Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Propeller Head Plaza ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: It's simpler than that.

>> Hi Posy. This is your first post, I notice. <<

Hi Jim. You did research on me? Already?? Well, I'm flattered. I usually don't receive that much scrutiny until the second post. You're wrong though (again). I've posted here over many years, probably started before you came. Can't remember what my moniker was though, long time no post. You know if you stopped making presumptions about everything and every one, you'd learn a lot more. Just a suggestion.

>> Did May dig you up and get you to post in an effort to save face? <<

"May"?? Who's "May"?

>>If so, then she made a mistake, since she did a far better job defending herself than you have done defending her. <<

Sorry, wrong again, Jim. I'm not defending anyone. I only, ever and always represent myself. However, if you're speaking on behalf of Stereophile, then I would say JA made a mistake hiring you to write for him. For someone who has no fear of writing so many personal opinions about science and audio based on wrongheaded presumptions, possibly leading so many of the Stereophile flock astray, I can't imagine what value he thinks you bring to audiophile consumers. I noticed that when you got all hostile and defensive like you've been, like you are more than ever I should say, well you end up saying a lot of things in your posts that are based on a lot of wild assumptions. I thought that needed correcting. And after seeing your subject give up trying to get you to understand anything, I thought I'd give it a whirr myself.

Not that I expected to do any better than her, with you. Because if JA has a "semantic curtain" put up, you seem to have a "semantic concrete wall, 12 inches thick". With a hole made by a 5/8" drill bit, where you dare new ideas to squeeze through, if they can. Don't worry though, I don't have it as my goal to get you to embrace Beltism, let alone get a grip on the basics. My goal is to have fun. Isn't that what you're here for?

>>I'm not going to waste much more time on this, but it won't take time to dispatch you and your specious arguments.<<

Oh please don't hurt me Jim. I'm afraid I bruise easily. And if I start crying, trust me, it'll be embarassing for the -both- of us.

>>>The "mechanism" to which you are referring doesn't alter our surroundings. The hypothesis is that it alters our perception of our surroundings.<<<

>>Yes, but there must still be a mechanism. My point--which is transparent--is that you cannot affect a person's 'perceptions' in the absence of some sort of mechanism to act ON THE MIND. I didn't say, nor did I intend to say, anything about the surroundings. May has already said that the Belt products work even if you don't know they're present, that even subconscious awareness is not required. So they influence the brain...how, exactly? By what mechanism do they influence your perceptions? Hence the "threat field" that I hypothesized.<<

You're not listening again. You were told there is a mechanism. You even referred to it as a "threat field". I refer to it as an "energy field", but your term will do fine for our purposes. The field -is- the mechanism, Jim. I believe May gave the puzzle away in this clue:

"Supposing, because of our evolutionary programming, we ARE able to detect this pulsating energy..."

Do you need more "transparent" than that to understand the mechanism by which this phenomenon may work?

>>It was May, not me, who introduced the idea that the cable was somehow a 'threat,' and that putting a cable on risers made it less threatening. I suggested the snake analogy only as a way of understanding the nature of the "threat"--since no other reasonable explanation was on offer. <<

Instead of presuming something as silly as "the cable has now turned into a snake", why don't you simply -ask-, if you don't understand something. You needn't be afraid of your ego surviving the ordeal of asking questions or remaining available to learning bold new concepts about the science of audio. I'm sure it's big enough to handle it. You were offered a very lengthy and dare I say reasonable explanation about the nature of the threat concept here: http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=prophead&n=30401&highlight=threat+may+belt&r=&session=

...But you didn't get it. It seems you're not too big on subtleties, Jim. Why is that? Let me help you connect the dots. You were told by the OP that this energy field may be interpreted as a threat, such as a dangerous "Cobra!". You were then told that it may be possible to change the energy pattern by merely manipulating the cable, so that the pattern no longer registers in your mind as a threat, and is now a "wee harmless grass snake". You interpreted that simple explanation as the "audio cable is a snake", entirely missing the analogy that was proposed to you.

>>And your explanations make no more sense than hers--less in fact. <<

Maybe if you make a little more effort to understand what you're being told, things might make a little more sense to you? Just a suggestion. Also, it might help if you made the hole in your semantic block just a wee bit larger.


