|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.75.20.124
as to why the system can sound very good one day and horrid the next? Once the usual suspects - break in of cables, components, speakers and contact enhancers - are dispensed with, what's left?
Edits: 10/27/08Follow Ups:
Two ofen-cited culprits are dirty AC power and airborne RFI--both sources of noise which can find its way into the signal path.
I met a fellow who has an "off the grid" recording studio out by the Oregon coast. ALL his equipment is modded to run directly off 12VDC (no AC power supplies) from a bank of batteries, which in turn are charged by photovoltaic panels on the roof or a diesel generator when it's cloudy. AC line noise cannot get into his recordings, because there's no AC line to the building. He also runs all his longer low-level signal cables through black iron pipe, to shield from airborne RFI and other garbage.
...in the electrical sockets and equipment racks. Or more likely, as has been previously stated, its the psychology and physiology of the listener. Possibly temperature and humidity play a part as well.
Good answer to a good question by geoffkait. Sometimes we just plain listen too much. If I go away for a weekend, and come back to my sytem, the reaction is always WOW! But listening every night you get-- I suppose the word is JADED. Definitely a combination of the psychological and physiological as suggested above.
At least that's my theory.
-Wendell
~!
"The Sound of One Hand Clapping is Crashing by Design" HKM
I agree as the system simply could not be anywhere near as unstable as we are.
:> )
bleep
I've not read the replies but a couple of things that can effect the sound are changes in humidity and temperature. If your speakers are electrostatic or have paper, cloth cones or other materials that can absorb moisture it does not take too much of a change in humidity to increase the cone mass. Likewise, a small change in temperature can translate to a somewhat large change in cone dimension that can effect sound and even the charactoristics of surrounds. If your crossovers are air core their specs likewise can change as the air changes.
If using a turntable since the suspension within the cartridge can be effected. If using a tuner with an analog front end, uses air as a dielectric and hence also can affect sound. Also they effect the barrier junction in connections such as interconnects and internal cabling.
Then there is the quality of the AC coming into the house and voltage levels. Also, what else in on the audio circuit such as computers, bathroom plug, dimmers, lighting that all can generate noise within the circuit.
If using records you should let the record rest abut 24 hours between plays.
Percocet. After my snip job 3 years ago, I had a sore crotch, a bottle of percocet, and lots of time to sit around. While percocet is a great pick-me-up, they make my ears feel "cloudy", the presentation becomes quite muffled and non-engaging. IME, don't bother with the sweetspot if you are taking pain killers. But feel free to dance around and enjoy the buzz!
The replies you received are interesting in the range they cover regarding how different people 'think about audio'.
Ranging from HiOnFi - > > > "Humidity,and barometric pressure play a big part." < < <
HiOnFi says "Play a BIG part" Without explaining HOW the things he suggested have an effect on the sound. WHAT they are actually affecting ? And WHY the 'sound' is affected and not the other senses of vision, taste, smell, and touch.
Through Enophile's reply - > > > "There is quite a bit of "proof" that people can vary from time interval to time interval." And "Fudge, I guess people's auditory processing does vary." < < <
Of course people vary from time interval to time interval. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be aware of that !!! Even varying in the time interval of just a heartbeat !! If the human being is programmed, by evolution, to read/sense their environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of their lives, checking their environment for danger/predator/intruder so that they can 'sign off' their environment as 'safe', then they can certainly vary from time interval to time interval - if their environment changes that quickly. AND, the environment CAN create changes that quickly. To name one thing. The AC power is pulsating through it's cycle 50 or 60 times per second !!
It is HOW, if the 'sound' IS affected, is that happening ? It is WHAT is being affected if the 'sound' changes ? It is WHY the 'sound' is being affected. And WHEN will the 'sound' be affected and WHEN not ???
If it is the 'sound' which is being altered and varies because the human being is varying, then why are not the other senses being reported as VARYING ? Enophile bringing up the particular subject of the human being varying from time interval to time interval seems to imply that he is suggesting that it is really pointless trying to control anything in the environment because the human being would just vary again !! Such an attitude is as though nothing can be controlled whereas I know different, you, Geoff, know different, Wellfed knows different, Unclestu knows different as do many others from THEIR own experiences.
These are the questions not being answered. Not even by Unclestu !!
In relation to the effect of such as positive and negative ions in the listening environment, I posed a set of questions to Unclestu (further down this thread). His answer was:-
> > > "I don't know so I have no postulate. I do know that the negative ions sound better, though: more of a sense of silence and greater dynamics and detail." < < <
Unclestu is one of a small band of people who have tried a great number of different things and heard, and described 'changes in the sound'. Not only that but he has (as have others) been able to make those changes 'at will'. In other words, he has had control over whether the sound was 'better' or 'not as good'. He has had control over whether there were 'greater dynamics and detail' or not !!
For example (and with apologies for being simplistic).
He has placed X and heard the sound to be 'better'. He has removed X and heard the sound to be 'not as good'.
He has attached Y and heard the sound to be 'better'. He has removed Y and heard the sound to be 'not as good'.
He has positioned Z and heard the sound to be 'better'. He has removed Z and heard the sound to be 'not as good'.
It has been completely under his control whether the sound was 'better' or 'not as good' !!!
Reading his numerous postings, his explanations have been along the lines of (again with apologies for being simplistic) :-
The effect of placing (such as) X was to do with 'dealing with RF interference'.
The effect of attaching (such as) Y was to do with 'dealing with Electro magnetic interference'.
The effect of positioning (such as) Z was to do with 'dealing with vibrations or resonances'.
However, all the above presumed to be 'having an effect on the actual audio signal' !!
With regard to what effect positive and negative ions, in the environment, are having on the 'sound' however, he has no explanation for this although he describes negative ions as creating better sound.
Unclestu then jumps into making reference to Robert O Becker and Gary Selden's book "The Body Electric. Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life" (which I also have read). I am presuming that he refers to Becker and Selden's work on the Body Electric in order to introduce into the discussion the actual 'human being' and how so much of the human body's activity is driven via electro chemicals - positive and negative ions. But, Unclestu is still not putting forward any suggestions as to HOW 'changes to the sound' might occur. How positive and negative ions, in the listening environment, might affect the 'sound'. How Unclestu, generating negative ions in his listening environment and obtaining 'better sound' can then change that situation to 'worse sound' by removing the negative ions - completely at will - entirely under his control !!!!!!! Which means that he can control the sound - better or worse - without understanding what it is he is affecting and having no explanation as to how what he is doing changes the sound - only reporting that it DOES !!!
I have got the impression, from Unclestu's numerous postings, that he (like many others) view the human being as a passive entity - as possibly having RF, electro magnetic fields, resonances, static, positive and negative ions etc wafting over, around or through the human body. Whereas I see the human being not as merely passive, just sitting listening to music, but as a living, breathing, coughing, sneezing, dynamic entity, dynamically involved every second in reading/sensing everything in their environment.
Control some of the changes occurring in that listening environment and you control how the human being reacts which, in turn, affects how the human being can better resolve the wealth of information available within the music !!
Surely rick m's comment :-
> > > "None the less, our bodies do use all sorts of electrical processes and interactions are bound to occur for good or ill with some of the other things we use electricity for.
There was a thread here quite a while ago about feeling more peaceful if your power goes out " < < <.
Emphasises my last sentence ?
Regards,
May Belt.
John Bedini has used your 'technique' to solid {joke} affect via his clarifier................. one could postulate this as proof of negative ions 'sounding' better if the difference is heard {I have heard a slight difference for the better}. Bedini is far and away beyond mainstream science with positive results from buried Nikolai Tesla papers.
"The Sound of One Hand Clapping is Crashing by Design" HKM
"...he is suggesting that it is really pointless trying to control anything in the environment because the human being would just vary again."
Not the case. The question was how our perception of pour Hi Fi experience can vary from day to day, and human variability is one factor.
I pointed that out purely because so many audiophiles seem to exist in a world where nothing about THEM could ever be taking place. I merely wanted to point out that physiologically, we are not as 'consistent' as we sometimes claim to be.
On the plus side, those articles should be exciting for you, because we could easily replicate those experiments with your products and see if there is any actual effect!
With all the extensive work you have done in the hearing aid indiustry, you should have ready access to otoacoustic measuring equipment!
My reply to Geoff was an attempt to illustrate different people's approaches to how they 'think about audio'.
I would suggest that you have made your approach quite clear a few times. You will obviously correct me if I am wrong !! But here is my assessment from what you have posted in the past.
You believe that most Hi Fi equipment presents a wealth of information into the room.
That YOU can hear that wealth of information, quite naturally, without much additional assistance.
But that other people who describe hearing that particular 'tweak', that particular 'tweak', that particular 'tweak' and that particular 'tweak' must NEED those 'props'., those 'talismen'., those 'rituals' in order for THEM to be enabled to 'get into that wealth of information which is already there', but that you, Enophile, don't need such 'props'., such 'talismen'., such 'rituals' because you are already 'into' that wealth of information - naturally, without help !!
That you don't need them (those particular 'tweaks'), but other people do need those 'aids' - to get the same effect !!!
In my reply to Geoff's question I was attempting to position your outlook within the 'strata' of the way people 'think about audio'. That you are in the strata somewhere in between the outlook of HiOnFi and the outlook of Unclestu !!
I saw your latest 'link' as continuing that same theme. I.e That the people 'hearing' improvements from various 'tweaks' are, in your opinion, really only experiencing the human variations which occur naturally - but are not aware that such natural variations actually take place. I feel sure that was your point in referring to the 'link'- i.e pointing to a study which had given some measurements that human beings vary !!
That you, Enophile, KNOW that "we are not as 'consistent' as we sometimes claim to be" but that many other people do not know that !! So, you wanted to make those people aware !!
The implications of that is that you must believe that the changes in their sound which some people 'hear' after trying certain particular 'tweaks' are really only the normal variations of human beings - day in, day out. Some days a good day, some days an 'off' day. So, by implication, some 'tweaks' will work some days and not work other days !!
Now, Enophile. What about the people who ARE as completely aware of the fact that human beings vary constantly as you are but who can ALSO 'hear' actual changes in the sound from trying various 'tweaks' ? And know that it is NOT just because of human beings varying constantly, therefore creating variations in the sound
That is why I then introduced Unclestu's experiences. As an illustration of how he (and by definition others), ALSO having the understanding that human beings vary constantly, can still make (with various 'tweaks') changes in their sound completely at will, completely under their control. And can repeat those changes completely at will - again and again. In other words, however much the human being might vary, some changes in the sound CAN BE completely under a person's control !!! They can do certain 'tweaks' and have their sound better or worse completely under their control !! Irrespective of the fact that human beings are varying constantly.
THAT, to me, is the crux of the continuing controversies surrounding 'tweaks'.
Let me now take one of Unclestu's quotes.
> > > "Individual sensitivities differ, and so does perception." < < <
Of course that is true. If it is the human being who is 'doing the reacting' to changes in their environment, then yes, individual sensitivities WILL differ. Say, for example, Unclestu finds ten different things which had improved HIS sound for HIM. He explains what he has done to ten different people and they try those same things. Five of the people might find Nos 2, 3, 6 and 9 worked equally as well for them as they did for Unclestu. Five of the people might find that only No 9 worked for them.
THAT, in my opinion, is why there is such a controversy surrounding so many of the different and unusual devices and techniques and the many reports of these devices and techniques 'changing the sound'. Some people try them and find no improvements (even when expecting improvements), some people try them and find equal improvements as have been described (sometimes when expecting no improvements) and yet others find only some of them give improvements when they fully expected all of them to work for them !!!!
It is when one knows (is fully aware) that human beings vary constantly and YET one can make changes in the sound which can be repeated again and again - at will - that forces one to do a 'rethink' of what actually constitutes 'sound' and the perception of sound !!
I understand what Uncelstu has heard - the changes he has heard over these past years - the point where I challenge him is where he is constantly pushing, pulling, bending, squeezing, stretching conventional electronic and acoustic theories, attempting to fit his experiences (ALL the various 'tweaks') into them (somehow) altering RF interference, electro-magnetic interference, static, resonances, and therefore affecting the audio signal !!!!!
