Tweakers' Asylum

Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

Return to Tweakers' Asylum

Opinions needed on rough topaz crystals

64.12.116.16
Posted on November 4, 2009 at 06:27:12
Quint
Audiophile

Posts: 2784
Joined: June 21, 2003
 I’m considering buying a pound bag of rough topaz crystals for experimenting throughout my system, but I need a basic idea of where to start. The possibilities are endless. I’m using a couple of Alan Maher Infinity CBFs on my main circuit breaker and on an unused outlet on main duplex. They seem to work there, but rough topaz seems more cost effective. Anyone using topaz in those locations who’s willing to share his experiences? This is new ground for me. TIA.

Rocks are cool!, posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:38:29
caspian@peak.org
Audiophile

Posts: 386
Location: Oregon
Joined: January 12, 2008
 I have a really nice collection of fossils, agates and petrified wood I dug up myself, and all kinds of pretty crystals I traded for with other collectors. Amethyst, tourmaline, garnet, fluorite, calcite, etc. Never really investigated their alleged healing properties, though -- I just like to look at 'em.

Just be sure you order your crystals from a reputable lapidary (rock/mineral dealer) rather than some new age shyster outfit. They will cost a lot less, and work just as well -- unless you think they gain efficacy from having been exposed to the psychic resonance field of a true believer in their mystical properties.

With a pound bag of medium small crystals, you can experiment with all kinds of refinements of your own. Demagnetize 'em, ionize 'em, expose 'em to orgone radiation, cryogenically treat 'em in liquid nitrogen, baptise 'em in holy water, etc. The possibilities are limitless.

Rock on!

Saved for evidence. nt, posted on November 7, 2009 at 05:41:40
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 nt

RE: Opinions needed on rough topaz crystals, posted on November 5, 2009 at 01:01:49
wushuliu
Audiophile

Posts: 41
Joined: March 19, 2009
 Dave, if I recall from previous posts just about any topaz will do, just don't get them too small or too big. I believe Paul A has some posts from a few years ago w/ pics. That said, the consensus from those prior threads was that tourmaline was a much better choice than topaz or quartz. It's slightly more expensive but not much. Ignore the ignorant posts. How in the world someone can claim they're right in the name of science and common sense without actually testing something FIRST (the *method* part of the scientific method) for themselves is beyond me. The reasons as how some of these crystals affect components has been well covered and from personal experience w/ tourmaline (especially near a hot object like toroids or chips) the effect is unmistakable. Whether it sounds better will be up to you. But the difference is clear.

With jokers like those it's amazing we discovered fire.

so...., posted on November 5, 2009 at 05:07:47
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 Do you have actual, scientific proof that there have been measurable effects? Show me some hard irrefutable data, until then, I feel it will work as good as shamanism.


-chris

You can get all the proof you need by spending ten big ones on a bag of topaz., posted on November 5, 2009 at 14:18:34
Paul_A
Audiophile

Posts: 1518
Location: New York City
Joined: April 3, 2000
Contributor
  Since: June 25, 2000
 However, you should be aware that the effects that they produce are not audible on mid-fi gear. On my bedroom system--top of the line Arcam gear from ten years ago and Sonus Faber Concertino speakers--the crystals, the power conditioner and the custom power cords--didn't make a bit of difference. And the Arcam is not a bad system. It just doesn't have the resolving power of my Big Rig.

On the Big Rig though, everything makes a difference--power cords, interconnects, crystals--the works. If you want to approach this hobby with a spirit of scientific curiosity, you need instruments that are sensitive enough to register subtle differences. You might be surprised at how big a difference power cords can make on a really revealing system...and how little difference they make on a cheap one. Think of your audio system as a suite of electronic testing instruments and your ears as highly sensitive probes. If you can't hear any differences with power cords, crystals, interconnects, or tubes, you need to upgrade your lab equipment.

RE: "Show me some hard irrefutable data", posted on November 5, 2009 at 07:19:58
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Which data would you consider irrefutable - the manufacturer, a contractor hired by the manufacturer, a contractor hired by an audio magazine, a reviewer, an independent audiophile, or perhaps NASA?

oh it is you......, posted on November 5, 2009 at 08:13:31
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 Thought you were actually someone serious, then I checked your profile. Nothing that I can say would keep you from disillusioning people.


What proof you have besides your laughable (at best) website, and your outstanding record here...... show me some data.. hardcore stuff. something that actually used measurements and not an imagination or placebo effect........I am talking equipment, revision of software, when equip was calibrated etc... etc...


All of the so called "experts" I have at fault with, with maybe the exception to one, the NASA personnel , depending of qualifications and credentials, most of the rest could be paid off, or some other oiled wheel technique used.

So, "Show me the money", "put up or shut", etc.....Data please

I have time........trust me, I will be at school in the evening, but I will have time in the late night.

You can email me the info and I will look it over discretely and let you know what I discern from it.

