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?
