It is far more complex in the beginning but it makes better sense the more you tweak and experiment." <<<

I could not agree with you more, Unclestu !!

>>> "In many of the devices you list, there are rational explanations for their perceived effects. Many of these explanations are rooted in basic science" <<<

Yes, Unclestu, I know the basic science which is put forward to explain those 'tweaks'. I also know how engineers work. When they find that 'something' has unexpectedly changed the sound they have to look for an explanation as to WHY it changed the sound. What I say usually happens is that they go through a 'conventional theory check list'. Is it to do with capacitance ?, if not then they go to the next on the list - and so on through - is it to do with resistance, is it to do with inductance, is it to do with microphony, is it to do with static, is it to do with vibrations, is it to do with the dielectric effect, is it to do with RF interference and so on !!!

If they can convince themselves that yes, it could be to do with vibrations or it could be to do with static, OR.... .... then that is the point where they are satisfied and that is where they stop and feel no need to look any further. So, yes, Unclestu, there ARE rational explanations for the perceived effects. UNTIL something else shows something different, until something else happens which challenges the previous explanation.

For example. Going back to the example I gave Enophile of Bob Stuart finding that when his CD player was placed on a carpet tile, the sound of his CD player was better. The immediate explanation put forward was that the carpet tile was 'dealing with vibrations'. And my second example was of Ayre marketing Myrtle Block isolation devices, made to the golden-section ratio - also presumably with an explanation that they are 'dealing with vibrations' !!!

However, if you have identically made carpet tiles and you change the COLOUR of those carpet tiles, you will change the SOUND with each colour (still underneath the CD player, still supposedly 'dealing with vibrations')! Showing that there is 'something else going on' other than 'vibrations'.
If you apply specific colours to the Ayre Myrtle Block devices you will change the sound !! The explanation of 'vibrations' does not explain THAT - "golden-section ratio" design or not !! There is 'something else' going on !!

Similarly, when Ivor Teifebrum claimed that the presence of passive speaker systems in the same room as the speakers being played had an adverse effect on the sound from the speakers being played. His explanation was that the CONES of the passive speakers were being activated by the air pressure waves created by the playing speakers and adding an unwanted and adverse effect !! I.e an ACOUSTIC explanation !! As we were speaker manufacturers we had available to us many passive speaker systems with which to experiment with and to destroy if necessary during our investigations. We confirmed Ivor's OBSERVATIONS. Yes, passive speaker systems in the room had an adverse effect on the sound from the playing speakers. But, when we removed (physically cut out and removed from the room) all the cones from the passive speakers, the adverse effect on the sound was STILL there !!!!!!!! Showing that although Ivor's observation was correct, his explanation was not !! The CONES which Ivor had declared were the culprits were not the problem !! The adverse effect on the sound was still there, without the speaker cones being in the room !! We systematically removed everything, bit by bit, from the passive speakers, listening each time, until the only thing which was left in the room, from the passive speakers, was the speaker magnet !! The adverse effect on the sound was STILL there. Then, remove the (passive) speaker magnet from the room and the adverse effect on the sound was no longer there !! Showing that Ivor's original OBSERVATION was correct but the explanation (an acoustic explanation) was not.
So, yes, Unclestu, there CAN be a rational explanation for an observed effect but, if subsequently that explanation does not hold water under further scrutiny, then it can no longer be used. Another explanation has to be searched for to explain the new findings !!!!!!!!!!

Ivor had also claimed that a telephone, when present in a listening room, had an adverse effect on the sound - and he demonstrated such to a group of journalists at a UK Hi Fi Show sometime during the early 1980s. His explanation for this was the same as with the passive speakers - that the diaphragm inside the telephone handset was being activated by the air pressure waves generated by the playing speakers !!! This we also checked out and also found his OBSERVATION to be correct. But, if you move such as a boy scout compass down the length of the telephone handset (the older telephone handsets available during the early 1980s) the needle on the compass will move 180 degrees - showing that there is a magnetic field around the telephone handset. All this continuing investigation led us to also find that batteries, when present in a listening room, also had a similar adverse effect on the sound !!!!!!!!! The ACOUSTIC explanation no longer holds up !! There is 'something else going on' !!