Thanks,


-chris

RE: oh it is you......, posted on November 5, 2009 at 08:54:51
Awe-d-o-file
Manufacturer

Posts: 6093
Location: 2 hr. west of DC
Joined: January 10, 2004
 What's laughable is you and your attitude. Various types of stone,minerals, rock or whatever have properties that allow them to absorb EMI and RFI. Why don't you try some from a reputable retailer like Machina Dynamica that allows you to return the product if not satisfied Mr. Know it All.


ET




Question "Authority", the mainstream media sucks - Go Independent and hold BOTH parties accountable instead of just the other guys!

I need music to help forget the reality of today
since your master yanked your leash..., posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:18:53
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 Here's the rub... There's no proof, but a person selling snake oil....

I do not claim to be a know it all, yet when I see something that smack the face of common sense I like to address it or see PROOF.... and still my inbox is empty...

None of these claims about his rocks are facts, just "claims"...

And I doubt, with you and your master's responses , that I will get a ounce of a reliable data... just more BS and alluding the question at hand..

Why would I want to give that person a single cent, much less my address... I have seen how he conducts himself when he is challenged... and his retorts are weak and weaselly at best, and he yet still evades the answer the question

I do not claim to act like a saint, I just call it how I see it,

I say this, most of the other vendors/dealers would have put up or shut up by now....

So I doubt I will get realistic data/studies from him and this will be my last response to you, unless you have something of any importance besides you telling "Hey I am sucka!!, I bought and they work", takes more than that to convince me...


have a nice day......



-chris

RE: "There's no proof.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:47:33
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 We get a lot of angry whiners around these parts demanding proof of this and that. What's peculiar is none of these "skeptics" can figure these things out for themselves. If they're so smart they should be explaining it to us. Let the whining begin.

RE: "All of the so called "experts" I have at fault with, with maybe the exception to one, the NASA personnel", posted on November 5, 2009 at 08:22:19
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Sounds like you're itching for the job. When can we expect some irrefutable data from you and NASA?

English is not your native tongue, I take it....that's ok.

RE: "All of the so called "experts" I have at fault with, with maybe the exception to one, the NASA personnel", posted on November 6, 2009 at 06:18:27
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 While it probably is not meant as one, this is a common misdirection I have seen in such cases. To be clear, it is the responsibility of those making the claims that there is an audible difference with crystals to provide the information or data supporting those claims.

Just hearing a difference could be nothing more than confirmation bias. I've heard systems considered highly resolving, as someone else suggested, where crystals were absent and then applied in different locations. I didn't hear a difference. Presumably you would have. It could be I'm not hearing a difference that is there because of confirmation bias or it could be you are hearing a difference that isn't there because of confirmation bias. The possibility of confirmation bias must be eliminated in order to ascertain which of our experiences may or may not be valid.

Also since everyone is subject to confirmation bias, it doesn't matter if billions and billions of people don't hear a difference or hear a difference. Without eliminating the possibility of confirmation bias, the reports are meaningless.

You're making the claim. You do the work. So, please, let me know what you and NASA cook up to eliminate confirmation bias and what the results are.

RE: "You're making the claim. You do the work.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 06:37:29
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 I seriously doubt most "skeptics" would cease their whining if I provided data that supported my claims for crystals. It would simply elevate the "debate" to the next level of absurdity. Apparently you're not familiar with the term, independent validation.

RE: "You're making the claim. You do the work.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 12:44:30
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 The "skeptics" [sic] you refer to is a straw-man. Data or reproducible results eliminating potential confirmation bias still need to be presented for convincing proof.

Independent validation means to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis*. Without data or reproducible results eliminating potential confirmation bias, there's nothing to corroborate.

It's you who makes a claim and still your responsibility to do the work.


*Definition of validate from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

RE: Without data or reproducible results there's nothing to corroborate.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 13:02:50
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 Sorry, Charlie, there is absolutely no requirement for any audio manufacturer to provide data. You should know, but apparently you don't, that data doesn't mean that much in the real world. Example: a speaker manufacturer's stated frequency response may or may not be observed in a real room, and would certainly vary from room to room - the data is NOT reproducible. Same for cartridges, turntables, amps, etc. The only way to find out how something will sound in your system is to take it home and listen to it. Duh.

Thanks for lecture, anyway.

Thanks for lecture, anyway., posted on November 6, 2009 at 17:24:38
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 You continue to make this personal, e.g., calling me Charlie, implying a failure to comprehend on my part through your concluding argument, i.e., "Duh," and, in an earlier post, asserting my lack of familiarity with the process of validation without evidence on your part. In my experience this is an ineffective, as well as invalid, method of argument or persuasion.

Please, let me remind you of the discussion at hand. We are discussing your claim that crystals have an audible effect. We are not discussing frequency response of speakers or the other components you mention. Your claims concerning crystals and the new issues you raise are dissimilar. For instance, the possible difference between a manufacturer's claimed frequency response for its speakers and measurable room-specific responses are demonstrable as you've noted. To my knowledge, such is not the case for your claims concerning crystals. If you wish to assert the relevance of these new issues, please, relate specifically how these new issues are pertinent to your claim that crystals have an audible effect. Lacking support for pertinence, these new issues are irrelevant. In simpler terms, you're comparing apples and oranges.

