Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Isolation Ward ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth)

Posted by May Belt (M) on May 29, 2011 at 08:39:02

In Reply to: some observations ( and a request for Elizabeth) posted by unclestu on May 27, 2011 at 16:41:19:

>> “This is with the crystal mounted on a sofa 5 feet from the components and not in contact at all with the components.” <<

Why don’t you try that experiment with the crystal 20 feet away from any audio signal and then try explaining the effect as “having an effect on the audio signal” !!

I would think that we both share one common outlook. That such as RF energy, microwave energy, electromagnetism, a surplus or deficiency of ions, static etc are all creating (put simply) mischief or creating (exaggerating) havoc in the modern environment.

However, then we differ. Your view is that so many of these things are creating mischief TO THE AUDIO SIGNAL !

My interpretation (yes – put simplistically in order to be brief) of what you try to describe is that when you position such as a crystal somewhere in the environment and hear an improvement in the sound, you think that that crystal must somehow be absorbing some (much) of (say) the RF and therefore preventing that RF interfering with the AUDIO SIGNAL which it had been (or might have been) doing before (and that is why the sound is now better) !!

That if you (say) position another type of crystal somewhere in the environment and the sound is perceived to be worse, that you think that that crystal must somehow be accepting the RF and then regurgitating it out again to cause even more mischief (havoc) on the audio signal (and that is why the sound is worse !!)

And, you hold this viewpoint even though you might have positioned a crystal or other ‘tweak’ or treatment some 20 feet or more away from any audio equipment or from any audio signal !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, that the effect of using different crystals which give different results to the ‘sound’ are just reacting in their own different ways in absorbing or regurgitating RF and therefore that is how they are affecting the audio signal in their different ways.

It would appear though that as soon as it is ‘suggested to you’ that, on so many of the occasions, it could be the human being who is doing the reacting, and NOT the audio signal, you can only think along the narrow lines of “of course the human being can be reacting but only reacting to any changed ACOUSTIC information reaching the ear drum !!!!!

>> “to the point where running three 9 volt batteries in series lead to an unbearable top end tilt.” <<

Haven’t you ever come across a peculiar “odd and even rule” in Nature ? Sometimes odd numbers are good, sometimes even numbers are good. It becomes a case where you have to experiment with both odd and even numbers each time when the sound differs from what you might have expected to see if such rules are ‘in play’!!

If you are experimenting with “loops”, then I would suggest you seriously experiment with Reef Knots. Only Reef knots, not Granny knots and not any other kind of knot – Reef knots only.

Tie a single Reef knot in ANY cable (interconnect or AC power). The sound will be better. Then try tying TWO reef knots in the same cable (even numbers) and the sound will be worse ! You will either have to tie a third Reef Knot for the sound to come back to being good or you will have to undo the second Reef Knot and go back to a single one only !!

>> “claiming that all you know and have submitted to has already been discovered by none other than yourself and Peter.” <<

Whilst you are busy “mocking” Peter’s work and discoveries, the effect on the sound of such as the Reef Knot technique was written about (and even illustrated) in UK Hi Fi magazines over 20 years ago !!!!

And, YES, Peter HAD discovered many of the things which are being discussed NOW.

>> “I have submitted my speculation about crystals and their preferred positioning based on the fact that many are truly piezoelectric, and their positioning should be placed in areas where there is a strong EMI field.” <<

Let me describe a true situation which encompasses both a piezoelectric device and how some people (engineers in particular) ‘deal with’ anomalies.

You have a skilled engineer (Peter) who had already spent 30 years as a professional in the audio industry, both as a retailer and also as a manufacturer of moving coil, electrostatic and orthodynamic transducers. One day (some 25 years ago) he discovered that placing a piezoelectric device, passively, on top of a loudspeaker cabinet, changed the sound. On ‘treating’ the piezoelectric device he then finds that the sound is much improved and describes the improvement in the sound exactly as you, Unclestu, have described:-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

The skilled engineer demonstrates the effect of this PASSIVE piezo device to other audio engineers, to audio equipment retailers and to audio equipment reviewers. They also hear EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

but they shake their heads, they cannot cope with the experience of such a simple PASSIVE device giving improvements in the sound, particularly products which they themselves have designed or are trying to sell.