Some of the tweaks he has done MAY have had an effect on the audio signal but, quite equally, may not - but yet had changed the 'sound' !! Then what ? Surely one then has an observation (a change in the sound) with NO explanation ?
THAT is the point where a 'professional in audio' starts (or should start) investigating !!!!!!
Regarding your reference to measurements.
People who have to wear hearing aids and find the sound of them 'harsh, aggressive and shouty' do not need measurements to know if the 'sound' from their hearing aids has changed to being 'clearer, more natural, a lot better' !!
In exactly the same way that if people who suffer from Tinnitus hear other sufferers describe how their Tinnitus has been 'eased' by (say) doing yoga, they don't need measurement proof before trying the technique for themselves !!! If they find that doing yoga also 'eases' THEIR Tinnitus, then any measurements would be superfluous - they would already know whether the yoga technique worked for them or not !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Do normal people buy hearing aids in order to achieve super human hearing ability?
Or, do they need them in order to be able to more closely hear things like you and I do, naturally?
Hearing aids are a 'remedial' tool.
I would say that there are many tweaks that work the same way, remedially, at best.
This notion also easily exlpains why so many people do not hear the result of remedial tweaks. They do not require remediation.
May, you claim to work with the hearing impaired, and I believe you.
;)
Your quote :-
> > > "Do normal people buy hearing aids in order to achieve super human hearing ability?
Or, do they need them in order to be able to more closely hear things like you and I do, naturally?
Hearing aids are a 'remedial' tool.
I would say that there are many tweaks that work the same way, remedially, at best.
This notion also easily exlpains why so many people do not hear the result of remedial tweaks. They do not require remediation.
May, you claim to work with the hearing impaired, and I believe you." < < <
WOW !!!!
Many of the tweaks are "remedial" ??? !!!!!!
WOW !!!!
> > > "May, you claim to work with the hearing impaired, and I believe you." < < <
WOW - some jibe !!! I don't think that sentence was meaning just those few simple words - "May works with the hearing impaired." I think that sentence was meant to extend out much further, to extend to others !! In your rush to 'rubbish' me you have also inferred that many hundreds of people, by using various 'tweaks', "MUST require such remediation".
So, Enophile, I will repeat the questions I asked you some time ago but will alter them slightly.
I asked you certain questions regarding your concept that people who hear 'various tweaks' are "needing" them as a 'prop', as a 'talisman', as a 'ritual' and I quoted various 'tweaks' which certain well known and respected journalists had stated had 'improved their sound'.
I asked you if, in your opinion, THEY only 'heard' those 'tweaks' working (improving their sound) because they 'needed' them as props, talismen, rituals ??
Turning these same questions around slightly I ask :-
Are you saying that such as John Atkinson "heard" painting the outer edge of a CD with the Green pen improve his sound because that 'tweak' was a "remedial tool" which he needed to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
Are you saying that such as Michael Fremer "heard" demagnetising CDs and LPs improve his sound because that 'tweak' was a "remedial tool" which he needed to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
Are you saying that such as John Atkinson "heard" attaching Harmonic Dots to his speaker cabinets give him improvements in his sound because that 'tweak' is a "remedial tool" which he needs to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
And therefore, by that (your) definition, so do many other people !!!
I can't believe how you choose to 'jibe out' so many people.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi, May.
I'll try to answer some of those questions, using the examples you mention that I am familiar with.
1) John Atkinson's green pen.
If a tweak is actually effective, what characteristics can you think of that would be accurate about it? One important attribute would be that it continued to work over time. An indicator that it may have been placebo is that its use would decline over time as the placebo effect wore off.
Does JA still color his CD's with a green pen?
Looking around at all the tweakers here, what percentage do you think still diligently take each new CD and color its edge?
You left out the example of Fremer and his Tice Clock and its replacement. Recall his glowing review and his inclusion of a similar model clock in his reference system? How long did that stay listed in his reference gear? Why would it drift so quickly and so quietly out of his system if it were so night and day effective?
2) JA and the Hamonix Dots. Tell me, how many speakers does he continue to treat with this device? If they were so effective, why no continued application? JA says that they are glued on and he is unable to take them off, but recalls that they seemed effective at the time, fair enough, but then why no further use? I think the subsequent silence about their use is relatively damning.
An effective device would likely garner further use. No?
Why on earth would JA stop using such an effective tweak?
3) I mentioned Fremer already with regard to his falling out of infatuation with Tice Clocks. Only time will tell if he continues to 'demagnetize' nonmagnetic materials.
When talking about tweaks, it interest me that so many explode onto the scene with fanfare, then quietly exit stage left.
You mentioned JA twice regarding tweaks, so you seem to subscribe to his listening abilities. Fair enough. Tell me, what is his opinion of your work?
I mean, if he is fit to be used by you as an example of insightful listeners, we would seem to have source that you would endorse regarding his experiences with Belt tweaks.
May, I have nothing against 'talismans' and 'rituals,' they make tea taste better and make people's dashboards more interesting. I just think we should call these things what they are when it comes to talking Hi Fi.
My mom needs a St. Christopher on her dashboard in order to have a "better" driving experience. It has utility. It does require she know it's there in order for it to work for her. Why would I deny her that comfort?
I do, however, draw the line at her insisting that I require the same talisman in order to fully enjoy my own experience.
Hi Fi works the same way.
If those things work for you, and show continued benefit, unlike the examples you mention about JA, then great. But why the need to insist everyone require the same ritual and that it is you (who requires the ritual) claiming that you are hearing something superior to what others hear? Again, you history of work with hearing aids fits perfectly - some people do not need them.
So, if rubbing creme on a table makes your Hi Fi sound better to you, great. Claiming from anecdote that this MUST be true for ALL others is not a valid assertion.
An excellent post, Enophile. I have been wondering the same thing; somehow the latest hot tweak gradually disappears, and is usually not marketed after interest in it has died. Tweaks that do work are always with us; e.g., unplugging and plugging my components every few months really does make an audible difference. I read this tip in an audio mag years ago; it is and always will be useful advice. But I must admit, I too swabbed green ink on a lot of CDs once upon a time. Never really heard any difference, and now they are unresaleable at Academy Records downtown.
Alcohol wears off but it's a real effect.
The Economist just published a little review blurb discussing this.
Link below.
Probably some similarities wbetween being told the cost of a placebo or an alcoholic beverage and its effect on perceived 'quality,' as well!
It's too bad that the placebo effect is regarded as 'universal' by tweak haters, and 'impossible' by tweak proponents.
After all, most buyers don't use them after the first month or two...
The green pen thing was always player sensitive and with growing understanding it's likely that newer players became better isolated from reading induced problems. I tried it back in the day and it made no difference to whatever player I was using. I bought three Stereophile test CD's (because they were really cheap) figuring they would be a good test case. Of course as a good experimenter I listened to all three prior to applying the marker. One of them sounded quite different than the other two which sounded ALMOST the same. I coated one of the two that were close and heard no relative change. It's easy to lose control of experiments and even easier to overgeneralize the conclusions. I presume you tried it, how did your experiment turn out?
As far as reviewers using tweaks, that's the last thing in the world they should do. I want to know how well stuff works in the real world on it's own hook.
Rick
Well, if reviewers had the same results you did with tweaks, why should they even try?Ah, the pure sound of the components themselves? The real world for whom - the component fetishists? But, as there are many more component fetishists than tweakers, you just might get your wish...
Edits: 11/09/08
I've had pretty good luck with tweaks. The CD painting thing simply didn't make a difference in the player I was using, no big deal.
But I do feel that gear should be able to work well in the real world without band-aids. Why should a device with good power supply rejection and isolation not be recognized as superior to one that isn't designed as well? Assuming of course that they were comparable once the deficiencies in the latter were ameliorated with add-on "conditioners".
Sometimes reviewers are sensitive to this sort of thing and I appreciate it. They will say something like "I love the hootnscoot 17, but only when used with the orgasmatron MkII. Consider them as a unit when comparing price and value."
Rick
Well, it should be pointed out many if not most of the tweaks discussed on this forum are *independent* of the components, cables or speakers, even room acoustics. Examples, you ask? Schumann frequency generator, Clever Clock, the humble PWB rainbow foil, Ultra Tweeters, perhaps vibration isolation should be on the list as well.
Not to mention the many issues not perfected by manufacturers with respect to laser reading of the data on the disc, especially background scattered light.
It's all mos' likely a question of how far one wishes to go, and where one wishes to draw the line....
Hmmm, I'd agree with your first list. The second is, as you imply, stuff that if it really matters should be controlled by the manufacturer.
Overall I was trying to make three points: 1) Continued usage is not a reliable indicator of whether a tweak works or not, it's more of an indicator of whether it did enough to bother to keep refreshing it. 2) Many tweak tests lack adequate control. 3) Testing equipment in unusual conditions decreases the usefulness of the review.
This forum's tweaks are largely inseparable from all the others. I've seen no tweak advanced of any nature that was not controversial. If the mission statement here was reworded to state that the forum was for 'listener tweaks', it wouldn't help a bit since many folks believe that the majority of tweaks are 'listener tweaks'. If it were clarified further to "listener tweaks that go beyond belief" even that wouldn't help other than to cause some to say "I knew it, I knew it!".
May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener. Others, you for instance, are much less forthright about the putative mechanism of your offerings.
It seems to me that it's important to separate the two in the minds of the customers. We want to achieve as much enjoyment from our home audio systems as we can, and sifting out the mechanisms from one another can help a great deal. It's tough sometimes to separate room acoustics from electronics from speakers from mental problems due to bombardment of radio signals from Russia. (The latter's a real story... another time).
Closing the loop, now that the Schumman resonance interest seems to have died down, I would like to know if folks are still running them.
Rick
> > > "May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener." < < <
Rick m, can you also see the reply I have done to Unclestu ?
The stumbling block seems to be the expression you used - "works directly upon the listener".
These words imply that 'something' is either physically wafting across/past or wafting through the person or actually physically touching them.
Can I describe a hypothetical situation. Something in your room makes you suddenly alert. You don't know what it is but the hairs at the back of your neck suddenly stand up - in other words you have reacted to something !!!
Would you describe that as 'something working DIRECTLY on the person', or having an INDIRECT effect on the person ? If it is not physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism - then surely it has to be described as 'indirect' ?
If we can get some common ground in language, we might be able to progress further.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
Yes, I can see replies to all posts.
My experience is that that sort of alertness is sensory, usually hearing, sometimes smells, rarely sight if I'm at home. While I often don't know the source at first I always know which sense it came in on and initially investigate further using that sense.
In the above case the path is through the senses. If my brief experiment with generating a "Schumann resonance" frequency is telling, then there are also other routes. In both cases however I would say the effect was directly upon the person. If, on the other hand, I generate a signal which causes problems by altering the output of my audio system but doesn't if it's not active, I would say that is acting directly on the system, not on the listener who hears it as an alteration of the system's output. You've said it yourself a zillion times: Does it affect the sound waves in the room?
That's my take on it at any rate...
Regards, Rick
You see rick m. My problem with Unclestu's experiment with the Schumann generator (and his subsequent conclusion) is that he was HOLDING (touching) the Schumann device all the time during the experiment !! Which, as far as Unclestu is concerned, was how he wanted to TEST whether it was having a direct effect on a human being !! I think his observation was correct - that the sound changed for both him and the others in the listening room when the Schumann device was removed from the room - I have no problem with his observation - it is his method of testing and his conclusion which I challenge.
I think that if he had placed the Schumann device outside the room - but NOT touching it - and with him being still in the room - the result would be the same - the sound would have changed. TOUCHING it would be irrelevant - it is WHERE the Schumann device WAS in relation to the human beings in the room that matters.
Let me explain what my definition is of the questions I asked you regarding a direct or indirect effect.
