|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
63.21.152.36
.
Follow Ups:
P.T. Barnum's axiom.
Criticizing an audio component or tweak without hearing it first is almost always a bad idea. The one exception is for tweaks that ...
(1) Do not connect to the audio system
(2) Do not make any sound
(3) Do not absorb any sound and could not act as a sound diffusor or reflectorIt's sad that some audiophiles will really believe this clock affects the sound of their system, and will buy it.
A controlled listening experiment would be needed to prove audibility.
That will never happen because the device very likely does nothing.'It's deja vu Tice Clock all over again'
["It's sad that some audiophiles will really believe this clock affects the sound of their system, and will buy it."]It's my understanding that only the listener(s) is affected. The system altering aspect is a favorable side effect.
First you say "It's my understanding that only the listener(s) is affected." and then you immediately follow that with "The system altering aspect is a favorable side effect."If only the listener is affected, there can't be a system altering side effect because you've said that the only thing affected is the listener. If there's a side effect on the system, then the listener can't be the only thing affected.
I keep an open mind on tweaks I haven't tried, and I haven't tried the clock. On the other hand, I can detect a logically flawed statements and your comments are most definitely that.
["Why do I detect a high degree of illogicality here?"]Sorry I can't help you. This is not an ordinary topic.
["If only the listener is affected, there can't be a system altering side effect because you've said that the only thing affected is the listener. If there's a side effect on the system, then the listener can't be the only thing affected."]
I understand why some might presume that the clock is an audio device but I didin't want to be overly presumptuous to having fully grasped its intended purpose. Many tweaks are not initially purpose-built for audio.
I suppose it is telling that I believe the clock started out as a device to tell time. Since no 'audio device' claims were made, I saw no reason for folks to inadvertently believe otherwise .
["I keep an open mind on tweaks I haven't tried, and I haven't tried the clock. On the other hand, I can detect a logically flawed statements and your comments are most definitely that."]
Good for you.
b
science is only as good as the measuring equipment it can produce.it wasnt that long ago that things that were too small to be seen with the naked eye simply did not exist and you could be executed for thinking the earth was not the center of the universe.
and it also wasnt that long ago that magnets were considered magical items.
lets see.........air was ether, germs did not exist, electricity was from the heavens, stars were pinpoints of light leaking through the mantle of where the gods lived, etc, etc, etc.
of course you dont have to directly measure something and can infer something based on other measurements but the bottom line is scientific knowledge is always changing and uncovering previously unknown phenomena.
just because it cant be measured now doesnt mean it wont be eventually.
when i was 14 i had a ghost/spirit/whatever encounter that was witnessed by my 14yr old cousin and my dog.
after that experience i realized that i dont know nuthin about nuthin.
but i understand how it would feel a lot safer in this scary ever changing world to just keep a closed mind.
Has anyone tried these VST tuning dots?
nt
I have no doubts that phenomena exist which have not yet been described by science. I also however believe that not every observation is reliable. Is that closed minded or open minded?I have my doubts about a lot of things audio. In general I simply don't trust other's descriptions of their own observations regarding audio as I myself have been too suceptible to inaccurate observation/perception. If I am an inaccurate observer then why should I expect others to be more accurate?
How do I explain why this reviewer's reportedly blind comparison turned up a result which matched the unexpected hypothesis that the clock worked? Simple: in the enormity of existance there are significant opportunities for statistically low probability events to occur. The statisitcal probability, all things considered, for this event was fairly high, so I wouldn't place much emphasis on the outcome, whether it supported or rejected the above hypothesis.
I could go in to why such-and-such a review is flawed and how it could be improved and how the result may or may not change but that's not the point. Either you're predisposed to believing something or you aren't. We suffer a lot from that around here, particularly on this subject and I'm not going to claim myself immune from it.
The funny thing is that no ammount of argument is going to sway anybody's oppinion on the matter yet we'll rant endlessly, calling people names and generating bad will, just because we like to hear ourselves talk... err, type.
...we express our opinions civily and with respect? I'll try.I agree with both snkby and Chris.
1--I believe that EVERY change to a music-reproduction system changes its sound, no matter how subtly.