>> Why would separating two things that didn't exist in our evolutionary history reduce the "threat"? <<

I believe the concept is, those two things are a "threat". Many things you may do, or not do, change the energy pattern, which makes you react slightly differently (constantly altering tension levels). I don't know that simply lifting a cable up from the floor will "reduce the threat". Whilst I don't wish to speak for anyone, I believe that what May was suggesting to you was meant as a hypothetical example (the word "supposing" used liberally, was the giveaway clue on that one, for me). IOW, a "possible" alternate explanation (to the electrical one) for the changes people experience when using cable risers. I know you can change the energy pattern of an object simply by placing it on another object, and if so, the reverse must also be true. So the example she may have proposed isn't impossible, I suppose.

>>In evolutionry terms their very existence, let alone their existence in proximity, are irrelevant. <<

According to who's principles and what research? You're just making another assumption based on your notion that they haven't been around for all of our evolution, aren't you? Can you at least -try- to be careful about that?

>>Why, for that matter, would a cable on carpet be perceived as a threat, while a stereo system, or the electricity that makes it work or floor polish, or the chemicals in the fabric or leather of your listening chair, or even musical instruments--none of which have existed for an evolutionarily relevant period of time--NOT be perceived as threats? <<

Who said they're not? Let me come at you from a different angle: if you saw some "weird alien space being" in the middle of your den one day, would you perceive it as a threat or go on with your business as if it wasn't there?

>>It's an empty theory; it has no content.<<

No, you're confusing the theory with your posts. I can understand how days of reading both will get you all mixed up like that. The theory makes a lot of sense to me and many others familiar with the subject under discussion. However, it should be recognized here and now that you, Jim Austin, are not one of them. You have no extensive experience with the devices that support the theory.

I think the problem we see with you is that you need to acquire that experience before attempting to tackle the theories. According to John Curl, it seems to be an idea you've never considered before. Well, you should. Perhaps then the theory part of it will start to make better sense to you, and you'll find that it was just your empty pre-Beltist rhetoric that had no content. The effect is more important than the theory, anyway. I'm sorry if you felt you were lead to believe otherwise.

>>It seems to me nothing more than a feeble attempt at a theoretical explanation for which a far simpler explanation is available: the exhaustively demonstrated, ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions. The rest is gloss.<<

Thanks. Because if you are correct, then you've just explained for me and everyone else why you are unable to wrap your head around the idea that audio doesn't end at the electron. How did you put it again? "The ubiquitous fallibility of human perceptions". Yes, well said. Goes a long way to accounting for your prejudices.

>>Posy, you are ignorant<<

Now you're getting personal. And really, really contradictory, in light of all you've shown here recently. So is the ad hominem really necessary, Jim? Is it your insecurity grumbling again? If so, perhaps you can feed it a Clark bar. At least manage to keep it at bay until the end of your reply. (Doesn't look like either of you will have to hold out much longer).

>> and you do May no favors by trying to defend her, even if she requested it. <<

Now you're going off making assumptions again.


>>In our interactions she managed to maintain a certain nobility. <<

Indeed. Which is more than anyone can say for -you-, isn't it, given how crudely I saw you behaving in these "exchanges" you refer to. Well I'm sorry Jim, I deny the rumours, I'm not part of the Royal family. Although I did once know someone who looked like the Queen Mum, if that impresses you at all? No? How about Queen Latifah, then?


>>I will waste no more time with this.<<

Now I get it. It must be your voracious scientific curiousity that inspired JA to hire you in the first place, because he heard you came with a scientific background. Nonetheless, given your performance in this thread so far, I think you've probably made a wise decision here. You're right, you're better off sticking to what you know, and 'safe subjects', that you can do a better job of pretending to be an expert on. Thanks for giving this old-school Beltist a few good laughs, anyway. And don't stop making all those assumptions about everything that you're so very good at. I'm afraid that if you do, you'll lose the greater part of your imagination. Cheerio!


PR.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Kimber Kable  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • Re: It's simpler than that. - Posy Rorer 00:36:45 03/21/07 (0)
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]