If you work in a dry cleaning establishment and you develop constant headaches and nausea I would say that the dry cleaning chemicals are having a DIRECT on you - they are wafting around you and might even be getting at your skin..
So, I would say that the chemicals are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect would be DIRECT.
If you work under a radio transmitter and you develop constant headaches and nausea, I would say that you are being DIRECTLY affected by the radio waves. So, I would say that the radio waves are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect on the human being would be DIRECT.
If you are in a room and see a snake and you immediately freeze dead in your tracks I would say that 'you, the human being is being affected by the presence of the snake' but this effect is INDIRECT. The snake is not doing anything to you. It is not coiling itself around you, it is not biting you, it is just there - present - in the room !!! In fact, it might be as frightened of you as you are of it !!
But you can see where confusion can start if I use the sentence "it is the human being who is being affected". I am constantly meaning INDIRECTLY affected but, nevertheless affected.
The indirect effect of the snake (your reaction) has been programmed into you by millions of years of evolution. It is there, within you !!!
In exactly the same way that your body is programmed, by evolution, to be sensing/reading the temperature of your environment every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of your life - in order to maintain, for you, a constant body temperature. It is programmed so to do - whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you want it to or not !!!
Peter did not start with a particular concept and then develop products (devices and techniques) within and from that concept. It was the other way round. The surprise event came first, then the realisation, then developing the techniques.
Similar to Louis Pasteur's experience. 100 years ago the famous French chemist (i.e a 'professional in chemistry') Louis Pasteur, made his own wine. But he found that when he left the tops of the bottles open to allow the fermentation bubbles to escape his wine went off. He tried different experiments and, suddenly, he found that if he used a particular device on the bottles, one which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but kept the outside air from getting in, his wine was OK from then on. From that experience he deduced that there 'must be something in the air' which had been getting at his wine - what he named 'vibrios'. Here was an example of a 'professional in chemistry' being taken by surprise yes by something he had done in his normal domestic life, but being observant enough and aware enough to realise the implications of what he had discovered.
Dr Joseph Lister, a Scottish doctor and surgeon who, along with all his other fellow doctors and surgeons had many patients developing septicaemia and dying after operations was told about Pasteur's observations. Lister began to ask himself "Could there be 'some germs in the air' (like Pasteur had found) which might be getting into the patients open wounds and causing septicaemia ?" So started Lister's tortuous journey attempting to introduce antiseptic techniques into the world of medicine !!!!!
Peter's journey has been similar. A 'professional in audio' suddenly discovering 'things changing the sound' which defied logic and began to change our understanding of how we perceive (particularly) sound !!
Back to audio. Let me use just one example - one which I have used many times.
Say the human being is 'programmed' by evolution to read/sense their environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of their lives, checking for danger/predators/intruders - to enable them to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Supposing there is - 30 feet away from them - something in the room which is pulsating away - 50 to 60 times per second. They immediately interpret what they SENSE as a danger/predator/intruder and stay under tension - unable to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'!!! You see. It is not WHAT that object is physically - it is how the human being is INTERPRETING it !!! It is not WHAT the human being can SEE, or HEAR, or TASTE, or SMELL, or TOUCH - it is what they sense !! Because the necessity to sense/read the environment evolved long before the development of the five senses as we know them now !! In exactly the same way that the body's necessity to sense/read the temperature of the environment to maintain a constant body temperature was developed long before our understanding of such things or of thermometers !!
The object I referred to in the room was (is) the AC power cable. But the effect is not DIRECT - conventional theory would say that 30 feet away from the human being the electro magnetic field would have decayed with distance - so would have no direct effect on the human being 30 feet away from it ! How many times have the 'experts' measured the field from a computer screen or a television screen and declared that X feet away from it, there is no measurement, therefore there is no field left, therefore there is no (radiation) problem sitting (working) X feet away ?
Now. The pulsating thing (the AC power cord) cannot be affecting the acoustic air pressure waves (and therefore affecting the sound) i.e making the sound worse. Unclestu would argue that the pulsating AC power cord could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment. Yes - it obviously could and people will continue to believe that that is what is happening - UNTIL you do something strange. Until you leave the AC power cord exactly where it is (with it's supposed adverse effect on the audio signal), pulsating away in exactly the same way but 'treat' it in a certain way - and the sound is better !!!! The electro- magnetic field surrounding the cable would STILL be there, the 'supposed' adverse effect on the audio signal going through the equipment would STILL be there, unchanged, but the sound was 'better' !!! This now challenges the existing belief structure.
The 'treatment' is to superimpose, onto the pulsating cable, a 'reassuring energy pattern' which enables the human being to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, means that they are under less tension and which means that they are able to resolve more of the information within the music - information which has been there, in the room, all the time.
Because, as well as being programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for danger, the human being has also been programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for energy patterns of 'reassurance' - for signs that say "It's OK. The danger/predator/intruder has gone away. Or, "It's OK. Relax, I am a member of your family, herd, group, shoal, flock."
Back to Unclestu's experiments with the Schumann generator. I think that the Schumann device is doing something along those lines - creating conditions in the environment, reassuring conditions which the human being has been programmed to search for which, in turn, allows the human to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, allows the human beings to be under less tension, which then allows the human being to resolve more of the information within the music !! How many times do you read in people's descriptions of their experiences with the Schumann device that "as well as the sound being better they feel much more relaxed" ?????? And, that is why I used the Schumann device as an example in my articles in Positive Feedback Online.
Back to Unclestu's results. I think one way of explaining the results he obtained was that, with the Schumann device in the listening room, all the people listening were sensing a more 'reassuring energy pattern ', therefore creating less tension in THEM, which resulted in them resolving the musical information better. Take the Schumann device out of the room, the 'reassurance' is lost, back comes their tension, the sound is perceived as 'worse'!!!! It has nothing to do with actually holding the device - the effect is not a DIRECT effect on the human being.
I can fully understand people's dilemma when looking at the devices we produce and recommend. I can fully understand how they can ask "How on earth can pieces of different Foils, application of Cream, writing beneficial messages change the acoustic air pressure waves, or affect the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment ? How on earth can they have an effect on a human being if it is not by auto-suggestion etc. Etc. Etc. (all the list I have given previously). They don't fit the existing (audio) belief structure.
Unclestu was attempting to prove whether it was the human being who was being affected by the Schumann device or not (by actually holding the device). He did not prove NO !!! All he proved was that the sound was better when the Schumann device was in the room and worse when it was taken out of the room !! He had presumed that if it was him (holding the device and being beneficially affected by it) then with the device out of the room, the sound would still be as good for HIM - because he was still holding it !!
If the Schumann device, in the room, was enabling the human beings in that room to be under less tension, then the sound WOULD BE worse when the Schumann device was taken out of the room. Now, to prove whether the Schumann device is 'beneficially affecting the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment' (as suggested by Unclestu) you do the experiment of taking the Schumann device out of the room, experience the sound to be worse, still leave the Schumann device out of the room and create other 'reassuring' energy patterns in the room. If the sound is then perceived as back being good again, with the Schumann device still out of the room, then the explanation of 'the Schumann device affecting the audio signal' no longer holds water - and yet the original OBSERVATION was correct. The sound WAS better when the Schumann device was in the room.
You now have an observation without a explanation from conventional theory. Join the club of the many other experimentalists.
One problem with a lot of the listening tests carried out is if there is a particular belief structure, then the test which will be carried out will be governed by that belief structure.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
You definitely have a different view of it than I do. I regard my senses as part of me so if they're affected, I'm affected. But I can see where you're coming from. Watching a boxer get slugged on TV isn't exactly the same as being on the receiving end of it myself. So when you say direct, I'll understand that usually you mean bypassing our senses, or at least believed to. Of course I've no idea what the mechanism is for sensing ULF radiation. I wouldn't be surprised if it's done in the inner ear.
As to radiation from things like power cord and Schumann generators, in free space they extend to infinity, but eventually become indiscernible from the rest of the noise that they are now part of. Taking the Schumann box out of the room probably had no effect upon the field strength in the room other than mere distance, most interior walls would have little effect on it. The near field of a loop drops off with the third power of the distance on axis beyond one radius, so bending your elbow while you hold the device would have a tremendous effect on the field that hits you depending upon it's orientation but walking a few feet out of a reasonable sized room into another would have little effect as it's now a much weaker field and unless the orientation is exact, probably dropping with the square of the distance which was much further in the first place.
If there's anything that makes my eyes cross about much of this stuff, it's the belief in walls. Walls make a substantial effect on airborne waves since they are a very deliberate opaque to them. They wouldn't keep us snug otherwise. They may have an effect on light depending upon the material, but unless specially designed, they are largely transparent to RF energy.
So... by dint of my razor sharp logic, I conclude that the most likely thing walls affect is human judgement. This seems especially the case when a gadget is said to work in the house and in your car while you are in the house, but not on the step. If the effect stops by just moving it to an adjacent interior room, the effects seem limited to smell or judgment. And if it's smell, one should be able to tell by the transient response as smells linger.
You are spot on about listening tests. Any tests for that matter. You find what you look for. If what you are looking for is well correlated with what you care about, things are good, if not, well...
Regards, Rick
fact that low frequencies, like those generated by a Schumann generator, travel much farther than high frequencies. There may be something to May's hypothesis. That being said, however, I had also tried placing the Schumann generator on the ground inside and outside the room and walked inside the playing room to check the sound difference, if any. The wall was standard hollow wall gyp board construction and thus is not very soundproof at any frequency really, but one would suspect that it should deflect some sound and the effect should be lessened the farther you are away from the generator (inverse square law). No perceptible differences were heard between inside and outside: System comprised of full sized Kharma speakers and a full set if Lamm electronics. I forget what CD player was used, but the TT was a Walker reference, for what it is worth.
Unplugging the Schumann produced an instantaneous change in both locations.
In the case of the negative ions, there is a change in the intensity of the effect as you place the generator closer to the electronics.
Stu
Stu,
The Schumann generators I'm thinking of generate about a 10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna. Almost any interior wall will be transparent to that sort of signal so I think your results make sense. I want to play with them some more, it's interesting and likely not too dangerous. If my posts suddenly seem very strange, fly over and unplug my brain machine...
Maybe I can make my fortune selling Electronic Pseudo-Tarnhelms (EPTs). They wouldn't actually make you invisible but you'd be so mellow you wouldn't care.
Rick
Please don't say, "Magnetic field." :-)
Question:
How can a relatively small/short loop or coil antenna produce a 10 Hz frequency EM wave?
Geoff,
Just had a thought (last one for this year?). Rather than use the Biot-Savart law, you can use FEMM to do a model and get a picture (suitable for framing) with colors and vectors showing the field at any listening position. It's a cinch to model because it's axisymmetric and you lose no generality beyond 1r by using single current filament.
And it's free.
Rick
But it's not the "field" per se that's the issue. It's the frequency and the wavelength. (Neither of which is a characteristic of a magnetic field.)On subj, recall that Acoustic Revive has demo'd their SF generator in large auditorium, so (close) proximity to listener might not be an issue either.
Edits: 11/13/08
Acoutic revive recommends that the Schuman generator be placed at ear level.
using the formula Frequency=wavelength/speed of sound the Schumann wavelength comes to 8,847.9 feet.
Stu
but the AR device produces an electromagnetic wave (vice acoustic wave) so a different formula must be utilized.
Cheers, Geoff
The definition fits most any frequency, except for those needing correction in a medium. You could substitute the speed of light, if in a vacuum, and the pulse is purely electromagnetic. That loop antenna in the AR is not any where close to that wavelength, however, since it is coiled in a 6 by 6 square (approximately).
Stu
Stu,
Any size loop can be used for any frequency. The rub is the radiation resistance. In other words if a loop is very small with respect to the wavelength of the signal it won't couple for beans to the ether. I touched on this in some earlier postings with Geoff when I was at the coast. Since I'm home now and have access to my library I can put some numbers to it.
The radiation resistance of a small loop per Kraus, Antennas, 1950 is:
Rr=31,200[n(A/lambda^2)]. Where n=turns,A=loop area,lambda=wavelength.