You've made the claim that crystals have an audible effect. The base assumption in a process to validate such a claim is that there is no difference. Having made the claim for a difference, it is your responsibility to provide evidence there is a difference, which you have not yet done. If your assertion concerning the audible effects of crystals is nothing more than that, there is no compelling reason for me nor anyone else to accept it. As it stands, your assertion may be nothing more than confirmation bias.

RE: "It is your responsibility to provide evidence.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:19:44
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "Your claims concerning crystals and the new issues you raise are dissimilar. For instance, the possible difference between a manufacturer's claimed frequency response for its speakers and measurable room-specific responses are demonstrable as you've noted. To my knowledge, such is not the case for your claims concerning crystals. If you wish to assert the relevance of these new issues, please, relate specifically how these new issues are pertinent to your claim that crystals have an audible effect."

-- What "new issues" are you referring to? And what do you think my claims actually are, for the record? I make no claims regarding "repeatability," if that's what you mean, nor claims regarding the "degree" of the effect the crystals will have.

"Having made the claim for a difference, it is your responsibility to provide evidence there is a difference, which you have not yet done."

-- Sorry to be the one to inform you, but it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. That's an old wives tale.

"If your assertion concerning the audible effects of crystals is nothing more than that, there is no compelling reason for me nor anyone else to accept it."

-- Fine. I assert. You don't accept. I do not see anything wrong with that scenario.

As it stands, your assertion may be nothing more than confirmation bias.

-- Sounds like you may have a pretty strong bias of your own, if you know what I mean.

~Cheers
RE: "It is your responsibility to provide evidence.", posted on November 6, 2009 at 21:00:12
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 Geoff, I'll be happy to address each of your new questions and assertions.

1.) You ask, "What 'new issues' are you referring to?" The new issues you raised in your last post are the examples of differences in speaker responses, cartridges, turntables, amps, etc. You imply, without substantiation, an equivalence between the inability to corroborate these newly raised differences with not being able to discern a difference with crystals. As I stated in my last post, you must demonstrate a basis for this newly claimed equivalence.

2.) "And what do you think my claims actually are, for the record?" On 28 August 2007, you stated "I have studied and played around w/ crystals for a long time, esp. with respect to audio applications. As you know, I have at least 4 products (Brilliant Pebbles) that involve crystals of many types. These products operate via electromagnetic absorption as well as vibrational control, depending on application."* That post was titled "Re: Hole in Topaz." Given it was a couple of years ago, do you repudiate it now?

3.) You state, "I make no claims regarding 'repeatability,' if that's what you mean, nor claims regarding the 'degree' of the effect the crystals will have." Since, in this thread, you have asserted my lack of understanding regarding independent validation, please, explain how to independently validate your results if they can't be repeated. How is anyone, much less me, supposed to discern an effect if you make no claim regarding the degree of effect? Since you make no claim as to the degree of effect, does a zero effect still count? Does my not hearing an effect equate to your hearing one?

4.) You declare, "Sorry to be the one to inform you, but it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. That's an old wives tale." On 4 Nov. '09 (just a couple days ago), you stated, "[M]y undergrad thesis involved bombarding magnetized metal crystals with high speed ions."** With what appears to be a grounding in science, I made the erroneous assumption you knew it was your responsibility to back your claims with evidence. Please excuse my error in assuming you knew this.

BTW, did you know there's a teapot in orbit around the Sun half way between the Earth and Mars? Since, as you assert, I have no responsibility to present evidence for my claim, please, refute it. The preceding is a humorous example, which, hopefully, illustrates why it is one's responsibility to provide evidence for one's claims.

5.) Finally, you assert, "Sounds like you may have a pretty strong bias of your own, if you know what I mean." I certainly agree with you here. I have a very strong bias against unsubstantiated claims such as, "These products operate via electromagnetic absorption as well as vibrational control, depending on application."* As I've said all along, please, provide some evidence.


*Re: Hole in Topaz

**4 Nov. '09

RE: "It is your responsibility to provide evidence.", posted on November 7, 2009 at 03:44:18
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 1.) You ask, "What 'new issues' are you referring to?" The new issues you raised in your last post are the examples of differences in speaker responses, cartridges, turntables, amps, etc. You imply, without substantiation, an equivalence between the inability to corroborate these newly raised differences with not being able to discern a difference with crystals. As I stated in my last post, you must demonstrate a basis for this newly claimed equivalence.

-- The speaker FR reference was used to support my contention that demands for data are quite silly if the data doesn't indicate what the results will be in real world situations (as is the case for speaker FR data).

2.) "And what do you think my claims actually are, for the record?" On 28 August 2007, you stated "I have studied and played around w/ crystals for a long time, esp. with respect to audio applications. As you know, I have at least 4 products (Brilliant Pebbles) that involve crystals of many types. These products operate via electromagnetic absorption as well as vibrational control, depending on application."* That post was titled "Re: Hole in Topaz." Given it was a couple of years ago, do you repudiate it now?

-- Are you are making a new demand here? Your previous demand was for proof of the claim that the crystals have an effect on the sound, a "difference" as you called it. So, now you're demanding proof how the crystals work as well as proof they have an effect? Hmmmm, interesting. In any case, that is not my responsibiliy, either.

3. "You state, "I make no claims regarding 'repeatability,' if that's what you mean, nor claims regarding the 'degree' of the effect the crystals will have." Since, in this thread, you have asserted my lack of understanding regarding independent validation, please, explain how to independently validate your results if they can't be repeated."

-- Obviously, systems vary, as do listener's skill. So it would be foolish to think that results will not vary, system to system and person to person.

"How is anyone, much less me, supposed to discern an effect if you make no claim regarding the degree of effect? Since you make no claim as to the degree of effect, does a zero effect still count? Does my not hearing an effect equate to your hearing one?"

-- That's precisely what guarantees are for. System resolution and listening skills vary; and there is skill in placing crystals in the system and in the room. There are many potential locations for crystals, so the number and size of the crystals in the system influence the results.

4.) You declare, "Sorry to be the one to inform you, but it's not my responsibility to provide evidence. That's an old wives tale." On 4 Nov. '09 (just a couple days ago), you stated, "[M]y undergrad thesis involved bombarding magnetized metal crystals with high speed ions."** With what appears to be a grounding in science, I made the erroneous assumption you knew it was your responsibility to back your claims with evidence. Please excuse my error in assuming you knew this.

-- Yes, it 's an erroneous assumption on your part that I'm required to provide evidence.

BTW, did you know there's a teapot in orbit around the Sun half way between the Earth and Mars? Since, as you assert, I have no responsibility to present evidence for my claim, please, refute it. The preceding is a humorous example, which, hopefully, illustrates why it is one's responsibility to provide evidence for one's claims.
5.) Finally, you assert, "Sounds like you may have a pretty strong bias of your own, if you know what I mean." I certainly agree with you here. I have a very strong bias against unsubstantiated claims such as, "These products operate via electromagnetic absorption as well as vibrational control, depending on application."* As I've said all along, please, provide some evidence.

-- It's Interesting that naysayers who demand evidence for how things work are not able or willing to provide evidence or explanations themselves.

RE: "It is your responsibility to provide evidence.", posted on November 7, 2009 at 06:13:13
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 "The speaker FR reference was used to support my contention that demands for data are quite silly if the data doesn't indicate what the results will be in real world situations (as is the case for speaker FR data)."

Yet there is no data presented, whether from a lab or in the real world, that crystals have an effect. My point is that for speaker FR data to be an applicable example in this discussion something other than mere assertion of the effects of crystals is needed.



"Are you are making a new demand here? Your previous demand was for proof of the claim that the crystals have an effect on the sound, a "difference" as you called it. So, now you're demanding proof how the crystals work as well as proof they have an effect?"

You are correct. I conflated the two in error. I apologize for the error and recant that statement.



"Obviously, systems vary, as do listener's skill. So it would be foolish to think that results will not vary, system to system and person to person."

So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?



"System resolution and listening skills vary; and there is skill in placing crystals in the system and in the room. There are many potential locations for crystals, so the number and size of the crystals in the system influence the results."

From your statements, if one hears no difference, it is due to a lack of skill as a listener or a lack of skill in placing them or an inappropriate number and/or size of crystals or a deficiency in system resolution or a combination of all of these. How does one establish that one does not hear a difference because there is none? How does one demonstrate that a perceived audible difference is something more than hearing what one wants to hear, i.e., a confirmation bias? From your statements, it would seem there is no way to disprove crystals have an effect.



"Yes, it 's an erroneous assumption on your part that I'm required to provide evidence." "It's Interesting [sic] that naysayers who demand evidence for how things work are not able or willing to provide evidence or explanations themselves."

It seems we have different ideas as to what constitutes a convincing argument and one's responsibility to back one's claims. BTW, have you been able to independently validate my orbiting teapot? It's there I tell you.

RE: "So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?", posted on November 7, 2009 at 08:07:31
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 As I've said, what one hears depends on the system, listening skill/hearing acuity and the specific Brilliant Pebbles products used - I sell X-Large, Large, Mini, Mikro, each of which has its own specific applications. The X-Large size is for room rorners of large rooms; the Large is for top of speakers and tube traps and corners of medium/small room; the Mikros for windows, power cord plugs, near electron tubes, on interconnects, and so forth. Generally speaking, the more sizes used and the more of each size used, the better the results. A suggested "baseline" is 4 Large, 2 Minis and 4 Mikros.

Here's a link to customer comments, which should provide some indication of what skilled listeners hear.

RE: "So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?", posted on November 7, 2009 at 08:59:45
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 "Here's a link to customer comments, which should provide some indication of what skilled listeners hear."

Thank you for the link. It was enlightening.

It is still a reasonable conclusion that what these people are hearing is a result of confirmation bias. They expect a change, and they hear one. As illustration, there is the comment from Quint in Nov. '05, "I first tried the 2 Large bottles in the rear corners of my room. Nada. Then I tried them in the front corners, next to my tube traps. Mas nada. Then I moved them to 3 feet behind my speakers. Bingo! -- bass response improved across the board, becoming more "powerful" and apparently quicker and richer." Quint kept moving things around until he could hear a difference. Was there truly a difference or a confirmation of Quint's expectations? Quint has invested his money and efforts in the outcome. All humans have a bias towards discerning a difference when they are invested in an issue, i.e., a confirmation bias. From Quint's and the other comments, one can conclude that there may or may not be a true difference.

I remain unconvinced, and I thank you for your discourse on this topic.

RE: "So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?", posted on November 8, 2009 at 08:52:08
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 of course you are left unconvinced, the guy never has a real explanation , all he does is resorts to immature replies.....

I can not people actually do business with him after seeing these antics....



-chris

RE: "So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?", posted on November 8, 2009 at 09:04:37
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "I can not people actually do business with him after seeing these antics..."

That was almost a complete sentence. Keep working on it, though, I'm sure you'll get there. LOL
lol..., posted on November 8, 2009 at 18:26:39
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 Well, I never said I was a laureate, and yes I get into a hurry and type too slow.... but I think most can get the gist of what I type....


You get challenged, then you get sacred, and cannot come up with evidence , so you use any childish method to try to taunt to poster who questions your methods of duping people and distract from the main topic with your immature replies....

I'm done with ya bud,,, you're 86'd.....cya

All these post and yet you dodge and dodge....NEVER seen a vendor on these forums do this.....


-chris

RE: "You get sacred." Gosh, thanks, but I'm really just a regular Joe., posted on November 8, 2009 at 18:53:35
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 ta ta

Here is one step on my way to becoming a better listener., posted on November 7, 2009 at 17:26:03
Paul_A
Audiophile

Posts: 1518
Location: New York City
Joined: April 3, 2000
Contributor
  Since: June 25, 2000
 When I replaced my Arcam CD player with a Wadia, I was hoping for a big difference, and initially there was a huge difference--the Wadia was shrill and aggressive and pretty much unlistenable. This was not what I shelled out the extra money for, so I decided to put a Shunyata power cord on it. The Shunyata made my amplifier sound dull and lifeless, and I thought the CD player might benefit from a little dullness. And the results were amazing! All of a sudden the CD player sounded smooth and tuneful, but not too different from the Arcam player. So I had discovered that an expensive CD player paired with an expensive power cord sounded about the same as a CD player costing half as much with stock power cord.

But three weeks later, I began to notice that my CDs had many more differences between themselves than I had noticed before. I also noticed that some of them had really bid sound stages that I didn't remember. I put the Arcam back in and heard that there was a lot less going on in the recordings than I was hearing with the Wadia. Now (five years later) I can hear the difference between a resolving CD player and a lesser one immediately.

Does this help?

RE: "So, what exactly is a skillful listener supposed to hear?", posted on November 7, 2009 at 10:12:00
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "It is still a reasonable conclusion that what these people are hearing is a result of confirmation bias."

It could be a lot of things. It could be they were all paid for their comments. It could be they all were victims of the placebo effect. It could be group hypnosis. It could be I made it all up. LOL

"They expect a change, and they hear one."

Actually, most customers are quite skeptical of the crystals, like yourself, in that they expect a subtle effect at best. Many are surprised anything at all happened. Lke a lot of controversial tweaks - the actual expectation for Brilliant Pebbles is that they will NOT work, or at most they will be very subtle. I suppose you might call that Negative Expectation Bias? Two other prominent examples of audio tweaks associated with Negative Expectation Bias are the Clever Little Clock and the Teleportation Tweak. To summarize, your "expectation bias" argument is fallacious - just another page from the Naysayers Handbook.

As illustration, there is the comment from Quint in Nov. '05, "I first tried the 2 Large bottles in the rear corners of my room. Nada. Then I tried them in the front corners, next to my tube traps. Mas nada. Then I moved them to 3 feet behind my speakers. Bingo! -- bass response improved across the board, becoming more "powerful" and apparently quicker and richer." Quint kept moving things around until he could hear a difference. Was there truly a difference or a confirmation of Quint's expectations?

Seem to me you used a bad example to illustrate expectation bias as Quint is well known for his hearing skills and willingness to experiment. As I've mentioned at least twice in this thread, skill in locating the crystals is a factor in degree of success.

"Quint has invested his money and efforts in the outcome. All humans have a bias towards discerning a difference when they are invested in an issue, i.e., a confirmation bias. From Quint's and the other comments, one can conclude that there may or may not be a true difference."