What is going on ? How ? Why ?

>>> "Now in assessing tweaks, if a difference is heard, I firmly believe an explanation can be found. It make take a while,

As you say, Unclestu, "It make take a while" And, that, in my experience, is an understatement !!!! We were months and months without any adequate explanation for all we were experiencing until suddenly, something completely unexpected happened and, from that experience, gradually pieces of the jigsaw came together.

Regards,
May Belt.

Did I say "all" tweaks? I think not., posted on August 8, 2009 at 12:58:52
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 May,

Lumping all tweaks together as you do is a ploy. A Shakti Stone and a photo in a freezer likely have nothing in common in terms of mode of operation.

Does Shakti state that their stones work via code letters or affirmations written on them with special pens and then placed anywhere in the house?

Does the maker of the Mpingo record weight claim that their device works if kept in a freezer or clipped to a curtain?

You claim to speak on behalf of 'intelligent' enthusiasts, but can you not differentiate modes of operation?

If not, that is a damning admission.

Some (maybe all) listener directed tweaks are quite likely to be remedial. To deny this is at odds with your self-proclaimed open mindedness.

You also ignore the proven neurologic basis of the effect of suggestion. There are many neurologic studies showing that suggestion does correlate with a neurologic state - why would you deny the utility of suggestion? Relaxation techniques are also known to have neurologic correlates. What if the same technique is reported in association with enhanced enjoyment of Hi Fi listening?

May, why deny these perfectly 'real' effects?

If a listener claims that performing a given ritual enhances his listening experience, why would you quibble with that?

Why would you even call it a rare thing?

Don't dismiss the value of ritual and suggestion as a neuroligic phenomenon.

As to remediation...

If a listener claims that his listening experience is enhanced when he takes his blood pressure medicine or when he is able to control his blood sugar, surely you would not extrapolate this to mean that all listeners need Tenormin or metformin in order to fully enjoy the sound of their systems. Nor would you insist that he was having an experience that is 'superior' to that of other 'normal' audiophiles.

Same with tweaks. Someone may need to perform a ritual, apply some grease to a lampshade, or buy some aquarium pebbles in order to feel he is fully enjoying his system, while others may already be enjoying the same sonic experience without needing these interventions.

Why would you disagree with that?

I happen to know people who need hearing aids to approximate what I can already hear. They do not become indignant and insist that everyone needs hearing aids and it's a terrible denial of the benefit of such a tweak to not jump on the "hearing aids for all" bandwagon.

Why would you argue against remediation, as well?

I know, this may make salespeople for listener directed tweaks feel threatened as they sell a 'special' experience; but other than a sales basis for your claims, I see no need for your insistence that listener directed tweaks are a universal requirement.

If someone says, "I performed listener directed tweak "X" and it improved my experience," then I say, "Welcome to the greatness of what Hi Fi can do! Glad you were able to use some talisman in order to achieve what us others were already experiencing!"

No way you'd deny him his enjoyment and the benefit of his remediation, right May?
RE: Did I say "all" tweaks? I think not., posted on August 9, 2009 at 04:52:56
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
>>> "It's nice to see the evolution toward a tacit acceptance that certain types of tweaks are listener dependent, which would help explain why some need them and others not in order to achieve the same 'outcome.'" <<<

You had it quite general Enophile with your "certain types of tweaks being listener dependent". It is YOU who is defining, for yourself, the term 'listener dependent'.

>>> "Lumping all tweaks together as you do is a ploy. A Shakti Stone and a photo in a freezer likely have nothing in common in terms of mode of operation." <<<

Did I list ALL tweaks ? I think not !!! Please do not insinuate that I use words and examples as a PLOY !!! I do not. I use words to convey what I want to get over to people. The Shakti Stone device and such as the technique of aiming a hair dryer containing tourmaline balls at a CD are two different techniques yes, but they are BOTH - in general terms - regarded as a Tweak even though they do not have common terms of operation !!