So, the skilled engineer now selects a super tweeter which incorporates a similar piezoelectric device, ‘treats’ the piezoelectric device and places that super tweeter PASSIVELY, in exactly the same position on top of a loudspeaker cabinet (i.e. NOT connecting it to the loudspeaker system, but just standing it passively on top of the cabinet). This is demonstrated to the same audio engineers, to the same audio equipment retailers, to the same audio equipment reviewers and they again hear EXACTLY the same improvements as before :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

They shake their heads, they are STILL unable to ‘cope with’ the experience of such a PASSIVE device giving such improvements in the sound !!

Only when the skilled engineer attaches WIRES to the super tweeter and connects the super tweeter via those wires to the loudspeaker input terminals and stands the super tweeter in EXACTLY the same position on top of the loudspeaker cabinet as previously are the audio engineers, the audio equipment retailers and the audio equipment reviewers NOW prepared to accept EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound – identical to the improvements heard previously:-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <<

They can ‘cope with’ the experience of improvements in the sound if the super tweeter is connected in the conventional way to the actual loudspeakers system but disconnect the wires and only have the super tweeter incorporating a piezoelectric device again standing PASSIVELY on top of the loudspeaker cabinet and they can no longer ‘cope with’ EXACTLY the same improvements in the sound of :-

>> “being more open, with clearer top end extension better microdynamics, and increased detail.” <

Now. I would suggest, Unclestu, that YOUR understanding of the various experiences I have just described would be that the piezo electric device was in a strong electromagnetic field (on top of a working loudspeaker cabinet) and therefore affecting the signal and the performance of the loudspeaker. But, the SAME piezo device (the ‘treated’ but passive super tweeter) could be positioned in an NON electromagnetic area (such as on a table in the middle of the room) and it would provide EXACTLY the same improvement in the sound !!

YOU have, yes, moved from that very early stage of not being able to ‘cope with’ a passive device like a piezo device giving improvements in the sound but you appear ONLY to be able to “cope” if that device is positioned within a high electromagnetic field and you can then explain the result as “having an effect on the audio signal”!!!!

But, place such as a piezo device in a non (or very low) electromagnetic area such as on a table in the middle of the room where a beneficial effect on the sound is still being observed and you are stuck !!

>> “Curiously it does not work as well over the battery or capacitor terminals, however.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ when you find that one of the (previously good sounding)‘tweaks’ does not work as well in another situation !! I use the expression “stuck” because if you understood more fully, you would not be finding it “curious” when it did not work as well in that position.

>> “we did coat some sugar balls with nail polish, both clear and a colored one. The sound got progressively worse, losing dynamics and transient attacks and generally increasing in muddiness as the colors darkened. The naked sugar cubes seemed to work best.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ when you find that coating sugar balls with a lacquer (and a colour!!!!) makes the sound worse !! Why don’t you experiment further and find a lacquer to coat the sugar balls which DOES improve the sound and why don’t you experiment further to find a colour to apply to the sugar balls which DOES improve the sound ??? And, then, when you DO find a lacquer which when applied to an identical sugar ball and which IMPROVES the sound, you have to then explain HOW that lacquer can change the sound !!! When you DO find a colour which when applied to an identical sugar ball and which improves the sound, you then have to explain HOW that colour can change the sound!!

Peter Belt discovered such things over 25 years ago. Completely independently Dieter Ennemoser also developed a lacquer (his C 37) which improves the sound when applied to things and it appears that Sonus Faber have also found a lacquer which they describe as being “friendly to audio” (meaning it ‘sounds good’).

THEN, Unclestu, when you find which lacquer is best for which situation and you find which colour is best for which situation, and you are able to then work out WHY from the various clues you might have observed, then you will begin to realize that you don’t NEED the actual sugar cube, you don’t NEED the actual crystal, you just need the specific lacquer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And, the specific colour !!!!!!!!!!!! To get exactly the same results !!!!!!!!!!!!! Which then leaves all your explanations regarding the sugar cube (crystalline structure or geometric shape) somewhat “in the air” when you can gain the SAME results (on the sound) from a particular lacquer or a particular colour !!

>> “Surprisingly a reshaped sugar cube (spherical) proved to be overall superior to the above two, having a slight upper bass hump but good dynamics and a fairly even frequency response. Lumps of rock sugar sounded terrible, BTW. However, a cubical sugar cube also sounded very bad so a lot may have to do with the actual physical configuration of the crystal structure itself.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ (surprised) when you alter the GEOMETRIC SHAPE of a sugar cube from spherical to cubical and the sound was ‘very bad’ !!

>> “And just where did you ever get the idea that ionizing a CD player and LP improved the sound? I attribute the effects on CD and LP to degaussing.” <<

You are ‘stuck’ (you can’t understand) how aiming such as a tourmaline source (sometimes a hair dryer), at a CD can give a similar improvement in the sound as applying a demagnetizer !!

>> “The Japanese market a product called phiten which is claimed to help increase your body's circulation. They make it into bracelets, necklaces, elbow pads and such as well as adhesive tape. I've tried the tape on audio gear, like in my CD player tray and it does have a positive effect, although a relatively small one.” <<

You have tried something which the Japanese use which they claim aids a human being’s WELLBEING and HEARD a small positive effect on the sound !!! Are you going to explain the bracelets, necklaces, elbow pads, adhesive as “having an effect on the audio signal” if wearing such things gives an improvement in the sound for the person wearing them ???

The Schumann resonance device was initially developed and used as an aid to a person’s WELLBEING !! Only later was it introduced as a device which “improves the sound when positioned in the listening room”.

Just HOW MANY CLUES do you need ????????????????? To move your constant emphasis away from “something having an effect on the audio signal” or “something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room “ ???

As soon as you realized (as you should have done many years ago when you began the ‘hear’ changes in the sound by doing some things which did not initially make sense from a conventional electronic or acoustic point of view) that you were ‘dealing with’ adverse conditions in the environment, then you should have been asking yourself, from DAY ONE – WHAT is going on, WHAT is being affected, HOW is it being affected, WHY is it being affected and you should have been confronted with clues which should have pointed you to explore different paths to try to gain a better understanding (i.e. different to “an effect on the audio signal”).

If you have not YET been confronted with such clues, then I apologize for my expectations that you would have been further along the path of understanding than you actually are-

I do appreciate that there are yet numerous people who do NOT realize, or who do NOT want to realize, who do NOT want to acknowledge (even faced with unusual experiences of their own) that they are not ‘hearing’ (resolving) all the wealth of information which is already available from their existing equipment and that YOU have been attempting to show them this from your numerous descriptions of so called ‘tweaks’. The attempt to get more people to experience this, I applaud. I want people to explore for themselves.

I have seen (on another AA site) John Atkinson quoted as saying that he cannot understand how some people can prefer the sound of a piece of equipment which does not have excellent measurements against another piece of equipment which has excellent measurements.

If you can move away from ‘something affecting the audio signal’ and consider that it is the human being who is doing the reacting, then such things can begin to make sense.

I will describe a hypothetical example, but as many people will already know, my hypothetical examples are very, very close to the truth !!

I will use a technique I have used before in my various talks. The example of a Snakes and Ladders board.

You have two CD players. One made by Joe Bloggs which people like the sound of but which does not have such good measurements. The other is made by Bill Brown which has excellent measurements but which people do not really like the sound of. They much prefer Joe Bloggs CD player but no one can understand why.

Looking at it from a human being’s point of view. Bill Brown has used extremely low tolerance polyester film capacitors in his CD player because they measure well. But, human beings react adversely to the particular chemical mixture of polyester !!!! On the other hand, Joe Bloggs has always preferred the sound of polyurethane film capacitors so has always preferred to use those particular capacitors, even though they do not have the extremely low tolerance of polyester film capacitors. Human beings do not react quite so adversely to the particular chemical mixture of polyurethane so that is why the sound of Joe Bloggs CD player is usually preferred !!

Now, using my snakes and ladders board example. Bill Brown has advanced along the board and, in fitting the extremely low tolerance polyester film capacitors has advanced one square (from a technical point of view) but has landed on a square with a SNAKE (from a sound point of view)– which shoots him down the board – below where Joe Bloggs player sits !! Whereas Joe Bloggs, in using the polyurethane film capacitors has landed on a LADDER square which shoots him up the board (from a sound point of view). – above where Bill Brown’s player sits.

All you have to do is to ‘treat’ the polyester film of the capacitors in Bill Brown’s CD player so that human beings do not react so adversely to them and the sound of Bill Brown’s CD player will now be improved and LIKED !!! And to prove that it is NOT the audio signal being changed, you go to an identical Bill Brown CD player sitting passively on a display shelf metres away from any active audio equipment – not connected into the audio system, not connected to the AC power supply, just sitting there, passively, and ‘treat’ the identical polyester film capacitors in the PASSIVE CD player and you will get a further identical improvement in the sound !!

As for your snide (throwaway) comment :-

>> “Just take your boy, GK” <<

I don’t for one moment think that GK is anyone’s BOY !!!

Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer

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

Schiit Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---