2--I believe that those who believe that if it can't be measured, a difference can't exist are highly arrogant, as if they know everything about what to measure and how to measure it. There are lots of engineers in this group.
3--I believe that each of us has significantly different physical hearing abilities AND listening skills. The golden-eared audiofiles probably are, indeed, hearing what they describe, but see #4.
4--I believe that MOST of us are FAR too sloppy in our methods of determining just what differences they hear. Not very often do we read of someone doing real back-and-forth tests. Usually it's more like 'I put this in my system and WOW WHAT A DIFFERENCE'!
5--I believe that most of us are not careful enough in our use of language in describing the differences we hear. WAY too often I read read things like 'knocked my socks off', 'kicked ass' (whatever THAT means), 'huge difference', 'night and day', or perhaps my favorite, 'completely different'. Each time I read that, I think 'OK, it was good before and now it's really bad?' Or maybe 'you loved the sound of your system before and now you hate it?'
Subtle differences in the sounds of music-reproduction systems do indeed exist, IMO. I wish we were more logical in determining what those differences are and then LOTS more careful when describing them.
Dealing with your points:1- I see no reason for why every change to a system should necessarily (ie absolutely must under every condition) produce a difference in sound. If that's true, I think it is contingently true and probably unproveable. I think a lot more changes than many people think will produce a difference, but I withold belief that absolutely any and every change will.
2- complete agreement.
3- complete agreement about the existence and extent of individual differences, but I see no reason to assume that 'golden eared audiophiles' are hearing what they describe unless you've got some evidence that shows that the hearing abilities of golden eared audiophiles are significantly better than those of the general population. Even then, we've got the problem of determining when a claim is being made by golden eared audiophile and when it's being made by an audiophile without golden ears or by someone else.
4- what makes a "real back-and-forth test" the paradigm for testing, and what do you mean by that? Also, you do need to accept that some first impressions are actually correct and some differences are large enough to be obviously apparent. While one does need to exercise caution about claims like "'I put this in my system and WOW WHAT A DIFFERENCE'!", it's also true that one can do back-and-forth comparisons and convince oneself that there is a difference when there isn't. Neither approach guarantees correctness and both yield some correct and some incorrect results.
5- You say "WAY too often I read read things like 'knocked my socks off'…" but what necessarily makes that inaccurate? What if the writer was actually surprised by what they thought was a great difference? Subjective perceptions of difference don't always accord in scale with objective measures, and the same thing can have a different impact on different people. Comments like that aren't about people reporting what they heard but about how much it affected them and should be taken as just that. I tend to assume that they're accurate unless I have proof that the person is lying, but I see no reason to assume that everyone else will have the same reaction.
I think you're right with some of your views and wrong with some others, You will probably think the same about me.
If you spend the time to go through a articulate test after a popular tweak has been implemented and post the results that contradict others, even in a polite manor, with respect.........guess what you get for all that hard work and thoughtful writing, ridicule, unanimous ridicule, like a dog pile.This place is the worst place on the internet for rude a-holes telling you that your negative results are absurd and worthless, but post all the whacky nonsense you wish with no logic to back up your findings and you’re a hero. Seems like no one here wants real feedback or opinions, just positive glowing, gushing reviews of how some magic beads made their speakers sing like a diva. These people are like a Zippo without flint.
Here is a link that is a perfect example of the rantings of one of those rude people here you refer to!
- http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=tweaks&n=121508&highlight=keith+Lockwood&r=&session= (Open in New Window)
c
...who love to punish all good deeds, and LOTS seem to populate the Tube DIY and the Planar-Speaker Asylums. Oh yea...the Critics Asylum, too, but after Sam Tellig's horrible outbursts of a couple months ago, I simply avoid the place. Why the moderator permitted that to continue is beyond me.Once I managed to report the results of some exhusting (for me) tests of IC and got not a single negative response. Maybe that's because I got NO responses whatever. :-)
100%!It's because of #4 that I don't accept that many tweaks (especially CD tweaks) that people offer me. Because I insist on doing a thourough test, which takes up a lot of my time and energy. Ensuring that there are no variables in play except the tweak, and running enough listening tests to reliably hear any differences takes a good two to four hours of work!