So ?? We can still consider them both 'tweaks' and CAN include them in a list of 'tweaks'.

>>> "You claim to speak on behalf of 'intelligent' enthusiasts, but can you not differentiate modes of operation?" <<<

Please don't lets go down this path again. OF COURSE, being intelligent, I can differentiate modes of operation, so please give me the courtesy of having that intelligence.

>>> "Some (maybe all) listener directed tweaks are quite likely to be remedial. To deny this is at odds with your self-proclaimed open mindedness." <<<

Why would I deny a phrase such as "quite likely" ? Of course anything can be "quite likely" - being open minded does not mean that one denies a phrase like "quite likely".

>>> "You also ignore the proven neurologic basis of the effect of suggestion. There are many neurologic studies showing that suggestion does correlate with a neurologic state - why would you deny the utility of suggestion?
May, why deny these perfectly 'real' effects?" <<<

You are back again with the same theme!! I am obviously NOT ignoring the neurological effect of suggestion. Why would I, I am an intelligent person ?

>>> "Don't dismiss the value of ritual and suggestion as a neuroligic phenomenon." <<<

I have not seen anyone dismissing such a thing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I understand ritual and suggestion AND the placebo effect, AND imagination and so on. I DO. I DO. I DO. So, on the basis that I DO understand those things can we continue at that level ?

>>> "Same with tweaks. Someone may need to perform a ritual, apply some grease to a lampshade, or buy some aquarium pebbles in order to feel he is fully enjoying his system, while others may already be enjoying the same sonic experience without needing these interventions.

Why would you disagree with that?" <<<

You could have also used the technique of applying a specific colour to CDs as one of your examples of someone needing to perform a ritual or the Harmonic Discs as someone needing to perform a ritual or any of the other ones on my list. One wonders why you did not use any of those examples.

>>> "I know, this may make salespeople for listener directed tweaks feel threatened as they sell a 'special' experience; but other than a sales basis for your claims, I see no need for your insistence that listener directed tweaks are a universal requirement." <<<

We have also been down that path, you and I, before Enophile.
It has nothing to do with salespeople !!! When people (whoever they are) find that some things they have done have given them an improvement in their sound, then they tell other people who might be interested in what they have done, in what they have found. The pages of Audio Asylum are full of those as are many printed audio magazines as are many internet audio magazines. Nothing to do with me or other people claiming a "special experience" OR insisting that what we discovered are 'a universal requirement'." We and others say "Try this, try that, experiment with this, experiment with that - it worked for us." Some of the things we MAY produce for others to try, some of the things we may give away as free techniques but NOWHERE do we (I) INSIST THAT THEY ARE A UNIVERSAL REQUIREMENT !!

It is really NO different to Bob Stuart (of Meridian) some time during the mid 1980s describing to a journalist that when he stood his (Meridian) CD player on a carpet tile, the sound of his CD player was better !! (free technique) - to such as Ayre marketing Myrtle Block isolation devices, made to the golden-section ratio (marketed product) !!!! None of us are 'claiming a special experience' merely describing what we have heard (and learnt) during our life in audio !!

Now, back to your term "listener directed tweaks". How many, out of those I listed, come under your term "listener directed tweaks" ?

Presumably, by the term 'listener directed tweaks' you mean 'something not affecting the audio signal or affecting the acoustic air pressure waves but something happening inside the human being's head. If so, Enophile, you will have to find a mechanism for what actually happens to produce the improvements in the sound which quite a number of people describe as :-
"better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements."

If, as you say, those improvements are the result of certain 'rituals', of remedial actions having been carried out.

I am going to select some 'tweaks' from the list I gave earlier.

1) Are the improvements which some people can hear after CDs or cables have been cryogenically frozen the result SOLELY of a ritual being carried out by that person themselves (or a ritual having been carried out by someone else on their behalf) ? If so, in your opinion, then what mechanism creates the described improvements in the sound of "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." Is there some form of 'happy chemical' produced by the 'ritual' (or the knowledge or belief of a ritual) which can then change the sound so that it can be described as "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." ?

If so, then let us have a look at the consequences.
At 1 o'clock the person listens to an untreated Disc A. At 2 o'clock the person now listens to a 'treated' (cryogenically frozen) Disc B and they suddenly hear "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements". An hour later, when that 'treated' Disc B has finished and, at 3 o'clock, they begin to listen to untreated Disc C and they describe the sound from Disc C as 'worse' - how come ? Does the 'happy chemical' SUDDENLY cease being produced when Disc B has ceased to play ? Surely if a 'happy chemical' HAD BEEN produced by the brain as a result of the ritual, then remnants of that 'happy chemical' would still be there at 3 o'clock ? So, therefore, using the concept of a 'happy chemical', the untreated Disc C should not sound 'worse' - that is until the 'happy chemical' has dissipated away again ?? If the person listening to Disc C is NOT told whether that disc had been 'treated' or not, does that mean that the person would still continue to hear the improvements of "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." from Disc C - OR - would they hear Disc C sound 'worse' than Disc B straightaway ??

Or, Enophile, do you believe that a SIMPLE belief that something will sound better WILL produce the improvements in the sound of "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements.". Do you think that the people describing those improvements are just picking words from a dictionary or that they are ACTUALLY describing what they have heard ? If they ARE actually describing what they have heard, then where has that "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." come from ? What allowed all that additional information to be heard ? A 'ritual' ? A 'remedial technique' ? Production of a 'happy chemical' ?

2) Ditto applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.

3) Does a person hear improvements in the sound which they describe as "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." after fitting various Harmonic Discs in specific locations around the room because of carrying out that 'ritual', or having that 'ritual' carried out for them ? Does that 'ritual' create this 'happy chemical' again ? OR, are the Harmonic Discs actually 'doing something', in the room, even though as Ethan (and others) would argue, they are so tiny that they could not possibly be having any effect on the acoustics of the room nor having any effect on the audio signal travelling through the equipment ?

Back to my 1 o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock example again (before, after and back to before fitting the Harmonic Discs). If, without the person's knowledge, the Harmonic Discs are removed, is the sound as good for that person or is the sound 'worse' ? If the explanation for their effect is 'suggestion' or 'ritual', then the sound should be the same (if the person had no knowledge that the devices had been removed). If the sound is different, in keeping with whether the Discs are in the room or not, then what explanation ?

4) Does a person, after applying the Nordost ECO 3 Chemical to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer insulation of cables and hears the described improvement in the sound of "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." hear those improvements because of the act of doing that 'ritual' ? Again, is that act of doing the 'ritual' creating a 'happy chemical' within the person which then provides those improvements in the sound ? If not, then what explanation ?

5) Ditto applying a specific colour to CDs.

Back to your earlier quote :-
>>> "Lumping all tweaks together as you do is a ploy." <<<

Not a ploy, Enophile. Have you NEVER had to consider that such as a Shakti Stone, applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs, attaching Harmonic Discs strategically around the room, applying the Nordost ECO 3 chemical, installing the Schumann resonance device, Crystals, Clever clocks, aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD, MIGHT ALL be doing a similar thing, and THAT is why the description of the improvements from one or all of them is so similar - "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, not to mention bass improvements." ?? And, that that 'similar' thing may NOT be because of a 'ritual' having been carried out, or may NOT be because of them having provided a 'remedial effect' ? That 'something' MIGHT, actually, be physically taking place in the environment ????????? That the environment MIGHT have actually changed, because of............ ????

Regards,
May Belt.

May, you think Shakti Stones, 'Harmonic' (sic) Discs, and Lampshade Grease all do "similar things?", posted on August 9, 2009 at 10:52:50
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 Good one!

