|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
|
|
Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks. |
|
In Reply to: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 25, 2007 at 09:06:10:
>>> "Counterexample: If one aligns a cartridge more accurately to the groove and hears increased spatiality and less distortion, would *that* be a Beltist effect? Or if one replaces well-used tubes with new ones, would that? " <<<
I get this all the time. People will keep giving me real, conventional examples from traditional audio thinking - things which follow strict and easily understood audio thinking. I am not claiming that everything which affects 'sound' is a Beltist effect. Usually people give the example of something like :-
Someone will describe how a CD would not play so they describe washing it carefully and polishing the playing side and then playing it. Lo and behold - it plays !! Of course it does. If the playing surface had gotten smeared or oily and the laser beam could not read the information correctly, then washing the CD would quite likely solve the problem !! This isn't Beltist this is straight conventional audio thinking. The examples you give are
1) conventionally mechanical,
2) conventionally electronic.
Another example from conventional audio/electronics. If the audio equipment suddenly does not work and you replace the surge fuse in the mains plug because it BLEW and - lo and behold - the audio equipment works again.
Or, if one has RF (or the hum of the AC mains) interference and one creates a metal (Faraday) shield (usually inside cabling) and the RF or mains hum is stopped - that is straight conventional electronic thinking.
As I say, I get this all the time.
I KNOW conventional audio and conventional electronics. I know all about resistance, capacitance, inductance, the dielectric effect, microphony, RF interference, vibrations, static, room acoustics etc, etc. I also know when an effect is likely to be a conventional electronic or acoustic effect. But I also know about numerous other things which change the sound which CANNOT be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories.
So, I don't think I am being unfair with my examples. Nor am I claiming "Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects" - the examples I give and the explanations I challenge are the ones I have particular experience with.
Regards,
May Belt.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - May Belt 10:34:38 07/25/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