I think experienced listeners can easily eliminate your "expectation bias" by simple A/B testing. Perhaps if you are naive or inexperienced it could be a factor.

"I remain unconvinced."

Surprise, surprise.

~ ciao
RE: "Surprise, surprise.", posted on November 9, 2009 at 21:23:44
Mark Z.
Audiophile

Posts: 130
Location: northern Arizona
Joined: February 27, 2006
 Hey, Geoff, what's with the snarkiness? You've called me Charlie when my name is clearly part of my moniker. You've asserted my lack of understanding the validation process and inability at comprehension without evidence. Given these, I infer that your concluding, "Surprise, surprise," is meant derisively. At this point I feel justified in asking whether common courtesy is beyond you.

Since there's a possibility that your surprise was not meant derisively, please, let me explain why you should not be surprised.



Referring to the testimonials for which you provided a link, you made the following comments. "It could be a lot of things. It could be they were all paid for their comments. It could be they all were victims of the placebo effect. It could be group hypnosis. It could be I made it all up."

You are absolutely correct in all of your statements. However assuming you were being facetious, the testimonials have limited value as anecdotal evidence*. This value is further diminished in that they were self-selected, meaning they are only from people who chose to write to you and may not be representative of everyone who has tried crystals. They also may have been cherry-picked**, meaning, since only positive testimonials are presented, any negative testimonials may have been omitted. (The italics are used to emphasize I am only raising the possibilities and making no accusations.)



You use the term "negative expectation bias" while I have used the term "confirmation bias"***. In my very first post, I admitted the possibility that my not hearing a change with crystals may have been due to a confirmation bias just as your hearing a change may also be due to a confirmation bias. Nothing presented so far has changed this.



"To summarize, your 'expectation bias' argument is fallacious - just another page from the Naysayers Handbook."


The term I have intentionally used is "confirmation bias"*** and is a very real thing. The anecdotal evidence from your "skilled listeners," as presented, are just as likely to have confirmation biases and expectancy effects as my statement of no effect. Your protestations to the contrary are nothing more than that.

You also make another personal attack. I object most strenuously to the implied characterization of being a naysayer. Not once have I stated that crystals have no effect. Not once have I stated I cannot be persuaded that crystals have an effect. The most that can be said is that I have not perceived an effect when present at a demonstration, which I've already admitted might have been a confirmation bias. I have repeatedly asked for something more than assertion of the effects of crystals and have received nothing pertinent in return.



"Seem [sic] to me you used a bad example to illustrate expectation bias as Quint is well known for his hearing skills and willingness to experiment. As I've mentioned at least twice in this thread, skill in locating the crystals is a factor in degree of success." "I think experienced listeners can easily eliminate your 'expectation bias' by simple A/B testing. Perhaps if you are naive or inexperienced it could be a factor."

In another post I wrote, "From your statements, if one hears no difference, it is due to a lack of skill as a listener or a lack of skill in placing them or an inappropriate number and/or size of crystals or a deficiency in system resolution or a combination of all of these. How does one establish that one does not hear a difference because there is none? How does one demonstrate that a perceived audible difference is something more than hearing what one wants to hear, i.e., a confirmation bias? From your statements, it would seem there is no way to disprove crystals have an effect." Your new statements do nothing to answer these weaknesses in your argument.

In addition, simple A/B testing does nothing to eliminate the potential for confirmation bias. With proper controls, A/B testing is one way to ascertain whether crystals truly have an effect and to eliminate potential confirmation bias. The one certain thing, though, is that it wouldn't be simple.

As earlier, I remain unconvinced, and the personal attacks and innuendo leave a bad taste in one's mouth.

*Wikipeida: anecdotal evidence
**Wikipedia: cherry pick
***Wikipedia: confirmation bias

RE: "Surprise, surprise.", posted on November 10, 2009 at 05:45:05
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 "Hey, Geoff, what's with the snarkiness? You've called me Charlie when my name is clearly part of my moniker."

----It's my nature to sometimes respond with snarkiness when dealing with what I perceive to be a died-in-the-wool Naysayer. But perhaps I'm worng in your case, we'll see. So far you haven't given me much reason to think otherwise. You probably think of yourself as a big skeptic, but I've found those who present themselves as skeptics simply like arguing and are not really interested in getting to the bottom of things. But maybe you're different, we'll see. They ("skeptics") come up with every argument they can muster in order to dispute the claim. As if sitting in the comfort of one's easy chair is a substitute for the scientific method. LOL

"You've asserted my lack of understanding the validation process and inability at comprehension without evidence. Given these, I infer that your concluding, "Surprise, surprise," is meant derisively. At this point I feel justified in asking whether common courtesy is beyond you."

---- I was being a little sarcastic, I admit. On the other hand, I did point out what you call "expectation bias" probably doesn't apply to controversial tweaks - when folks are very suspicious and really don't expect the items to work. So, I assert that in these cases, when results are positive, your pet "expectation bias" effect can be eliminated as the root cause.

"Since there's a possibility that your surprise was not meant derisively, please, let me explain why you should not be surprised.
Referring to the testimonials for which you provided a link, you made the following comments. "It could be a lot of things. It could be they were all paid for their comments. It could be they all were victims of the placebo effect. It could be group hypnosis. It could be I made it all up." You are absolutely correct in all of your statements. However assuming you were being facetious, the testimonials have limited value as anecdotal evidence*. This value is further diminished in that they were self-selected, meaning they are only from people who chose to write to you and may not be representative of everyone who has tried crystals. They also may have been cherry-picked**, meaning, since only positive testimonials are presented, any negative testimonials may have been omitted. (The italics are used to emphasize I am only raising the possibilities and making no accusations.)"

-- You make a lot of assumptions in that paragraph, another ploy of died-in-the-wool Naysayers, if you don't mind my saying so. Even if it were true that I only used positive comments, that I "cherry picked," which I did not, by the way, there IS testimony from at least some customers that the pebbles work. As I intimated previously, not everyone will obtain the same results with Brilliant Pebbles, and some might not achieve ANY results. But isn't this the situation for any audio tweak, any audio cables, any audio component - that results vary across the board? Will you next be accusing me of making up the tesimonials up? LOL

"You use the term "negative expectation bias" while I have used the term "confirmation bias"***. In my very first post, I admitted the possibility that my not hearing a change with crystals may have been due to a confirmation bias just as your hearing a change may also be due to a confirmation bias. Nothing presented so far has changed this.

-- This is idle speculation on your part, the results of too much sitting in your easy chair and attempting to construct arguments without experience.

"To summarize, your 'expectation bias' argument is fallacious - just another page from the Naysayers Handbook." The term I have intentionally used is "confirmation bias"*** and is a very real thing. The anecdotal evidence from your "skilled listeners," as presented, are just as likely to have confirmation biases and expectancy effects as my statement of no effect. Your protestations to the contrary are nothing more than that.

-- Let me help you out again: I did not say that bias in not real, whether you wish to call it confirmation bias or expectation bias or whatever. And I don't say that placebo effect is not real. I am trying to get across that these bias/placebo effects are not *always* the explanation for why folks report positive results from controversial tweaks, cables, speakers, audio components. Which is what Naysyares would have us believe. Bias is a fallacious argument used by Naysayers, supposedly to "prove" that positive results are not real.

"You also make another personal attack. I object most strenuously to the implied characterization of being a naysayer. Not once have I stated that crystals have no effect. Not once have I stated I cannot be persuaded that crystals have an effect. The most that can be said is that I have not perceived an effect when present at a demonstration, which I've already admitted might have been a confirmation bias. I have repeatedly asked for something more than assertion of the effects of crystals and have received nothing pertinent in return."

-- Look, the only way for anyone to find out whether an audio tweak (or speaker, cable or component) works is to place it one's own system and listen, perhaps for a lengthy evaluation period, if necessary. Demonstrations are not necessary meaningful. Don't you know that?

"In another post I wrote, "From your statements, if one hears no difference, it is due to a lack of skill as a listener or a lack of skill in placing them or an inappropriate number and/or size of crystals or a deficiency in system resolution or a combination of all of these. How does one establish that one does not hear a difference because there is none? How does one demonstrate that a perceived audible difference is something more than hearing what one wants to hear, i.e., a confirmation bias? From your statements, it would seem there is no way to disprove crystals have an effect." Your new statements do nothing to answer these weaknesses in your argument."

--- As I've said, results can vary from hurting the sound, to having no effect to having great effect. I have hundreds of curtomers (of Brilliant Pebbles) who have had positive results and I have seven years of experience with my product in a great many systems. You, on the other hand, have no experience.

"In addition, simple A/B testing does nothing to eliminate the potential for confirmation bias. With proper controls, A/B testing is one way to ascertain whether crystals truly have an effect and to eliminate potential confirmation bias. The one certain thing, though, is that it wouldn't be simple."

-- I saw that coming a mile away! This is all leading up to double blind tests, right? LOL Well, as far as I'm concerned you can use double blind tests, knock yourself out. I have no problem with anyone using any DBTs or any other test procedures. But can I point out your "proper controls" argument is the favorite argument of the Naysyayers, gee, what a surprise, as if double blind testing will "prove" the whole thing is a hoax. Of course, Naysayers never actually perform these tests themselves - that would be asking too much! LOL You're just making a mountain out of a molehill - it IS simple to demonstrate Brilliant Pebbles work, you just have to be able to listen. What could be simpler? LOL

"As earlier, I remain unconvinced, and the personal attacks and innuendo leave a bad taste in one's mouth."

Well, of course you're unconvinced, but you haven't done anything yet! Get up off that easy chair and actually do something! Otherwise, you're just another argumentative Naysayer.

"the data is NOT reproducible", posted on November 6, 2009 at 15:52:02
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 So basically admit you are a BS artist who tried, but ever so weakly to be candid and funny.......Pretty freaking pathetic to fall on the other quote above, "Sorry, Charlie, there is absolutely no requirement for any audio manufacturer to provide data."...

How about this why not try and be different and quit being a BS artist and be honest and credible.......

I have a feeling since my inbox is still empty, I highly doubt you will come up with anything, and hide behind all the excuses not to provide any analysis on your majic products..


-chris

Have you considered, posted on November 6, 2009 at 18:23:19
QuadTodd
Audiophile

Posts: 232
Location: Midwest
Joined: October 22, 2004
 that perhaps we don't know what to measure or even have the equipment to do it?

There have been tweaks that I use that increase the 'blackness' but I'd bet the S/N ratio is still the same. How does one measure increased depth? Or better soundstage width? Or image sharpness?

Ours is not the only hobby that uses seat-of-the pants descriptives without measurable data but I'm not going to trot out the old wine tasting example. Ever read reviews of cars at, say, Edmunds? Some Hondas drive sharper than competing models but yet their slalom times are hardly any different. The Prius is said to have a vague, detached steering feel. What king of data is that? And how about cars that feel more solid driving down the highway - all with no measurements. Are they trying to fool us or trying to better differentiate between competing car models because that is their job - they do it all the time and have a lot more experience than me, test-driving a car every 5-10 years.

Mark Z has spoken of a confirmation bias. I'm getting older and cranky and would call it a Pain in the Ass bias; I want equipment to sound the best it could just by plugging it in. Messing with tweaks is costly and time consuming, if you test it correctly, with your ears in your system; I'd rather use the time to listen to music, but when the tweaks work, I groan and think what else could benefit from this - in other words, what isn't performing to the top of its ability. I would prefer that nothing refines the sound I have - It could all be sent back and I'd have no doubts. But that isn't the way real life works.

I haven't used the Brilliant Pebbles but have used Alan Maher's Infinity products, which are also mineral based. In my brother's system (a 5.1 channel AVR setup), he listened before, and, with my back to him so he couldn't see what I had or what I was doing, placed a small Infinity at a predetermined place on the case of his AVR and played the song again. His reaction was "What the hell did you do?" His system reacts somewhat differently to these tweaks than mine, whether its the fact that he's a home owner with home theater equipment and an AC line that shows 1/2 the THD than mine compared to me living in a 12-plex on a street lined with apartment bldgs and a high school, hospital & nursing home as neighbors. Heh, you could spend your whole life here and never move! I don't think one can transpose good results in one situation to another's.

If you don't wish to try, then don't. But you'll NEVER start to talk me out of hearing the differences that tweaks have made in my system.

Stalker Alert!, posted on November 6, 2009 at 16:39:00
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000
 You sound upset. Have you considered taking an anger management class?

How far from your projections you, posted on November 5, 2009 at 08:35:24
Oface
Audiophile

Posts: 995
Location: columbia, south carolina
Joined: May 3, 2003
 really are... You said you design what?

I like the fact you are well acute to my linguistic skills or my lack there of.. have a stone for this?


With answers to your question, it seemed you alluded too have these test done all ready and something to be peer reviewed, white paper maybe?

BTW, a little reminder, my inbox is empty. I have decided after this, if I do not receive any "proof", I will end this with this reply, since I am not getting paid to do advertising that you are getting here for free.

Gonna go stain my fence, this weather is killer her not to do it today and I will check it then.

Thanks,

-chris

RE: seemed you alluded too have these test done all ready and something to be peer reviewed, white paper maybe, posted on November 5, 2009 at 09:30:53
geoffkait
Manufacturer

Posts: 3514
Location: northern Virginia
Joined: August 23, 2000

I'll be damned if I know what that's supposed to mean. Can you provide an English to whatever language that is supposed to be dictionary?

We quite enjoy snippy little monkeys like yourself here. Please make yourself comfortable. You didn't think you were the only one, did you?

Ciao

RE: Opinions needed on rough topaz crystals, posted on November 4, 2009 at 16:15:08
Ivan Beaver
Manufacturer

Posts: 135
Location: Atlanta GA
Joined: September 1, 2007
 The ones with the rough edges produce a more harsh/edgy sound. For a smoother/more rounded sound, get them polished.

Sorry couldn't resist.

Don't forget to put a bag of sand on the clock of your cd player. Sand from Tahiti sounds better. nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 08:00:46
oldmkvi
Industry Professional

Posts: 1591
Joined: April 12, 2002
 /

I'll bet it comes with wave splashing ambient sound ...nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 13:21:44
kootenay
Audiophile

Posts: 2442
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Joined: October 16, 2007
Contributor
  Since: April 6, 2008
 .
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing well
(Proverb)
it conveys that liquid sound nt, posted on November 4, 2009 at 14:17:47
dave c
Audiophile

Posts: 28377
Location: Ferny Hills
Joined: April 17, 2000
 bleep
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Page processed in 0.088 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 ]