May, there is nothing wrong with remediation. Depressed people use antidepressants to feel like people who aren't depressed - some people need listener directed tweaks to hear what others hear. Like I said before, this is fine, just please spare me the claim that since some people like life better on these remedial substances that everybody must therefore need them.

The fun part of this should be the exploration of who 'needs' these tweaks and who does not. One great way to check this is to actually believe people when they say they heard no effect with the same enthusiasm that you display when someone does claim to hear an effect.

If the tweaks do not change a certain listener's experience, are you calling him a liar? Sonic Luddite? Neo-Neanderthal?

May, you only listen to those who share your opinion. You should also listen to those who don't hear the difference with a given listener directed tweak and do them the courtesy of not insisting that they are wrong.

It's pure sales-speak to claim that there is a universal component to listener directed remedial tweaking.

You like to point out examples of people who have said they heard certain things with certain tweaks - as though a relatively rare anecdote validates a universal claim.

Example: May loves to point out that JA has one (I repeat, one) pair of speakers with Harmonix Discs attached. May, what about all the other speakers he listens to? Why are these discs not on his reference equipment list? Why does he not keep using these discs on other speakers? If you want to use JA's thought that he 'may' have heard a difference on one pair of speakers as a larger validation, then you'll have to answer some why and wherefore questions about his ongoing lack of enthusiasm for such a product. Remember, he also admits that on one occassion, Enid Lumley had convinced him that a pizza box support might be affected the sound of a system - and that the effect was lost once he was able to listen without Enid suggesting a result. Now, what about all the other reviewers who have never felt there to be a benefit with the same product? More liars? The fact that so few reviwers report benefit from this sort of tweak stands in contradistinction to your use of JA as a confirmatory example.


May, have fun with these listener directed tweaks, but spare us the sales pitch. I welcome you to fuller enjoyment if you happen to join us who already enjoy what you need remediation to experience!
RE: May, you think Shakti Stones, 'Harmonic' (sic) Discs, and Lampshade Grease all do "similar things?", posted on August 12, 2009 at 04:51:06
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
>>> "Example: May loves to point out that JA has one (I repeat, one) pair of speakers with Harmonix Discs attached.
Now, what about all the other reviewers who have never felt there to be a benefit with the same product? More liars? The fact that so few reviwers report benefit from this sort of tweak stands in contradistinction to your use of JA as a confirmatory example." <<<

It is irrelevant whether John A uses one or more sets of Harmonix Discs. Or, used them before but might not be continuing to use them now.

What is RELEVANT is that using them and gaining an improvement in the sound from something so small and seemingly insignificant POINTED to the fact that they could change the sound !!!
It is irrelevant in exactly the same way that surgeons no longer use the carbolic spray technique when carrying out operations. What was RELEVANT, at that time, 100 years ago, was that the effect of using the carbolic spray POINTED to the fact that there was 'something' in the air, which was getting into the patients open wounds and causing septicaemia.

It is this POINTING to something happening which is what is important to scientists !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again, 100 years ago, during the cholera epidemic, Dr. Jon Snow observed that in one particular street, a large number of people living down ONE SIDE of the street only had developed cholera whereas only a tiny number of the people living down the opposite side of the street had dveloped cholera - even though ALL of them were breathing the same foul air - the Miasmata !! His observation POINTED to the fact that there was 'something else' going on which was causing the spread of cholera other than the foul air !!!!!!!!!!!

When something POINTS to something, scientists take notice (or should take notice) !!!!!!!!!!!

Back to the subject of the Harmonix Discs.
Your quote "The fact that so few reviwers report benefit from this sort of tweak stands in contradistinction to your use of JA as a confirmatory example."

I will quote from Martin Colloms - June 26th 2009 - just about 6 weeks ago !!!!!!

>>> "I did use Harmonix ceiling discs for a while, but eventually gravity prevailed and I did not restore many to their aligned locations. I did comment that I thought that they were very costly for what they were, but conversely they worked as advertised." <<<

Note Martins "They worked as advertised" i.e these tiny, seemingly insignificant discs changed the sound.
It is completely irrelevant whether Martin uses them now or not !! They POINTED to 'something' happening, 'something' affecting the sound when he DID use them !!!

It is obviously your choice whether you take notice of such things or not - I do !! Especially when such things confirm what Peter and I had been experiencing also.

Regards,
May Belt.

RE: May, you think Shakti Stones, 'Harmonic' (sic) Discs, and Lampshade Grease all do "similar things?", posted on August 10, 2009 at 08:37:33
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 >>> "If the tweaks do not change a certain listener's experience, are you calling him a liar? Sonic Luddite? Neo-Neanderthal?" <<<

Again, Enophile, DO NOT put words into my mouth which I do not say (or even THINK) !!!

>>> "You should also listen to those who don't hear the difference with a given listener directed tweak and do them the courtesy of not insisting that they are wrong." <<<

I have NEVER said they are wrong, I would just agree that they could not hear whatever tweak it was they had tried !! People are people and there is nothing more different than different people with their different experiences.

>>> "but spare us the sales pitch." <<<

Sorry to disappoint you, Enophile, but it is NOT a sales pitch.

Enophile. Would you PLEASE, PLEASE read Unclestu's response to you carefully. EVERY single paragraph !!!!

He has managed to say it in a better way and in far less space than I usually can !!!!!!!!!!!!!
In fact, I am finding it extremely difficult to pick out any ONE paragraph from his 'posting' to highlight. If it has to be any, I think it would be the one below, but only chosen out of all his posting by the slightest majority !!!!!

>>> "Now in assessing tweaks, if a difference is heard, I firmly believe an explanation can be found. It make take a while, and the the numerical data mauy be tinny but I do believe a correlation can be made." <<<

YOUR explanation of 'ritual' of 'remedial actions' is, as I have said, far too narrow. In my opinion, you just have not thought it through enough !!

If you read Unclestu's postings over the years on Audio Asylum I think you will find that he has 'tried' (and heard an effect from) most, if not all, of the 'tweaks' I listed PLUS many more I have not listed !!! My regular point of disagreement with Unclestu is not about 'ritual', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect' etc but that he tries to explain just about every one of the 'tweaks' as 'either affecting the audio signal or affecting the acoustic air pressure waves'. Although, I think, he and I would both agree that the modern environment (and things within the modern environment) present a problem !!

So, my answer to your heading "you think Shakti Stones, 'Harmonic' (sic) Discs, and Lampshade Grease all do "similar things?" would be "That the more investigations one is prepared to do, the closer these 'tweaks' come together in that they are all 'dealing with' SOMETHING going on in our listening environment, but in different ways using different techniques" I would continue with that "But, so OBVIOUSLY, because it is people involved, using their listening ability, then there will be different reactions by different people to differences taking place in their different environments" !!!!!!!!!!

Some people may 'hear' the effect of the Shakti Stone but not hear the effect of the Harmonix Discs. Some people may hear the effect of the Harmonix Discs and the effect of a chemical applied to a lampshade but not hear the effect of the Shakti Stone - and so on. The only thing anyone can do is to ask people to experiment - to TRY different things for themselves !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.
I personally would end this by saying, "Get thee behind me Buddha, and take your besotted liver with you!"…, posted on August 15, 2009 at 16:05:50
Wellfed
Audiophile

Posts: 11220
Joined: January 11, 2008



But that's just me
Assessing tweaks, posted on August 9, 2009 at 21:03:46
unclestu52
Dealer

Posts: 6982
Location: Hawaii
Joined: March 5, 2005
 I do believe it is possible for the individual listener to put aside emotional responses and to assess changes cognitively. I do believe while the cognitive state can be affected by the emotional state, it is possible for the cognitive state to make a a neutral ssessment. After all, one can be intelligent and emotional simultaneously. There can be a divide between the cognitive state and the emotional state.

Now in assessing tweaks, if a difference is heard, I firmly believe an explanation can be found. It make take a while, and the the numerical data mauy be tinny but I do believe a correlation can be made.

What is surprising to me has always been the degree of human sensitivity. True, it varies from individual to individual, but with training and prolonged exposure (which is what training really is), the acuity of human perception can be enhanced significantly. The sense of taste, in particular, is well documented, particularly in the case of those who indulge in wines ;^).

However, I firmly believe that it behooves us all if we were to apply science to the tweaks. The causalities often defy the human mind, but it is important in order to insure a replication and application as well as a basic understanding. That often very tiny things can affect change should be of no surprise because just look at the tiny amounts of chemicals needed to alter the state of the human mind.

But one must be careful, because the science cuts both ways: to explain and to accept the changes made, as well as to debunk any investigation of the phenomena. All too often, I see people claiming that the changes are too small or not "scientific" enough.

The scale involved have become smaller and smaller in my observation. As electronic parts achieve much higher tolerances, it is a natural evolution. The one factor that has never been accurately measured is the limits of human resolution. Oh, we have numerical averages, but the defining limits have never been fully investigated, and that alone creates a large variation in the reports and effects heard.


Stu

RE: "Your post makes a good case for the physiologic basis of the power of suggestion", posted on August 8, 2009 at 11:21:23
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

Awaken from your self induced hypnotic trance, my backsliding little troll.

Ah, feeling singled out, my Barnumesque photo-clip-and-paster?, posted on August 8, 2009 at 13:04:41
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 I guess you are fine with nocebo, but not placebo?

Both have real neurologic underpinnings.

Knowing an intervention took place can be an important part of the intervention's effect.

That is so upsetting to hucksters, but I don't see why.

Heck, they can use the power of suggestion to remove warts. Are you concerned that if audiophiles are alerted to this phenomenon that you may shrivel up and fall off the hobby?

Rather than ET, I suggest this is more apt for you...
RE: Rather than ET, I suggest this is more apt for you..." E.T.??!! Not a big movie buff, eh, Doc? nt, posted on August 8, 2009 at 18:15:37
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 nt

RE: "Hucksters can use the power of suggestion to remove warts." - Thnx for the free advice, Doc, posted on August 8, 2009 at 14:21:39
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

....

More cut and paste. Well, that is a step up from your prose., posted on August 8, 2009 at 18:25:43
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 Pick up the pace, Geoff.
It's always something with you, ain't it?, posted on August 9, 2009 at 09:48:22
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

...

It's always something with me? You're the one wanting your warts removed., posted on August 9, 2009 at 22:21:13
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 Maybe you could share a little less information...as if that's possible.
RE: Molecules of Emotion, posted on August 7, 2009 at 15:16:58
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1421
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 Well, the spleen is a new one on me. I guess I'll have to remember to get that serviced next massage. Did we really need a study to tell us external stimulii become more intense during cocaine highs or...ehem...body part stimulation exercises? ;-)

RE: Molecules of Emotion, posted on August 8, 2009 at 02:55:43
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
 I obviously cannot speak for Unclestu but I would presume that he wasn't using the quotes from the book to highlight any effects specifically from cocaine but that what is going on in "the human body is inextricably linked with the emotional state and well being and the cognitive state". I.e To consider the whole body being involved and influencing how we perceive !!

I would add to that "to consider the whole environment and how THAT influences how we perceive".

Regards,
May Belt.

RE: Molecules of Emotion, posted on August 8, 2009 at 23:37:18
Ugly
Audiophile

Posts: 1421
Location: Des Moines, WA
Joined: August 22, 2006
 I agree. I was hoping the " ;-) " would warn others of my weak attempt at humor. You are clearly unimpressed. There goes my hopes for a career change. ;-) Ok, Ok. I'll stop now.

RE: "the role of peptides in human sensory and emotional input", posted on August 7, 2009 at 11:57:30
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Even more troubling is the role of a telephone in human sensory and emotional input. Even a tiny cell phone. Or a telephone book.