Running the numbers for F=8.3Hz gives a Rr=5.6E-12ohms. Free space is around 377ohms so there is huge mismatch. That just means that there will be almost no far-field radiation. Near-field, which in this case is about anywhere in the same hemisphere, the field will be predominantly magnetic and as I suggested can be readily calculated using the Biot-Savart law or modeled with FEMM. Easier yet, we've all seen the "lines of force" in iron filings from a bar magnet, imagine one of those sticking vertically through the axis of the loop and you will have a good mental picture of the relative field strength and vectors produced by the loop.
By the way, I used 10 turns in the numeric example above. The inner turns on a PCB loop do essentially nothing because their area is small so I figured that was a reasonable estimate.
So forget the wavelength, it's just a red-herring in this case. All that matters is the magnetic field and the sensitivity of the listener or equipment or whatever to it. As you get further away, it just gets weaker if you stay on the same angle. It will be much stronger on axis than off to the side and drop more quickly as you get away from it. If you really want a dose, put it on top of your head. But I don't recommend that on general principles. I'm with Thurber: "Leave your mind alone."
Rick
as the tiny flicker of light ignites above my head (cognitive impairment and all that stuff, you know).....Maybe I should pick up the book on antennas I have sitting beside me, but I only read the part on radio reception, where you wanted the antennas at a fraction of the received bandwidth.
Certainly since the Schumann generator is roughly half the footprint of a piece of paper and uses a wall wart power supply it can not generate much of a magnetic field (I gotta dig up mu gaussmeter).
The magnetic field should be toroidal since the loop antenna in the unit is in the form of a square pattern on a printed circuit board. I would assume that the field is then most intense when in line with the sides of the unit rather than in the vertical plane, directly above or below the unit. If so then placing the unit at the ear level would be preferable to placing on top of the head and thus the manuals admonition the place the unit at ear level. Sorry, just musing out loud....
Thanks,
Stu
Hi Stu,
I can make you a picture, but let me try to describe it. The magnetic field circles the current path. The mnemonic is the "right hand rule": if you grab the wire with your right hand and have your thumb in the direction of the current, you fingers are aligned with the magnetic field which comes out of your nails.
Thinking along those lines imagine a loop wrapped around a clock face which you are viewing from the center. If you grab it at 3:00 your thumb points up (iffins the clock is on a wall) and you fingers point at you from the right. If you grab it at 9:00 your thumb points towards the floor and your fingers point at you from the left. And you just threw your back out of joint trying to do the demonstration. The punch line is no matter where you grab it, the field is coming towards you from the inside of the loop and going away from you on the outside.
You're right about the field being sort of toroidal, but that is only when very near the conductor. The field mostly cancels out as you get a little ways away from the loop. It's all a matter of symmetry. Along the wire the field coming out on the inside is matched by field going in on the outside. The center of the loop is "special", again due to symmetry. It is where the vectors from the whole loop sum together in a single direction. The matching vectors outside of the loop are at infinity so it can actually escape.
So... As you get a little way from the loop, the strongest signal is on axis, in the center and the polarization is orthogonal to the plane of the loop. Going back to the loop wound around a clock, just rip the hands off and jam a bar magnet in the hole and the field looks about the same.
If the loop works best about head level off to the side, you can get the same polarization and a stronger signal by gluing it to your beanie. Another way to think of it is imagine that you've got the loop off to the side six feet away. How much of the overall field does your head occupy? Bear in mind that near-field magnetic fields are closed so all the "lines" that are are everywhere outside the loop, go through the inside of the loop also, so obviously they are much more concentrated there.
You probably can't measure it with your gauss meter, although you might be able to see the needle wiggle.
You are right again, you do want your loop to be a fraction of the wavelength. These are, just a very small fraction. The smaller the fraction, the worse the coupling and thus the lower the radiation resistance.
I need to look up more info on the Schumann levels, but it probably takes far less of a loop or drive levels to exceed that signal strength than you would suppose because you are very close to your local loop. It's easy to generate either an electric or magnetic field locally at most any frequency, the wavelength is inconsequential as you don't give a hoot about far field.
If you antenna book covers loops, give it scan. Sort of interesting stuff if you've got a bend in that direction.
Rick
Got it: I picture it sort of like those pulsars in space.....of course not quite as intense.
Incidentally, I may have sent you some ERS a long time ago; it was that grey stiff paper.
Stu
Stu,
I don't see it in the bag with the remaining quartz and blu-tak. I also can't cogitate up a mental image of it but you well may have. I'll keep my eyes open, if I got it it's probably in a stack somewhere, as my wife will attest I'm not one to throw stuff out...
I think I've got some available time coming up and among other things will try to do some measurements on the stuff you sent. Nothing fancy but worth a shot. I've been using the core over the power transformer right along.
I'm not sure that having a tame pulsar in my room is a very comforting thought, but I suppose the radiation pattern is similar!
Rick
For purposes of this audio-related discussion, could the Schumann Freq. Generator be a CD (acoustic wave generator)? (or is that snake oil?)
Beats Me.
I suppose so since there were posts a few months ago about that very product... Hmmm, I just did a little search to thoughtfully help you find the information and lo and behold, the information came from YOU back in March.
So... what's the deal, did the CD do anything for you?
BTW, it certainly wasn't my intention to try and pass myself off as knowledgeable about things Schumann as I decidedly am not. But I am interested. On the other hand I may know more about small loops than most folks since I used to use them in designs and that gives me a little something to throw into the collective kettle.
Rick
I played around with the CD that produces the Schumann Freq. using 2 beat frequencies, with speakers and headphones, but didn't obtain results I could hang my hat on...G
Edits: 11/17/08
Thanks, good info.
Have you tried one of the electronic varieties?
No, can't say as I have.
Don't radio waves travel at near speed of light in air?
Could the AR device be producing two higher "beat" frequenices, indirectly obtaining the 7.83 Hz SF?
I admit I'm puzzled by the SF generators...
~ Cheers
0...
Transverse Electromagnetic Field?
Daisy field?
Field of dreams?
Out standing in my field?
I aim to please!
1...
Well, you squirt the AC current into the loop, the current goes round and round and it comes out transmogrified into a magnetic field. And heat. Mostly heat actually. Since the radiation resistance is low, it isn't a very good match to free space and the near field is almost all magnetic so it's usually called a magnetic field, especially by them's that are not too fussy. If you're in the mood you can calculate the field strength using the Biot-Savart law. It's especially easy for the on axis field from circular filaments.
3...
You're asking ME??? I would be glad to offer an absolute guess: Maybe it's the mean height of the listener's head sitting or standing. If that's the case it could indicate that whatever the mechanism is it is quite sensitive to the MAGNETIC field vector.
Regards, Rick
Posted by geoffkait
RE: "10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna."
------------------------------
Please don't say "magnetic field."
A pop quiz for rick_m:
1. How can a relatively small loop antenna produce an 10 Hz EM wave?
2. Why is the recommended height above the floor for the SF generator
often reported as about 5 ft.?
The Schumann Frequency wavelength is rather on the long side. How long is it and how does it all fit into the room?
IIRC, the Schuman is 7.83 Hz a very long frequency. In the room where I experimented with the device, The back wall was open to a littel Japanese style garden, screened over but open to the elements. In addition, the back wall was likewise open to the true living room. There was more than sufficient length to generate a waveform, being open to the exterior of the home. The listening area measureed about 20 feet deep and opened into another room about 30 feet deep (it was a large house and the owner did well as a lawyer).
Stu
But how long is the SF wavelength?
WOULD YOU QUIT DELETING YOU POSTS BEFORE I GET MY SNAPPY REPLY DONE? I'm not about to waste one so here it is for your enjoyment:
Oh, that is a good one, how could I forget Sally?
Would you settle for magnetic component? As a practical matter that's about all there is in the near field of a loop antenna. And man at 10Hz near field goes a fer piece.
But hey, don't compromise your principles. Go ahead and build a 1/4 wave 10Hz vertical with good ground radials and fire it up, I'll know it's you even out here on the west coast as I get slammed by a wave of mellow...
R.
PS: The answer is about 1/250,000 the length of your antenna. Didn't you used to work on VLF stuff? Maybe you really could do a wave of mellow, the world could sure use it.
You do go on about magnetism, but no harm, I suppose. Wonder if anyone out there has used a Radio Shack Bulk Tape Eraser to administer a cranial massage.It was ELF - you know, the one with 14 miles of antenna....and that's for 75 Hz EM wave
You've probably seen me ask this a couple times, but how long is the wavelength for the Schumann Frequency?
:-)
Edits: 11/13/08
Let's see. That's about 24,000 miles for 7.8Hz, or one trip around the planet. What's that, mode II longitudinal I suppose. I'm at the coast and so had to do it with my computer's calculator which detest, but you're welcome.
ME go on about magnetism??? There is no magnetism without electric charges gallivanting around so "electromagnetic" is really rather repetitious and old fashioned wouldn't you say? Methinks that you are trying in vain to make an effete point. If you think a bar magnet only generates magnetism, just give it a spin. And loop antennas work down to DC.
Personally I wouldn't use any tape eraser that wasn't endorsed by Rose Mary Woods. Before your time?
Rick
One doesn't see the word effete and the name Rosemary Woods in the same post very often. Do you think Spiro Agnew would endorse spiracone antennas?
Ah, Spiro...
Haven't thought much of him in a long spell. Of course I didn't think much of him then. You know, more recent administrations may have upheld the standards of ethics established by those greats, but they sure haven't delivered the same level of entertainment...
You make an excellent point. Tricky Dick was my all time fav when it came to entertainment. But that's just me.
may have some influence on the body. After all the brain wave activity is divided into Alpha, Beta, Theta, and other wave frequencies.
That being said my initial experimentation precludes a human influence. My friend employs a Schumann generator and has in placed in the far rear left corner of his listening area. holding the generator I could simply extend the power cord and pass out of the room proper. I could hear, and so could the two others in the room (my host had consumed several glasses of a good wine and was, ah, slightly impaired in his physical abilities), the simply movement of the generator from one room divide into the other. Mind you, I was holding the unit in my left hand in doing so, so it should not have affected my hearing in any way.
Hence my conclusion that the effect was upon whether the room or the equipment but not the person.
In regards to other tweaks. I no longer color my discs. However I use a simple CD shaped disc to place upon my playing discs. The effect is often subtle but it is there. There is a simple explanation for it too: the absorption of scattered light.
I use that same disc, cut suitably, to line the bottom of the CD/DVD tray with good results. Again, examining the principle of operation of the player also reveals a weakness in the focusing mechanism. It is a feedback style motor operated system allowing for the laser lens to move up and down and in and out in order to keep the digital bit stream in focus.
At one point in time, there was a product which reduced the aperture of the lens assembly. That was interesting and it worked to varying degrees. Once I obtained ferrofluid I simply saturated the motor coils of the focus motors and that simply blew away any aperture reducing system. I do not believe any manufacturer uses ferrofluid today but it adds tremendous dynamics and significantly increased detail, simply by speeding up the focusing mechanism.
Once the focusing mechanism had been optimized, then the other tweaks like coloring the edges become much more prominent, at least audibly. I do have to warn any experimenters to experiment with an older player first. Any mistake in placement and the ferrofluid inside the lens assembly generally spells death for the laser head assembly. That silicon is not easy to flush out!
Stu
When you packed the Schumann generator into the other room, you would have decreased it's field strength somewhat for the in-room listeners and the audio field for you, so it's hard to tell. Like a lot of folks one of the tests I do is listen to my stereo from other rooms to get another take on it. I used to have a house with a larger listening room, I think around 20 x 12 and even there couldn't get my ESS towers to sound good in the bass. But if I went outside and opened the sliding door which was in the middle of one of the long walls, it sounded very much like there was a band playing inside. I ended up replacing them with Infinity quantum 3's and they sounded ever so much better inside the house, but worse on the patio. Since it's almost always raining, windy or pollen packed here, that was an excellent compromise.
I happen to have a bunch of loops laying that are around a foot across and when the Schumann stuff was first starting up tried just hooking one to a function generator and driving it with a squarewave at the magic frequencies out of curiousity. I noticed that I felt a little woozy, sort of like mild car-sickness. I tried changing the frequency up a little and it cleared right up. After that I read a bit more it appears that the mean frequency of the resonance was about where I had mine when it didn't bother me. I thought "that's interesting, it needs more playing" and that's where it still lies. I'd rather forgotten about it until I read Geoff's post. But that brief and poorly controlled experience convinced me that there was indeed something there...
I think the trick to tweaking is to do what helps in any given instance. It's tough to generalize. One of these days I would like to figure out why the two drives in my computer sound differently. I don't have much extra HD space and don't mind just playing the CD's while I work. But some sound the best on one, some on the other. I even hit a case last week where one wasn't even recognized by one of them. I think the notion of getting a good read and playing the data from a HD or RAM makes a world of sense, still it would be satisfying to know what's going on.
Rick
> > > "That being said my initial experimentation precludes a human influence. My friend employs a Schumann generator and has in placed in the far rear left corner of his listening area. holding the generator I could simply extend the power cord and pass out of the room proper. I could hear, and so could the two others in the room (my host had consumed several glasses of a good wine and was, ah, slightly impaired in his physical abilities), the simply movement of the generator from one room divide into the other. Mind you, I was holding the unit in my left hand in doing so, so it should not have affected my hearing in any way.
Hence my conclusion that the effect was upon whether the room or the equipment but not the person." < < <
You have described an experiment with a Schumann generator. Your conclusion after doing the experiment was that because YOU were holding it at all times and if the explanation was that the effect of the Schumann generator was DIRECTLY on YOU, then there should have been no change in the sound whether the Schumann device was in the room or not - if you were still holding it !!!!!!
Is this a correct assessment of your conclusion ?
Can you see the reply I have done to rick m ? In the hypothetical example I have given, would you say the effect I describe as direct, or indirect - if nothing was physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism ?
Regards,
May Belt.
Well, that's not entirely true as most of my offerings have (detailed) explanations. Explanations for two exceptions I can think of aren't provided for a couple of reasons, mostly as protection. You've heard the word proprietary, I'm sure.
So if I signed an NDA...
I'm OK with trade secrets. In fact I believe that they are far and away the best bet if the underlying mechanism is resistant to discovery by routine reverse engineering.
That doesn't necessarily mean that disclosing whether the device affects the equipment or the listener would unduly expose them, but it might.
Regards, Rick
> > > "You mentioned JA twice regarding tweaks, so you seem to subscribe to his listening abilities. Fair enough." < < <
I have not kept up with ALL the audio journalists who write for American traditional (printed) Hi Fi magazines or American Hi Fi Internet sites so I specifically used John Atkinson and Michael Fremer as people who the majority of readers in America would know about. AND might probably have respect for their individual experiences !!
> > > "If those things work for you, and show continued benefit, unlike the examples you mention about JA, then great. But why the need to insist everyone require the same ritual and that it is you (who requires the ritual) claiming that you are hearing something superior to what others hear?." < < <
I (WE) have NEVER insisted that everyone requires ALL the same 'tweaks' as we use and supply. Or insisted that everyone requires ALL other 'tweaks'. In fact, we deliberately encourage people to try many things for themselves as we KNOW that people differ in their individual sensitivities and perceptions !!!!!!!!
> > > "So, if rubbing creme on a table makes your Hi Fi sound better to you, great. Claiming from anecdote that this MUST be true for ALL others is not a valid assertion." < < <
Again, we have NEVER claimed that this MUST be true for ALL others. Can we please keep it at the intellectual level that I KNOW that people (and their experiences) differ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether John Atkinson still uses the 'tweak' of painting the edge of a CD green or not. The CRUCIAL part is what happened when he DID !!
It is irrelevant whether Michael Fremer will still be de magnetising his CDs and LPs in a few years time. The CRUCIAL part is what happened when he DID !!!
Their SOUND changed !!! How did it change ? Why did it change ? What changed ?
It is what happens (has happened) to the 'sound' which is the CRUCIAL thing in AUDIO !!
Just because they (and others) might not continue doing the same thing they had previously done and written about, day in, day out, year in, year out, does not discount what originally happened. In exactly the same way that I do not marinade kebabs every time we have kebabs - even though I know that kebabs which have been well marinated TASTE much better and even though I have a recipe for an excellent marinade, a lot of the time I don't have the time, and the energy and the inclination to marinade kebabs every time, day in, day out, year in, year out !!! I might EVEN buy ready made meals. Does that really negate all my experiences with kebabs ???????????????? And, would that really negate ALL that I might have written in the past concerning food ???????????
Nor does it discount all the times I have told other people the recipe for a good kebab marinade !!! That also does not mean that I INSIST that they use it because I have told them about it !! It is their choice what to do and always will be.
It is what happened when John Atkinson used the green pen on the edge of the CD. He heard his sound improve - meaning that he was suddenly able to resolve more of the information within the music. MORE than he had heard the week before - from the same CDs and from the same audio equipment !!
It is what happened when Michael Fremer demagnetised his LPs. He heard his sound improve - meaning that he was suddenly able to resolve more of the information within the music. MORE than he had heard the week before - from the same LPs and from the same audio equipment !!
What you are not doing Enophile is stepping back and looking at what has been happening, from a historic viewpoint, in audio, over these past three decades.
You are not seeing audio professional after audio professional after audio professional 'reeling' (what I call being 'knocked back on their heels') at what they have just experienced. At how their sound has UNEXPECTEDLY been changed !! That they are suddenly resolving more of the information contained in the music AFTER applying a particular 'device' or a particular 'technique' - far more information than they heard the day before, the week before, the month before - from EXACTLY the same CDs, LPs, from EXACTLY the same audio equipment and in EXACTLY the same listening environment.
It is that realisation which makes them 'reel' in disbelief !!
From Jean Hiraga (Editor of the French magazine), in the late 1970s, describing how he had heard different cables and interconnects change his sound !!
The reaction, 30 years ago, to Jean Hiraga's reports was as Keith Howard describes :-
"Eight-on-the-(audio) Richter-scale. Nothing of the old view could be taken for granted any longer. Intellectually, the earth had moved."
Through the cryogenic treatment in the late 1980s giving improvements in the sound !!
Through painting the edge of CDs, demagnetising CD and LPs and so on.
Year after year for the past 30 years, one 'professional in audio' after another 'professional in audio' struggling to come to terms with what they are experiencing.
You just don't see their struggles, do you Enophile ? Or, if you do, they must be meaningless to you - of no particular importance - because you can dismiss them so simply.
Take Peter and I and our techniques and devices completely out of the (audio) picture. As if we had never existed - if it is what Peter and I advocate which gives you problems !!! There would STILL be numerous other techniques and devices which other people have found improved their sound - which have caused 'professionals in audio' to be 'knocked back on their heels' - over these past 30 years and struggling still, today and tomorrow, to try to explain what they are experiencing !!
John Atkinson describes his experiences quite well and simply :-
> > > "I continue to be surprised by things I think should matter having little effect on what I perceive and by things my preconceptions would lead me to dismiss apparently having a significant effect (positive or negative) on perceived sound quality. So when presented with something that appears to defy logic or my understanding of how the world works, I try not to dismiss it, instead filing it away under "things to return to if there's time." < < <
Instead of realising that all those people's experiences are telling you something, something important Enophile, you prefer instead to dismiss them with the equivalent of 'a wave of the hand', a 'shake of the head', a 'grimace of sympathy'.
With such as - "those people must NEED those 'props', those 'talismen', those 'rituals' in order to 'get into' their music better.
With such as - "I would say that there are many tweaks that work, remedially, at best."
And yet other people dismissing those people's experiences with :-
"It must be 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on.
And, yet more simplistic :- "changes in humidity and temperature., environmental changes, barometric pressure, sinuses, mental state., Mood, distraction, fatigue, and so on", the list is endless.
I will use Uncelstu again as an example of what I mean.
You can see from the way he writes that he struggles to try to explain (to himself at least, if not also to others) what he is experiencing when trying this device, that device, this technique and that technique. He KNOWS that the devices and techniques are NOT 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'remedial tools', 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on.
Regarding your own experiences with crystals, Enophile ?
Your quotes :-
> > > "Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear. Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.
The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.
The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.
With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.
I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."
It may be something I listen for that others may not.
The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.
Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done." < < <
*******
" > > > The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay. "better "leading edge" on the sonics., "seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were." < < <
Just where was that 'better imaging' the week before trying the crystals ? Where was the 'better leading edge on the sonics' the week before trying the crystals ? Why didn't you have more 'seamless transmission of sonic decay' the week before trying the crystals ? Where was all that additional information which was allowing those improvements in the sound the week before trying the crystals ?
Was your experience all (or any) of the things you have listed to describe other peoples experiences or did your sound ACTUALLY change ? Did you ACTUALLY 'hear' all that additional information which enabled you to resolve more of the musical information ?
If your sound did actually change when using the crystals, then perhaps you have an answer to Geoff's original question ? "Any theories as to why the system can sound very good one day and horrid the next? Once the usual suspects - break in of cables, components, speakers and contact enhancers - are dispensed with, what's left?"
Why did your sound change the very day you used the crystals ? If you remove the crystals, does the sound revert back to being 'not as good' ?
I get the impression that you think I am reacting to the words you use - to your descriptions of 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'remedial' with which you explain your view of 'tweaks'.
I do not react to those specific words, I react to what they represent. I.e your very use of them shows that you are surrounded by a forest but cannot see the wood for the trees. You cannot see what so many people's experiences with all the various 'tweaks' are (should be) telling you.
I don't for a moment think that John Atkinson NEEDED the 'prop', the 'talisman', the 'ritual', the 'remedial work' of painting the edge of a CD in order for him to 'hear' what his equipment was capable of. I would presume that John did not even want to admit to himself (let alone in print to hundreds of others) that painting the edge of CD gave him improvements in his sound.
Michael Fremer, in October 2006, even said "I don't want the demagnetizing of LPs to work. I really don't." !!!!!!! So, he wasn't actually NEEDING that technique as a 'prop' as a 'talisman', as a 'ritual', as 'remedial work' !!!!
Let us look at audio history.
Fifty years ago there was the birth of transistors, when there had only been valves. There was the birth of stereo, when there had only been mono. If there were ANY 'tweaks' then, they would only be such as what support table to use for the record player and, if you wanted better sound then just remove the decorative speaker fronts.
Thirty years ago there was Jean Hiraga and his experiences hearing different cables sound different. There was Enid Lumley describing her experiences 'dealing with the Gremlins' which were having an adverse effect on her sound. There was Ed Meitner describing how you can have much better sound if you cryogenically freeze CDs, LPs, Laser-vision-format video discs, speaker cable, interconnects, integrated circuits and musical instrument strings.
All these the 'saplings', the start of the forest.
Now there is a forest of trees !! A multitude and variety of different devices and techniques which different people have heard improve their sound and which others have confirmed such. It is far too SIMPLISTIC to dismiss all those as - firms out to con people, to exploit gullible people. It is far too simple to dismiss all those people as being influenced by 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on. It is far too simple to dismiss all those people as NEEDING those devices and techniques as 'props', as 'talismen', as 'rituals' etc.
All these devices, techniques and people are telling you something Enophile. They are telling you that there is something going on which many people are experiencing, something affecting 'sound' which many people are experiencing, something going on which 'defies logic and which challenges the way we see and understand (and have seen and understood) the world of audio, something going on which needs investigating - and NOT dismissing !!!!
I can't put it any better or more simply than that !!
Regards,
May Belt.
May, if they worked, they'd still be in the system.
As to the oily crystals...sometimes I like to ask about hypotheticals.
Your quote Enophile.
> > > "As to the oily crystals...sometimes I like to ask about hypotheticals." < < <
Your description of the effect of the oily crystals was not you "sometimes asking about hypotheticals".
There was nothing hypothetical about your words - they were DEFINITE descriptions of your experiences with the crystals !!
< < < "The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay. "better "leading edge" on the sonics., "seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were. Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor," < < < Enophile.
Again, did you hear an ACTUAL improvement in the sound ? Did you ACTUALLY 'hear' all that additional information which enabled you to resolve more of the musical information ?
OR, was it that you were needing the crystals as 'props', as 'talismen', as 'rituals' etc.
OR were you being influenced by 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on. ?
Regards,
May Belt.
"Why do I not hear the Tice Clock when other folks do?"Shall we revisit Geoge Tice's 4 reasons why folks do not hear his clock (or think the effects are subtle)?
:-)
Feel free to substitute Shun Mook Discs, crystals, high end power cords, demagnetizers, deionizers, green pens, Schumann resonators, the Intelligent Chip or just about anything else in high end audio for "Tice Clock."
:-)
Edits: 11/10/08
One day he hears it, the next, not.
Proponents exclaim that he heard something!
Opponents point to its effect going to extinction, placebo-like. Writing off an effect.
Proponents boast about his apparent infallibility when he hears it. It cannot be questioned.
Opponents point out the path from perceived effect to no effect. That cannot be questioned, either (to them.)
Luckily for the reviewer, he is infallible to each group at some point.
;)
I guess Fremer hasn't read George Tice's 4 reasons why people cannot hear the Tice Clock, either. :-)
So Fremer recanted? That's a shame. So did Atkinson. They all do it. :-)
that's one of the most brilliant, valid and comprehensive posts (of quite a few) you've made.
Reminds me of the backlog of dozens of CDs that need treatment that I've been too busy listening to and enjoying to ... treat!
(Of course they will sound better after I treat them...)
Thanks!
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
I have frequently posted on the vagaries of human hearing. Individual sensitivities differ, and so does perception. Indeed, no one will contend the point that imbibing in too much alcohol or caffeine or drugs can affect one's perception. The fact that the human brain enters the equation is also undeniable. I have often quoted the example of a good friend who lost 60% of his hearing in his right ear, but now can listen in stereo again after three years, his brain having compensated for the hearing loss.
There is a statistical mean for most people, from which you base your observations, however. I prefer to believe that most who post and design use that individual statistical mean in making and determining their observations. That mean would involve a minimum of external influences. For some people, that baseline may be coarser than for others, depending upon the training and practice one is willing to engage in. Indeed I have often posted that one of the most difficult courses I have ever taken was Aural training, a required class for any music major. Unless you have perfect pitch, it is a rude entry into a very different world filled with the acceptance of perceptions and the ability to identify it as it occurs.
Since you single out my observations I have a few comments, again posted before, but perhaps you have missed. In the case of negative ions, I use a Phiten wrist band, supposedly which generates negative ions through the use of titanium dioxide which is catalyzed by UV. I noted the effect on my car stereo while signaling a right turn ( left arm extended out from the car). It didn't sound as good as when I signaled a right turn (left arm bent at the elbow). Now in both cases my arm still had the wristband on. I am assuming that because I am still wearing the wristband, any effect can not be greater on my person, because it never left its initial position on my wrist. I did remove the wrist band and place it on the console where the effect increased, however. That, in my thinking would negate the effect on my body and point towards an effect on the equipment. I should also point out that the sonic differences were heard even when the car was not moving.
Indeed if the Phiten was influencing the environment (the atmosphere immediately surrounding me) I would further point out that the use of a Phiten necklace did not significantly change the sonic differences noted.
Again no one is stating that the human body is immobile and totally passive. There is definitely an interaction between the sensory organs and the mind. It obviously differs with different individuals. But, for every individual, there is a statistical mean: a state where most of the conditions are fairly identical or of little significance in making an observation. If conditions change so much, then any observation would be worthless other wise.
Stu
If you noticed a right turn/left turn difference, how about one Phiten thing on each side of a headband or hat?
Stu, what sonic differences do you hear while driving at night?
As I said I do have a phiten necklace and there is no difference from the wristband in the car It would sit only 5-6 inches below my ears. Placing the wristband on my right arm displays no change in sound as the arm is constantly within the confines of the car.
Sorry, I don't drive much at night at all these days, but I would suspect that since traffic is lighter i would hear more, but that would be more due to ambient noise, wouldn't it?
On the other hand, sound in a car may be affected by the fact that the metal chassis and body may function as a Faraday cage, although the high ambient noise floor inherent is certainly a negative factor.
Shannon Dickson, the former writer for Stereophile, built a home which tied in the re bar in the flooring and the walls to create a pseudo Faraday cage. It was grounded in the middle of his sound room to three copper rods driven 12 feet deep to make the ground connection. I believe the contractors went nuts when he specified that the re bar was to have all welded joints in order to facilitate the shielding effect. Of course, re bar does make for a relatively poor conductor so I am nt sure how effective his cage was.
His listening room was extraordinarily quiet however. I did not get a chance to hear it, but an acquaintance who worked in the room said that once the doors were closed you could clearly hear the blood pulsing in your head. Shannon said that as a test of his room acoustics you could clearly hear Rickie Lee Jones' back up guitarist say "pick it up" a couple of times during her Pop Pop CD in the sing whose title starts off Spring has...I can't remember the rest. That was about 2 to 3 minutes into the song where her singing starts to slow in tempo. That's pretty good resolution, I dare say and unequaled in any other system I have heard.
Stu
Have you ever noticed a difference if you have taken Motrin/Alleve/Iburpofen for an ache or pain?
My wife says she notices differences in the sound of the Hi Fi if she has had Motrin that day.
She notices it with wine tasting, too.
Cheers, Stu!
I apologize if any offense was taken. I take baby aspirin as therapy to thin my blood: two tablets, one in the morning and one in the evening. Occasionally run out and I still notice the effect even without the aspirin. BTW, I had, for the vast majority of my life, rarely ever used any painkillers. Even my aspirin bottles would often expire before I ever had a chance to open their seals.
As you may be aware, I am on dialysis and I do notice that after treatment when they remove water from my system (up to 3 kilos, depending on my weight) my hearing does change a bit as my ears tend to pop. I suspect that it is due to water being removed from my ear canals however. It recovers after a few hours as I rehydrate myself and as the water becomes re-distributed.
As far as the Phiten is concerned, I do not believe it needs much UV to work, and the amounts in regular lighting can trigger its workings. At least I can feel the effects under incandescent and fluorescent lighting. I do notice when lying in bed with no lights on, the effects are not very noticeable. As I had previously posted I have a fistula in my left arm where they fuse the artery and vein so the circulation is a bit short circuited in my left hand. For a long time, my left hand was noticeably colder than my right and when removing the wristband I do notice that the hand drops a degree or two. That being said, some of my other friends report no change in circulation with the use, so it may be dependent on the individual.
Stu
In south Florda, the summer is the worst. Everyone is using their AC, plus the humidity is stiffling. As soon as you step out of the shower you start sweating. I especially notice how much better the car radio sounds.
Humidity,and barometric pressure play a big part.
nt
as Enophile so aptly pointed out in a very early reply, which (for some incomprehensible reason) was removed from this thread.
“The fundamentals of our economy are strong.” - John McCain, September 15, 2008
nt
Lots of evidence for day to day human variability.
One link below looks at brain phsyiology.
Since there was only room for one link, here is a cool extra link looking at time intervals as short as between heartbeats...
http://amaral.chem-eng.northwestern.edu/Publications/Papers/Stanley-1999-PhysicaA-270-309.html
There is quite a bit of "proof" that people can vary from time interval to time interval.
As interesting as that might be, I gather you have no proof that actually affects the sound.
:-)
Which explanation do you think is most likely?
Is your claim that we remain invariate from day to day with regard to how we perceive things?
Yeah, that sounds likely.
You run a testamonial based business, but doubt others when they state they notice something, eh?
;)
I'm not sure. That's kinda why I asked the question in the original post. I can think of a number of things that might cause the sound to be great one day and horrible the next, but correlating the cause and effect could be quite an undertaking.
I don't doubt that perception/hearing ability varies for an individual so that is not an issue. I'm just curious if others notice this phenomenon I pointed to (when the system itself is not to blame) and have tried to come up with explanations.
I don't have access to any of the data but the Navy decades ago conducted many experiments on the human reactions to environmental changes b/c of the problems with long periods in the nuke subs and from it there emerged a lot of data including the effects on sound perceptions. Even changes in color can effect a person to the point the same sound can go from soothing to annoying. As a result of the studies colors on a sub are very strictly controlled as is sound insulation, lighting, frequency response of the intercoms etc. Haven't you experienced something as simple as a child's cry Sometimes it is comforting and somethings it frays on your nerves, or a cat's meow, or a dog's bark, or even your spouse's loving voice.
There was a similar study for jails, in terms of keeping a relaxed atmosphere, I suppose - IIRC they tried pink, but I'm not exactly sure pink was a success.
Edits: 11/08/08
J Acoust Soc Am. 2008 Aug;124(2):1054-67.
Sources of variability in distortion product otoacoustic emissions.Garner CA, Neely ST, Gorga MP.
The Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, The University of Nebraska, 301 Barkley, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583, USA. cassie.garner@ttuhsc.edu
The goal of this study was to determine the extent to which the variability seen in distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), among ears with normal hearing, could be accounted for. Several factors were selected for investigation, including behavioral threshold, differences in middle-ear transmission characteristics either in the forward or the reverse direction, and differences in contributions from the distortion and reflection sources. These variables were assessed after optimizing stimulus parameters for individual ears at each frequency. A multiple-linear regression was performed to identify whether the selected variables, either individually or in combination, explained significant portions of variability in DPOAE responses. Behavioral threshold at the f(2) frequency and behavioral threshold squared at that same frequency explained the largest amount of variability in DPOAE level, compared to the other variables. The combined model explained a small, but significant, amount of variance in DPOAE level at five frequencies. A large amount of residual variability remained, even at frequencies where the model accounted for significant amounts of variance.
_
Medications, hydration status, middle ear pressures, eustachian tube function, and alcohol are also well decsribed in terms of altering sonic perception.
__
Another reference:
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008 Oct 24. [Epub ahead of print]
Test-Retest Reliability Of Low-Level Evoked Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions.Stuart A, Passmore AL, Culbertson DS, Jones SM.
East Carolina University.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine test-retest reliability of low-level evoked distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) as a function of L(1), L(2) level, f(2) frequency, and test condition. A predictive relationship between these variables and the presence/absence of DPOAE responses was also examined. METHOD: Sixteen normal-hearing young adults participated. DPOAEs were evoked to 12 tones with f(2) frequencies ranging from 1500-7546 Hz at four L(2) levels between 45 and 30 dB SPL. Four test conditions were employed: (a) initial test, (b) retest without probe removal, (c) retest with probe reinsertion, and (d) retest with probe reinsertion by a second tester. RESULTS: L(1), L(2) level and f(2) frequency were statistically significant (p < .0001) predictors of a DPOAE response (i.e., the presence of a DPOAE response was more likely to be observed at higher L(1), L(2) levels and lower f(2) frequencies regardless of test condition). DPOAE levels were significantly affected by L(1), L(2) level and f(2) frequency (p < .0001) but not test condition. Intra- and inter-tester test-retest differences were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of missing responses coupled with large inter-subject variability and intra-subject test-retest variability are a detriment to the clinical utility of DPOAEs evoked with low-level stimuli.
Gasp! "Intrasubject test-retest variability!"
Fudge, I guess people's auditory processing does vary.
;)
Cheers!
For anyone who believes that phone calls, pots of pebbles, digital clocks, sticky coloured dots and such-like can affect the system, the list of possible causes is simply endless.
Maybe you got the wrong kind of phone call that morning?
My original post has precious little to do with tweaks. The idea is to come up with possibilities why the sound of a system might change from day to day, great one day, harsh and unlistenable the next -- independent of system components or tweaks one might possess. If you do not suffer this annoying problem feel free to ignore the question.
the system depends crucially on the audio quality of the source material, which typically (at least for me) changes every day.
Given the same recording, and given the limitations of memory, it does not seem to me that there are any changes in sound from one day to the next.
YMMV.
On my systems I have listened to recordings that sound really good one day and not so great the next. Could be a million reasons for it, I won't bust my butt trying to figure it all out.
raphsdad, DRINK THE KOOL-AID!!...... DRINK IT!!!!
It's a fair point. If you consider an unusually wide variety of things can positively affect the sound, then it must be a problem that an equally wide variety of things could negatively affect it. I hadn't thought of this before but once you consider it, the situation Geoff finds himself in is very difficult. You can't just check the usual suspects (components, cables, connections, burn-in, dirty power), you have to think about all kinds of other things. If a certain kind of stone (Geoff's pebbles) can have a positive effect in a certain spot, maybe they or another kind of stone can have a negative effect in a different location - maybe that pebble he picked up on the beach and put on the mantlepiece is to blame...Without taking sides on the plausibility of these tweaks, this is a serious problem for someone who takes them seriously and does find they have an effect.
Edits: 10/29/08
Anything else is another hobby altogether. ;-)
Good point, but don't pay too much attention too me, I'm just a Troll.
Welcome
Hey thanks! Nice to be here. I must do something to pass the time, even if it's a complete waste of it.
Preternatural, relatively speaking. You'd be SURPRISED by which products have put it over the hump.
I have no doubt that the system sounds great. I too am going to hear something great soon. I will be going to the local symphony orchestra this weekend.
One thing I have discovered over the years is, while at home listing to music I can close my eyes and make myself think that I am listening a live performance, but never can I be at a live performance and make myself believe that I am listening to my system, or anyone else system.
Enjoy the music listening, that's what it's all about in the end.
I'd encourage you to push the envelope because there TRULY is a world out there that few people know about. Eureka! A lot of it anyway.
"There TRULY is a world out there that few people know about"
You mean fewer than hi-end audio? My friends already think I'm strange. If I start bringing foil & rocks home they are going to put me in an isolation ward. :)
just pop a photo in the fridge. They won't see it there. Did you know about that one?Since this thread has gone awol anyway, may I just say how excited I am by having read the post below this morning, then gone out at lunchtime to a nearby charity shop to see if there was any Klemperer and found the Columbia 33CX Beethoven symphonies (1,3,4,6,7,and 8) all in NM condition at four to the pound (about 37c US each)! They're in a bag under my desk right now! Banzai!
Edits: 10/29/08
I know about putting CDs and cables in the fridge/freezer,what's this about a photo?
...is my advice. Of course there's a few things you can't hide, but what the hay, at 51 most people aren't all that concerned, or social for that matter? ;-)
I've got a lot of crystal glassware type stuff strewn about my living/listening room including one piece prominently in view out near the center of the room on cones and ceramic tiles and things you've probably never even heard about. I asked a former coworker that had come over for a visit; What do you think of my crystal collection? She was cool saying graciously; I've never seen it displayed out in the middle of the room like that.
Most people don't really care all that much, but it's not their system anyway so blah! to them. Things are a little tight right now to be spending money on experiments. I have two nice pieces on Audiogon at a reasonable price but only get really low-ball offers or nothing at all. People are not not spending money on this stuff lately. I'm going to hang low for now till this passes & just enjoy my systems as is.
Song lyrics | Shout lyrics
I understand, and I appreciate your advice, who knows I could be totally wrong in thinking these tweaks do nothing. It would not be the first time.
It's been my experience that MANY of the things people choose to pooh pah are in REALITY the things that put a system over the top. If a person takes things slowly and deliberately I believe very strongly that we can, in fact, trust our ears. I can also see where one man's success can be another man's failure. I'm willing to bet money that things I've found ineffective in the past would do better at a different point in a system's development. Important disclaimer: I'm a bit of a Pollyanna at times. ;-)I can tell you two things for sure however, my experience contradicts the beliefs, and sometimes experiences of, a lot of people for one AND everything builds on the foundation you've laid for another. There's a concept called 'last tweak syndrome' which states that the last tweak usually seems like the most effective simply because it ALSO showcases the effect of previous efforts. I can give you all kinds of practical advice on how to proceed if you ever care to ask. I'd be sure to lure you in gently. ;-)
Edits: 10/29/08
"It's been my experience that MANY of the things people choose to pooh pah are in REALITY the things that put a system over the top"
I agree. In my own experience, when I was younger, I laughed at tube amps (I was a big Klipsch fan, go figure) until I brought one home and it beat the hell out of my Krell. I could not believe this old tube amp (Dynaco ST-70) sounded better than my Krell. Then I got on this "all tube equipment is better than all SS equipment" kick. Well that was a mistake too. As was my decision to only buy Klipsch speakers at the time. Well years later later and a crap ton of equipment later I have been trying to keep a more open mind on things. I still need a lot of work on that as you can see :)
"There's a concept called 'last tweak syndrome' which states that the last tweak usually seems like the most effective simply because it ALSO showcases the effect of previous efforts"
That's a great concept, never thought of it that way.
I'm open to suggestions as long as they don't cost me a bunch of $$
The only real tweak I have done is mount my turntable to the exterior wall of the house. Funny thing is, it cost me about $15 and it was the best thing I have done to my system.
Funny: I had a Linn Axis on my system for some time, then got a fully loaded LP12, (I did the wall mount a while after having the LP12) it sound better, but never as good as I expected it to. I bet if I would have done the wall mount while I had the Axis in my system I would have noticed a better improvement when switching over to the LP12. This goes back to your point about the "last teak syndrome".
They're much more expensive to maintain than the little ones ever were.
As you've already discovered, component isolation is key. I use products from Herbies Audio Lab, Golden Sound, and Machina Dynamica to attend to those needs. If you wish to trip the tweak fantastic on a smallish budget I'd start with a sheet of Herbies dBNeutralizer. A 6"X8"X3/8" sheet will set you back roughly $40 dollars. 3 little 1/4" squares are enough isolate some smaller items effectively. If you do digital, Machina Dynamica Codename Turquoise is a hugely effective tweak on the cheap for optimizing playback of optical discs. I could go on...
Kids are expensive, I should know....my poor dad, he bought me my first Krell, I still have it.
If Isolation is key, Do I need to get a better rack? If I don't have isolation done properly in the first place will these tweaks even make a difference? I have all of my equipment on a $300 3 shelf wooden rack, it sits off to the left of my speakers, with 3m RCA cables going to my Amp that sits between the speakers.
I do have a CD player, I'm not just a vinyl person.
I really believe isolation is one of the foundational, and therefore one of the best, places to start one's optimization process. Steve (Herbie) can give you a LOT of valuable advice on the topic. I wouldn't be without Machina Dynamica's Promethean isolation bases either. I have my amps and power conditioner on those while my preamp and source components are on a Sound Anchors rack with Herbies and Golden Sound component interfaces which are relatively elaborate compared to the average bear. dBNeutralizer/Ikea beech cutting board shelf/dBNeutralizer/DH Square/DH Cone or Herbies Tenderfoot footer/component. Because dBNeutralizer is relatively new it could be that my wild success with the material is attributable to last tweak syndrome. The stuff simply seems to be magic nearly everywhere it's utilized.
Do you think some of these products are better than mounting the equipment to the exterior wall of the house? Like I said, when I did this with my turntable it made a big difference.
But as you would expect, my experience, like that of EVERYONE else, is incomplete. Herbies has some new footers called the dBNeutralizer(t.m.) Tenderfoot that I would expect to be out of this world good in SOME applications. The Iso-Cup footers with Lampblack balls are exceptional value too in my opinion. NOTHING seems to be universal, except perhaps dBNeutralizer, I've yet to see it muck ANYTHING up. In my view, DH Cones are a vital part of one's tweaking arsenal as well. My results, using various combinations of Herbies isolation products, Golden Sound (DH Cones & Squares) and Machina Dynamica Promethean Base isolation stands, have been so successful that I'm not likely to bother looking elsewhere. After all, there are only so many hours in a day for one thing.
I will look into these dBNeutralizer's. If and when I sell my stuff on audiogon I may pick up 4 of these feet. Where do you recommend I put the first, pre-amp, cd player, phono stage or amp?
A buddy of mine has his equipment in a completely different room from where his speakers are, he has one of the best systems I have ever heard. But, from what I gather reading your posts you are saying, isolating the equipment from the speakers is good but you need to isolate them from other things in the environment as well?
Do you think it's better to have long RCA cables or long speaker cables? The reason I ask is, I could put my equipment in another room if I needed, but it would require some really long cables, say like 35 feet or so.
Thank You
The answer to your question about cable length is—I don't know for sure. I'm familiar with the various theories. In my case I've followed my electronics manufacturers recommendation of running long interconnects and short speaker cables as that is best with the design specs of their equipment. That particular mfg is VERY high on locating electronics in another room if possible.
My internet here is very slow, 128kbs, Ill need to check that video out when I get home where I get 8mbs. Got to love youtube, I have been reliving my childhood through youtube lately lol. I have also been watching some great music videos on there. Some great Thelonious Monk videos uploaded on the tube!
It can be simply mesmerizing at times.
No, I did not know about that site, thanks for giving me the tip! I'll check it out when I get home. I love good web site suggestions. Hopefully youtube will get better quality videos soon. It's hard viewing them on a 1680x1050 display.
NT
Things sound differently at 11PM than at 8AM or Noon. I'm guessing a diurnal variation in the environment which affects the user or one in the user that affects the perceptions. I bet things would be different if all this celestial spinning and rotating would cease! Way different.
Clearly more testing is in order. We could eliminate the gear once and for all by answering one question: Does the same thing happen with a player piano?
You have been little heard from of late, out cooking up new oddities?
Rick
You may be playing the wrong music for the time of day.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Different music... Could be the answer. But I think it's more likely different sound. For instance, last night my RF internet connection was spotty due to the weather so I switched to player SW with a better buffer, but not as nice sounding. Much to my surprise it sounded quite good to me and I had a very enjoyable evening listening to MPR. This morning I decided to see if it still sounded good and it didn't, it was sort of annoying and in-your-face, so I used my other one. Out of curiosity I tried it again after a couple of hours and it was already becoming more acceptable.
I suppose that it could be either the gear or listener, but I'm guessing the latter. I've had other experiences that suggest that my ears are better, or at least different, early in the AM. Conclusions from long evenings of auditioning new gear often get overturned by thirty seconds of listening the next morning.
Rick
While some may regards p=line conditioning as being ineffectual, I find that addressing power grid variations to be the key to consistent performance. To be certain, power line conditioning covers many aspects and issues and very few line conditioners (affordable ones, that is) can address all possibilities.
I used a large number of PLC's including some based on Corcom modules. The Corcom module based ones were used primarily for front end gear with more limited current draw. I left my amps unfiltered until I tried the Shunyata Hydra which did a marvelous job on large current devices but worked poorly for the small current components. I also find that the divide and conquer concept very beneficial in using separate conditioner stages to isolate every device in the audio chain.
One interesting step was the installing of two ferrites per power cord on every appliance plugged into the home power grid. You need to place the ferrites at the ends of the power cords but that noticeably lowers the amount of hash on the power grid. You can pick up ferrites fairly cheaply from Digikey these days, but when I had experimented with them about 15-20 years ago, I had to order them from the factory (Steward, IIRC). I don't like them on the audio components, but they work well on the lamps, clock radios, frig and other things on your power grid.
Stu
Agree with your ferrite strategy. Totally.
Hi Stu,
I actually had made some references to line noise vs the time of industrial energy usage but I see I edited them out. I agree with you, it's a possible cause. At least that used to be a common assumption and one that I shared about why things sounded better in the late evening. Around here the mills used to shut down during graveyard shift and that seemed to be when things improved. However nowadays they've mostly shut down completely having exported those nasty noise sources to mills overseas.
And indeed, I don't think I notice the difference as much, but my equipment has changed a bit over the years and so have my ears. But just the other evening I hit a spell where things sounded especially good, and enjoyed it.
While I suspect there's more to it than just line noise I've made no effort to pursue it.
Rick
Line noise certainly is a noticeable difference dependent on the time of day and of course power consumption is lower at night as people go to sleep, other than those insomniac audiophiles.
I spoke to a electric company employee in my area and was informed the power grid starts ramping up voltages at about 2 in the afternoon and it reaches a peak at about 7-9 PM and then starts to slowly ramp down to about 12AM. It is interesting and of course may vary in different locales.
Also I would point out too that the solar wind moving past the earth generates positive ionic conditions on the sunny side and negative ions on the backside ( night side) of the planet. In experimenting with the negative tourmaline dryers and curlers, I am wondering if this ionic condition is also responsible for a little of the difference of what we hear.
Stu
> > > "Also I would point out too that the solar wind moving past the earth generates positive ionic conditions on the sunny side and negative ions on the backside ( night side) of the planet. In experimenting with the negative tourmaline dryers and curlers, I am wondering if this ionic condition is also responsible for a little of the difference of what we hear." < < <
Unclestu. You suggest positive and negative ions could be responsible for some differences in the sound (for the differences in what we hear!!) but you do not give any indication as to where, in your opinion, either the positive or negative ions are 'having their effect'. Even where the negative ions created by the tourmaline hair dryers are 'having THEIR effect' !!!
On the information encoded on the CDs ????
On the way the laser beam may be 'reading' that information ???
On the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment ???
On the acoustic information presented into the room by the speakers system ???
If the people reporting hearing improvements after aiming negative ions from the tourmaline hair dryer at their CDs are correct, then how are the negative ions 'affecting' the information encoded on the CD ??? If it is exactly the same information encoded on the CD both before and after aiming the tourmaline hair dryer at the CD, and only afterwards is the additional information 'heard' (resolved), then why was not that same additional information which was heard 'afterwards' not heard the week before ??? If it is the same information ???
If an explanation is that it is the way the laser beam is 'reading' the information encoded on the CD better after aiming the tourmaline hair dryer at the CD, then why could not the laser beam 'read' that information just as well the week before ???
If an explanation is that it is the audio signal travelling through the audio system which is being beneficially affected by the negative ions from the tourmaline hair dryer - producing better sound - then why did the audio system not 'handle' that same information just as well the week before using the tourmaline hair dryer ???
If the explanation has to do with the acoustic information which is presented into the room by the speaker system being 'beneficially affected' by the negative ions, then why was not exactly the same (better) acoustic information 'heard' the week before using the tourmaline hair dryer ??? Surely it is the same acoustic information, being presented into the room by the same speaker system, before and after using the tourmaline hair dryer ????
So, what exactly are the positive and negative ions you refer to doing to 'change' the sound ??
Regards,
May Belt.
so I have no postulate. I do know that the negative ions sound better, though: more of a sense of silence and greater dynamics and detail.
Of course in dealing with negative ions we are essentially dealing with electrons, a subatomic particle. I believe we are actually working with an electron surplus and not an ionized molecule like say OH-. Many so called ionizing machines work by generating ozone (O3-, but that has a rather distinctive smell which I do not detect with the tourmaline gear.
Since electricity works by the transfer of electrons... It may be a very far fetched postulate, but it may be that a surplus of electrons could actually be reducing the 1/f noise, so commonly found in electronic gear and circuits. I do believe we have not thoroughly explored the importance of ground circuits in most electronic design.
Of course, YMMV
S6tu
The Bybee purifiers claim to work upon that principle: a lowering of the 1/f noise, and in my experience they work extremely well. The tourmaline/negative ion devices do not work quite as well as the Bybee devices in my experience, but they do create a similar effect, just lower in amplitude.
Ah, negative ions. I remembered reading about an additional solar effect besides the shifts in the ionosphere but couldn't recall what it was. Then of course there's the light level, the winds, the noise et al. We are biologically linked to many of the cycles within which we evolved. Perhaps we are intrinsically receptive to sensual pleasures late in the evening. Now let's keep this on a higher plane, I'm talking about stereo's I say, stereos!
Rick
the ionosphere is on a higher plane !I wonder sometimes if the temperature differential between night and day has also something to do with it. I understand that many have AC so theoretically the gear in the room may be unchanged, but the power plants and attending network lines will vary in temperature. The too, as the ground becomes cooler and generally moister during the night (condensation and such) you may be getting a better ground.
There could be possibly many factors.
To quote Richard Feynman:
I wonder why, I wonder why,
I wonder why I wonder why,
I wonder why I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder....
Stu
Edits: 10/29/08
You know, the ionosphere IS a higher plane indeed, and it gets higher at night! Iffins I recall correctly (I spent my wayward youth on 80M (~3.8 MHz)) the noise during the day has a different quality than it does at night. Very electric-fency during the day and quieter at night, but more distant stations interfering with one another.
Naturally that also changes the frequency of the Schuman resonance. I never thought about humidity and fog affecting it. But it's been wretchedly foggy in the mornings here for the last week and I haven't noticed any improvement.
Maybe we can make our fortune by coming up with a circular cardboard thingy (far more eclectic than a computer program), that would let audiophiles dial in a few factors and find the optimum time for listening. I don't know what the factors would be, but it probably doesn't matter a great deal as long as you can get the answer you want to so that you can make the point that the rest of the family needs to be quiet and not bug you during that interval. Obviously one of the factors needs to be the length of the work you have in mind. And I've even got the marketing tag line: "Better things for better listening through chicanery".
Rick
I've done and there is no further elaboration, unfortunately, but the Schumann resonances will vary on the planet's surface. Apparently the Schumann resonances are set up by the movement of the planet through the the solar wind but the induced electromagnetic field is dependent on the ground composition: makes sense as over the middle of the Pacific ocean should have less induction than say a continental slab of possible ferromagnetic rock. There are some interesting implications in all of this. My guess is that by examining the lines of magnetic declination, it ought to give some indication of the inductive qualities of the surface topology.
All this, though, certainly pushes the notion of user controllable conditions. Although I am not surprised. With individual components like resisters reaching the .001% tolerance range I wonder at the limits of resolution we can achieve.
Stu
Well... I think maybe it's the Northern lights that's caused by the solar wind. Must say I take them on faith since I've never seen them. Could we do a DBT to see if they are real? The Schumann resonance is the energy from lightning bouncing around between the earth and ionosphere. In general I detest wikipedia, but their entry for this subject seems OK. See link.
Lightning also shunt regulates the static electricity formed from friction and air movements resulting in a fairly uniform vertical DC E field gradient. When I was in the avionics biz the story was that someone (Sperry?) decided to take advantage of it and built a wing-leveler that had a discharge point on each wing tip and adjusted the ailerons to keep a constant voltage differential. Ostensibly it worked find but had a tendency to steer you into thunderstorm cells and then go wild. But other than that the solution had a certain elegance...
If you are interested in magnetic declination type stuff just pop over to http://geomag.usgs.gov/ and get some entertainment from your tax dollars.
Rick
auroras. The thing I was referring to about the Schumann fields refers to alternately charged longitudinally strips circling the earth, hence the low frequency vibration. Apparently if the earth had ionic differences only in the night and day atmospheres, the frequency would be much, much lower. It wasn't well defined in the text I read and mentioned only in passing, but I'll try to look it up again.
Just read the book The Body Electric, a dated text about experiments in human regeneration, primarily bone structure. Quite interesting reading although obviously outdated with the latest advances in molecular science. Did you know that children under age eleven who lose the first joint of their finger beyond the the first ridge line will regenerate their finger tip? A lot was based on the the fact that the body produces negative and positive ions which seem to stimulate certain cellular growth. But the research quoted in the book points out that ionic transfer is what is propagated in nerve cells and their linings. Interesting.
Stu
Re: Body Electric.
I've read the book and indeed used to own a copy. While it seems reasonable that charge is the method that cells use to tell when to stop healing, much of the information in it was so questionable (IMHO) that I concluded I'd never read it again and gave it away. And that's saying something because I tend to hang on to almost any book that comes my way.
It's hard to judge veracity outside of your own field but as I recall their methodology wasn't reassuring. None the less, our bodies do use all sorts of electrical processes and interactions are bound to occur for good or ill with some of the other things we use electricity for.
There was a thread here quite a while ago about feeling more peaceful if your power goes out. I've certainly experienced that, but I think a major factor is acoustical. Man there are a lot of things that hum, buzz, sing, click, and run. The silence is breathtaking even if we don't consciously hear them.
Rick
Becker does get weird in the end, however I find his electrical summaries of the charge versus healing to be quite interesting. A long long time ago I read a full page article in Time Magazine about some Swedish Nobel prize winner who claimed that the human organism was an electrical entity and that certain cancers could be "cured" by electrical treatment. This was 30 plus years ago and I haven't seen any follow up. I believe he had some experimental remissions by using acupuncture type needles, inserting them into a tumor which would have been otherwise inoperable, and hooking the needle up to negative voltage. for as long a period as the patient could bear. His claim was that the the tumors were charged positively ( IIRC) and that the negative charge enable the natural immune system (leukocytes or white blood cells) to attack that tumor. Thus I found the book to be interesting reading, if quite a bit dated. ( have a couple of friends who are molecular biologists and they also had some interesting comments.
Stu
I can't speak to tumors, but I know how to kill warts with RF.
Many moons ago I got a wart on my hand. When I got the first one I didn't even know what they were but happened to be in getting a routine physical and asked the Doc. He told me and said it might go away on it's own hook or he could burn it off. I went the latter route and he used an RF probe to burn it away and left a hole almost to the bone. Eventually it healed up, then after a while a wart reappeared on the scar. Bummer.
I tried freezing it with dry ice and liquid CO2 since had them around at work, but to no avail. A few years later I was working in a different place on aircraft com transceivers and was testing the VSWR protection. So I tried applying a little RF and waited until it felt slightly uncomfortable and quit. Ta Da, within a month it was gone from just one "treatment". By then I had several others and got rid of them by the same technique. None have returned in the intervening decades. I understand that warts are right on the cusp of the immune system's response and that even positive thinking can help in some cases, but mine did not appear to be one of them.
My guess is that I killed them with heat. My weak understanding of the critters is that the part of them that's actually alive is at the interface of the dead tissue (the wart) and normal part of your body. I think the RF had little loss in the dead part since it had little moisture and tended to heat it's interface with the real meat, just where it was needed to fry the nasties. And the transmitter came through it intact!
Dr. Rick
using yourself as a guinea pig, so to say! I believe they are using RF for some forms of tumors these days. I'll ask one of my customers who happenings to be an oncologist.
I have noticed that my body chemistry has greatly changed as my kidneys failed and after I went on dialysis. I use some analog stainless steel/chromed brass watches and they would literally dissolve from my wearing the watch: right through the chrome plating and into the brass body. Never did that before. Since going on dialysis, I notice my skin is a lot more oily now like I was in puberty.
It is interesting to see how the body reacts to various ailments. Oh yeah, my hearing did increase in sensitivity as well as my vision. Immediately during my first session the whole room got brighter, sort of akin to turning your brightness on the TV set up and I became more aware of the upper midrange sounds, particularly female voices like the nurses. They were rather taken aback when I told them the range in centered in about 1.2 kHz seemed to be emphasized more.They expected a change but no one had been so specific, I guess.
I am aware of hearing fatigue having worked with pneumatic tools in a big shipyard. I once went in for a physical including a hearing test in the afternoon and was told I had a 15% hearing loss. but the alarmed tech had me come come back first thing in the morning and my hearing was normal, just a few dips in my right ear. This was quite unusual, but has stabilized after a continuous cycle of treatments.
Stu
Actually my system has transcended that condition and I suspect you've had a lot to do with it, so... you tell us. ;-)
Next time you have stuffy nose and ears, try some Afrin or Sudafed and see if you notice a difference in how you think your system sounds!
Disclaimer: Since Iso Ward is often contentious, I am only mentioning this as something fun to try, your results might vary, etc...
Good job! ;-)
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: