80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: Did I say "all" tweaks? I think not. posted by Enophile on August 08, 2009 at 12:58:52
>>> "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.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]