It's a case of the mind interacting with the surroundings. Subconsciously. In other words, you have no control over it. You've always been at a deficit ...your entire life...you just don't realize it 'cause it has always been so. Big trouble in Little China. (chortle, chortle)

Just think what a computer or 'internets' connection must do!, posted on August 8, 2009 at 13:35:30
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 All the info in your computer and the vast internets informations really magnifies those problems.

Someone should 'invent' a Computationportation Tweak. Then, the inventor could have people pay him money to email the tweak to their computers and neutralize those foul spirits.

Phone book is thinking too small.
RE: "Phone book is thinking too small.", posted on August 8, 2009 at 13:44:40
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Baby Steps. The first step is always the most difficult, grasshopper.

"Never up, never in." - audiophile proverb.

Seems you got stuck on the first step, cockroach., posted on August 8, 2009 at 18:27:47
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 Think beyond the phone book.

Or, maybe 'market beyond the phone book.'
Why so shrill, honeybear, are you a man on a mission?, posted on August 9, 2009 at 04:43:26
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

...

Why so 'shill,' sweetie? Like we don't already know your 'mission.', posted on August 9, 2009 at 12:48:16
Enophile
Audiophile

Posts: 7139
Location: Las Vegas
Joined: October 15, 2005
 Sell sell sell.
RE: "Like we don't already know your 'mission.'" Oooooo..., posted on August 9, 2009 at 14:30:47
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3515
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

Who's "we" - you and The Amazing Randi? (He can get pretty upset, too.)

RE: Molecules of Emotion, posted on August 6, 2009 at 03:58:21
May Belt
Manufacturer

Posts: 411
Location: Leeds UK
Joined: March 16, 2005
Very interesting, Unclestu and it would be good to follow through for a bit with the 'human being and sound' aspect rather than the usual 'audio system and sound'.

These are two separate sections for consideration and the second one (the audio system and sound) has been, by far, the most looked at and discussed.

I would like to quote from something David Aiken said quite some time ago :-

>>> "That's the problem with tweaks. Sorting out what's going on when there are audio-related effects and other effects is always going to be tricky.

Do we assume that there is only one effect and we're not certain what that is or quite how it works, or do we assume that for the acoustic effect a known explanation is possible and run with that until evidence that something else is going on arises.

I guess I tend towards the second option since I don't like proposing new mechanisms that may or may not exist. I simply prefer to stay in known areas for my explanations, rather than speculating and then building on the speculations, until it's obvious that the known explanations won't suffice." <<<

I specifically like David's bit "until it is obvious that the known explanations won't suffice" and evidence emerges that something else is going on.

Also I would like to add Stephaen's quote (also from some time ago) :-

>>> "There have been some pretty solid studies that show the reduction of electrically induced stress allows the nervous system to more effectively heal and restore the body to optimal functioning. I think this has to have an impact on what/how we hear. Doesn't your system sound better when you are relaxed than when you're stressed?" <<<

I personally believe that there IS far more to Stephaen's :-
"reduction of electrically induced stress allowing the nervous system to more effectively heal and restore the body to optimal functioning. I think this has to have an impact on what/how we hear"
than we currently understand and I would like to explore further the concept you have outlined
"that the human body is inextricably linked with the emotional state and well being and the cognitive state."

To begin.
The second section (the audio system and sound) I referred to is the technical, engineering side. i.e.
The information (musical) is on the disc, this information has to be extracted from the disc in the best way possible, this information has to be handled by the audio equipment in the best way possible, this information has to be presented into the room by the loudspeakers as acoustic air pressure waves in the best way possible and this information in the form of acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations then reaches the ear drum.

The first section (human being and sound) - from the ear drum to the working memory - is the section I would like to look at - which will touch on "the emotional state and well being and the cognitive state" you referred to Unclestu.

Regards,
May Belt..

We are fearfully and wonderfully made…, posted on August 4, 2009 at 19:24:09
Wellfed
Audiophile

Posts: 11220
Joined: January 11, 2008

Page processed in 0.838 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ] [ Go Green ] [ Take5 ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]