Isolation Ward

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

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And...

Posted by May Belt on July 25, 2007 at 10:34:38:

>>> "Counterexample: If one aligns a cartridge more accurately to the groove and hears increased spatiality and less distortion, would *that* be a Beltist effect? Or if one replaces well-used tubes with new ones, would that? " <<<

I get this all the time. People will keep giving me real, conventional examples from traditional audio thinking - things which follow strict and easily understood audio thinking. I am not claiming that everything which affects 'sound' is a Beltist effect. Usually people give the example of something like :-
Someone will describe how a CD would not play so they describe washing it carefully and polishing the playing side and then playing it. Lo and behold - it plays !! Of course it does. If the playing surface had gotten smeared or oily and the laser beam could not read the information correctly, then washing the CD would quite likely solve the problem !! This isn't Beltist this is straight conventional audio thinking. The examples you give are
1) conventionally mechanical,
2) conventionally electronic.

Another example from conventional audio/electronics. If the audio equipment suddenly does not work and you replace the surge fuse in the mains plug because it BLEW and - lo and behold - the audio equipment works again.

Or, if one has RF (or the hum of the AC mains) interference and one creates a metal (Faraday) shield (usually inside cabling) and the RF or mains hum is stopped - that is straight conventional electronic thinking.
As I say, I get this all the time.

I KNOW conventional audio and conventional electronics. I know all about resistance, capacitance, inductance, the dielectric effect, microphony, RF interference, vibrations, static, room acoustics etc, etc. I also know when an effect is likely to be a conventional electronic or acoustic effect. But I also know about numerous other things which change the sound which CANNOT be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories.

So, I don't think I am being unfair with my examples. Nor am I claiming "Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects" - the examples I give and the explanations I challenge are the ones I have particular experience with.
Regards,
May Belt.