Many of the tweaks I try, I also find have a negative impact on the sound long term. So many are bandaids for problem systems that negatively impact a system that does not have those problems.
to hide one in their pocket and have everyone comment on how good their own stereo sounds today not knowing you are secretly controlling their brain.
I use alcohol to enhance my enjoyment, don’t see a reason to stick foil on door ways or use colored markers or clocks. Since it does nothing for the actual sound only the perception of sound, then anything you believe in should work, providing you have of a weak enough mind. For those who don’t have such a weak mind, I would suggest my method, I prefer screwdrivers and margaritas, it seems to lift a veil and open up the mids while adding warmth to the bottom end, it also makes girls much prettier, lets see the tice clock do that.
Crown & Cokes do it for me. Also makes me think I'm sexy.
Well, as crazy as it sounds, PWB Belt's products do what they say. Who knows how it works, but it does.I had the same experience with Peter Belt's products. That is: everything sounded BAD until the products were applied -- not just normal.
Try it yourself before you pass judgement; it works!
However, the nagging question remains if the PWB products actually make the sound worse as they get closer to your stereo and then this effect abates, normalizing the sound, with the product right on top of the stereo. I have to wonder this because the music sounded BAD not normal with the PWB stuff in the backyard. However I haven't done the experiment yet to test this theory.
Why was the review system sounding so bad to begin with??? the assumption was that the clock had degraded the system. then the clock was introduced and the system became marvellous. Sounds like an overactive imagination at work.A quick check of the system before the test commenced may have given a reference point.
Cheerswelly
I went to a restaurant that serves "breakfast at any time". So I ordered French Toast during the Renaissance.
Against my better judgement here... (as suggested by Belt and Machina Dynamica) the Clock does not effect the system, it effects how one responds to it - that is the system's "sound" does not change, only one's reaction to or the perception of the sound it is producing. The Clock effects the listener - the environment, though not in acoustical terms, but how we react to it.
Then your question should be... so your system must have sounded like crap before the clock was inserted... and no it did not. While we liked it before, the insertion of the clock "allowed" us to enjoy it even more (by whatever it "does" to the listener). Its removal only revealed "the changes" that we had become accustomed to with it in the house. Sort of like on a scale of 1-10 - really enjoyed being at 5 because it was so much better than 3, but when we went up to 7 and realized that that was so much better (we got so used to the improvemnt) that dropping it back down to 5 made it sound like crap. Well our reaction(s) to it at least...
Am not so sure the how, why, and/or what the Clock is (actually or literally) doing... the Clock pretty much flies in the face of common sense, logic, what have you (mine at least)... as a matter of fact, we are pretty much on the side of "Gimmie a break"... we are only reporting on our experience. It did work here... why...?
Dave Clark
Dave,I have been reading some materials May Belt sent me and came across her commenting on something she calls "working memory", this appears to be very closely related to the numerical scale example you noted in the posting above.
["Against my better judgement here... (as suggested by Belt and Machina Dynamica) the Clock does not effect the system, it effects how one responds to it - that is the system's "sound" does not change, only one's reaction to or the perception of the sound it is producing. The Clock effects the listener - the environment, though not in acoustical terms, but how we react to it."]This statement seems credible until the implication that the listening environment is effected. Don't you think it's more genuine to say, "The Clock effects the listener", period? For more clarity, you might say, it doesn't effect the environment but manifests an illusion for how we react to it.
yes it does affect the way the listener reacts or preceives their enivornment - sorry for the lack of clarification. it does not have an effect on the environment per se...
Dave Clark
c
nt
.
One effects a change, which affects the process, thus having an effect on the process, which may cause affect in the observer. (verb, verb, noun, noun; the last noun is pretty much restricted to technical descriptions of mental processes)
c
.
...because it is second language to me, and "effect and affect" are NOT even close to each other.
Affect is posible action as a consequence of an effect. Effect is english word, while affect is from French.
b
nt
nt
nt
b
nt
nt
c
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: