Isolation Ward

Hand Cream and static.

80.177.28.171

May Belt

Posted by clarkjohnsen (R) on July 18, 2007
>>> "In Reply to: RE: hand cream and cd's posted by zanash on July 18, 2007
For over a decade it has been a well-kept secret (and so, apparently, it shall remain) that the static charge that accumulates on a CD somehow disrupts the read mechanism, causing a weird sort of virtually unmeasurable distortion.

Nordost Eco (spray and wipes), and numerous other products as well, was developed to counter this. Nor is it surprising that any sort of cream thing (label side only!) will neutralize the charge, at least temporarily." <<<

******************

My reply to Clark.

First of all let me emphasise that I KNOW about static and problems with static. I am not challenging that there is such a thing as static !! What I challenge is the generalised explanation, usually put forward, whenever there is any mention of chemicals having an effect on the sound, is that it is because of STATIC !!

You use the words "somehow disrupts" Clark, and "causing a weird sort of". In other words, you do not know what the chemicals are doing but, somehow or other, you are attempting to squeeze, push, pull, bend, stretch, some sort of explanation from within conventional science to try to explain what is 'going on'. If you are going to use the explanation that it is 'static' which is the problem, then you have to explain how the static can be having an effect on the digital information encoded on the CD, how the application of a 'cream or chemical' on the label side of that CD improves that information, and, also, if additional information is heard after the application of such chemical/s, where that additional information (which must have been on the CD all the time) goes - i.e where, or how, it gets lost if there has not been any chemical applied ?

The only reason why any explanation to do with 'static' is used is because people have try to find some explanation as to what can be affecting the audio signal (whenever the sound is being described as 'having improved'). Which is exactly the path which Nordost engineers have gone down. Because people (audio engineers etc) seem only to be able to believe that any changes to the 'sound' must be because of changes to either the audio signal or to the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.

I have explained this before re the Nordost Eco you referred to.
To quote from a previous 'posting' of mine.

"Over 20 years ago, we told people that you can apply a Cream (a chemical) to the label side of CDs, to the labels of vinyl records, to the plastic case of audio and video cassettes, to the outer plastic insulation of cables (all cables) and gain an improvement in the sound !!
20 years later, Nordost have a chemical which they claim if you apply it to the label side of CDs, to the labels of vinyl records and to the outer plastic insulation of cables (all cables, including AC power cables) you will gain an improvement in the sound !!
Nordost's explanation is that their chemical 'deals with static problems - which are affecting the audio signal' but, when you can ALSO apply the chemical to the outer plastic insulation of the cable attached to such as the table lamp or the electric clock !!! and gain an identical improvement in the sound, then how can this explanation of 'dealing with static which is affecting the audio signal' any longer hold water ?"

To add to this I will recount a story from over 20 years ago (which was published in a British Hi Fi magazine). Jimmy Hughes (a UK audio equipment reviewer) had a jar of our newly developed Cream-Electret. A manufacturer of equipment support stands delivered one metal support stand to Jimmy's and left it with him for review. This support stand was left (just standing passively) in Jimmy's listening room until Jimmy had time to review it. However, from the moment this support stand was in the room, Jimmy found that his sound was 'worse'. Jimmy knew that he would either have to remove the (passive) stand from the room or to 'treat' it. Jimmy chose to 'treat' it by applying a small amount of our Cream-Electret on it's legs. After doing this, Jimmy's sound was no longer 'worse' - in fact it was now better than it had been before the support stand was delivered. The 'treated' support stand was now a beneficial device as far as good sound was concerned !!

How can any explanation to do with 'static', "having an effect on the audio signal" be used in such circumstances ?
It is exactly the same Cream as is used on the label side of a CD, exactly the same Cream as is used on the outer insulation of cables, exactly the same Cream as is used on the labels of vinyl records, on the plastic cases of audio tapes and video tapes - and giving identical improvements in the sound when applied to the legs of support stands, to loudspeaker stands, to the perspex lid of turntables and so on ---------- !!

As I have explained on numerous occasions. We discovered the effect of various chemicals on 'sound' by, initially, absolutely ruining our sound by applying what turned out to be a 'wrong' chemical to a stain on a coffee table. And, it took us a considerable time to figure out what was 'going on'. We have been down all the usual conventional paths which everyone else has been down - looking for explanations - i.e. EMI, RF interference, static, vibrations, resonances, room acoustics and so on.

Long before we actually owned a CD player or any CDs, we used vinyl records as our source of music. At one particular time we were investigating different turntable mats and the final two materials selected as 'sounding' good were felt and pure, untreated cork. But, as one will realise, each time you wish to listen to a different mat, you have to remove the vinyl record. Every time we removed the vinyl record from the cork mat, we got the 'fizz' of static so we applied a proprietary antistatic chemical to the cork mat and left the cork to dry over a period of a few days. Unfortunately, we now found that when using the 'antistatically treated' cork mat, our sound was much worse. Yes, we had cured the 'static' problem but in the course of doing so we had spoilt the sound. We then began to realise that there are some antistatic chemicals which can cause the sound to deteriorate whilst still successfully dealing with the problem of static !! I am aware that others have found this out also by chance, completely ruining their sound but not knowing how to recover it, because once antistatic chemicals have been applied, then they have done their job.

So, Clark, you will continue to use the explanation of 'static' until such time as you use a particular antistatic chemical and 'spoil' your sound. You will continue to struggle, using words such as "somehow disrupts", and "causing a weird sort of virtually unmeasurable distortion" in an attempt to find some sort of explanation.
Regards,
May Belt.

Follow Ups:

We all gotta get in the same room! - Enophile 18:26:56 07/31/07 (12)
I don't know if people are having "real" feelings, or if it's internet iconoclasm, but I'd buy all the rounds (if we drank at my place) just to have the pleasure of sitting around goofing with RLW, Posy, Unclestu, SF Tech, Zanash, Rick_M...well, everybody on this thread!

We'd definitely test the effect of fine wine on the performance of Hi Fi gear.

Question: Would any of y'all refuse to break bread and/or toss back beverages with your doppelgangers?

A buddy and I have a demo suite at the T.H.E. Show each year, maybe we could hook up and argue in person. Our room is non-commercial - so no sales agenda on our part. Just come, hang, and philosophize.

I'll even make name badges...

"Hi, my name is....

I'm a/an objectivist/subjectivist"

I'd also be happy to let people try some of these "esoteric" tweaks for us to sit and discuss.

Cheers.
- "Would any of y'all refuse to break bread and/or toss back beverages with your doppelgangers?" - SF tech 15:41:34 08/01/07 (1)
  Hell No! I'd gladly meet any of youse guys!
  
  I like your attitude, Mr. Enophile.
  
  This *is*, after all, the Intarweb... And what happens on the Intarweb, STAYS on the Intarweb!
  
  Cheers
  - This has the makings of an all time classic party. - Enophile 12:11:58 08/02/07 (0)
    Imagine, lions lying down with lambs, cats hanging with dogs, Shias sharing a brewski with Sunnis, objectivists slapping subjectivists on the back and sharing a laugh.
    
    Although, I wonder if such an event could precipitate the end times.
    
    Ah, hell, I'm willing to risk it.
    
    We have to stick to wine, though. If we have beer, it'll just degenerate into a "Less Filling/Tastes Great" debacle.
    
    Cheers, SF Tech!
- Count me in... - rlw 13:12:29 08/01/07 (1)
  If it's anywhere near my residence (outside Washington, DC).
  
  -RW-
  - Don't forget to bring your, uh, you know... - geoffkait 14:35:19 08/01/07 (0)
    ...your favorite tweak
- You're the guys! - unclestu52 18:45:01 07/31/07 (7)
  I've heard about you folks for the past couple of years and I believe I even stopped in this past year. Business wise, though ,I had to move on. I do remember being very hospitably received.
  Maybe next year, we can meet after hours....
  
  In one of my manufacturers's booth, their engineer always greets me with the inquiry, "What new tweak do you have for us this time?" Sometimes I have to scramble as I really didn't have anything to show him....
  A couple of years ago (OK three years ago), my friend exhibited a line of Italian gear he represents. His anticipated help did not arrive, and I helped him fine tune the room a little, being that he had trouble just finding enough time to set up the room with missing and late parcels and other helpful calamities. I found it a lot of fun.
  Stu
  
  Edits: 07/31/07
  - I think I wuz prolly one of the first... - geoffkait 12:21:15 08/01/07 (6)
    to use a Mpingo disc at the show...
    - http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina6.htm (Open in New Window)
    - You would be welcome to bring any "reversible" tweak you'd like...just so long as we don't lose our deposit! - Enophile 14:16:17 08/02/07 (5)
      Except be advised that we play with a few, too.
      
      Last show, we experimented with some system enhancing fluids, and if my budget improves, we may have a totally new thing to try!
      
      All opinions, from both sides, are welcome.
      - By "reversible" do you mean like system enhancing fluids? :-) nt - geoffkait 15:22:56 08/02/07 (4)
        
        In Reply to: RE: You would be welcome to bring any "reversible" tweak you'd like...just so long as we don't lose our deposit! posted by Enophile on August 02, 2007 at 14:16:17
        
        nt
        
        RE: By "reversible" do you mean like system enhancing fluids? :-) nt - May Belt 01:30:05 08/03/07 (3)
        
        In Reply to: RE: By "reversible" do you mean like system enhancing fluids? :-) nt posted by geoffkait on August 02, 2007 at 15:22:56
        
        I am as curious as Geoff is as to how one can have "system enhancing fluids" which are reversible !!
        Regards,
        May Belt.
        
        Last year, we made two types. - Enophile 07:10:03 08/03/07 (2)
        
        In Reply to: RE: By "reversible" do you mean like system enhancing fluids? :-) nt posted by May Belt on August 03, 2007 at 01:30:05
        
        Good morning,
        
        This past show, we made two types and used one pre-made type:
        
        1) We got 2 gallons of 95% ethanol and then zested 250 or so lemons. Then we put the zest into the ethanol for about 8 weeks and filtered the zest away. Talk about aroma therapy! Then, we added one gallon of distilled water and a kilogram of cane sugar. We let the whole thing sit for another 4 weeks, then we made 1.75 oz. aliquots in glass lab bottle with bakelite tops. (The bakelite part makes a difference.) We made around 150 of these things, and put them on dry ice in our "dressing area" during the show. We'd have people listen to the gear, and then we'd serve them a couple of this system enhacing fluid bottles and see what they thought they did for the sound.
        
        2) We did the same thing with 2 liters of 95% ethanol, mixed about 10 parts ethanol to 3 parts of 70% ethanol/thujon extract. This was served from one master container in very small amounts to check toxicity before we tried it on ourselves. It worked well, too!
        
        3) We also brought about 6 cases of wine from our cellars and poured into soap-free wine goblets, with test subjects allowed their choice of grape, winery, and portions.
        
        In general, the effect of the system enhancing fluids showed a bell shaped curve relative to dose of fluid. With dose being the "X" axis and quality of sound enhancement on the "Y" axis. Apologies for the objectivist dose/response curve - it's not set in stone, and does vary from individual to individual.
        
        Usually, by halfway through the next day (depending on the dose and the person's hydration status), the effect of the system enhancing fluid is gone, and listeners can choose to re-treat or not.
        
        We call our tweak "Servive to Humanity," or "Beneficium procul Humanitas."
        
        Cheers!
        
        Oh, mass loading. Why didn't you say so? nt - geoffkait 03:08:01 08/04/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Last year, we made two types. posted by Enophile on August 03, 2007 at 07:10:03
        
        nt
        
        Ah ha! So that would be a "Beltist" style tweak then... - rick_m 08:30:51 08/03/07 (0)
        
        In Reply to: RE: Last year, we made two types. posted by Enophile on August 03, 2007 at 07:10:03
        
        ...Affecting the listener's perception while not causing a measurable change in the equipment.
        
        Now that my eyes have been opened, I realize that I too have experimented with similar tweaks and have found them to efficacious. But I'd like to try yours and compare...
        
        Rick
RE: Hand Cream and static. - zanash 00:11:06 07/24/07 (121)
Just to say I'm open minded on the pwb thing ...some things have worked for me and others have not.

All I will say is that if the pwb creams work half as well as the "hand cream tweak" then they should be a good investment.

I've only treated on cd to prove the effect..the idea was passed on to me by a freind. Its relatively messy and makes the cd hard to handle ...think off trying to put an eel into your cd draw !

I've been able to get similar improvements ie the same sounding, from the use of phonosophies's cd flux, though this doesn't give the extra deep bass the hand cream does. Using a CD lathe in conjunction with the cd flux takes the the openness [space and air around the instruments] several steps further than the "hand cream"...but at a considerable setup cost .

As to the static explanation...its possible but I feel theres more going on than that. Such a fundamental alteration of the sound by the aplication of a lipid based product seems odd in the extreme.

May be those who propund the static idea could test a cd with a"gold leaf electroscope"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroscope

this should be able to show if the cd carries any static.

I'm more inclined [though I have no evidence] to think is more likely a molecular force ...van de waals forces ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

Though again why this would be affect cd play back is beyond me.

Remember I only posted this as I was able to hear an effect, I don't pretend to have any answers.
- RE: Hand Cream and static. - May Belt 10:53:06 07/24/07 (2)
 If the hand cream is working like I think it is, then you should not need to apply the cream over the whole label side of the CD. Just try the experiment (on another CD) of applying a small amount in just a small area of the label and see what improvement you can get from just applying a small amount. Concentrate the cream on an area where there is a lot of printing or a lot of artwork.
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 - RE: Hand Cream and static. - zanash 23:12:53 07/24/07 (1)
 Thank you
 
 will give that a whirl ....
 - Did you test this ? NT - Lowrider 06:58:19 09/17/07 (0)
 ...
 
 Antonio Melo Ribeiro
- RE: Hand Cream and static. - rick_m 09:34:26 07/24/07 (6)
 Excellent post...
 
 Are you using an external DAC on your player?
 
 Measuring static is easy, but a little spendy. Every production department seems to have some officious fellow running around with a little handheld electrostatic meter showing me how charged up my pocket protector is. I just fend them off with my slide rule. Just checked and they seem to start at ~$250. The meter that is, officious fellows are extra.
 
 I'd like to add a speculation to the pile: Part of the effect may be due to altering the mechanical damping of the disk. Just did a little informal experiment, I took a CD stuck my finger in it, and tapped it with my finger nail. Rings like a fiend, you can hear and feel the vibs for a good 5 seconds. Then I smeared some lotion on it, wiped off the "excess". I think it lowered the Q somewhat especially of the higher frequency modes. Still rang though. I repeated the test a couple of times washing off the lotion. Messy. This notion goes along well with your comment that truing the edges helps.
 
 I think the best way to improve CD playback is to stop doing it. Trying to extract data in real-time from a shaking disk without affecting the conversion is bad karma. The litany of tweaks for CD players attests to serious systemic problems, many of which are completely eliminated by ripping the data.
 
 I couldn't listen to the data on the disk because it was actually an old Altera catalog. I've had enough problems with the very thin coating of white grease I use on the slides of one of my players migrating onto disks and into other players that I wouldn't consider playing a disk coated with lotion anyway. I can just imagine it flying off like a lawn sprinkler!
 
 One of these days I'll goop it up again and thumb tack it up in my equipment closet. I doubt it will do anything, but at least it would be tidy...
 
 Regards, Rick
 - RE: Hand Cream and static. - zanash 01:38:23 07/26/07 (0)
 can't argue with that !
 - "...altering the mechanical damping of the disk." And more. - clarkjohnsen 09:27:16 07/25/07 (0)
 One uses the Audio Desk Systeme ("CD Carver") to true the disc around its actual center, reducing that motional variable. On the other hand I would doubt (I do not know) that a cream application would have much effect on damping; one uses mats, rings etc. for that.
 
 "The litany of tweaks for CD players attests to serious systemic problems, many of which are completely eliminated by ripping the data." Operative word: "Many". But, yes, to my knowledge there's only one CD unit, the Memory Player, that is largely (if not totally) immune to "tweaks".
 
 clark
 - I do believe - unclestu52 11:34:34 07/24/07 (3)
 your speculation may be a source of some of the CD woes (not necessarily for the cream, since some report wiping off of the excess, but interesting, non the less ). For a number of years now I have been adding ferrofluid to dampen the laser focusing mechanism in the CD/DVD players' head assembly.
 While I do not recommend an arbitrary addition of the ferrofluid (I have had issues caused by a little overenthusiastic addition and improper placement ), the stabilizing of the focus circuit seems to indicate that mechanical dampening and intensification of the motor fields yields a significant improvement in clarity and resolution. While I use ferrofluid, another modifier I spoke to simply added silicon and reported a nice improvement in sound. I am a bit hesitant to use simple silicon as there is nothing to retain the fluid in situ. For those adventurous enough, I add ferrofluid to the motor coil assembly.
 BTW, when searching for ferrofluid, I called what is now Ferrofluidics and told the salesman there about my observations. I notice they now recommend the same on their website.
 The other audible factor is the EMI field created by the spin motor. I suspect that that fluctuating field affects the 'jitter' of the data from the laser assembly itself, especially considering the motor spins at 600 to 1200 rpm and most motors are two or three pole affairs.
 In order to limit the field of the motor, taking inspiration from the VPI brick, I place a large toroid centered over the spin motor. You could use a dumb bell weight or even large steel washers to the same effect. It certainly increases detail. Even on top of a steel chassis, it still has some audible effect.
 While placement on top of the chassis is some benefit, placement closer to the actual motor is even more beneficial. Going inside the chassis, I often place the ferrite cores directly upon the bridge which holds the clamping mechanism (not all transports have such a design: the Sony mechanism, the later Philips, the Marantz and the Esoteric use that particular design). Using double stick tape (Scotch VHB) has been very stable for long term use.
 Now the magnetic induction will create a small current flow through the magnetically permeable ferrite. I normally cover it with copper tape and then ground the copper for further improvement in sound (a 'faster' quality, more dynamic).
 Any way, some food for thought. I ought to look a bit more at the servo circuitry for the laser focus mechanism, but the current SMD devices and my need for reading glasses are great discouragements. Plus I notice many are chip based designs.
 
 Stu
 
 Edits: 07/24/07 07/24/07
 - RE: I do believe - rick_m 12:27:36 07/24/07 (2)
 Hi Stu,
 
 When I was playing around with CD resonance this morning it occurred to me that I could probably quantify the results by looking for spurs in the spectrum of the focusing coil current at the resonant frequency of the CD.
 
 But that's way more work than I care to do. Although I still rely upon my CD player and DAC in the main system, it's days are ultimately numbered. I haven't used the player in the study system for almost a year as I'm happy as a dead pig in the sunshine driving it with my computer.
 
 I'm really impressed with your player tweaks, the ferrofluid is interesting. If you are going to continue in this vein, it probably would be worth springing for a binocular microscope so you can see your way clear to probe deeper. Me, I'm just gonna end up eventually with my collection on a server and keep the originals for backup. It may be a while but I've now had enough experience to know that it's the way I want to go. If there was any question, seeing how many things you have found that improves CD players drives more nails in their coffin for me.
 
 Regards, Rick
 - Yep - unclestu52 12:33:52 07/24/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I do believe posted by rick_m on July 24, 2007 at 12:27:36
 
 got a couple of microscopes, including a low power ( 10X) binocular stereoscope marketed by Pace for circuit board work.
 
 I was just pointing out the effect of the motor induction which unless you're using a flash card or similar technology, may still have effects on a PC.
 
 Paranoia reigns!
 
 8^)
 
 Stu
 
 In Microsoft I trust! - rick_m 12:58:40 07/24/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Yep posted by unclestu52 on July 24, 2007 at 12:33:52
 
 Hey... what could go wrong? Bits is bits...
 
 But I THINK that HD reads are buffered by both hardware on the drive and a cache maintained by the OS. So they may be deprecated by other factors, but probably not by motor fields.
 
 I've got to get either a scope or perhaps a USB camera, have a lot of SMT boards almost ready for prototyping and I've gotten to the point where I need my glasses just to find the mouse...
 
 Aged Rick
- RE: Hand Cream and static. - Posy Rorer 09:16:48 07/24/07 (110)
 > > Just to say I'm open minded on the pwb thing ...some things have worked for me and others have not. All I will say is that if the pwb creams work half as well as the "hand cream tweak" then they should be a good investment. < <
 
 PWB's "Cream Electret" is -far- more effective than hand lotion (even though, IMO, both work on the same principle). AFAIC, given the accessible price and how little you need for it to be effective, it's one of the best investments you can make in audio today. (BTW US: it does not contain any ingredients harmful to CDs. People have been using it for many years on their CDs).
 
 > > I've only treated on cd to prove the effect..the idea was passed on to me by a freind. Its relatively messy and makes the cd hard to handle ...think off trying to put an eel into your cd draw ! < <
 
 That's because you're not using it as I advised. Mine are not messy at all, and I can barely tell, if at all, that there was anything applied to the disc.
 
 To address UncleStu and Enophile's concerns: I have placed my treated CDs in a bag as advised by Enophile, it's been a few days, absolutely no difference. They work fine and as I said, I (still) can't really tell there was anything applied.
 
 BTW, you should always handle your CDs by the edge. Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound.....
 
 > > As to the static explanation...its possible but I feel theres more going on than that. Such a fundamental alteration of the sound by the aplication of a lipid based product seems odd in the extreme.
 
 May be those who propund the static idea could test a cd with a"gold leaf electroscope" < <
 
 Again, those who propose the static idea do not have to buy a "gold leaf electroscope" (or rather, try to steal one from a museum, since these things came out in the 18th century...), let alone know how to operate one. They simply have to follow the simple steps that I advised! In seconds and at no cost to you, you will be able to tell whether the effect is due to static or, as I have stated, Beltism.
 
 > > I'm more inclined [though I have no evidence] to think is more likely a molecular force ...van de waals forces ?
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
 
 Though again why this would be affect cd play back is beyond me. < <
 
 Wayyyy off. It's Beltism.
 
 > > Remember I only posted this as I was able to hear an effect, I don't pretend to have any answers. < <
 
 Do the test, you'll have the answers.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - NOTE ALL: The two responses just below were simply intended to derail the discussion. - clarkjohnsen 09:22:15 07/25/07 (1)
 Typical behavior.
 
 clark
 - STALKER ALERT!!! New thread policeman in town? - Enophile 09:57:38 07/25/07 (0)
 Sir, how is my question about calling something an "electret" different from yours to May Belt about the effect of placing the jar of her cream in a listening environment?
 
 I believe that a product's name may be indicative of its function.
 
 Do you take issue with that post and that question?
 
 Was the "attitude" not to your liking, or was there some nebulous feeling you had with regard to the use of the term "electret?"
 
 I'm glad to know that you are now the "Discussion Monitor." Self appointed, no doubt.
 - The product names, "Cream Electret" and "Sol Electret" imply something via their use of the word "electret." - Enophile 11:16:52 07/24/07 (1)
 Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet.
 
 The use of the term "electret" in the product name does imply some sort of magnetic or electrical effect.
 
 I find that interesting, because there are so many people who believe in demagnetizing discs or removing electric charge - and can hear the benefits - yet this product, by definition, implies the "addition" of magnetic material or electrical charge.
 
 Perhaps the product is meant to take advantage of some sort of selective "magnetization" or "addition of electric charge" to what it's applied to, but this seems counter to the goals of other products.
 
 You'd think that users would be warned not to demagnetize or "destatic" items in a system where this cream has been used to add the very effect that our procedures are meant to remove.
 
 Very interesting name for the product.
 
 _
 
 On the fun side, I must quote you...
 
 "Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound....."
 
 Are you rejecting that without trying it?
 
 That doesn't seem like you.
 
 Perhaps that is a great idea and you're missing out!
 
 *I'm purely goofing off, but I am a little satisfied to see you reject something out of hand. We may make a skeptic out of you yet!
 
 ;)
 
 Best wishes.
 - RE: The product names, "Cream Electret" and "Sol Electret" imply something via their use of the word "electret." - Posy Rorer 12:19:54 07/25/07 (0)
 > > Electret (formed of elektr- from "electricity" and -et from "magnet") is a dielectric material that has a quasi-permanent electric charge or dipole polarisation. An electret generates internal and external electric fields, and is the electrostatic equivalent of a permanent magnet. < <
 
 I'll forward this to Peter and see if he can make any sense of it. ;-)
 
 > > The use of the term "electret" in the product name does imply some sort of magnetic or electrical effect. < > I find that interesting, because there are so many people who believe in demagnetizing discs or removing electric charge - and can hear the benefits - yet this product, by definition, implies the "addition" of magnetic material or electrical charge. < <
 
 I agree. However, "implies" doesn't mean it does. It only means that's how you interpret something, no matter how justified you think you are in interpreting it that way. When you say "By definition", you mean by -your- definition. Electrets may have zip all to do with this cream, just as "Olay" is not an ingredient in "Oil of Olay". Or, it may simply mean the cream had such treatments. Following purely Beltist principles, there is an expectation that treated objects (ie. cream) can transfer most if not all their treatments on to other objects. That's the idea behind all of Belt's products.
 
 > > Perhaps the product is meant to take advantage of some sort of selective "magnetization" or "addition of electric charge" to what it's applied to, but this seems counter to the goals of other products. < <
 
 Indeed. Magnetization can be harmful, or it can be beneficial. It all depends on how you use it and how much you understand of its effects.
 
 > > You'd think that users would be warned not to demagnetize or "destatic" items in a system where this cream has been used to add the very effect that our procedures are meant to remove. < <
 
 Again, you're going beyond speculation here and assuming your speculations are correct. Not a wise thing to do, if you're even pretending to be a truth-seeker. Especially if you have done no research at all on the product you're speculating upon. There are warnings about the product from the manufacturer. They are however, of a different nature.....
 
 http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/cream/cream.html
 
 > > On the fun side, I must quote you...
 "Who knows what fingerprint oils may do to your sound....."
 Are you rejecting that without trying it?
 That doesn't seem like you.
 Perhaps that is a great idea and you're missing out! < <
 
 > > *I'm purely goofing off, but I am a little satisfied to see you reject something out of hand. We may make a skeptic out of you yet! < <
 
 Not today, you won't! I was not rejecting or accepting anything above, since I made no conclusion as to whether the fingerprints on a CD (label side of course) can harm (or improve) sound (or do nothing, of course). I was merely speculating on the possibility that of the two possibilities, "harm" is one of them, and thus it may harm sound just to have fingerprint oils on the CD. This is an educated guess, based on the fact that I have not deliberately placed anything on a CD, that did not change the sound (and usually, for the worse). Hence if I had to guess, I'd guess that if this changes the sound, it will be for the worse. But I would not -conclude- anything without trying it. However, I'm unlikely to try this idea, because it's not an interesting one to me. (Let's say it does change the sound, better or worse. It's very difficult for me to control how many fingerprints will end up on a disc, so not a very practical idea, even if it does do something).
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - Be aware though... - rlw 10:41:35 07/24/07 (12)
 ...that if you happen to disagree with Posy's findings - or fail to hear what he claims to hear, he'll immediatley cast aspersions on your hearing, your belief system, and your attitude. There is no room for dissent from the party line as dicatated by Herr Rorer.
 
 -RW-
 - RE: Be aware though... - zanash 01:39:27 07/26/07 (0)
 but your doing just the same !
 - Now you're comparing me to a Nazi? Yeah, you're really convincing us you're not a troll. - Posy Rorer 13:39:31 07/25/07 (4)
 rlw:
 ".that if you happen to disagree with Posy's findings - or fail to hear what he claims to hear, he'll immediatley cast aspersions on your hearing, your belief system, and your attitude. There is no room for dissent from the party line as dicatated by Herr Rorer.
 
 -RW-"
 
 Ho boy. I suppose you expect applause for your performance, now? A Cannes d'Or medal perhaps? I doubted your claims rlw because, as I showed in detail in my lengthy reply recently, I don't think you did any test of the sort. It's clear you're only intention here was to bash what you have called "wacky and implausible tweaks", as you have been shown to do on these forums over and over again. I simply noted what others have noted; you're an insincere troll with a well-known anti-tweak agenda on AA, engaging in your usual games of playing victim, feigning outrage, and impressing no one. Comparing me now to a Nazi only confirms and emphasizes your true trolling character. I invoke Godwin's law upon you, and a blast of Troll-B-Gone spray in your general direction. [psssssshhhhhhhhhht!]
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - Posy is everyone you disagree with a troll? - Lt Einhorn 05:51:33 06/09/15 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Now you're comparing me to a Nazi? Yeah, you're really convincing us you're not a troll. posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 13:39:31
 
 Is troll a favorite word of yours? Or is it your go to when you have no real argument? You have used it just under 50 times in this thread alone?
 - Not Hitler, you dolt, it's the Chermans, Tommy! - rlw 09:32:11 07/26/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Now you're comparing me to a Nazi? Yeah, you're really convincing us you're not a troll. posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 13:39:31
 
 How can we trust you for anything if you can't even get that right? Now get back in your bunker and take a timeout, young man.
 
 -RW-
 - Godwin's Law...excellent. - Enophile 14:59:37 07/25/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Now you're comparing me to a Nazi? Yeah, you're really convincing us you're not a troll. posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 13:39:31
 
 I haven't seen that invoked in ages!
 
 Hey, what is opinion of homeopathy?
 
 Would you consider that Beltian?
 
 RE: Godwin's Law...excellent. - Posy Rorer 16:20:31 07/25/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Godwin's Law...excellent. posted by Enophile on July 25, 2007 at 14:59:37
 
 **I haven't seen that invoked in ages!
 
 Hey, what is opinion of homeopathy?
 
 Would you consider that Beltian?**
 
 No connection whatsoever that I can see, other than the fact that they are both alternative "remedies" to common problems. I have no experience with homeopathic medicine, but I have a relative who practices it and have heard of many helped by it, and if it does so, its perfectly fine by me.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - Once they get a foothold in your house you can never get rid of them - geoffkait 11:00:44 07/24/07 (5)
 And SO sincere sounding...it doesn't get much better than this. :-)
 - You already used that line, Geoff... - rlw 11:15:37 07/24/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Once they get a foothold in your house you can never get rid of them posted by geoffkait on July 24, 2007 at 11:00:44
 
 The *least* you could do would be to come up with a new, witty one. However, most of us have gotten used to you doing the least you can get away with.
 
 Carry on...
 
 -RW-
 
 "Most of us" - geoffkait 11:26:51 07/24/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: You already used that line, Geoff... posted by rlw on July 24, 2007 at 11:15:37
 
 "Most of us posers and trolls" -- I'll fill in the blanks for you, no charge.
 By the way, I see you're stealing Pogie's tactics; you have much in common....as in Common Troll. (We won't mention that you both can'tt hear as that would be rude.)
 It's a weekday; shouldn't you be slicing bread somewhere?
 
 Edits: 07/24/07
 
 I'm not a baker... - rlw 11:35:50 07/24/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Most of us" posted by geoffkait on July 24, 2007 at 11:26:51
 
 ...but I did cut a nice big slice last night, and she was absolutely scrumptious. Thanks for asking.
 
 Oh yeah, I almost forgot to ask - when can I cash in my Teleportation Tweak chit? Cheapskate that I am, I just bought my dog a mid-fi system and he's dying to upgrade it. And please, cast no aspersions, his ears are *excellent*...
 
 BTW, the dog doesn't have a phone yet (imagine that!), can we use mine instead?
 
 -RW-
 
 Not a pretty picture... - Wellfed 20:14:03 07/24/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I'm not a baker... posted by rlw on July 24, 2007 at 11:35:50
 
 Not a pretty picture at all.
 
 Edits: 07/25/07
 
 Rlw, I have to admit you do exude a certain, uh, charm... - geoffkait 13:32:56 07/24/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I'm not a baker... posted by rlw on July 24, 2007 at 11:35:50
 
 Cockroach Elvis
 - "Do the test, you'll have the answers." - pburant 10:03:05 07/24/07 (92)
 And what answers might those be?
 
 You seem to have plenty of hunches about positive and negative energy that humans can detect, but these appear to be no more than wild hunches since the ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas.
 
 How are humans able to detect these positive and negative energies? Will someone hear the benefits of having Peter's special sauce rubbed on their cables if that someone does not know his cables have been sauced?
 
 If odds are generally good and evens generally bad, is it important for the listener to always be apprised of the count? Is it still considered odd if the listener loses count and believes it is even?
 
 -Pete
 - RE: "Do the test, you'll have the answers." - Posy Rorer 13:17:05 07/25/07 (0)
 > > And what answers might those be? < <
 
 Petey, Petey, Petey, Petey, Pete. I'm gonna have to subtract some marks off from your score for this. The "answers" I was referring to in my convo with Zanash when I said "Do the test. You'll have the answers", was in response to him attributing the effect of hand lotion on CD's to everything from static forces to "van der waal" forces. I was telling him that if he did the test I suggested, of applying the lotion to a passive CD (assuming he hears the same improvement I did), he would have his answer. The clue was in the phrase "Wayyyy off. It's Beltism.".
 
 Let me take the opportunity to point out that there have been a LOT of people discussing all these theories about how the hand lotion works. Most of them have not even done a single test of the lotion, to see if they can even hear its effect, according to what was posted. Including you, btw. So far, myself and Zanash are the only two that have even tested this tweak (not counting the false claims of a certain known loud troll with a hidden agenda...). And of all the people talking about this tweak and how it might work, so far, I'm the only person that tested it to find out how it does work. I'm pretty confident I'm right, but I'm not out to "prove" anything to anyone, I'm saying people should prove it to themselves, and here's a simple cost-free method how, which takes 20 seconds to do. So I guess the obvious question is, since you're interested in what I wrote about how it works, why haven't you tested it according to my suggestions?
 
 > > You seem to have plenty of hunches about positive and negative energy that humans can detect < > but these appear to be no more than wild hunches since the ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas. < <
 
 I can understand how they "appear to be wild hunches" to someone who doesn't have clue one as to what Beltism is and how it might work. So believe it or not, I'm not that shocked by your reaction. How about we make an agreement? Why don't you do hundreds of Beltist research experiments for a 20 year period, like I have, and then come back to me on this, and tell me what your conclusions are? If you find all your conclusions are just "wild hunches", then I will begin to respect your informed opinion.
 
 As for your claim that I have no validation of my confirmation of these ideas, what the heck would you know about that? Where you overseeing all of my experiments? I certainly don't recall discussing them in detail with you. Probably because I didn't. More importantly, I'm not stopping you from doing your own experiments.
 
 > > How are humans able to detect these positive and negative energies? < <
 
 They detect them subconsciously via the senses; we're born like this. To become aware of them requires a conscious effort. As with most things in audio (unless you've traded someone's ProAc Tablettes for Duntech Sovereigns without them noticing....).
 
 > > Will someone hear the benefits of having Peter's special sauce rubbed on their cables if that someone does not know his cables have been sauced? < <
 
 Something tells me you're confusing Peter Belt for Ronald McDonald. Are you having a Big Mac Attack (tm) or something, Pete? If I read correctly through your bemusement, the answer is yes. Rubbing Peter's 'special sauce' without someone knowing what I did is one of those "validation of the ideas" you claimed I never did. It was done several times in an SBT. IOW, no, none of this is a placebo, despite what your prejudices are hard at work telling you right now. That however, does not mean you can secretly treat someone's cables and two days later when they turn the stereo on, they'll be so blown away by the dramatic change in sound, they will be able to SMELL the musicians in the room.
 
 That's a hobbyist mistake typical of amateurish thinking in audio. You can change a person's actual cables and they are unlikely to notice it, if you don't tell them you changed something. That's because there's a huge difference between critical listening, and casual listening (that's why we note the difference with a change in adjective). In critical listening, you're listening for changes and in casual listening, you're just listening to your system to enjoy the music it plays. Unless you are hyper-aware of the SQ of your system on a day-to-day basis (like me), which requires great listening skills and attention to details, you are unlikely to notice any such changes from either conventional or advanced audio techniques. (Of course, you would go ahead and argue that if you told someone a change is taking place, then we're all supposed to assume they will automatically take it as a positive change, even if you did nothing). And so the merry-go-round goes, and everyone continues doing as they have been.
 
 > > If odds are generally good and evens generally bad, is it important for the listener to always be apprised of the count? < <
 
 Yes, but only if they care about having the best sound. It appears to me that most Belters don't notice it. Note that each treatment improves the sound incrementally as under conventional laws, but where treatments are susceptible to the odd/even rule, each other treatment will improve in the -wrong way-.
 
 > > Is it still considered odd if the listener loses count and believes it is even? < <
 
 Again, not a placebo, so NO. If you're counting 52 cards in a deck and you're at your 27th card but you missed registering one, does that mean you have an even number of cards in your hand, despite the fact that you're really holding 27? I did not know anything about the odd/even rule theory prior to when I came across it in my own experiments. I only discovered it existed, later. That's a hell of a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - "[Your] ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas." Yep. Einstein wrote those papers... - clarkjohnsen 09:18:50 07/25/07 (90)
 ...and not once did he provide any test data or "validations". How useless can you get? ;-)
 
 clark
 - He demonstrated the math - unclestu52 19:07:47 07/25/07 (89)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "[Your] ideas are never accompanied by any validation of the ideas." Yep. Einstein wrote those papers... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 25, 2007 at 09:18:50
 
 which led him to the conclusions. E=mc^2 and all that, remember? Perhaps you have a mathematical model, too?
 
 8^)
 
 Stu
 
 Lemaitre also demonstrated the math. Einstein didn't believe him. -nt - Posy Rorer 20:28:49 07/25/07 (88)
 
 In Reply to: RE: He demonstrated the math posted by unclestu52 on July 25, 2007 at 19:07:47
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Notice the weasely shift from lack of "validation" to *well, he did the math.* LOL! - clarkjohnsen 08:41:58 07/26/07 (84)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Lemaitre also demonstrated the math. Einstein didn't believe him. -nt posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 20:28:49
 
 Validation: substantiation; confirmation; proof
 
 That's exactly what Einstein's 1905 theories lacked until c.1920, and even that stuff was fudged by Eddington.
 
 The original poster's point was that without such "validation" the Beltist theories are inconsequential. I was offering a counterexample, for which certain ugly personalities of low mental horizons will call me a dim bulb.
 
 Like I said, weasely.
 
 clark
 
 A dim wit and a weasel, that I am - unclestu52 13:35:17 07/26/07 (83)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Notice the weasely shift from lack of "validation" to *well, he did the math.* LOL! posted by clarkjohnsen on July 26, 2007 at 08:41:58
 
 No biggie for me ;^).
 
 Einstein's paper, Lemaitre aside (didn't he work closely with some astronomer?), was a theory, remember? That observational and practical proof (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those tests in the SW) came much later shows that there was a basis for the mathematical model he created. While physical proof was not immediately available, that mathematical model provided the basis for experimentation and observation which were made later. The bending of light gravitationally was made observationally by, hell, you are the NASA optical engineer and you ought to be familiar with that.
 
 So, by your position, I believe you can state something more definitive than than sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is? The example you picked is interesting because it was a model upon which further experimentation yielded predictable results. As a physics major, you know that, or at least, you should know that.
 
 Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal? I do not find that so, although admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks. Some have no effect in my experience, while some do, adding further confusion. In addition, there are alternate explanations in my experience and measurable also.
 
 As a science major, I would have hoped that was ingrained upon you. Perhaps you do know more than you let on. A model of the Beltist theory would be a nice start, and while a mathematical basis would be greatly appreciated, even a general written model would certainly be very nice. Something which would have predictability and be universal would be extremely nice to have.
 
 Stu
 
 A mathematical model for the Beltist phenomenon, as requested. - Posy Rorer 14:34:13 07/26/07 (64)
 
 In Reply to: RE: A dim wit and a weasel, that I am posted by unclestu52 on July 26, 2007 at 13:35:17
 
 > > Einstein's paper, Lemaitre aside (didn't he work closely with some astronomer?), was a theory, remember? That observational and practical proof (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and those tests in the SW) came much later shows that there was a basis for the mathematical model he created. While physical proof was not immediately available, that mathematical model provided the basis for experimentation and observation which were made later. The bending of light gravitationally was made observationally by, hell, you are the NASA optical engineer and you ought to be familiar with that. < <
 
 Whereas you're the Beltist researcher, and you ought to be familiar with the fact that there is observational (and practical) proof of the phenomenon. My point in bringing Lemaitre into this, was to show that even the most brilliant scientists can dismiss mathematical models (Einstein said Lemaitre's calculations were "bad physics"). Just as on the other side of the coin, they dismiss observational and practical proof. While purely objectively measurable proof is not yet available (I'm not assuming it will ever be), Peter's hypothetical model can be the basis for experimentation and observation. Keep in mind, the story of Einstein is just one example of how science works; it's not the blueprint for the way all scientific acheivements are made. I don't think building a nuclear bomb is quite the same as improving your audio system....
 
 > > So, by your position, I believe you can state something more definitive than than sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is? The example you picked is interesting because it was a model upon which further experimentation yielded predictable results. As a physics major, you know that, or at least, you should know that. < <
 
 You're looking to Clark to understand Belt's odd/even rule better than me? Ohhhhkay. Unless you are willing to do the research, taking odd theoretical stabs in the dark at this is not going to bring you any closer to understanding it. It will more likely bring you further and further away, and it will also make Beltists laugh at you. What research have you done on the odd/even rule? It's not enough. You're going to have to do more research than Peter if you want to do more than pretend to understand this, because so far, -no one- can state anything more definitive than "sometimes odd is better and sometimes even is". (And you didn't get that from me, because I've never confirmed what favours even). Also, it hasn't even been officially stated that the odd/even rule applies to everything. You've got your work cut out.
 
 > > Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal? I do not find that so, although admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks. Some have no effect in my experience, while some do, adding further confusion. < <
 
 Not unlike other reports I've heard, where some hear the effects of some tweaks but not others, or some tweaks only when repeated x number of times. Myself, I would have to say all the Belt tweaks are truly predictable* and universal, because I've never had one not have any effect. *(Depending on what you mean by 'truly predictable'.... Sometimes a normally beneficial tweak doesn't produce the predicted beneficial effect, depending on what you apply where. This is usually corrected by reapplications elsewhere).
 
 > > In addition, there are alternate explanations in my experience and measurable also. < <
 
 You''ve been able to measure these tweaks? How so?
 
 > > As a science major, I would have hoped that was ingrained upon you. Perhaps you do know more than you let on. A model of the Beltist theory would be a nice start, and while a mathematical basis would be greatly appreciated, even a general written model would certainly be very nice. Something which would have predictability and be universal would be extremely nice to have. < <
 
 I really shouldn't do this.... especially since it isn't my work (Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days and agree to do his housecleaning for 3 weeks!). But it's all in the interest of advancing science, right? Here is what you are asking about, and I truly hope it is appreciated and will help you to further understand the mysteries of Beltism:
 
 E = PB^2
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Our antagonist weaseled out again; that, coupled with David Aitkin's notable takedown of his illogic... - clarkjohnsen 08:14:54 07/30/07 (55)
 
 In Reply to: RE: A mathematical model for the Beltist phenomenon, as requested. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 14:34:13
 
 ...would seem to dictate a policy on your part of simply ignoring his impotent sallies. Your wit would be better saved for the miserable likes of rlw and SF Tech, truly *stu*pendous targets.
 
 clark
 
 PS Glad to see the rational dialog ongoing with rick_m.
 
 It is a sad time - unclestu52 12:42:11 07/30/07 (52)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Our antagonist weaseled out again; that, coupled with David Aitkin's notable takedown of his illogic... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 30, 2007 at 08:14:54
 
 when a man who claims to have a degree in physics, and claims to have been a project engineer for the Mars landers accepts Posey's mathematical model. It is doubly sad when that man, who has for years been avoiding any 'hard' answers, claims to be a 'scientist'. To resort to name calling and insults is not really the 'scientific' way, nor is it productive in any way. It is simply a reflection of that person's character and his utter contempt for the sharing of knowledge and a refusal to move forward.
 
 Over a year ago I warned you that such outbursts actually demean your reputation and casts you in a very unfavorable light, ruining your credibility. That was offered out of sincere respect and concern. That you have chosen to ignore such warnings with rather flippant replies and seem to have to constantly make "stalker" alerts, well, makes you appear even more ludicrous. It is a conscious choice which you and only you have made.
 
 What you may not know is that Posey and I have had pleasant exchanges off forum. I would rather preserve such a relationship, as it were, rather than to lash out for a few seconds of vindication, which, in the overall scheme of things is meaningless, trifle, and childish (at least to me).
 
 I ask difficult questions sometimes, and it may frustrate some. In my thinking, saying 'I do not know' is no mortal sin. Some of my most brilliant friends, PHD's in various fields from molecular biology to cosmology will say "I don't know." I do not hold it against them, and I rather admire their honesty in saying so.
 
 In your example, I thought it rather poor because at the very least Einstein and Lemaitre or whomever, demonstrates a predictability of events even before practical application proved the theory right. I find that very important in determining causality. The fact that the math was difficult to disprove makes it easier to verify, but I am sure as a physics major that would and should have been very obvious to you.
 
 It is possible to create a mathematical model before 'proof' is found, and it is also possible to have observational data and then to construct a working hypothesis and then a model, usually mathematical. This does not rule out any Beltist observations or tweaks. I was simply questioning the causality and there is where I have my doubts, from my experimentation and observation.
 
 As far as a search for 'improved' sound, I am not afraid to try unusual 'tweaks', and I have reported such observations here and elsewhere. I do my own speculation and these are based on usually years of trial and error. PWB states that they have had 25 years of experience I can honestly say I have the same amount of time and perhaps even more in certain applications. Does that make for any further validation? In my mind, no, it does not. I do have a working hypothesis for some effects, however, and it should be measurable and replicable, even if I lack the required instrumentation.
 
 I simply do not not understand your fear to confront the unknown. It takes work, and it takes time, but it is nothing to be afraid of.
 
 Stu
 
 Posey's Doubly-Sad Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - Posy Rorer 20:38:51 07/30/07 (50)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is a sad time posted by unclestu52 on July 30, 2007 at 12:42:11
 
 Clark:
 
 Well you should know, UncleStu has never been an "antagonist" to me. In fact, I'm not sure why he is to you, so I must have missed that. Seems you two have a lot more in common than not, particularly wrt each of your views on all things Belt. While I certainly think he's taking the wrong paths to understanding the tweaks, I certainly -don't- think he's a "dim wit", and I understand why he chooses the ways he does. For now, it's what "works for him". I also respect his right to follow his own ways and don't fault him for it. I especially admire the fact that he stumbled upon new aspects of Beltism that I haven't (well 'possibly', as I don't know anything of his findings). Nevertheless, I can't say that of too many audiophiles. Although me adn Stu will perhaps never agree on the subject, we don't have to be antagonists because of that. Perhaps, whatever it is you both disagree on, you two don't have to be antagonists either. Take it under consideration. And this as well....
 
 {CONE OF SILENCE ON}
 
 (...Read quickly, because I will never admit this in public again, and will in fact deny it later, if asked): There can be more than one right answer, and therefore, more than one person correct.
 
 In the case of our silly, geeky dispute (were either of you actually taking any of it -seriously-?!), we are ALL right! And we're ALL wrong! Lemaitre, the Belgian priest, was indeed dismissed by Einstein in his proposition of an expanding universe. Despite offering a mathematical model, it was considered "bad physics", and for a certain time, considered "disproven". The mathematical model was in fact a valid means of proof, it just took a while for Einstein to overcome his ego you might say, and admit error on the part of his own calculations, and accept the proof offered. This proves both the fallibility of "science" (or the "politics of science", more accurately), and the validity of science. And it proves (our) point that sometimes it can take a while for real science to be validated. Until then of course, it's just "mystic crystal revelations" and unicorns gliding across rainbows....
 
 What everyone on these forums who claims to be an ally of "science" needs to understand is that "science" isn't simply an abstract concept that you can use to measure the validity of a given phenomenon with perfect precision every time. ie. "So long as you have objective proof, such as a proven mathematical model, you will always win out". That is merely the blind advocation of science, without acknowledging the deadly -politics- of the scientific community. Not only do you have to present an incredibly overwhelming degree of evidence to persuade a group of overwhelmingly rigid minds, you have to overcome all the biases inherent in the scientific community you are presenting to. And they don't seem to be too eager of sea changes. That's why it can sometimes take longer than the rest of your life, and even your next two or three lives, if you reincarnate, to fully prove your propositions. Even both Einstein and Stephen Hawking are not immune to this. So I certainly don't envy the situation Belt is in.
 
 {CONE OF SILENCE OFF}
 
 > > Your wit would be better saved for the miserable likes of rlw and SF Tech, truly *stu*pendous targets. < <
 
 While I agree there are few around that are more miserable than those two manic mental cases, happily, there's enough to go around for everyone.
 
 > > PS Glad to see the rational dialog ongoing with rick_m. < <
 
 Rational ongoing dialogue? Why that doesn't sound like me at all... Actually, I don't recall having any dialogue with rick_m. (They say that there's something that's the first to go when you get older, but I forget what that was).
 
 Stu:
 
 Count me among those who appreciate your contributions and hope you don't drop out of the discussions on this forum. Particularly when there are so few who are even willing to seriously discuss controversial audio concepts without coughing up the usual, stupid, mindless knee-jerk reactions. Speaking of which... I'd like to take another stab at a question you raised, and give a more honest, less knee-jerkish response:
 
 Q. Are the Beltist tweaks truly predictable well in advance and truly universal?
 
 I would have to say, in my opinion (which I wouldn't dare state as "fact" because life is too short to try and prove that....), "YES". They are all truly predictable well in advance, and truly universal; that response comes from both my experience and my gut instinct, based on such. So why can't you hear them sometimes? Because although the effects of the products or techniques may be predictable and universal, human listening experiences aren't. Too many factors involved, especially listener sensitivity. Hearing the effects of these tweaks for everyone is easy, because it is (literally) second nature with us. Hearing them consciously is another matter. I believe one can help this along by learning how to apply the products effectively, and therefore create a more significant impact.
 
 unclestu:
 
 "It is a sad time... when a man who claims to have a degree in physics, and claims to have been a project engineer for the Mars landers accepts Posey's mathematical model."
 
 My mathematical model wasn't meant to be "sad", it was meant to be "funny". I take your comemnt here as meant to be hyperbolic rhetoric in response to Clark's hyperbolic rhetoric of you "weaseling out" of something. I'm quite sure that Clark took my model in the way it was meant, as humour. So I don't think your comments about him will stick. I would also hope that you took my "mathematical model" in the same vein, as droll humour, nothing more. (Guess what the "PB" stands for?). It was not intended as a slight towards you, it was only a remark made in good-natured humour. Given the escalating surreal nature of the conversation, your proposition of a mathematical model of Beltism, founded upon these conversations of Einstein et al. just seemed so absurd to me, that I couldn't imagine reacting any other way. I can't even begin to fathom how one could possibly posit a mathematical model on the completely abstract and non-technical phenomenon that is Beltism. You couldn't ask this of Peter Belt, let alone asking this of someone who isn't even known for his Beltist research.
 
 You are of course, free to propose your own "models, with a mathematical basis, or simply a generally written model, which would have predictability and be universal". I can't begin to guess what it would look like, but I know it would have a lot of hurdles it would need to jump before being seriously considered by serious researchers. When you proposed your relatively simple theories of EMI/RFI and/or static, they were not able to pass my hurdle of working on passive devices, even theoretically. (Indeed, you did not report any attempts to even put them to my challenge of passing the passive device test). What I find more compelling about Belt's theories is that they are -not- relatively simple. (In fact, they are often criticized for this alone). However... what you (and others) don't find compelling about them, is that they are not "technical", which is something you apparently feel more comfortable with. Perhaps they stray too far from audio, or what you know and/or believe. But the more you understand the Beltist phenomena, the more they make sense, I feel. I think you also need to know more about them before you can rule them out and try to come up with alternative theories, as it doesn't seem you understand the working theories that well to begin with. I suggest looking into Rupert Sheldrake's "The Presence of The Past" for further insight.
 
 I feel there that in today's Beltism, there IS "observational and practical proof", where experimenation can yield predictable results, and Peter's approach is about as scientific as you can get on the matter. There is observational data, and there is a working hypothesis for Beltism. All of your comments seem to suggest otherwise, and it's there if you want to see it, but for whatever reasons, you don't seem to want to accept it. Like I said, you're free to draw your own conclusions and I for one would love to hear them! You implied that you have a different working hypothesis, one that is both measurable and replicable. Why not share it, if you feel it is just as valid as Peter's, assuming you haven't already? I applaud your courage for trying what you call "unusual tweaks", your curiousity for wanting to understand them, and I also hope you don't stop asking questions; that's always a good path to progress in any discussion.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 "I'm not sure why he is [an antagonist] to you." - clarkjohnsen 08:23:23 07/31/07 (45)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Posey's Doubly-Sad Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 20:38:51
 
 No one is. I can't even say when he began, but his remarks have descended into such overt unpleasantness that I have only once broken my (wise) policy of ignoring his nasty nipping.
 
 Nasty, and highly illogical as well. Did you see David Aiken's brief takedown of him? "There are 2 logically wrong claims in this statement alone ."
 
 http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/486855.html
 
 David shared with me the observation that he could have continued with other statements, but it would probably not elicit any corrections. Nor was he wrong about that.
 
 Somewhat later David expanded on his views, however:
 
 http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/general/messages/48/486881.html
 
 Our man quickly responded, with his first sentence reading: "You are correct, however, you are also not complaining about polarity issues as Clark does."
 
 He never misses the opportunity to malign. Lord knows why, but I've had my fill of him. Nevertheless I shall proceed in my defense of polarity as the sine qua non of correct audio practice. Free, too!
 
 clark
 
 Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - Posy Rorer 11:15:12 07/31/07 (44)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "I'm not sure why he is [an antagonist] to you." posted by clarkjohnsen on July 31, 2007 at 08:23:23
 
 Stu: "The fact that the differences exist proves one thing: CJ has not defined polarity."
 
 (Written in "objective mode":...)
 
 Without having read The Wood Effect, I can see that Aiken is right in his counterpoint against Stu's argument. The fact that people disagree on what polarity is, is not proof positive that Clark didn't define it (nor is the counterpoint proof that it was defined by Clark). For the same reasons, you can't say "that some are aware of polarity and that some have different views of it, is proof that despite the publishing of "The Wood Effect" twenty years ago, CJ has merely reiterated someone else's work without providing real illumination or understanding.". This statement is a personal opinion only, it hasn't been proven by Stu, nor disproven by Aiken or anyone.
 
 If you really want to get into it, there are two more unproven claims by Stu, which are implied as factual..... here: "Come to think of it while various reviewers have praised the works and some are actually on the forum, I see no one backing up CJ. Perhaps that can be taken as proof that his work is insufficient in nature. "
 
 and here:
 
 "And then there are those who simply proclaim that the effect is negligible or scarcely worth the trouble to flip a wire or two or even a switch. Their admission speaks to the knowledge they have gained about the phenomena from CJ."
 
 Followed, ironically, by: "But never fear, I only write lies, and am totally illogical, too."
 
 So yeah, I agree from further reading of his posts on the matter, Stu does bandy about the word "proof" a little too much, which his words don't back up, in order to try to jack up the value of his words to more than their worth (not that I don't do that myself, as I'm known to use the phrase "It's a fact!", quite liberally. But I just do that to annoy the pseudo-objectivists). Although it is hyperbole and less than purely objective (he also goes to extremes on the other side to make his point, such as when he says "I only write lies and I am totally illogical too. My perceptions have totally been false."), I can also see the point that Stu (and it seems others) make here - they came from a real place.
 
 I don't disagree with some of the things Stu's been saying, either, so I mean it when I say I can see his point. And I've seen some of the past arguments on polarity on AA spiral out of control very quickly and get nowhere. So the comments Stu and others make about it are at least based on genuine concerns to further the discussion, seeing that it always descends into fruitless arguments, and it's not mere trolling attacks on the part of Uncle Stu. Again, I don't see how you two have that much differences, since you both have an interest in understanding things like polarity! So maybe Stu was right when he wrote: "It would seem that we have more points in agreement than in contention."
 
 > > He never misses the opportunity to malign. Lord knows why, but I've had my fill of him. Nevertheless I shall proceed in my defense of polarity as the sine qua non of correct audio practice. Free, too! < <
 
 And of course I fully support your defense of polarity, as I feel there should be no disagreement as to its importance in a quality sound system; it is as important as speaker positioning or all the rest of the basics you should get right, if you even pretend to call yourself an audio hobbyist. But I don't think Stu's as hard-headed as you picture, and you say "Lord knows why", but I think the reasons for his antagonism is something he made pretty clear:
 
 Stu:
 "Unfortunately I simply do not see any attempt from CJ to do so and his criticism of people who try annoys the hell out of me at times (music is not a life or death situation, so I try not to get so worked up for the most part)."
 
 I also don't understand why it's so hard to define, either. Until my recent excursions to AA, I never saw or thought of audio polarity as a controversial thing. I thought normal polarity and reversed polarity was pretty well accepted. Dave Chesky taught me what it was via his sampler. So I don't know if I want to get this involved (and I can understand Stu's apprehension if you post an opinion on this!...), but perhaps I should still take this opportunity now and go ahead with my 2 bits on what I understand of polarity:
 
 Although there may not be a "de facto" or "de jure or "de lissio" definition of polarity, it seems pretty obvious to me when (conventional) polarity is reversed. No matter- if we're talking about "absolute polarity" (which requires you throw a polarity switch on a DAC or amp), or speaker polarity (inverted phase at the speaker terminals) or AC polarity (inverted plugs on non-polarized equipment). It all produces the same effect at the speakers (or headphones). Correct polarity, as I've always understood it, can be heard by detecting the sound of certain instruments, such as horn or drums. Again, I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subject (nor am I eager to be), and this is only my understanding of it: Under correct polarity, the kick drum will move toward you, under inversed polarity, it will move away. Likewise with the horn, etc. All instruments of course have their own tonal characteristics, that are inverted when polarity is inversed. There is also a sort of inversion occuring on voices, perhaps less easy to define. This, to me, is how you can tell correct polarity without ever requiring a detailed transcription of the recording session, or a special light on your equipment that goes 'ping!' whenever it's inversed, or staying up nights drinking lots of scotch and rum, worrying about the polarity of the last song you heard, and staining the couch with your profuse sweating....
 
 Perhaps a lot of the controversy over polarity comes from the fact that it can only be determined subjectively, and subjectively-only measures appears to be something that frightens the dickens out of most AAers. It means they actually have to learn how to listen, in order to measure. I have, and usually know immediately when AC or speaker wire (at the terminals) polarity is inversed. Of course, if you (unlike me) are not certain whether your polarity is incorrect and want to be sure that polarity is inversed (or normal), you have to compare your sound to the inverse by reversing polarity. Can I prove that I am always right when I determine polarity is inversed? I suppose not, nor do I care to, for anyone. I worry about my own sound, I let others worry (or not) about theirs. When we talk about "absolute polarity" (which I've come to understand as the polarity of the recordings), the subject has limited interest to me. For one reason, even though I have a polarity switch on my Theta, it means having to get up off the couch each time. But even if I had a switch on a remote, I still wouldn't use it. I may be an audio fanatic, but I'm not Enid Lumley. I'm not going to sit there and test each song that comes on for polarity. If I did, I would constantly be listening critically, and not, as my friend Rochlin says, "enjoying the music".
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 All basically true, except that "it can only be determined subjectively". - clarkjohnsen 09:35:01 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 11:15:12
 
 While subjective is the way most of us will go (and yes it gives the pseudo-objectivists the screaming heebie-jeebies), you must remember that polarity is an acoustic phenomenon and therefore susceptible to measurement (cf. Richard Heyser's admirable proposal in 1979).
 
 As for my antagonist's unwonted and numerous misrepresentations, his proven illogicalities notwithstanding, I shall deal with those below -- or, not.
 
 clark
 
 PS New thread forming on General!
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - rick_m 20:11:20 07/31/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 11:15:12
 
 Posy,
 
 I think you are are correct that flipping the speaker leads, or polarity switch CAN affect the sound, and that flipping the power cord CAN also.
 
 However I believe that their only relationship is the they both may affect the sound and both may, in broad terms, be referred to as polarity. The mechanisms are quite different and the results probably aren't correlated. To equate the two is, well, mockworthy!
 
 Rick
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years - Posy Rorer 22:27:48 07/31/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years posted by rick_m on July 31, 2007 at 20:11:20
 
 > > I think you are are correct that flipping the speaker leads, or polarity switch CAN affect the sound, and that flipping the power cord CAN also.
 
 There's no "CAN" about it, actually. It DOES, every time, at least in the case of switching wires. Whether one can hear this or not, doesn't change that fact. (The existence of an audio phenomenon is not dependent upon someone hearing it, just as a tree that falls in the forest will make a sound, even if no one is there to hear it).
 
 > > However I believe that their only relationship is the they both may affect the sound and both may, in broad terms, be referred to as polarity. The mechanisms are quite different and the results probably aren't correlated. < <
 
 Yeah, cj tried to drum the technical distinctions into my head, but in my head, there is only room for one definition of (conventional) polarity. It encompasses ALL ways the sound can be inverted; speaker wires, non-polarized AC cords, the original recording, etc. Because at the output (whether speakers or headphones), it all sounds the same. My head doesn't actually care whether "the mechanisms that produce the given polarity status are quite different". It appears that all reversed and normal polarity music have the same characteristics, despite the origins of their polarity status.
 
 If you really want to comb over the specifics, there's a reason why I specified "conventional" polarity. For there is yet another type of polarity that no one talks about (er, probably because I'm the only one who knows about it...), which I like to call "advanced polarity", or "The Posey Effect" (reg. tm.). With advanced polarity, you might say the mechanism is quite different and the results probably aren't correlated (with conventional types of polarity), but that all depends on what the true workings of conventional polarity are. (Which is to say, is there a Beltist connection? I haven't explored this).
 
 "Advanced polarity" is in fact, a Beltist effect. For unlike conventional types of polarity inversion, it has no direct connection to the signal. So an example of what I refer to as "advanced polarity" is say, the flipping of a non-polarized power cord. On your toaster. Or your power drill, if you prefer. Or your lamp, your Barney Snuggles (tm) psychedlic night light, your electric toothbrush recharger, or your Justin Timberlake Rappin' Sounds (tm) clock radio. In every case, the sound will 'flip' along with the flip of the plug.
 
 (And they say conventional polarity is controversial! Ha!)
 
 > > To equate the two is, well, mockworthy! < <
 
 Yes, very nice. While I encourage you to popularize my term, despite the examples I gave, I don't think you've still got the gist of it. If you feel there is an example where it can be used on me, then you have not understood the term properly because by definition, it actually can not be. Sorry. :-(
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - unclestu52 13:49:35 07/31/07 (40)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy: The Polarity Years posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 11:15:12
 
 I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility.
 
 From the beginning Clark has shot me down. No biggie, but he has likewise stated that I do not understand polarity issues which implies I do not have a definition of it. Likewise he has disputed the proposed AES standards, as well as attempts by others, including George Louis, at tackling the issue. Mind you, we were, in essence, backing him up.
 
 If you read the AES proposal, it has a rather elegant method for determining polarity by defining the movement of a microphone diaphragm and the associated electrical output, and then follows this signal all the way through the audio chain. Clark disputes their definition and flat out declared it as being useless, with no further elaboration.
 That is no problem but when pressed for elaboration, he has provided nothing.
 
 Finally in the last month he restated his definition. His restated definition is identical to the one that the much maligned George Louis has posted, and identical to the AES proposal without the electrical definitions. He quoted directly from his 20 year old text, which I had read, but his denials of everyone else's definition had led me to believe he had altered his definition in the 20 years since he published his pamphlet. It has taken only a year and a half of pressure to have him spell it out.
 
 We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause.
 
 If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue.
 
 As for insights into why the issue is difficult for many to hear, he has provided precious little information. Research into the recording process is actually quite simple and there are numerous written documentary material out there. A brief research into crossover designs is also very fruitful. I do not believe Clark ever attempted a discussion of those points, which are necessary for an understanding of the issue.
 
 All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. You can not get that in a one liner for an answer, which as you know CJ is very good at. Sidestepping and insults are his standard fare when pressed (just look at his actions here). He proclaims that everyone else lies, calls people names, insults and berates them. That is simply not how to move forward on any issue.
 
 Most individuals who have attempted a contribution to the subject have simply given up. I've noticed his method of browbeating anyone posting on the subject has been relatively successful in silencing any other opinions or questions. No forward progress has been made in the two decades that have followed printing of his pamphlet, despite his claims of reviewers, designers, and others who have written glowing praises of his work. I refuse to knuckle under his attempts at suppression.
 
 I brought up the subject of peer related validation because CJ listed a number of prominent audio personalities that he claims have read his work and support him. Discounting those who have died, I do not see many of those luminaries offering support, even when many frequent AA.
 
 Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered.
 
 Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - Posy Rorer 16:20:50 07/31/07 (39)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 13:49:35
 
 > > I had written many posts going back many years. I would not recommend going back and reading those posts as they are exercises in futility. < <
 
 Thanks, I think I'll take up your recommendation...
 
 > > We have spent the better part of years butting heads about the whats and whys of the issues. Clark has claimed primacy in the issue and vehemently refused to elaborate or to even corroborate his statements. No specific recordings have ever been submitted in regards to the polarity issue, no specific speaker designs have been named. Such vagaries make affirmation impossible and his claims very nebulous. It does nothing to further his cause. < > If you read the posts about the subject, you will notice that even those who support his point of view are regularly shot down by CJ. The only ones who gain his support are those who fully accept his statement that nothing can be done about the issue. < <
 
 Well, being the pragmatic, realistic type, I'm not convinced myself that anything can be done about the issue of inverted polarity. If most audiophiles don't think much of it, what chance of recording engineers to take pains to get it right? But even those that do, it seems it would do little good, when there are so many ways it can be inverted throughout the chain (absolute polarity, speaker polarity, AC polarity, etc). If there is no easy, quick, objective way for the typical audio consumer to recognize when it is wrong and correct it, chances are it won't get corrected.
 
 > > All those actions would be perfectly fine, iff (if and only if) Clark did not pursue the issue so doggedly. If you make it an issue, then you should provide validation and explanation, at least from my point of view. < <
 
 That's a fair assumption.
 
 > > Again, in the beginning, I was quite concerned for him, and tried my best to steer him towards a productive interaction. After years, I simply have given up. I do not believe he has the capability to be productive, although I would be very glad to be proven wrong. I suspect perhaps a medical condition may have interfered. < <
 
 There's a medical condition now, that prevents you from being able to ensure that discussions on polarity will be productive? What is that called, "polaritis"? I'm sure cj has his own reasons for whatever he does, his own thoughts on the matter, and they may (or may not) have any relation to your own perceptions of such. They're only your perceptions, they are not absolute truth. You are free to think what you will, but I doubt cj cares about "proving you wrong", enough to even find out what that entails. While you both have an interest in the subject matter (which I think is a good thing), he may simply have different ideas than you about what can or can't, should or shouldn't be done about the problem. It's no different than being in the AES. They try to adopt standards collectively (and do their own share of arguing about audio criteria), but all don't agree on what the rest think. As it should be.... (I'm not one to believe in the "majority is right!" rule).
 
 > > Again my position is that a question or disagreement is not to be taken as a personal attack. I have never called CJ names, but admittedly his insults are, well, a bit galling. I can disagree with Posey and May, but there I feel there is some progress in our descriptions of experimentation and the procedures in doing so. We can still disagree as to the causality, but we have never resorted to name calling and insults. There is validity in being able to duplicate the experimentation. < <
 
 Exactly. Which is why I feel that you still disagree with me, May (and other Beltists) about the causality of the tweaks you've experimented with. It appears you haven't yet performed the tests that would negate your theories (not that I can predict whether you will come to the same conclusion as we have, even if you do the tests). We should all at least agree that it's important to test a contradicting hypothesis (where it's easily possible), in order to progress in our understanding of a given phenomenon. If you were certain, say, the hand lotion tweak worked by static discharge, it would be incumbent on me to test this notion, if it contradicted my own.... unless, that could already be disproven by a greater (more encompassing) theory.
 
 > > And if you notice, I do not dispute many of the Beltist tweaks nor GK's either. The disagreement is in the causality, and while I believe I can duplicate certain products and their effect, intellectual property rights restrict me from posting about them (unless others use similar ideas and are already in the marketplace). No written law, but it is my way of acknowledging their 'discovery' of such effects. < <
 
 Yes, of course. I fully understand. So email it to me.... ;-)
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - unclestu52 18:30:32 07/31/07 (38)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 16:20:50
 
 In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
 
 A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity.
 
 He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon.
 
 We can talk about recordings, but unless you state which recordings you use, you can always say you used something else and avoid any chance of being incorrect, which, again, in my opinion, is no great sin (being incorrect, that is).
 
 I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. I believe this is essential for the listening community to experience the effect and to establish legitimacy. I have also pointed out speakers and actually named names for designs which have drivers in inverted polarity with respect to each other. In researching the whys I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements. Such measurements and the timing issues are clearly exhibited in Stereophile's tests reports on the speakers reviewed.
 
 Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 19:56:03 07/31/07 (19)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 18:30:32
 
 Hi Stu,
 
 I'm not clear what your point is. Are you saying that folks emphasize amplitude measurements rather than time domain ones because they are more important, or because they are less revealing and make the speaker look better?
 
 Rick
 
 This very problem was fingered as a culprit in The Wood Effect (1988). - clarkjohnsen 10:14:16 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements posted by rick_m on July 31, 2007 at 19:56:03
 
 Elsewhere it has been called the "crossover catastrophe", which really puts an edge to it.
 
 clark
 
 RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - unclestu52 20:48:42 07/31/07 (17)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements posted by rick_m on July 31, 2007 at 19:56:03
 
 I believe the amplitude measirements make for better ad copy and is easier to achieve. Time domain issues are more delicate to balance. Take Sterophile's test reports, for example. A frequency response sweep is much easier to interprete than the impulse test.
 
 A time aligned system will show one upward spike and a slowly dimishing signal following the sharp rise. Most systems show a series of spikes, some with downward (negative) movement. Not a good indicator of time alignment. Considering the microphones are set up 1 meter away and the intervals for most of Stereophiles tests cover 5 milliseconds (IIRC). Well, you can do the math. An impulse test is supposed to act on all drivers simultaneously.
 
 Many buyers want to get 'all' of the music, meaning all the frequencies possible. There is a great desire and emphasis to have a full frequency response in any design. I find for long term satisfaction, however, timing issues are quite important if musical nuance is important to your listening. Great musicians are better because they have command of the subtleties of their voice or instrument. I can live with a speaker of limited FR is it captures the fine nuances 'better'.Of course, YMMV.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements - rick_m 22:29:17 07/31/07 (16)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 20:48:42
 
 Great Stu,
 
 I thought that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure. I completely agree with you. I use two-way speakers (Celestion 3's) in the study and early on flipped the tweeter wiring so it would be in phase with the woofer. Sure it caused an on-axis notch at crossover but the result was well worth it. And I don't listen on-axis anyway.
 
 My theory is that we are used to tuning out FR variations because they also occur in nature from things like foliage absorption. Timing problems on the other hand are less common, and much of the information we rely upon to survive in the wild, or on the street is encoded temporally. Yes, a flat FR looks good. And it IS good all else being equal, but it's only one view.
 
 Something of interest to me currently is learning the frequency range where we are the most sensitive to timing (and hence harmonic alignment errors). I'm pretty sure that it doesn't extend all that high but may go lower than one would think. I've been toying with how to measure it but haven't hit upon an appealing scheme yet. Thoughts welcome. Heck, SWAG's at the result are welcome. For instance, I'm guessing that the upper critical frequency is ~8KHz.
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 Usually inverting the polarity - unclestu52 01:36:44 08/01/07 (15)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I now understand the emphasis on amplitude measurements over time measurements posted by rick_m on July 31, 2007 at 22:29:17
 
 of a driver in a system designed with it inverted actually creates a hump, rather than a notch. The inverted driver, being reversed to the polarity of the adjacent driver will generate cancellation where the frequencies overlap, and thus give the system a perceived steeper roll off at the crossover point.
 
 I find the humps generally acceptable as it is not always that there is music in that overlap range. In your case, I would guess that the crossover is in the 2K to 3KHz range. Being that tuning A is about 440 Hz, you're in the fourth harmonic range for the most part.
 
 As for hearing sensitivity range, calculate the distance between your ears (seriously !). That would translate to a wavelength of about 2.2 K Hz or thereabouts. Hearing sensitivity should be centered on about that frequency. Also consider the range of human voice: about middle C (~260 Hz) and up three octaves to about 2.1k Hz. Piano scale runs about 30 Hz to about 10k Hz. Because of the logarithmic nature of hearing, human perception is remarkably skewed to the bottom end of the scale, numerically.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: Usually inverting the polarity - rick_m 07:58:41 08/01/07 (14)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Usually inverting the polarity posted by unclestu52 on August 01, 2007 at 01:36:44
 
 Wow Stu, that may be THE answer.
 
 I've read that hearing peaks around 3KHz but it never occurred to me that it might be tuned to match head thickness. I've also read that we can resolve interaural timing differences of 20uS, but didn't put the two together! I just bet you're right, that we are the most sensitive to phase and timing in that area also. Cool. It really makes sense, higher frequencies would be more difficult to analyze because the next wave coming along would cause interference, lower frequencies would provide worse timing resolution due to the slower slopes. And as you point out, instruments have plenty of harmonics in that area, probably because they were invented by humans!
 
 In fact, your answer is such a good one that I'm just going to believe that it's correct and press onward. What a simple, elegant answer: The hearing range that matters the most for music is the voice range. I owe you a few, I like the brew and view at Whalers brewpub but it's a ways out of town for me...
 
 Inverting the tweeter did cause a mild peak as I recall, but it's fairly benign. Think it sounded just a tad "brighter" than stock but it's been a long time. The notch is of course much more noticeable being deep and narrow. Of course the notch can approach infinity while the peak's limited to around 3dB. Since I listen off axis I don't notice the notch and overall find the sound is more satisfying.
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 See how "they" have been messing with you? Just as with polarity! nt - clarkjohnsen 10:17:21 08/01/07 (13)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Usually inverting the polarity posted by rick_m on August 01, 2007 at 07:58:41
 
 d
 
 Still waiting to know who "they" are.... -nt - rick_m 11:56:28 08/02/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: See how "they" have been messing with you? Just as with polarity! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 10:17:21
 
 "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - clarkjohnsen 12:00:03 08/02/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Still waiting to know who "they" are.... -nt posted by rick_m on August 02, 2007 at 11:56:28
 
 s
 
 I'm confused. I thought "Them" was Van Morrison's old band? -nt - Posy Rorer 22:05:26 08/02/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 02, 2007 at 12:00:03
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Them too. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:26:25 08/03/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I'm confused. I thought "Them" was Van Morrison's old band? -nt posted by Posy Rorer on August 02, 2007 at 22:05:26
 
 a
 
 RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt - rick_m 13:10:05 08/02/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 02, 2007 at 12:00:03
 
 Nope. Never even heard of it... I just read the plot summary on IMDB and it sounds wretched.
 
 I find it a solid comfort being out of the popular culture. The minor downside is that even though I live in Springfield, I don't get most of the references on the Simpsons. Which actually makes perfect sense...
 
 Rick
 
 It's a wretched movie indeed, but highly informative. I'm with you on The Simpsons. In fact... - clarkjohnsen 07:20:48 08/03/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "They" are Them; haven't you seen the movie? nt posted by rick_m on August 02, 2007 at 13:10:05
 
 ...I think it's stupid.
 
 And so's Seinfeld!
 
 clark
 
 Actually, I don't see... - rick_m 11:33:23 08/01/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: See how "they" have been messing with you? Just as with polarity! nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 10:17:21
 
 Clark, I don't have a clue of which you speak.
 
 If I'm a being messed with, "they" are doing a great job because I don't know who's doing it, what they are doing, or in what manner I'm being influenced. Tell me more, perhaps my brain has been so skillfully laundered that I don't even recall the trip through the wringer...
 
 I'm actually inclined to feel that I just gained an excellent insight from Stu with no effort on my own part. How can it get better than that? By golly, this forum is both fun AND informative!
 
 As far as crossover's go, their compromises and trade-offs are hardly a secret or new news. I'm not a 'speaker guy' so I wasn't trying to optimize the design, just choose a different compromise. I believe that "speaker guys" are typically better informed and upfront about the tradeoffs of their designs than are "electronics guys". (And I'm one of the latter!)
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - clarkjohnsen 11:41:59 08/01/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Actually, I don't see... posted by rick_m on August 01, 2007 at 11:33:23
 
 If not, then they're not being terribly "upfront" about it are they?
 
 As for their being "better informed", while they may (or may not) be aware of the havoc they wreck polarity-wise, is their being informed about it helpful to anyone?
 
 clark
 
 RE: Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? - rick_m 13:50:21 08/01/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 11:41:59
 
 No, I think Stu nailed it: Frequency response is easier to relate to and sell. Perhaps due to the efforts of the FTC. However if the phase thing can be boiled down to something meaningful and possible then it could become a real marketing factor. And a factor in improving design as well.
 
 I suspect that the key to it is identifying a subset of the audible bandwidth that provides the most meaningful polarity cues and specifying acceptable temporal performance over that bandwidth (the voice range?). Trying to do it full-range is insane unless you keep your head clamped or wear headphones. Perhaps nut-case audiophiles could help promulgate a standard. You would make an excellent point man to sell the concept.
 
 I think audiophiles underestimate the importance "real" people attach to our opinions. Not that they would ever wish to be one, or associate with one for that matter, but still they want to have gear that is "audiophile quality" or "audiophile approved".
 
 Rick
 
 What you say, was already well-known back in the Seventies and Eighties. - clarkjohnsen 08:43:08 08/02/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Question: Do the "speaker guys" ever tell us that they're selling phase incoherencers? posted by rick_m on August 01, 2007 at 13:50:21
 
 And it was all thoroughly covered in The Wood Effect (1988). I blame the magazines for neglecting this aspect; the old Audio used to do speaker reviews in which the phase distortion was measured *and published* in easy form, not the rather more confusing (albeit revealing) Melissa plots of today.
 
 clark
 
 What WASN'T covered in 'The Wood Effect'? - rick_m 10:11:00 08/02/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: What you say, was already well-known back in the Seventies and Eighties. posted by clarkjohnsen on August 02, 2007 at 08:43:08
 
 Sorry, couldn't resist Clark...
 
 Yes, I've read them. Heyser did a good job yet I don't recall them being particularly useful, maybe I'm just too superficial of a reader. I subscribed to Audio from ~1973 until they folded. Guess I mostly read magazines for interest and entertainment and largely ignore them when purchasing equipment.
 
 Are you saying that you described a temporal metric that had good alignment with what listeners experienced? If so maybe I WILL have to spring for a copy.
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 Answer: What WAS, was anything and everything to do with polarity. - clarkjohnsen 10:34:21 08/02/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: What WASN'T covered in 'The Wood Effect'? posted by rick_m on August 02, 2007 at 10:11:00
 
 Nothing however about temporal metrics -- saving that for a later day.
 
 clark
 
 LOL!!!!! - unclestu52 15:02:22 09/16/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Answer: What WAS, was anything and everything to do with polarity. posted by clarkjohnsen on August 02, 2007 at 10:34:21
 
 The definitive statement on polarity written 20 years ago. It ignores simple impulse tests, it ignores many EIA standards in regards to microphones and headphones already in publication, it ignores the more recent AES 26 and other standards. It ignores new media such as laser discs, MP-3, and such, as one would expect from a relatively ancient and not well researched document. Now we are to await further details in an upcoming article, details of which can not be shared until publication. Clark's attempt to enlighten the general public shows his true colors: money before sharing of knowledge.
 
 Such hubris
 
 Stu
 
 RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy - Posy Rorer 19:21:55 07/31/07 (17)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 18:30:32
 
 > > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility.
 
 A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
 
 In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
 
 > > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
 
 On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). There must be other test CD's that contain such a test.
 
 > > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
 
 Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
 
 > > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
 
 You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
 
 > > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
 
 There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case.
 You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact.
 
 > > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not n any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
 
 Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 A few observations on your observations - clarkjohnsen 10:10:22 08/01/07 (12)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 19:21:55
 
 > > In the matter of polarity, the first thing to be established is that the effect exists and is audible. Most will accept that the effect exists, few admit the audibility. A corollary to that would be an understanding as to why some people hear it and why others do not. < <
 
 > In my mind, the reasons for why some people may hear it and others do not are probably no different than the reasons for why some hear Beltist effects and others not. I think you have to familiarize yourself with what sort of change is brought about by both types of effects. Once you can identify what exactly the change sounds like, then you can better identify whether or how it may be affecting the music.
 
 True, up to a point. But in the case of polarity one has elements in the system to contend against, that obscure the phenomenon, viz. phase-incoherent loudspeakers (most of 'em are) and ineffectual switches.
 
 > > Part is due to the recording process, that much is quite evident. CJ states that recordings have a 50-50 chance of being inverted. [CJ has proven it. / cj] Never in my readings has he ever stated which recordings fall into one group and which fall into another. [On the contrary, The Wood Effect names 52. / cj] I am not asking that he define which are in absolute polarity and which are inverted, [Why must this point be stated over and over? "Absolute Polarity" does not inhere to any recorded medium -- only polarity, one way or the other. / cj] simply which fall into one camp and which into another(polarity in relation to each other). [Done -- 52 times, in print, and more to come. / cj] That alone, would ease questions and make verification of his claims easier. [Doesn't seem to have helped so far, in the twenty years since publication. / cj] It also would eliminate the possibility that one or more components may have polarity inverting amplifier sections, because we are determining 'relative' polarity. < <
 
 > On my Chesky sampler (an audiophile test CD), which I mentioned, there is a test for polarity. It's a simple matter of playing those tracks and in seconds, you can find out how your system may or may not invert polarity. [No kidding! / cj] (The announcer announces which tracks are in phase and which are out). [Problem: How does he know either a) What's "in" on the disc or b) What's "in" on your system? Eh? Eh? / cj] There must be other test CD's that contain such a test. [There are, but (shocking news!) they are not in total agreement. / cj]
 
 > > He writes of Japanese recordings which have alternate tracks in alternating polarity. I would be very curious to hear such recordings, but he has steadfastly refused to provide details as to which specific recordings exhibit this. < <
 
 > Sorry, I don't know what that's about.
 
 But it's true of the hundreds of Japanese LPs I own, with a few truly auspicious exceptions; I am planning an article on this.
 
 > > My frustration is that statements are being made, and being repeated without any validation. While there may be such a recording, I certainly would like to hear one in my system, and not simply accept the word of someone else. There are a lot of recordings out there, and no mortal can claim to have listened to them all, but it would help if some were listed so we can get a 'fix', if you may, on what the writer is referring to and basing his assumptions upon. < <
 
 > You mean recordings that are confirmed to be in phase?
 
 No, he means that he hasn't bothered to listen to any of my 52 enumerated polarities on records.
 
 > > I have tried to list certain 'audiophile' approved recordings and their polarities, some with mixed polarities and identified which instruments are inverted relative to each other. < <
 
 > There are instruments with inverted polarity relative to the others, within the same track?? [Regrettably yes, but not too many among the "better" stuff. / cj] Seems like it would be "game over" for me, if that's the case. [Depends... if you make Amanda McBroom out-of-phase then you can listen more happily to the band! / cj] You'll never be able to correct that, after the fact. [Sadly true. Just another instance of what ignoring this effect has accomplished. / cj]
 
 > > Some people have used this information to move on, and do further thinking and testing. To dismiss such efforts and to avoid any specifics does not in any way move the audio world forward. If he can not help the situation, it would be better for the audio community for him to step aside. < <
 
 > Well you know, in the AA community, everyone's entitled to their opinion, and everyone else is entitled to accept or reject that opinion (which people do, justifiably or not). And everyone can have a different opinion of the same thing. If cj's approach isn't helping, as you allege [Indeed, all I ever did was write a frikkin' book on the subject -- and now I find myself wasting time on nasty little nippers -- not you, Posy -- so maybe I should retire and let them stew . / cj] (I haven't confirmed or denied that, for all the years of reading it would take....), then it's up to him to decide whether he wishes to change it, or whether he's perfectly happy with the way it is, and it's up to others to wrap their POV around it.
 
 Guess they'll just have to, eh?
 
 clark, grateful that you understand
 
 It is good to know - unclestu52 10:41:13 08/01/07 (11)
 
 In Reply to: RE: A few observations on your observations posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 10:10:22
 
 that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre.....
 As for the 52 recordings you have previously listed, perhaps you could please list just a few which have alternating polarities?
 Just wondering, as I have not seen any recordings listed in any AA forum.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 11:34:27 08/01/07 (10)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is good to know posted by unclestu52 on August 01, 2007 at 10:41:13
 
 UncleStu:
 "It is good to know that you will hold information sharing until you can write another article. Ah, the lure of lucre....."
 
 Ya see... you might get farther with him, and this subject, if you quit the sniping. That crack wasn't necessary, and I don't even think it was accurate, just a reflection of your prejudices. I don't believe Clark is paid for his articles, he does it as a labour of love. You asked him for a listing of identifiable recordings, after complaining that he wouldn't supply any, and he just agreed to provide one, in an upcoming article. But that's not good enough, you want it right away. Well, I think he's in his right to delay publication, it's certainly not out of order for an author to do this. You imply the reason he's not favouring your demand and publishing the list before his intended plans, in order to please you personally, is because of his selfish interest in the "filthy lucre". And, while I can see the reasons for your antagonism toward him, do you really see no good reason why he would behave this way toward you? cj's done a lot to help the audio community, not the least of which is having "written a frikkin' book" on the subject of polarity, helping audiophiles get the basics right for the cost of a free tweak. The results of which seems to have received more flack than appreciation, in general. I know exactly where he's coming from, since in the last couple of years I've done my own little efforts to help the community improve their sound for free, and received far more flack than appreciation. So I can understand how one's tolerance for "snipers"will diminish considerably over time, as one is faced with this kind of attitude, over and over again.
 
 I still think you both have a lot in common and can have many productive discussions, but you -both- have to want it. You just gotta lose the attitude.
 
 (ME telling someone to lose the attitude.... now -that's- irony!)
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: It is good to know - unclestu52 13:45:05 08/01/07 (9)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is good to know posted by Posy Rorer on August 01, 2007 at 11:34:27
 
 For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
 
 Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: It is good to know - Posy Rorer 22:25:56 08/01/07 (8)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is good to know posted by unclestu52 on August 01, 2007 at 13:45:05
 
 > > For a very long time, Clark's answer to virtually all questions about polarity issues was to "read his book". After some complaints about the possibility of that being shilling, he quit doing that, about a year and a half ago. As for participation in a forum, I expect a sharing of information, observations, and concepts, right or wrong. Humor is fine, I view that as a contribution.
 
 Just read CJ's posts and you can make up your own mind as to the nature of his contribution and sharing. < <
 
 From what I have read of his posts and responses to it, in current and past threads on polarity on this and other AA forums, I think, as I have said, you both have valid points to make. But if you can't get beyond the antagonism, neither of you will be able to communicate productively. Which is too bad because it appears you both have a lot to talk about, of mutual interest. I think he could be more forthcoming in some of his explanations, but he shouldn't have to keep repeating himself if the answers can be found in his book. That's why one writes a book. It isn't "shilling" to ask one to "RTFM". That's also why FAQs were invented, because newbs keep asking the same questions over and over, and it gets tiring for experts to keep wasting time responding to the same things. For example, I believe the information you were asking about the 52 recordings can be found in his book, which is why they were not listed on AA.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT... - clarkjohnsen 09:00:01 08/02/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is good to know posted by Posy Rorer on August 01, 2007 at 22:25:56
 
 ...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
 
 I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
 
 By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!
 
 clark
 
 ex nihilo nihil fit - unclestu52 13:48:45 08/02/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT... posted by clarkjohnsen on August 02, 2007 at 09:00:01
 
 I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
 were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.
 Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
 Stu
 
 Edits: 08/02/07
 
 aut concilio aut ense - Posy Rorer 22:57:11 08/02/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: ex nihilo nihil fit posted by unclestu52 on August 02, 2007 at 13:48:45
 
 CLARK WROTE:
 
 "The reason I tell him to "read the book" is because he claims to own it -- EXCEPT...he appears not to have ever read it. Why otherwise complain that I refuse to enumerate recordings that are in or out of polarity (relatively) when I did just that, so long ago and at his fingertips?
 I am astonished at such dense bullheadedness, accompanied by rude attitude.
 By the way, I have *never* stopped advising people to read the book!"
 
 STU RESPONDED:
 
 "I don''t believe the subject of Japanese alternating polarity tracks
 were covered. Come to think of it, I don't recall any CD's being listed.
 
 Nice to see you still shilling. If nothing else you are fairly consistent. How many more copies do you have sell before you come out with a revised edition? It would give us a time frame of how long we have to wait. It's been 20 years, maybe you could write an addendum and sell the two together instead of waiting to sell out your original.
 
 Stu"
 
 STU WROTE (EARLIER):
 
 "The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner."
 
 ....Well, I tried. Good luck with your polarity issues.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Yes; now you see what I mean. Good try, though, and thanks, but he's irredeemable. nt - clarkjohnsen 07:23:26 08/03/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: aut concilio aut ense posted by Posy Rorer on August 02, 2007 at 22:57:11
 
 v
 
 The Clark sidestep.... - unclestu52 12:14:37 08/03/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Yes; now you see what I mean. Good try, though, and thanks, but he's irredeemable. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 03, 2007 at 07:23:26
 
 Never answer any question directly,...sidestep, sidestep. But that's fine: since I am merely a stalker, and a dimwit to boot, simply nipping on your heels with attitude (all descriptors taken directly from your posts).
 
 Your actions speak for themselves and I am not intimidated by them or by your perceived credentials, nor your 'attitude'. Still I detect an infinitesimally small shift in attitude on your part in attempting to engage May in a dialogue. Maybe further stalking will actually have you answer simple questions on the topics you claim to be an expert in. Maybe salvation is around.....ahh, I'll just have to be patient,...very, very patient.
 
 We have all tried to be nice and accommodating, but that approach was very brusquely pushed aside and taken, seemingly, as an open invitation for a continuation for rude and contemptuous commentary with no information. If you want respect, please remember the Golden Rule: you do know that one don't you? It does not demean the person using it. You don't even have to practice that with me, just apply it to others who post and in a consistent manner.
 
 Until then, I'll have to remain the "dog nipping at your heels" (your quote).
 
 8^)
 
 Stu
 
 Mind you, I added that before I had read his attempt at an indictment of me below. Lordy!! nt - clarkjohnsen 07:25:41 08/03/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Yes; now you see what I mean. Good try, though, and thanks, but he's irredeemable. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on August 03, 2007 at 07:23:26
 
 s
 
 My apologies for having - unclestu52 00:48:34 08/03/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: aut concilio aut ense posted by Posy Rorer on August 02, 2007 at 22:57:11
 
 disappointed you. Still the 'man' refuses to answer any questions even when directly put to him, and now he states he is coming up with a future article or book. What is the purpose of participating on a forum, if the only answer is 'buy my book from 20 years ago.' Check out his response on General asylum when a perfectly valid question appears and advice is asked for. The central questions are sidestepped and there is little or no attempt to share experiences or observations. Look at his posts to Rick above. I am sure the information in them is very enlightening.
 
 As I have told you, we can disagree, but at least we share observations and there is a furthering of knowledge in that simple fact, even if we question the causality. The same applies to May Belt and GK. They can state things and I can do so and still disagree on causality, but at least there is verification of certain observations. Oh we may quibble on certain applications, but there is commonality of certain experiences.
 
 Even those who do not believe in the 'tweak' have another avenue of exploration, which may appeal to their sensibilities rather than an outward condemnation based on a theory they may think not true.
 
 I am not against polarity at all. I have been told out right by Clark that I do not understand the true issue. For a long time I stood back and said nothing, until I realized that a man who claims to have taken the works of others in order to put polarity on the map was not really interested in enlightening any of the AA members.
 
 It is akin to Chicken Little running about proclaiming "The sky is falling" but refusing to elaborate. The confusion surrounding the issue is rife with inaccuracies and nebulous statements.
 
 Addressing the issue is simple to me: first you establish that the effect can exist and is audible. There are certain caveats necessary to do so: a phase coherent speaker certainly is one factor. Secondly is a definition of what is supposed to be correct.
 
 Under pressure, Clark recently restated his definition from 20 years ago, which had been also iterated by George Louis and further electrically defined by the proposed AES standard. Any movement towards standardization meets vehement refusal and denials, however, hardly helpful to a settlement of the issue.
 
 Yet since I have been on AA (about 5 years), he has steadfastly negated everyone else's attempts at understanding. No examples have been provided (unless you purchase his precious book). That book is 20 years old, and it ignores most video conventions and applications and does not take into account new formats, some of which have come and gone. Now he says, in essence, stay tuned while I write up something new....
 
 Those actions are what galls me. It does not attempt to share any real understanding of the issue: it condemns anyone else who strives to do original thinking on the subject, demeaning them and thoroughly disgusts most who strive for an understanding of the subject and who attempt to question or post on AA. Many simply quit in disgust.
 
 Look at his harsh attacks of Truthseekerprime, who is making an honest attempt at an understanding of the audibility of polarity. There is no encouragement, no hints, no observations or examples offered to further his understanding and testing methodology.
 
 Now in my thinking, this is a good sample of the audio Inquisition: where only one dogma can be acceptable. I do not mind divergent paths in thinking and in experiences. We are, after all, human and thinking will often be divergent. If I firmly believe in something, as you do, I am willing to state my experiences with it and will share the application and understanding of it.
 
 Mind you CJ did not invent or discover the phenomena, he merely published a pamphlet based on the observations and writings of others. It is not to me, a proprietary 'tweak' nor is it something that no one else has noticed before. It is not patentable, and CJ did not have or claim primacy in writing of it (that's why he called it the Wood Effect).
 
 I do not know why he even interjects in discussions of the subject because there is precious little that he does contribute. He could have been a leader in the subject but he seems to be a major stumbling block. He constantly harps about the attitude of others, not realizing that it is his own attitude that draws such reaction.
 
 Too bad. As I have stated before, at first, I allowed him to browbeat me, and I turned silent for months. Now I refuse to allow him the satisfaction of being the 'grand inquisitor', allowing the preaching of only the dogma of 'Clark.'
 
 Stu
 
 Well, I am glad - unclestu52 22:38:26 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is good to know posted by Posy Rorer on August 01, 2007 at 22:25:56
 
 that you have learned from Clark's posts.
 
 8^)
 
 Stu
 
 Did you know.... - unclestu52 19:51:37 07/31/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Hatfield vs. McCoy posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 19:21:55
 
 That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? They were pretty consistent before and appeared to be in 'correct' polarity. After the Kenny Rankin disc, they flip the polarity relative to previous recordings, even on their second test CD. It parallels the change of their recording equipment to George Kaye's stuff, not that I am accusing him of deliberately inverting polarity. Of course I have only checked out the discs to the first 100 titles or so, so I cant vouch for any other discs.
 
 One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct.
 
 Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads.
 
 See what I mean about naming recordings? I have never seen anything similar from CJ. My high school teachers always accused me of writing of "glittering generalities" and not substantiating my statements with specific examples. I may be bad, but others can be worse and may be deliberately avoiding the issue completely.
 
 Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: Did you know.... - Posy Rorer 21:44:17 07/31/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Did you know.... posted by unclestu52 on July 31, 2007 at 19:51:37
 
 > > That after JD-63 chronologocally, Chesky CD's have inverted their polarity? < <
 
 Nope, I don't even know what JD-63 is. The only Chesky stuff I have is that test CD, and I think another sampler. I'm not sure how you would know, if there's so much controversy about whether polarity is correct or not. A polarity switch light on a DAC?
 
 > > One recording that I use, simply because it was highly recommended by The Absolute Sound is the Holly Cole Trio CD: Don't Smoke in Bed. Good test as it is a trio and not overly complex. The voice and bass are inverted relative to the piano. Now, it is interesting because TAS went on to recommend that listeners purchase the Canadian version because it had superior sonics. The Canadian version had the relative polarities reversed, and thus the piano is out of phase and the voice and bass are correct. < > Of course, CJ's retort would be 'how do you know, there are no standards for polarity with a CD, etc., etc.' Of interest here is the relative polarity of the instruments in respect to each other. We have a basis for determining which is 'correct'. < <
 
 Which is...?
 
 > > Seems to me an understanding of the issue would be far easier than to go searching for a Canadian pressing, spending the time and extra shipping to obtain essentially the identical sound if you just flipped your speaker leads. < <
 
 Of course. But I can see where it can get complicated if "some" instruments have reverse polarity, relative to others on the same track(s), and pressings from some countries have inverse polarity, relative to pressings from other countries. And then you have take time to argue about which pressing is the "correct" polarity, when both contain multiple reversed polarities.
 
 > > Now, these are examples I have posted in the past. They are nothing new. Some have confirmed my observations, and I have yet to hear dissenting views on these two observations. In my stating such observations, I am opening myself to dissent and critique, but that is a good thing. It allows the listener to replicate the observations and either to confirm them or to deny them. I am confident that with any phase and time coherent speaker, the polarities will be apparent. < <
 
 BTW, I've always agreed with your assessment elsewhere, that time is the more important measurement than amplitude, and I can wholly believe that frequency response is only popular because its easy to measure. I think there are a lot of things important to audio that are either hard to measure or can't be, and yet all the focus is on those that are easy to determine, at the expense of everything else.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 "isn't the order of polarity locked into the recording?" No! - clarkjohnsen 11:35:43 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Did you know.... posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 21:44:17
 
 Anyway, not necessarily. That's part of the joke -- on us all!
 
 clark
 
 RE: Did you know.... - unclestu52 01:11:21 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Did you know.... posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 21:44:17
 
 JD-63 is the Chesky catalog number.
 In another post I made the observation that on my EZ CD creator software, if I placed a ripped file into the hard drive and then recorded from it later, the recording was inverted in relation to the original file. A friend with the latest Mac reports the same.
 I do not know why this is so as I have never bothered with reading the lines of code. I can work around the limitations.
 The point about the HCT recording is that in one orientation, the piano is extremely clear and in another it is muffled and distant. The same occurs for the other two members of the trio, inverted to the piano, of course. Which is correct: well, what instrument or voice do you want to hear? Now, overall, having two members of the trio in 'correct' phase is usually preferable than having only one.
 A nationally distributed magazine and it's staff comes out and proclaims one version of the recording 'sounds' better. Had they been aware of the issue, such a statement would not have been printed. While I'm sure the Canadian manufacturer was pleased with a boost in sales, it confounds the general public.
 The same occurs with LP collectors. Certain pressings are deemed 'hot' stampers and often become highly sought after pressings, commanding higher prices. Sometimes the differences may be simple polarity swaps. You can tell that I'm a cheapskate: I really do not like paying high digits for something which can simply be resolved with a flick of a switch at times.
 Preserving polarity in a piece of electronic gear is fairly easy. Signal generators can produce impulse tests quite readily. It can be 'iffy' with recordings, but a careful engineer can maintain polarity all the way through the manufacturing process. Ray Kimber says the easiest way to insure it is to fire a cap pistol at the recording session. You have a reference for the recording which can be followed through the chain. You can even use an oscilloscope to measure it as it proceeds through the recording and playback chain. Of course denial of any convention or standard leads to many inconsistencies and problems.
 The question is thus: do you wish to see a cure or not? If you do not care or refuse to accept that a solution can be worked out, then absolute polarity should not be bandied about, and it becomes a non issue. If you do care, then an understanding must be established, and then listeners will be able to recognize and create a demand for better recordings.
 I do not accept the attitude that constant grumbling about the issue but doing nothing is somehow OK. If it is of importance, then education is the key, and that will lead to a demand for change. Nebulous claims and statements, like recordings are 50-50 in nature, do nothing to aid the situation, as most readers will have no desire to create change, having little to reference their listening preferences to. I find it imperative to have lists of recordings in one polarity as compared to others in another. That gives everyone a reference point from which to start.
 Stu
 
 Edits: 08/01/07
 
 Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - unclestu52 22:19:43 07/30/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Posey's Doubly-Sad Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 20:38:51
 
 Ah, but I did take your response as humor. That's why I didn't really answer. You were sort of poking fun at me, but that indeed is no biggie in my book. I most definitely was not trying to 'weasel' out of anything as accused, I simply had really nothing productive or funny to add.
 The 'sad' was in no way directed at you or your comments. Despite our contrasting views as to causality, your passion is duly noted and I, for one, have no doubts that you are sincere in what you write of.
 As for your tests, well, I have posted on some things which lead me to such conclusions which I have come to. I will reiterate a few.
 I've a several friends who leave IC's and wires coiled in their sound rooms, a la Belt. One listener has had severe issues with RF entering his TT system, audible not only as static type noise but as a bona fide radio station. He accidentally discovered that placing a coiled up IC on top of his preamp eliminated the RFI. The wire was not hooked up to anything, BTW.
 In an old ham radio text, we found a recipe for reducing RFI reception: an octopus arrangement of wires, with each leg trimmed preferably to a fraction of the offending frequencies. We've tried this and it works extremely well, once you figure out the wavelengths. However, a simple random arrangement also works fairly well also
 I have used ERS, link provided below, for some time now. The specs and description of it are on the websites, but essentially it is a paper sandwich with a carbon fiber web upon which shards of nickel plated CF are sprinkled. The random lengths of the shards serve as minute antennas for RF which are then grounded to the CF mesh. It is a basis for some of the 'Stealth' technology employed by the military. It works well in areas where the 'Rainbow foil' seems to work best.
 RFI has been a large stumbling block for digital/video audio since it's inception. I have been using copper foil tape since at least 1990 to shield every single semiconductor in my CD players, with significant increase in sonic quality. My experiments reached Positive Feedback's writer Doug Blackburn and he actually wrote an article about these mods, however, I had asked me to keep my name out of it at the time. A piece of foil on such chips seems to be effective although I do prefer the ERS.
 I routinely advice my customers to ground their metal racks and speaker stands. In my case I have a ladder type rack which actually is an excellent simulation of a Yagi antenna. At any rate grounding the rack seems to create a lower noise floor.
 In addition I place small magnets on the supports, midway between the ends. As long as the TT is not on the rack, the result is an improvement in dynamics and subtle tonal textures. Here I know that the magnets are restricting the magnetic induction created by the proximity of the power transformers to the ferrous legs of the rack.
 Similarly grounding a metal top plate of a speaker stand seems to 'speed' up the sound. It may be subtle at times since the effect is obviously dependent upon the distance from the magnet structure to the top. Additional experimentation with grounding of the metal speaker driver baskets have yielded positive results. In the case of the ubiquitous stamped steel baskets the ferrous material has a much greater effect on the magnetic field generated from the speaker itself than say a cast aluminum or magnesium basket.
 Of great interest is the fact that some speakers are now using composite baskets for even greater performance by a lowering of the magnetic induction. I once discussed this with a noted speaker designer who laughed and told me that he was not surprised since he could measure the magnetic field f his 12 inch woofers five feet away. In this case we were discussing the fact that using non magnetic screws to secure the drivers to the cabinet generated noticeably 'better' sound. The use of such screws is also of benefit any where magnetism is present: transformers are a good target. Replacing the steel bolt in a toroidal transformer mount with one of Nylon or even brass creates a significant 'ease' to the sound, greater midrange, and less high frequency anomalies. As for those steel bolts holding the laminations of the standard EI cores together, they are an abomination. I like to switch them out to brass screws, especially if they are output transformers.
 About 25 years ago, I had purchased mu metal and was experimenting with it, building shields for transformers and such. Because mu metal sheet requires a re annealing in a pure hydrogen atmosphere after fabrication, I gravitated to foil and simply used multiple layers.
 It is fascinating to see what can be accomplished by 'channeling' magnetic fields. Not in any spiritual sense, but channeling in that magnetic fields would rather enter and remain in a ferrous object rather than enter air. A simple toroidal ring placed over (or under) a motor greatly reduces the size of the field of the motor.
 Used under a TT motor the effect is immediately noticeable and greatly beneficial. Centered over the spin motor of a CD also yields great audible benefit, and I have tried this on machines from a the infamous RS portable to the the latest $15K Esoteric machines, with positive results.
 The use of this on a CD/DVD player is understandable as the laser head is in very close proximity to the motor. In a TT, the motor can be a foot or even further away, and yet the effect is immediately noticeable. Older VPI's and SOTA's have an external cover upon which you can place the toroid while in play. I can hear the sound changing even before I set the toroid down. Placing a magnet on the steel rack is instantly audible too, but in a negative way, because the steel 'channels' the magnetic field to distances far greater than you would think possible and it affects the field of the cartridge. This is measurable, BTW.
 While EMI and RFI fields are relatively mundane and have no 'mystery' to them, the true wonder is the sensitivity of the human organism. While large variations do exist, the defining sensitivity of the human body has yet to be set. I have commented about this on several occasions. The sensitivity of some individuals can be quite amazing, and I do NOT claim such sensitivity by any means.
 
 Stu
 http://www.stillpoints.us (Open in New Window)
 
 Edits: 08/01/07 08/01/07
 
 RE: Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander - Posy Rorer 00:31:26 07/31/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander posted by unclestu52 on July 30, 2007 at 22:19:43
 
 > > Ah, but I did take your response as humor. < <
 
 Glad to hear. (No really, I'm very glad that I am able to hear. It makes being an audiophile so much more enjoyable...).
 
 > > The 'sad' was in no way directed at you or your comments. < <
 
 Hmmm... would I have still found it as funny as I did, knowing that? Probably.
 
 > > I've a several friends who leave IC's and wires coiled in their sound rooms, a la Belt. < <
 
 Not sure what you mean by "a la Belt". Don't recall anyone advising this, and I doubt you're talking about reef knots. Perhaps because Belt was a radio engineer in the RAF, he -wants- people to listen to radio stations?
 
 > > One listener has had severe issues with RF entering his TT system, audible not only as static type noise but as a bona fide radio station. He accidentally discovered that placing a coiled up IC on top of his preamp eliminated the RFI. The wire was not hooked up to anything, BTW. < > I have used ERS, link provided below, for some time now. The specs and description of it are on the websites, but essentially it is a paper sandwich with a carbon fiber web upon which shards of nickel plated CF are sprinkled. The random lengths of the shards serve as minute antennas for RF which are then grounded to the CF mesh. It is a basis for some of the 'Stealth' technology employed by the military. It works well in areas where the 'Rainbow foil' seems to work best. < <
 
 So that seems to be a key reason why you feel the Silver Rainbow Foil works by EMI/RFI. You're assuming the ERS product works solely with EMI, because that's what the technology indicates. Perhaps it does. But, have you ever considered the ERS papers may have an effect under Beltism, and this is the reason why the SR foil works well in the same places? The key to sorting the puzzle out is easy: try the SR foil in areas where the ERS papers don't work, but where the SR foil is effective. A mirror or a dead battery in another room, might be one place to start.
 
 > > RFI has been a large stumbling block for digital/video audio since it's inception. I have been using copper foil tape since at least 1990 to shield every single semiconductor in my CD players, with significant increase in sonic quality. My experiments reached Positive Feedback's writer Doug Blackburn and he actually wrote an article about these mods, however, I had asked me to keep my name out of it at the time. A piece of foil on such chips seems to be effective although I do prefer the ERS. < <
 
 It was probably around 1990 when I acquired thin strips of copper to shield the clock crystal and such in my D/A converter. Still have it, but it's one of many such ideas I never got around to testing. I think I tried foil on chips in CD players and such, and didn't succeed at getting good results from those locations (I can't quite remember if it was morphic messages or both, though). I see no reason why copper foil tape wouldn't have a "Beltist" type effect as well (and by that, I don't mean it will improve sound, necessarily). Again, only way I know to test that is to use it on something or somewhere the RFI theory wouldn't hold water. A glass of water, perhaps? ;-)
 
 > > I routinely advice my customers to ground their metal racks and speaker stands. In my case I have a ladder type rack which actually is an excellent simulation of a Yagi antenna. At any rate grounding the rack seems to create a lower noise floor. < <
 
 Again, that reminds me of something I used to do, which is ground the components to the metal rack (just taping a wire from a screw on the back plate to the leg of the rack). At the time I felt it improved things, but the last time I tested that, I had a bit of a change of mind. It screwed something up, can't remember what.
 
 > > In addition I place small magnets on the supports, midway between the ends. As long as the TT is not on the rack, the result is an improvement in dynamics and subtle tonal textures. Here I know that the magnets are restricting the magnetic induction created by the proximity of the power transformers to the ferrous legs of the rack. < <
 
 Magnets on the middle of the legs of the rack?
 
 > > Similarly grounding a metal top plate of a speaker stand seems to 'speed' up the sound. It may be subtle at times since the effect is obviously dependent upon the distance from the magnet structure to the top. Additional experimentation with grounding of the metal speaker driver baskets have yielded positive results. In the case of the ubiquitous stamped steel baskets the ferrous material has a much greater effect on the magnetic field generated from the speaker itself than say a cast aluminum or magnesium basket. < <
 
 I have also done a similar experiment to my friend's speakers. Except I connected the ground wire from the positive terminals of each driver, at the xover, with all wires combined at their end and connected to the amp's ground terminal screw. That and all the silly Belt experiments I did on the speakers really opened the sound up.
 
 > > Of great interest is the fact that some speakers are now using composite baskets for even greater performance by a lowering of the magnetic induction. I once discussed this with a noted speaker designer who laughed and told me that he was not surprised since he could measure the magnetic field f his 12 inch woofers five feet away. In this case we were discussing the fact that using non magnetic screws to secure the drivers to the cabinet generated noticeably 'better' sound. The use of such screws is also of benefit any where magnetism is present: transformers are a good target. Replacing the steel bolt in a toroidal transformer mount with one of Nylon or even brass creates a significant 'ease' to the sound, greater midrange, and less high frequency anomalies. As for those steel bolts holding the laminations of the standard EI cores together, they are an abomination. I like to switch them out to brass screws, especially if they are output transformers. < <
 
 Of course, the theory of the non-magnetic screw follows the same theory of reducing eddy currents, as practiced by Eichmann, Dennis Moorecraft and other pioneering audio engineers.
 
 > > It is fascinating to see what can be accomplished by 'channeling' magnetic fields. < <
 
 Oh yes, I know all about that....
 
 > > The use of this on a CD/DVD player is understandable as the laser head is in very close proximity to the motor. < <
 
 For similar reasons, when I mod a CD player, first thing I do is try to take the transformer as far out of the player as I can. That alone can raise rez.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Lest this silliness continue... - clarkjohnsen 08:08:33 07/31/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Re Clark's Mathematical Model & The Mars Lunar Lander posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 00:31:26
 
 Clark has offered no mathematical model, apart from one in The Wood Effect concerning polarity (hitherto unmentioned), and there were no landers on any moon of Mars.
 
 clark
 
 Let's dance - unclestu52 13:54:09 07/31/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Lest this silliness continue... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 31, 2007 at 08:08:33
 
 sidestepping, sidestepping... The phrase I used was "Mars lander". Are you saying that you worked on a unsuccessful Mars Lunar lander?
 
 8^)
 
 Stu
 
 Edits: 08/01/07 08/01/07
 
 Re: "a degree in physics" - tlyyra 14:34:30 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It is a sad time posted by unclestu52 on July 30, 2007 at 12:42:11
 
 As I understand it, that was just an undergrad major (which at least to me would mean nothing).
 
 I trust I will be corrected briskly and brusquely to the extent my sources are wrong! (Right?)
 
 TL
 
 You and Posy make quite a couple! - SF tech 11:17:50 07/30/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Our antagonist weaseled out again; that, coupled with David Aitkin's notable takedown of his illogic... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 30, 2007 at 08:14:54
 
 Kind of like Ratso and Joe in "Midnight Cowboy"... Sad and pathetic, but at least you have each other!
 
 (Cue sad harmonica music)
 
 Have a wonderful day!
 
 Naw, I think you & rlw make a much better couple. - Posy Rorer 21:51:56 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: You and Posy make quite a couple! posted by SF tech on July 30, 2007 at 11:17:50
 
 You're like two trolls under the same bridge. How romantic!
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 "Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days..." - SF tech 15:48:47 07/26/07 (7)
 
 In Reply to: RE: A mathematical model for the Beltist phenomenon, as requested. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 14:34:13
 
 "...and agree to do his housecleaning for 3 weeks!"
 
 Thanks for confirming that you are Clark's cabin-boy. Of course, I already knew, but it's nice that *you* finally acknowledge it!
 
 :-)
 
 Awww, whatsamatter, jr.? Did they kick you out of the PR Fan Club for attacking the less obsessive trolls? - Posy Rorer 23:56:27 07/26/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Clark came up with it after many nights laboring over it, and I had to like -beg- him for it for days..." posted by SF tech on July 26, 2007 at 15:48:47
 
 How nice of you to deliberately follow me on to this forum and without provocation from anyone, add your usual stupid ad hominem attacks to an ongoing audio discussion that I and others were in the middle of. So why are you -still- sniffing around my butt, little fanboy? And this is after how many times you said you were "ignoring me", jr. troll? LOL! With all this stalking and inane trolling you're doing, it's hard to tell who you're more obsessed with, Clark or myself. But I do know that when either of us makes a joke that's too subtle for you, you confirm and reaffirm your general level of stupidity by completely missing it, and taking what is said seriously, and on face value. I'm sorry you don't understand what a nitwit you are jr., but that's what makes you funny. Of course, a lack of any refined sense of humour is a kind of hallmark of pseudo-objectivist skeptics of your persuasion. Seems your kind are all too slow to get anything you're not bashed over the head with, ie. you'll laugh at dirty limericks, all right. So then, since you've crashed the party looking like your usual drunken self, this should make a bitter old sod like you a bit happier... tell me if you've heard this one, "SF Tech"....
 
 There once was a troll from San Fran
 Obsessed with a much wiser man
 He thought himself clever
 Although he was never
 'Cos he kept his head in his can
 
 Now if I'm cj's "cabin boy" according to you, then by your bitter obsession with me and the desire to scratch and claw your way to the top of the Posy Rorer Addicts Club, it's clear that you're mine. So go fetch me the sun tan butter cabin boy, and be quick about it. I got a surprise waiting for you in my cabana....
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 "I got a surprise waiting for you in my cabana...." -- Posy Rorer - SF tech 00:07:56 07/27/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Awww, whatsamatter, jr.? Did they kick you out of the PR Fan Club for attacking the less obsessive trolls? posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 23:56:27
 
 Man, that's pretty creepy.
 
 What kind of surprise can I get in your cabana?
 
 Are you human?
 
 What the hell is your problem?
 
 I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
 
 Later
 
 "Are you human?" - SF Tech - Posy Rorer 06:23:17 07/27/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "I got a surprise waiting for you in my cabana...." -- Posy Rorer posted by SF tech on July 27, 2007 at 00:07:56
 
 The SF Tech troll reaches a crisis in his obsession with me, and has a nervous breakdown......
 
 > > Man, that's pretty creepy.
 
 What kind of surprise can I get in your cabana?
 
 Are you human?
 
 What the hell is your problem? < <
 
 [sigh]...
 
 PR:
 ..."But I do know that when either of us makes a joke that's too subtle for you, you confirm and reaffirm your general level of stupidity by completely missing it, and taking what is said seriously, and on face value. I'm sorry you don't understand what a nitwit you are jr., but that's what makes you funny. Of course, a lack of any refined sense of humour is a kind of hallmark of pseudo-objectivist skeptics of your persuasion. Seems your kind are all too slow to get anything you're not bashed over the head with "
 
 > > I can't believe I'm wasting my time with you.
 
 So, can we safely assume that you've gotten help with your obsession with me and I am finally back on your "ignore list"?
 
 > > Later
 
 Uh-oh. That's not very reassuring....
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Witnessing your mental condition deteriorate is strangely fascinating... - SF tech 11:29:56 07/30/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Are you human?" - SF Tech posted by Posy Rorer on July 27, 2007 at 06:23:17
 
 Like watching a train wreck in slow motion...
 
 So, let's have another few thousand words of gibberish!
 
 C'mon! I know you can do it, Posy!
 
 LOL! Is anyone interested in taking up a collection to buy our "SF Tech" troll a sense of humour? - Posy Rorer 20:52:04 07/30/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Witnessing your mental condition deteriorate is strangely fascinating... posted by SF tech on July 30, 2007 at 11:29:56
 
 If your text isn't preceded and followed by at least a thousand "smiley faces", he's not even going to get a whiff of the humour it may contain. So guys, this could turn out to be a pricey proposition.... but Mr. Tech is one of my favourite Posey addicts (not to mention one of the most confused and persistent of the lot...), and it could change his life around for the better. By that, I mean maybe he wouldn't be so angry and miserable allatime, and always ready to boil over. Who knows, one day he might even be able to see the perfectly legitimate humour in me making fun of him.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 LMAO! You *are* funny! - SF tech 22:59:46 07/30/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: LOL! Is anyone interested in taking up a collection to buy our "SF Tech" troll a sense of humour? posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 20:52:04
 
 Good on you! Now, tell me why I should take you seriously...
 
 Later, Tater
 
 Gee, thanks. You are too. Never deliberately, alas. -nt - Posy Rorer 11:20:07 07/31/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: LMAO! You *are* funny! posted by SF tech on July 30, 2007 at 22:59:46
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: "admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks." - geoffkait 14:05:22 07/26/07 (17)
 
 In Reply to: RE: A dim wit and a weasel, that I am posted by unclestu52 on July 26, 2007 at 13:35:17
 
 That's comforting to know as there are more than 70 PWB products. I'm betting you were thinking the number was somewhat less than that. :-)
 
 ~ Cheerio
 
 Edits: 07/26/07
 
 Geoff - unclestu52 22:20:15 07/26/07 (15)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks." posted by geoffkait on July 26, 2007 at 14:05:22
 
 I have explained my postion many times. If have not tried it myself, I avoid comment, I have not tried everything, and with some things I have tried, I get negative or no results. Is that so complicated, and are you claiming to be able to read my mind? Betcha you wouldn't be able to know what I am thinking right now. Again, I have never claimed to be omniscient (you can ask Clark about that one....8^) ). I was simply restating the obvious.
 
 Oh yeah, tried your clock on the window sill of an open window. Sounded worse than in the center of the floor in front of the amp.
 
 Stu
 
 RE: Negative or no results - geoffkait 02:14:20 07/27/07 (14)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Geoff posted by unclestu52 on July 26, 2007 at 22:20:15
 
 I try not to generalize too much regarding results, esp. negative results.
 
 ( ? ) - unclestu52 19:49:57 07/27/07 (13)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Negative or no results posted by geoffkait on July 27, 2007 at 02:14:20
 
 That was no generalization, merely an observation. I was assuming your recommendation of the window sill was a generalization, though. But again, no biggie. In fact,if you notice, I generally post posiive rather than negative results.
 The way things have been getting recently, frankly, disgusts and offends my thinking. While I certainly appreciate the civility you and May have extended towards me, others have disintegrated into diatribes I really abhor. The fact that they were not always aimed at me still upsets my sensibilities. We all can disagree but still do so in a civilized manner.
 Think I'll simply drop out of further discussions on the subject.
 
 Stu
 
 Edits: 07/29/07 07/29/07
 
 Don't do it Stu! I'm counting on you... - rick_m 12:44:32 07/28/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: ( ? ) posted by unclestu52 on July 27, 2007 at 19:49:57
 
 Not that I really matter in the big scheme of things, but locally I do and I'm getting more interested in arriving at a conclusion concerning things "Beltist".
 
 Your success with the clock, which is ostensibly one of them, has piqued my interest. I can't afford to buy one at this point, but hope to satisfy at least some of my curiosity with some controlled testing on the cheap.
 
 Your experiences are very valuable to me as I believe them to be the most dispassionate and unbiased ones being posted.
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 RE: ( ? ) - May Belt 08:45:26 07/28/07 (11)
 
 In Reply to: RE: ( ? ) posted by unclestu52 on July 27, 2007 at 19:49:57
 
 > > > "Think I'll simply drop out of further discussions on the subject" < < <
 
 It is a pity unclestu because I feel you are quite close to getting to the quite revolutionary point (in audio terms) which we reached over 25 years ago. But, I feel it will only happen when you do some experiment which you CANNOT explain in any of the conventional ways you have been doing so far. Only when it actually happens to you will you begin to realise that "there is something else going on" which cannot be explained from within conventional electronic or acoustic theories - no matter how much one stretches, pulls, pushes, squeezes them to try to make sense of what you are hearing.
 
 I have seen your latest responses on Tweakers Asylum re 'degaussing'.
 
 Quote from your response in Tweakers Asylum section.
 > > > "Yeah, I know it sounds pretty bizarre, but at least I am not claiming 'morphic' resonances here. In my experiences, magnetism is a an often overlooked factor in many electronics: not simply from an actual magnet but also by induction. Small field build up can affect the significantly larger fields, like a cartridge. If you have a powerful enough degausser, try degaussing a TT platter (I hear positive effects from doing it to an LP-12 aluminum platter and even to VPI acrylic platters !)." < < <
 
 Followed by cheap-Jack's response :-
 > > > "So to claim applying a strong magnetic field by using a demagnetizer on a PVC record is a parapsychological effect, like unfounded sonic improvment by some rainbow films & by freezing a picture, & the likes." < < <
 
 The response by cheap-Jack to your experiences is similar to the responses we get to our experiences i.e it MUST be parapsychological. I, you (and many others) know that your experience (and ours) is NOT parapsychological - the point where I differ from you is not regarding your observations and experiences but regarding the explanations as to why.
 
 If you have tried 'treating' (by degaussing) the aluminium platter of the LP-12 and gained an improvement in the sound I think you would find that this is a similar improvement we (and others) gain from 'treating' the platter of the LP-12 (but we do NOT do it by degaussing). Try the experiment of degaussing the aluminium platter of a PASSIVE LP-12 - just sitting passively on a shelf (not connected into the AC supply or to the audio system) and THEN explain any positive effects in the sound you gain !!!
 
 Ditto with the acrylic platter. Try the experiment of degaussing the acrylic platter of a PASSIVE turntable - just sitting passively on a shelf (not connected into the AC supply or to the audio system) and THEN explain any positive effects in the sound you gain !!
 
 Your conventional explanation to do with degaussing a vinyl record seems to be to do with 'having an effect on the stylus/cartridge' and therefore on the audio signal ----------->
 > > > "Since they claim there is momentary melting when the stylus runs through the vinyl: that, coupled with the strong magnetic field of the cartridge will, I suspect, slowly reorient the polar molecules over time and repeated play. Applying a degausser will partially return the vinyl to an amorphous state, instead of having a magnetic orientation which can create induction." < < <
 
 I.e 'something affecting the audio signal'. But, how would you explain 'something affecting the audio signal' when there is NO audio signal being picked up by a passive stylus/cartridge/turntable ?
 
 20 years ago we were demonstrating 'treating' passive turntable platters (aluminium/acrylic/glass/epoxy type/you name it) on turntables just sitting passively on a shelf and improving the sound to the amazement of all concerned - retailers, reviewers, manufacturers, distributors.
 
 Your reply to kenster was also quite illuminating !!
 > > > "Try using the demagnetizer with the record in the sleeve or even in the jacket. The AC field will reach the vinyl. I normally use a hand held Geneva which claims to have a strength of 2800 gauss, the strongest (they claim) for a hand held unit." < < <
 
 I would suggest you try another PASSIVE experiment. Try the experiment of taking the vinyl record OUT of it's jacket and demagnetising only the jacket cover, then listen and you will experience an improvement in the sound by merely having demagnetised the vinyl's jacket cover !!!!!!! Explain THAT !!
 
 I like your reply to cheap-Jack regarding him having a negative experience with such as the demagnetising procedure :-
 > > > "Obviously your experience was negative. My experiences have not been negative at all, and others who have tried it report similar results to mine. I will not speculate as to why your experience was so negative," < < <
 
 I think I would like to copy that response as my general reply to everyone who asks ME why they are not able to hear what we and many others can hear.
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 Testing advice? - rick_m 12:22:08 07/28/07 (10)
 
 In Reply to: RE: ( ? ) posted by May Belt on July 28, 2007 at 08:45:26
 
 Hi May,
 
 I very much enjoy your posts, and would like to try and discover if I can hear the effect of "treating" things in the room not directly in the audio chain.
 
 I've been following the threads, read your website and contemplated the info. I guess you could call me a hard-bitten engineer and as such am very sensitive to the importance of conducting experiments properly to try and "get a handle" on what's happening. You've experience is in the same vein so you know the importance of correlating cause and effect by trying to change only a single variable at a time and evaluating the result. A key issue is being able to reset the variable to avoid confusing interactions.
 
 Most of what I've read so far concerning the application of your discoveries don't provide much useful information. ("you just have to try everything", seems to be the result.) Except for Stu, no one seems to be trying to control the experiments. So I'm looking for no more than three things I can try that tend to have the grossest effect. And are resettable. Is there one or more of your free tweaks that you would suggest as the most obvious, reliable and resettable?
 
 You repeatedly mention treating identical or similar devices to the operating ones as proof that something unusual is happening. Does that similarity have an effect on the outcome or is it just an attempt at consistency? For instance I have a power amp sitting around with a steel case but not being used. If I degauss it or align it's screws or paste a sticky note on it with a positive thought will that be more likely to affect my perception than doing the same thing with a steel strongbox?
 
 Finally I have an unrelated question: Since you have made it clear that what is affected is the listener, why not treat the listener directly? I'd be tickled to have a pin or tie-bar that would make things sound better. I could even use it at the symphony.
 
 While I'm unimpressed with the extent explanations, that doesn't mean that the effect may not be real. Like you, I'm also unimpressed with the majority of the the extent explanations on AA. So what? I've found any number of things in my life that have proven true despite having iffy explanations.
 
 Thanks, Rick
 
 RE: Testing advice? - May Belt 08:00:48 07/29/07 (9)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Testing advice? posted by rick_m on July 28, 2007 at 12:22:08
 
 Rick, There is no one a more ' hard-bitten engineer' than Peter !!
 
 > > > "So I'm looking for no more than three things I can try that tend to have the grossest effect. And are resettable. Is there one or more of your free tweaks that you would suggest as the most obvious, reliable and resettable? " < < <
 
 It is extremely difficult to suggest which of our free tweaks would be guaranteed to give the 'grossest', 'most obvious or reliable' effect. People react differently to different things. Some swear by the beneficial effect of placing a plain piece of paper under one of the four feet of a piece of equipment (I would emphasise - under ONE of the FOUR feet - not under one of three feet or under one of five feet but under one of four feet !!). But some might not hear the beneficial effect of tying a Reef knot in a cable (again I would emphasise it must be a Reef knot, not a Granny knot or any other knot). Others might not hear the effect of the plain piece of paper under one of the four feet but have Reef Knots tied in as many cables (all over the house) as possible to great beneficial effect. Others hear both 'tweaks' and many of the other 'tweaks'. It is not possible to guarantee which will have the grossest effect but most of our free tweaks can be removed (take you back to square one) so you can do before, after and back to before listening experiments. Another peculiarity is the following. Sometimes people THINK they might have heard an improvement in the sound but are not sure until as soon as they remove the particular 'tweak' and listen again, they cringe at their sound because it is perceived as much worse!! They then realise that the improvement in the sound HAD been there, but they had not been absolutely sure, had been uncertain, until they had removed the beneficial 'effect'.
 
 > > > "You repeatedly mention treating identical or similar devices to the operating ones as proof that something unusual is happening. Does that similarity have an effect on the outcome or is it just an attempt at consistency?" < < <
 
 The similarity is mainly to do with consistency. If you believe that some 'treatment' is to do with RF interference or EMI or static (affecting the signal going through the equipment) and you do the same 'treatment' on a passive but NON identical piece of equipment and get a similar effect - there will always be someone who will claim that the result of the experiment is null and void because the NON identical piece of equipment might be quite different in other respects and THAT difference would account for an effect.
 
 Referring to some of the experiments I described for unclestu. There is an interesting mention relating to this subject in an article on P.W.B. treatments written by Jimmy Hughes in October 1987 issue of Hi Fi Answers. Jimmy describes 'treating' the spindle of the (passive) Linn LP-12 turntable whilst listening to the Compact Disc player and improving the sound - of the Compact Disc player !! And vice versa - 'treating' a (passive) Compact Disc player and improving the sound whilst listening to the LP-12 !! Jimmy goes on to describe how he demonstrated such a technique to Mr. X from one of London's top specialist dealers, to "looks of utter incredulity". Jimmy's article was entitled "New Horizons - Prepare to suspend disbelief" and was written 20 years ago !!
 
 > > > "For instance I have a power amp sitting around with a steel case but not being used. If I degauss it or align it's screws or paste a sticky note on it with a positive thought will that be more likely to affect my perception than doing the same thing with a steel strongbox? " < < <
 
 Now, this is a difficult one to answer without you have some understanding of the concept of 'morphic resonance'.
 Let me try. You have to visualise the power amp in a steel box and a steel strongbox in the environment as both being a problem (for us). So, treating both will be effective. Or, put another way. If you 'treat' the amp in the steel box first and gain an improvement, then you can go on to 'treat' the steel strongbox and gain another improvement.
 Now comes the part to do with 'morphic resonance' (and morphic messages). In addition, attaching a beneficial note to the amp in the steel box will give a greater improvement - particularly if the amp has a Brand name. Beneficial message should read as follows.
 Say the amp is a Pioneer amp. The beneficial note should say THIS PIONEER AMPLIFIER PRODUCES GOOD SOUND > O.K. Naming the Brand name (if there is one) is more effective that not. With the steel strongbox, the beneficial message would just be STEEL STRONGBOX > O.K.
 
 Read Dave and Carol Clarks experiences when they experimented writing similar 'morphic messages' with our Red 'x' Pen. I repeat their observations in my article "Myth, Mirth or Magic?" in Positive Feedback Online
 http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue30/belt.htm
 
 Dave Clark's experience was to react immediately as soon as the beneficial message Carol had written was changed to one which read "Bad".
 
 In Carol's article about the Red 'x' Pen, she describes using our specially treated pen and writing beneficial messages with great effect.
 
 Also, in my article "Myth, Mirth or Magic ?", in the third paragraph, there is a link to the 60 or more pages of discussion I was involved with in the Stereophile Chat Forum where I described many of our experiences.
 
 > > > "Finally I have an unrelated question: Since you have made it clear that what is affected is the listener, why not treat the listener directly? I'd be tickled to have a pin or tie-bar that would make things sound better. I could even use it at the symphony." < < <
 
 A difficult question to answer again until you have had experience with such things as our 'treated' Foil and heard a beneficial effect on the sound. That is why we describe many 'free' techniques to try to get people to experience, for themselves, just what can be achieved. Once you have had positive experience with such as our Rainbow Foil, things will not appear as 'strange'- then I can suggest that the next time you go to a musical concert, you 'treat' the watch you are wearing with a strip of Rainbow Foil etc. Do you carry credit/store cards in your wallet.? Do you carry anything in your wallet with a bar code ? All these can be 'treated'. Would you buy a programme at the concert ? This can also be 'treated'. We DO have a 'treated' pin - a CCU 'treated' safety pin (for attaching to carpets, curtains and cushions and upholstery) - in fact Dr Richard Graham (who compiles and edits our Newsletter) always attaches one of these 'pins' to his theatre seat when he visits the ballet, the opera or a concert.
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 RE: Testing advice? - rick_m 10:47:25 07/29/07 (8)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Testing advice? posted by May Belt on July 29, 2007 at 08:00:48
 
 Thanks May,
 
 The reef knot and paper it will be. I definitely like the idea that they can be reset reliably. It's a lot harder to know if you've managed to remove chemicals.
 
 I'm pleased that there isn't seen to be special relationship between the active player with the "passive" unit being treated. Other than being yet another thing in the room. Seems bit more straightforward.
 
 I am a firm believer in superstition, more precisely the power of suggestion. They are the basis of success of many of our most profitable enterprises. I also think that we are very sensitive to others around us, unconsciously observing and reacting to subtly clues. The biggest difficulty I see in conducting clean tests is removing these factors. I won't be able to do so initially, but it should be fun anyway.
 
 Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my questions.
 
 Regards, Rick
 
 "I am a firm believer in... the power of suggestion." Indeed, and... - clarkjohnsen 08:04:42 07/30/07 (7)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Testing advice? posted by rick_m on July 29, 2007 at 10:47:25
 
 ...it appears that the vast majority of May's (and Posy's) antagonists here are subject to that very power -- except with them, it's a negative power.
 
 Nowhere have I seen any hint from them that they too might be susceptible to psychology; no, it's only us!
 
 Whattalaff.
 
 clark
 
 Us? - rick_m 10:24:32 07/30/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "I am a firm believer in... the power of suggestion." Indeed, and... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 30, 2007 at 08:04:42
 
 Subjectivists, Objectivists, Objectionists... all human. Our keen eye for correlations and open minds have done much to make us such a successful species. The dark side is that it also makes us putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks.
 
 Question your beliefs. Question Authority. Keep an open mind. Have a beer.
 
 The secret to life is having the right platitude...
 
 Rick
 
 "Keep an open mind." - rick m - Posy Rorer 21:09:26 07/30/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Us? posted by rick_m on July 30, 2007 at 10:24:32
 
 > > Subjectivists, Objectivists, Objectionists... all human. < <
 
 Yes. Some more than others...
 
 > > Our keen eye for correlations and open minds have done much to make us such a successful species. < <
 
 Our closed-mindedness (by "our", I mean society in general and not myself of course....) has also made us a failure as a species.
 
 > > The dark side is that it also makes us putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks. < <
 
 No. Only those with minds of putty to begin with are putty in the hands of marketeers, politicians and other unscrupulous folks. If we're still talking about audio, all you need is a good set of ears and an ability to think for yourself. Then you don't need to worry about any of that.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m - rick_m 23:06:58 07/30/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 21:09:26
 
 Failed species???? Not yet, probably not ever. But I think we could do a lot better.
 
 Putty-wise, you are right. It was a hackneyed expression but it seemed close enough compared to the lengthy, boring diatribe that would have ensued if I had tried to express what I was thinking. Clearly mind manipulation is a perfected craft and none of us seem totally immune to it. If one were really "closed-minded" it might provide a certain level of protection, rather like a computer firewall.
 
 On another topic, I'm pleased that you don't recall our "rational dialog", me neither. It's a load off. Not to say that we may not have had one...
 
 I'm enjoying "mockworthy".
 
 Rick
 
 RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m - Posy Rorer 23:33:50 07/30/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m posted by rick_m on July 30, 2007 at 23:06:58
 
 > > Failed species???? Not yet, probably not ever. But I think we could do a lot better. < <
 
 What do you call a species that has slaughtered millions of its own in the name of religion, racism, jealousy, envy, misogyny, politics and other closed-minded values? I call that "failed".
 
 > > Putty-wise, you are right. It was a hackneyed expression but it seemed close enough compared to the lengthy, boring diatribe that would have ensued if I had tried to express what I was thinking. Clearly mind manipulation is a perfected craft and none of us seem totally immune to it. < <
 
 It's really not that big a deal. Just be more vigilante than the marketers and you'll be immune to it. Trust me when I say I'm aware of every possible aspect of "the machine" trying to sell me things (products or ideas). It's not a coincidence that I own a VCR with a commercial killer. I'm the guy that can't enjoy himself at an Eric Clapton concert for those damned ads they display on the screen or around the arena.
 
 > > If one were really "closed-minded" it might provide a certain level of protection, rather like a computer firewall. < <
 
 Well, it's a lot like love. You can be extra super careful to avoid it, so you don't get your heart broken. But then you don't get any love, either. In the end, who wins?
 
 > > On another topic, I'm pleased that you don't recall our "rational dialog", me neither. It's a load off. Not to say that we may not have had one... < <
 
 Now that's -two- people that seem to be confirming it. I'm gonna have to give the notion some serious consideration. I'm sorry, what we're we talking about?
 
 > > I'm enjoying "mockworthy". < <
 
 Glad to hear that. I'll put it in a sentence for you, so you can get a feel for context:
 
 "Richard L. Wainwright is a mockworthy person."
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 It's nice to be loved... - rlw 09:04:55 08/05/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 23:33:50
 
 Thanks for the kind thoughts!
 
 -RW-
 
 Nice choice for "mockworthy". nt - clarkjohnsen 08:33:48 07/31/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "Keep an open mind." - rick m posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 23:33:50
 
 e
 
 "Question your beliefs. Question Authority. Keep an open mind. Have a beer." - SF tech 17:25:36 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Us? posted by rick_m on July 30, 2007 at 10:24:32
 
 That's good advice... but not when selectively applied (except maybe the beer part, might want more than one on occasion!) That just defeats the purpose, eh?
 
 Just remember, Clark's dogmatic pronouncements require the existence of a "Them" as well as an "Us".
 
 Fall a bit wide of the mark (in his assessment, of course), and you can expect to become yet another object of his derision.
 
 Hope you've got a thick skin!
 
 Cheers
 
 I never claimed to be superman ( NT ) - unclestu52 17:59:49 07/26/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "admittedly I haven't tried all of their tweaks." posted by geoffkait on July 26, 2007 at 14:05:22
 
 Stu
 
 I believe Einstein - unclestu52 21:59:01 07/25/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Lemaitre also demonstrated the math. Einstein didn't believe him. -nt posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 20:28:49
 
 later apologized to Lemaitre, but I didn't post anything about Einstein first, Clark did. The fact that he used Einstein, who did have a mathematical model ( and I am not excluding any one else) means that there is a means for devising an experiment with predictable results. Even without the experimental proof, there was a means for creating an experimental basis testing the theory.
 
 For many other events, I see no attempt at a numeration or a possible mathematical model. Not that one is absolutely necessary, mind you, but it would be nice to have in a description of effects. Nebulous statements and predictions, fill me with a certain, ah, apprehension, and not because of the uncertainty. I find that it sometimes (note: sometimes) indicates a certain lack of understanding of the full causality. A lack of complete understanding is also of no cause for alarm for me either. There's a lot of things I don't understand.
 
 Stu
 
 Illogical appeals to Einstein are a hallmark of bad thinking. - Enophile 22:08:23 07/25/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: I believe Einstein posted by unclestu52 on July 25, 2007 at 21:59:01
 
 Every Bozo with a bad idea says, "Well, Einstein failed math, " or "Einstein pubslished before measurements were done," as though their dumb ass idea is of similar quality.
 
 Remember, for every Albert Einstein, there are 1,000,000 Alfred Einsteins.
 
 Cheers, guys. If I had posted what you did, some dim bulb egotistical guru wannabe would have posted "STALKER ALERT!"
 
 No names named, just behaviors described.
 
 Cheer up! - unclestu52 01:58:02 07/26/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Illogical appeals to Einstein are a hallmark of bad thinking. posted by Enophile on July 25, 2007 at 22:08:23
 
 I've been called a dim wit and worse. No biggie, though.
 
 Stu
First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - clarkjohnsen 14:15:24 07/23/07 (45)
...that does *not* implicate a Belt effect? I mean, even just *touching* something, fer Heaven's sake!

Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect?

And finally, when one destaticizes a CD or LP electromagnetically (or with a Bedini thingie), no cream, no touching, doesn't that surely suggest a non-Beltian attribute?

clark
- RE: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - May Belt 08:03:31 07/25/07 (19)
 Now Clark, regarding your comment "Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect? "
 
 Let us now look at the subject of double, triple or more explanations for a reported effect.
 
 Let us use the example of a simple 'tweak' - tying a Reef knot in an AC power cable.
 
 Tie a Reef Knot in a power cord of (say) the amplifier or CD player and listen. You will perceive an improvement in the sound (I have described what I call an improvement in an earlier posting). There can be many explanations given - such as 'something to do with EMI', or 'something to do with RF interference', or 'something to do with inductance' - those are just three explanations to begin with !! In other words explanations associated with 'something affecting the audio signal'.
 
 Now, say you have a pair of Quad Electrostatic speakers just standing passively in a passageway or corridor outside the listening room. Tie a Reef knot in the power cables of the electrostatics - don't forget, these power cables are just dangling passively - not connected into the AC power supply - and then return to the listening room and listen again. You will now perceive a further identical improvement in the sound i.e even better height, width, depth, separation of instruments, resolution. Because nothing can associate the PASSIVE power cords of the Quad Electrostatics with the audio signal in the listening room, then other explanations will be put forward. Explanations such as 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing' or 'effective marketing'. We now have SEVEN different explanations for the same perceived effect !!
 
 If you want to take one - RF interference - then any explanation to do with RF interference MUST be able to explain both what happened (to the sound/audio signal) by tying a Reef knot in the power cord of the CD player or amplifier AND with tying a Reef knot in the power cords of the passive Quad Electrostatics outside the listening room. The 'RF interference explanation' has to explain how the audio signal is affected and how the 'sound' can be changed. It does not make sense to have one explanation (say RF interference) for the effect of the Reef knot in the amplifier, a different explanation (say EMI) for the Reef knot in the CD player, yet another different explanation (say inductance) for the Reef knot in the DVD player, and yet more different explanations (say suggestion, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing) for the effect of the Reef knot in the power cords of the Quad Electrostatic loudspeakers !!! Yes, you can have a general explanation which explains everything I have described and that is 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing', or 'effective marketing' but if other people, present in the room and also listening who hear all the improvement in the sound which you hear but have not the slightest idea what you were doing or even that you were doing anything at all, then the explanation using such as 'suggestion' is not valid.
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 - RE: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - rick_m 10:16:39 07/25/07 (0)
 Hi May,
 
 Hope you had a good holiday!
 
 I very much enjoy AA and the spirit of folks trying to actively improve their systems. While you were gone I also took the time to read most of the PWB website. I must say that I really don't see much difference between attributing a perceived effect to RFI, inductance, electrostatic buildup or an adverse energy field. Without further support the explanations are right up there with saying "the fairies done it".
 
 Lacking the results from controlled experiments, or correlation with measurements and data, I bundle them all into the category of idle speculations. In areas where I have lot's of experience, and I do with EMC stuff, it's quite easy to tell if the conclusion is supportable by the experience. Usually the writer is merely speculating. They MAY be correct, it's just that it's not possible for anyone, including them, to know for sure based upon their methods and observations.
 
 Not to say that we can't take advantage of techniques that work without knowing the why, explanations often lag practice. But we should be honest with ourselves when we do it.
 
 Regards, Rick
 - The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - clarkjohnsen 09:06:10 07/25/07 (17)
 ...other explanations look very weak indeed. But if I may say, that's rather unfair!
 
 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?
 
 See, we can both come up with examples galore. It just happens that CD treatments fall somewhere in the middle, which is what makes them so interesting. I simply am saying that you can not adduce Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects here -- anyway not until more, much more is known about how the damn things (CDs) work.
 
 clark
 
 PS I have seen on the market CDs that claim to have actual "healing" sounds or music (more likely, "music") on them. Maybe they've been treated?
 - RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - Posy Rorer 14:46:58 07/25/07 (15)
 > > ...other explanations look very weak indeed. But if I may say, that's rather unfair!
 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? < <
 
 Speaking of unfair explanations! There are well known causes for sound improvement for changing audio cartridges and tubes. What is the well known cause for improving sound by tying a reef knot in a passive cable?
 
 > > See, we can both come up with examples galore. It just happens that CD treatments fall somewhere in the middle, which is what makes them so interesting. I simply am saying that you can not adduce Beltism as the exclusive or even primary cause of the audible effects here -- anyway not until more, much more is known about how the damn things (CDs) work. < <
 
 You don't need to know how CD's work or even what a CD is, to determine the cause of the effects of hand lotion on CD's. All you need are 3 things: 1) Working pair of ears. 2) Listening threshold high enough to hear the effects of the hand lotion 3) My post in the hand cream and cd's thread, which I wrote days ago, that explains how to test if its a Beltist effect.
 
 If you can hear the effects on a passive CD, it eliminates all other theories posited on this phenomenon. For, as I already claimed, **it has nothing to do with CDs**. The hand lotion tweak will probably work just as well on the battery in your remote.
 
 > > PS I have seen on the market CDs that claim to have actual "healing" sounds or music (more likely, "music") on them. Maybe they've been treated? < <
 
 Not with Beltist product IMO, as I don't see Beltism as "healing" anything, or purporting to do so.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 - You write as though I'm denying the Beltist phenomena; I am not. I'm just trying to... - clarkjohnsen 08:28:45 07/26/07 (14)
 
 In Reply to: RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 14:46:58
 
 ...sort through the possible contributions of each element, particularly difficult in the case of CDs (or records).
 
 clark
 
 My argument is the lotion tweak is a Beltist tweak. And nothing else. - Posy Rorer 11:22:30 07/26/07 (13)
 
 In Reply to: RE: You write as though I'm denying the Beltist phenomena; I am not. I'm just trying to... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 26, 2007 at 08:28:45
 
 ....Which has yet to be confirmed or denied by any other experimenters (who are able to hear the effects of the tweak on a playing CD).
 
 It took me seconds to confirm this (and I admit I suspected it even before those seconds). Call me biased, but I chalk that up to experience. I do not believe the lotion has any destaticizing or demagnetizing effect, that is affecting the signal, so I do not believe that is part of the Belt effect. I believe it contains ingredient(s) we are reacting to, that affects senses, not signals. I don't believe it has anything remotely to do with van der waals force, EMI, RFI, or anything else posited within these forums. I believe people are looking in wholly wrong directions and at wrong objects (CDs, records etc) in trying to understand this simple tweak.
 
 I believe the confirmation of my argument is easy to do, costs nothing (as opposed to the thousands of dollars some people's ideas will cost to test out....), takes a few minutes (as opposed to the weeks some people's ideas might take, in order to implement), and I gave instructions on how to do that days ago. (I do not however, believe everyone who does the tests will hear its effect. Too many factors involved to predict that. Including, as Isolation Ward's troll "rlw" has shown, "attitude". (e.g. If you're a good-for-nothing emotionally-retarded insincere tweak-bashing Godwin's law-breaking a--hole troll who's only intention is to disrupt discussions on Iso with fake reports of tweaks tests you never did, then chances are you're not going to hear anything from the test you never did, and will report accordingly).
 
 I believe that if many people did the test according to my suggestions, the majority of those who could hear its effect, would likely find it is just as (more or less) effective on passive objects as on active ones. It's not difficult to eliminate the "possible contributions" of CDs or records, if you apply the lotion to, say, a battery, as I also suggested. You should find (theoretically, as I haven't tried this), that the sonic signature is similar. That will give you an indication that the effect in place has to (or fine, "is likely to" if you really want to be scientifically safe....) be derived from the same cause. If there were 2 causes affecting the sound (ie. Beltism and destaticizing), then the sound would change in two different ways. (Especially since nothing working under conventional principles changes the sound quite like Beltism).
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 How we gonna separate the variables? nt - clarkjohnsen 07:53:28 07/30/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: My argument is the lotion tweak is a Beltist tweak. And nothing else. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 11:22:30
 
 s
 
 Easy. Test passive devices in another room. nt - Posy Rorer 22:04:53 07/30/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: How we gonna separate the variables? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 30, 2007 at 07:53:28
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Do we know that such a move obliterates the effect? Maybe go next door? nt - clarkjohnsen 08:41:19 07/31/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Easy. Test passive devices in another room. nt posted by Posy Rorer on July 30, 2007 at 22:04:53
 
 re
 
 Yes, well going or placing the DUT next door will obliterate both conventional and Beltist effects. -nt - Posy Rorer 12:55:47 07/31/07 (3)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Do we know that such a move obliterates the effect? Maybe go next door? nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 31, 2007 at 08:41:19
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) - clarkjohnsen 09:40:29 08/01/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Yes, well going or placing the DUT next door will obliterate both conventional and Beltist effects. -nt posted by Posy Rorer on July 31, 2007 at 12:55:47
 
 In other words, what's the distance at which this sort of thing no longer works? Or, is it an ownership-territory thing?
 
 clark
 
 RE: What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) - May Belt 12:37:29 08/01/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) posted by clarkjohnsen on August 01, 2007 at 09:40:29
 
 > > > "What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) In other words, what's the distance at which this sort of thing no longer works? Or, is it an ownership-territory thing?" < < <
 
 Regarding 'Belt' techniques it is an 'ownership-territory' thing. We (human beings) are very territorial so regarding reading/sensing our environment for energy patterns associated with danger or reading/sensing our environment for energy patterns associated with reassurance then the immediate room we are in takes precedence - but we are still (if you like for want of a better phrase) 'keeping a wary eye/ear' on the other rooms in our territory - right up to our boundary - and the boundary is whatever we have designated as our boundary.
 
 Regarding conventional techniques then if you are talking about the actual acoustics of a room, then these will be concerned purely with the immediate room. Having said that there is now (and really always has been but people in the world of audio have not been prepared to acknowledge this) some confusion as to what people are going to call 'conventional' !!
 
 If you read an article published in 6 moons - Re Acoustic Systems resonators it describes the designer of the Acoustic Systems resonators demonstrating them to the journalists :-
 > > > > When Franck reappeared, he admitted that he'd removed a resonator outside the room in the courtyard. So a resonator behind at least two panes of glass still influences the perceived sound. < < < <
 
 Further quotes from this particular article.
 
 > > > "But the strangest -- and for the likes of James Randi & Co. most nonsensical -- places to put a resonator was still to come. Franck asked where the refrigerator was. He placed a resonator inside on the bottom ledge.
 Call us crazy, all you naysayers, but until you experience it, keep your comments to yourselves.
 So what can we say about these little contraptions that when mentioned in audiophile surroundings cause a lot of eyebrow to wrinkle? Franckly, they work exactly as advertised. Maybe our homebrew explanation of how and why they work is not covering all bases but there is neither voodoo at work nor snake oil magic. It is pure Physics based on resonance distribution, partial cancellations and human perception.
 With all these positive effects and our profound satisfaction with the results, the big question naturally remains. How the eff do these things work? One side of our brains doesn't give a damn. Of all things in life, science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work. < < < < <
 
 ************
 
 The authors of this particular article admit that they do not know how the resonators change the sound but they believe 'there is neither voodoo at work nor snake oil magic'. They squeeze, stretch, pull, push, bend conventional explanations in an effort to try to explain what they have heard. But, what they write (and describe) in 2007 is a parallel to how so many audio journalists in the UK described their experiences with P.W.B. devices and techniques 20 years ago - and we (at P.W.B.) DO NOT use resonating techniques. We use other techniques but get similar results. So, how come we can obtain the same effect (an improvement in the sound) as the authors of the article mentioned describe if there is not 'something going on which cannot be explained from conventional electronic or acoustic theories' ? And, gain the improvement in the sound as they had by doing 'something in other rooms' ?
 
 I will repeat again what the authors of the article referred to said because it is really so important.
 
 > > > > "With all these positive effects and our profound satisfaction with the results, the big question naturally remains. How the eff do these things work? One side of our brains doesn't give a damn. Of all things in life, science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work." < < < < <
 
 How true that is !!!!
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 "Science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work." No argument here! And... - clarkjohnsen 12:44:37 08/01/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) posted by May Belt on August 01, 2007 at 12:37:29
 
 ...thanks for the explanation (if such it be).
 
 clark
 
 Wow. That was quite a string of insults! A+ for effort! - Enophile 14:53:34 07/26/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: My argument is the lotion tweak is a Beltist tweak. And nothing else. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 11:22:30
 
 Hi, Posy.
 
 I like rlw, and can understand the bar he uses for tweaks. He very understandably wants people to keep in mind things like "placebo effect" or "power of suggestion" when discussing audio tweaks. Asking us about whether or not we are fooling ourselves is an important mission.
 
 He gets criticized for being eternally skeptical, but then those he criticizes claim infallability - who wouldn't be a bit skeptical?
 
 He's also probably been around long enough to put two and two together when certain "experts" or "marketeers" pop in with self-serving scams.
 
 I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion.
 
 However, I really dig your posts and the way you discuss your experiences, too. Your posts show more thought and lack of personal defensiveness than any other 'guru' or 'salesman' on this forum.
 
 I am even progressing through some cream trials this week because of you.
 
 I admit to not being sure if you are for real, to tell the truth. If someone were to partake of this debate as a piece of performance art, I could see you as being capable of that. I know that won't sound right to you, I don't really have precise enough language to describe that feeling I get from your posts. I like your way of posting, but it seems so implaccable that it makes me wonder. Is that fair? Again, I mean no disparagement.
 
 Since many of the main proponents of some of these tweaks have fiscal or social incentives to obfuscate on the impact of certain tweaks, it has probably made me overly suspicious of others, even when they don't seem to have obvious motives. I apologize if my cynicism about certain others kept me from being as open to some of your points as I might have been.
 
 All in all, I think it's great getting to read your posts and I hope you keep at it.
 
 Final note: regarding the creams. I want to have some audio buddies listen, can I have them audition blind?
 
 Awww shucks, tweren't nuthin'.... No, really. - Posy Rorer 21:40:45 07/26/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Wow. That was quite a string of insults! A+ for effort! posted by Enophile on July 26, 2007 at 14:53:34
 
 Thanks but, I don't think I deserve the A+. It was pretty weak by my standards, I wasn't really putting my heart into it. Plus this is AA don't forget, and there are more secret police watching you than old mother Russia.
 
 > > Hi, Posy. < <
 
 Hi, Eno.
 
 > > I like rlw, and can understand the bar he uses for tweaks.
 
 You mean the long lead pipe he uses to bash them with? Maybe if I painted a GSIC chip on his forehead....
 
 > > He very understandably wants people to keep in mind things like "placebo effect" or "power of suggestion" when discussing audio tweaks. Asking us about whether or not we are fooling ourselves is an important mission. < <
 
 Important mission? Give me a break! Don't get me started... For one thing, it's a blatant waste of time for all involved, and an extremely patronizing attitude -at best-. RLW, like all other boring trolls of his backward mentality, do this just to be annoying. And they -know- they're being annoying, that's what they want to be. It's not up to any pseudo-objectivist troll to decide whether someone is fooling themselves or not, and there isn't a soul here who doesn't know damn well what a placebo is and how that works. They are not posting on Isolation Ward because they need some deceitful, disruptive troll with his big clowny head up his ass, who doesn't have the first clue about the tweaks he's trolling you over, to tell them they might be fooling themselves. All this does is create flame wars and divide the community. You can see this on Iso in the posts of rlw, bjh, SF Tech, powermatic, porky pig jr. etc. It's not a "service to the community" these anti-progress aholes are offering us on Iso Ward, and it's not up to anyone else to tell someone what they should spend their time or money on, in contradiction of what they say they might wish to spend their time or money on. That's just being antagonistic, and it NEVER does anything to further audio progress.
 
 Finally, for those dingoheads who believe everything in audio sounds the same and everyone who believes otherwise is fooling themselves, guess what? People also have the right to fool themselves. And that's why I support the right of such self-deluded fools to believe that everything sounds the same. I wish them and their boring audio systems long prosperous lives together.
 
 > > He gets criticized for being eternally skeptical, but then those he criticizes claim infallability - who wouldn't be a bit skeptical? < <
 
 And this helps audio progress HOW exactly?
 
 Tweaker (posting on a "hard-core tweakers" forum, after his type have been rejected from all OTHER audio forums, including the Tweak Forum, for bothering the skeptics): I heard this thing improve my sound today.
 
 Skeptic (trolling the hard core tweaker's forum): No you didn't.
 
 Tweaker: Yes I did!
 
 Skeptic: No you didn't!
 
 Tweaker: Yes I did!!
 
 Skeptic: No you didn't!!
 
 Tweaker: Yes I did!!!
 
 Skeptic: No you didn't!!!!
 
 Tweaker: Yes I did!!!!!
 
 Skeptic: No you didn't!!!!!
 
 Tweaker: STFU!!
 
 Skeptic: YOU STFU!!
 
 Tweaker: No, YOU STFU!!
 
 Skeptic: No, YOU STFU!!!
 
 ad nauseum....
 
 So exactly when are these "people" going to decide they're too old for this childish shit? When their arthritis can no longer argue this same tired old subjectivist/objectivist crap for decades over, and their eyes are too far gone to see the screen?
 
 If rlw or other tweak-bashing trolls don't wish to believe me then fine, don't believe me. But STFU already, with your autosuggestion mantra. You're not gonna save my soul in the name of pseudoscience with your tired old arguments, you're just gonna make an ass out of yourself and an enemy out of me.
 
 Anyways, my problem with rlw (so far), isn't his bible-thumping tweak-bashing preaching, it's his lying and deceit about tweak tests he never performed, only claiming he did to bash them, their adherents and their manufacturer. I've seen enough lying, tweak-bashing trolls like him in 20 years of dealing with pseudo-objectivist anti-audiophiles, to know when I'm seeing another one. And when rlw says "End of discussion", you know the troll is just getting warmed up....
 
 > > He's also probably been around long enough to put two and two together when certain "experts" or "marketeers" pop in with self-serving scams. < <
 
 Oh please... GMAB Pt. 2. I've never seen a "self-serving scam" from any expert or manufacturer on AA. The "self-serving scam" is coming from rlw, and other pseudo-objectivist bible thumpers of his ilk. Whether or not rlw is making money off his agenda doesn't mean his preaching isn't a self-serving scam. He's just like Jehova's Witnesses who rap on your door and suck up your time. They may not ask for money outright, but they're serving their ideological needs, in opposition to yours. It's a power struggle, at the very heart of it.
 
 Typical of idiots like rlw, is that his whole belief system is something he entirely pulled out of his arse. It's all bad theory, that's all they ever spew at us. Whenever I question these fools, I inevitably end up finding out that they don't even have a fraction of the experience doing critical listening tests on tweaks that I do, and 9 times out of 10, don't even have a second of experience with the tweak's they're bashing. So they just don't get it and never will. In order to get to a point where you can understand whether something you heard might be an illusion or something you can have good confidence as a positive ID, you need -years- of experience doing a great many such critical tests listening to all kinds of audio phenomenon. It isn't arguing silly ideologies on audio forums that's going to get you there. But build up the skill to do that, and I guarantee you, placebo's will no longer be the big worry they are for those who only theorize about audio. While they might be something to be aware of, you will scoff at those who can't stop preaching about it after 35 years of experience in audio, even though they are still now where you were 25 years ago.
 
 > > I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion. < > I am even progressing through some cream trials this week because of you. < <
 
 Good. What kind, hand lotion or CE? Remember that less is more, but where you apply this stuff is important. CD logo's are a good place to start, even on passive (non-playing) CD's.
 
 > > I admit to not being sure if you are for real, to tell the truth. If someone were to partake of this debate as a piece of performance art, I could see you as being capable of that. I know that won't sound right to you, I don't really have precise enough language to describe that feeling I get from your posts. I like your way of posting, but it seems so implaccable that it makes me wonder. Is that fair? Again, I mean no disparagement. < <
 
 Sorry, I'm not following you. I only understood what you said about me being 'real', and indeed, a lot of people have accused me of being all kinds of things (and people), and questioned my motives in every possible way. But those who know me know that I'm quite sincere in the beliefs I espouse, and have no ulterior motives above that of any other audiophile on these forums: they include sharing ideas, beliefs and a desire to help audio progress. I don't speak for anyone but myself, when I do. I have a particular interest in audio tweaks, because I think that's where it's at today. You can do more with tweaks than you can with components.
 
 > > Since many of the main proponents of some of these tweaks have fiscal or social incentives to obfuscate on the impact of certain tweaks, it has probably made me overly suspicious of others, even when they don't seem to have obvious motives. I apologize if my cynicism about certain others kept me from being as open to some of your points as I might have been. < <
 
 Your cynicism is understandable, but you have to also understand that -everyone- has something to sell on these forums. Since no one is allowed to sell product, -all- are selling ideas. Some are selling Newtonian ideas, some are selling Beltist ideas, some are selling Maxwellian ideas, some are selling Johnstonian ideas, some are selling Clarkian ideas, some are selling ideas they scraped up off a package of corned hash. All would like you to believe them.
 
 If you "buy" what the cynics try to sell you, then it's a sure-fire guarantee you will not advance in your understanding of audio, and your system will not advance either. Because in their anti-progress rants, they're saying "Don't try it, and if you do, don't believe what your own two ears told you! Instead, believe us, when we tell you it can't work. We know, we wouldn't fool you!". So you if you buy their 'wares', you have no chance of moving forward, only sideways. (And if you're anything like me and you actually heard their audio systems, you would probably never listen to a damn thing they ever told you for the remainder of your life). If you buy what the proponents are selling (on the pro side of the issue), who are saying "Try it" (free or guaranteed), then you have more options available to you from that choice. Then you -may- advance in your understanding of audio and quality of sound. Or you may not. That all depends on how the trial went, and what you made of it!
 
 It doesn't matter what people's motivations here are, no matter if they are manufacturers or professionals or dealers or reviewers or just yer basic garden-variety audi-o-file. You're the one who should decide for yourself whether something is valid or not. And my argument has always been that you should do that by -listening- to it (whatever "it" is), and not just to what people say about it (good or bad). At best, people's opinions should only be guidelines. I will put a lot more stock in the opinion of someone who has actually tried the device or technique, than some loud-mouth who can think of 50 ways to tell me why it can't work, but really hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about. Even though he may convince those easily persuaded by technical aspects, that he does.
 
 The hand lotion tweak we've been discussing is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. This is something I'd never heard of before, until Zanash mentioned it, and said he had tried it, and it improved his sound. Then you get your usual trolls (or "skeptics" as you quaintly call them....), mocking the idea they never tried, simply because it doesn't fit with what they know of the world. Snapshot of them mocking Zanash:
 
 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/isolation/messages/1386.html
 
 So they try to discourage progress, try to discourage people from getting into it, by making fun of those that do. Since the only person that actually did try it got positive results, I listened to him, and found positive results myself (and I often reject other people's ideas for tweaks as unusable...). Plus, I (believe) I furthered progress on the tweak by identifying it's cause. Both of us (me and Zanash), did our part to progress audio. Isn't that what it's really about?? Remember that if I wanted, I can use this little tweak to produce incredible improvements in all of my audio systems. That's if all I do is multiply it by the number of CD's I have. Yet on the way to progress, I see more roadblocks. No sooner do I share my findings, when the "rlw" troll mocks me for doing so:
 
 http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/isolation/messages/1424.html
 
 Then rlw decides to pull the same stunt he pulled on the Teleportation Tweak, by pretending to test the hand lotion (like as if we should now believe this rabid tweak-bashing troll could possibly suspend his disbelief long enough to actually do that), so he can rally against it. Which he later does in his loud, brash manner (making sure he will warn the people sleeping in New Zealand), screaming out "IT DOESN'T WORK!!!"
 
 So if both Zanash (who sounded perfectly sincere in his initial post on hand creme) and rlw are both trying to sell me on their ideas, I think Zanash was a hell of a lot more credible than rlw, the screaming troll. Zanash sounded less like he was trying to sell me an idea (than rlw with his loud, insistent rant against the hand lotion idea), and more like he just wanted to share the idea, talk about it and learn about it. -That- is again, what progress in audio is about, and what these forums are supposed to be here for.
 
 > > Final note: regarding the creams. I want to have some audio buddies listen, can I have them audition blind? < <
 
 If you're asking me whether you and your buddies will hear the effects of cream (still not sure which we're talking about) under blind conditions, that's a big "maybe", or a maybe not. I can still hear such things under blind conditions, but I'm not a fan of blind tests, they can make identification of sounds significantly harder, due to the way the brain is behaving under this type of test. If someone starts with less than stellar listening skills, an effect that might be "relatively subtle" and thus not going to poke you in the eyes, and then adds the stress of a blind test, then I feel they are making things harder for themselves and might end up concluding the idea doesn't work, when under different conditions they might not. I would say try the blind test if you want to feel more confident you aren't imagining things, but try normal casual sighted test as well, to see if there's a difference.
 
 Whether you're in fact talking about hand lotion or cream electret, I believe they work under Beltist laws, as I've stated. This means, you are better to do trials where you do not use copies of discs, and just listen to the same disc first untreated, then treated (the treatment should be as I previously advised, less than a drop rubbed into the CD logo on the disc). That first precaution will eliminate variances in copies. (You -only- want to listen to the change effected by the cream, and nothing else). Second precaution, is not to compare one treated disc while another treated disc is in the house. This is because a treated disc not playing will have an effect on the sound of the disc playing. For this reason, if you want to eliminate this factor, you take any already treated CDs (other than the one being used for the test) just outside the door of your place. (If your intention is to test the effect on only one CD). However, for this same reason, you can simply treat passive CD's instead of the playing CD, and if you don't remove any of them from the listening room, then what you are testing each time you treat a (passive) CD is the effect being increased slightly, in increments (it should sound better only after odd numbers of treatments, so you can do 2 at a time, if you are planning to test multiple treatments).
 
 I hope that wasn't too confusing!
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Poser, showing his reflective, thoughtful side.... - rlw 07:43:21 07/30/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Awww shucks, tweren't nuthin'.... No, really. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 21:40:45
 
 Poser posits:
 Tweaker (posting on a "hard-core tweakers" forum, after his type have been rejected from all OTHER audio forums, including the Tweak Forum, for bothering the skeptics): I heard this thing improve my sound today.
 Skeptic (trolling the hard core tweaker's forum): No you didn't.
 Tweaker: Yes I did!
 Skeptic: No you didn't!
 
 The problem with this little charade, Poser, is that's not how I see it or call it. The Tweaker can hear *whatever* he like to hear, doesn't bother me one bit. I don't try to tell them what *they* hear. I do, however, tell them what I hear - or don't hear as the case may be.
 And *that* is what causes you to go ballistic. It bothers you to no end that I do not hear what you claim I MUST hear. Sorry, dude, I calls 'em as I hears 'em. Get over it.
 
 "If rlw or other tweak-bashing trolls don't wish to believe me then fine, don't believe me. But STFU already, with your autosuggestion mantra."
 And there you have it, folks - Poser's having a fit and wants me to STFU. Not gonna happen, homes. Get over it.
 
 "You're not gonna save my soul in the name of pseudoscience with your tired old arguments, you're just gonna make an ass out of yourself and an enemy out of me."
 Pseudoscience? You're the one slinging the pseudoscience about. Jars of rocks, hand creme on CDs, strips of colored aluminum foil, and on and on. It really is *quite* amusing.
 And as for making an enemy out of you - like I care. You really wanna make this up close and personal? You already have my name - Richard L. Wainwright. Now make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep (Google me, I'm there) while runnin' yer big mouth - I guarantee you won't like the outcome of that encounter, little man.
 "Anyways, my problem with rlw (so far), isn't his bible-thumping tweak-bashing preaching, it's his lying and deceit about tweak tests he never performed"
 Well, there you go again, spouting off. I simply post that I do not hear the effects of these tweaks and he has a fit. Calm down, Poser, you're gonna bust a blood vessel and then you'll die and we'll all feel real bad about it. Heh, heh.
 
 "The "self-serving scam" is coming from rlw, and other pseudo-objectivist bible thumpers of his ilk. Whether or not rlw is making money off his agenda doesn't mean his preaching isn't a self-serving scam."
 Oh yeah, I'm profiting *immensely* from these exchanges. I expect to retire sometime soon from the bucks I'm banking on this. If you promise to calm down a bit, I might even have you aboard my yacht, we'll party on the Mediterranean, dude!! No, you may not bring your jar of rocks or colored foils, I gotta draw the line *somewhere*.
 
 "Whenever I question these fools, I inevitably end up finding out that they don't even have a fraction of the experience doing critical listening tests on tweaks that I do"
 Folks, I give you Poser Roarer, the most experienced Audiophile on these here fora. And he don't cotton to others laughing about that so-called "experience", no sir.
 
 > > I hope he keeps up the skeptical point of view as part of the discussion. < <
 "I hope the troll keeps it on another forum. Otherwise, I'm gonna do my part and kick his can, wherever I see fit."
 Bring it, little man...
 -RW-
 
 Edits: 07/30/07
 
 RLW's reflective side: "Make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep while runnin' yer big mouth." - Posy Rorer 15:35:39 07/31/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Poser, showing his reflective, thoughtful side.... posted by rlw on July 30, 2007 at 07:43:21
 
 You kill me. You can bet that it's a slow news day on AA, because I actually got around to skimming this wild rant of yours. You remind me a lot of your counterpart, Richard Bassnuts. Except now instead of claiming to be threatened, you're making threats. And when you are making threats, you are one funny little troll, you are. With you foaming at the mouth like this....
 
 "You already have my name - Richard L. Wainwright. Now make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep (Google me, I'm there) while runnin' yer big mouth - I guarantee you won't like the outcome of that encounter, little man."
 
 ..... you remind me of a little barking chihuahua doggie. One who overcompensates in his barking, when confronting the bigger dogs.
 
 So then, Dick.... sounds like you don't like me "runnin' ma big mouth" about you and your phony tweak tests, and now you want me to "Google you", find out from Google where you live, take the time and effort to travel to where you live and show up on your doorstep, and then start runnin' ma big yap on your doorstep. At which point you will, quote, "guarantee that I won't like the outcome of that encounter". "Little man". Why? Please elaborate, I find this fascinating. Tell me, what are you planning on doing, exactly, if I live out your fantasy of showing up at your doorstep? If you insist I go to all that trouble to contact you, at least give me a good reason why I should. Are you planning on boring me to tears? Inviting me to look at your gay porn collection? Beg me to keep you company because you haven't been able to cope since your dog left you? Are you planning on showing me your Tupac-inspired tatoo, that says "Troll Fa Life"? Are you gonna put on a wig of dreadlocks and brown shoe polish and try to convince me you're a "gangsta from the hood"? LMAO! God, even Bassnuts had more sense than this, and wasn't as desparate to impress, as you so obviously are.
 
 Yep, yours is the stupid posturing of a small geek dog, for certain. If you really wanted me to go after you, you would have already emailed me your address, instead of playing footsies with me and publicly demanding that I "Google you", in a transparently desparate effort to show everyone how castrated you feel. But the mere fact that you think I care so much about you and your verbal diarrhea as to actually travel hundreds or thousands of miles to find you and do you in (not to mention the minor fact that I never expressed any desire whatsoever to do so), reveals more than a few little defects in your personality. One, it shows that you're an egomaniac, who overestimates his importance in the world by about 50,000%. Two, it shows that you're a frightened little doggie, who barks first and barks loudest.... because he already knows he's too impotent to actually do anything more than bark. Three, it shows the depth of how insecure a man you are.... which must be the basis for your rancor towards tweakers and their tweaks. (While you pretend to feign interest by lying about tweaks you never tested, which is pretty damn pathetic in itself).
 
 Speaking of your insecurities, I decided to humour you (slow news day, remember?), and Google your name. This may come as a shock to you since you think that the world revolves around you, but there appears to be more than one "Richard L. Wainwright" in the world. Which raised the question, which "Richard L. Wainwright" were you? Which name in Google represented the same lying, dumbass troll that tries to annoy people on audio tweak forums? Was it the "Richard L. Wainwright" who was afraid of SPIDER MITES? Was it the "Richard L. Wainwright" featured in the "Rogues Gallery"? Or are you the "Richard L. Wainwright" at the bottom of the first Google page, where it says:
 
 "Isolation Ward
 
 The troll's name is Richard L. Wainwright, and he's a cross one must bear, if one has any non-conventional insight into audio."?
 
 Something tells me that one's you. No address or phone no., but I definitely recognize it as the right self-righteous Dick Dwayneright the Third. Of course, even if you attempt to identify yourself in Google as another "Richard L. Wainwright", how do we know you're not lying, as you are wont to do?
 
 Speaking of lying btw, the word is "holmes", holmes. Not "homes". Some words are actually not spelled the way they sound. Isn't that silly? Silly but true. However, I don't think there's anything sillier than a white geek on a computer named "Richard L. Wainwright", trying to sound tough using ebonics that he picked up from teenagers on a bus, on the way to his job at the corrugated box factory.
 
 Here, I'll even help you sound "tougher" for next time, so make me proud:
 
 http://www.dolemite.com/ebonics.php?do_proc=1&look_in=B&options=word&search_term=
 
 Now respond dutifully, as I know you are eager to, and we'll see if you know any other tricks, my little doggie friend...
 
 "Richard L. Wainwright"! Geez, even the name is funny.....
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 SF Tech troll, have you met the Richard L. Wainwright troll? - Posy Rorer 22:00:58 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Poser, showing his reflective, thoughtful side.... posted by rlw on July 30, 2007 at 07:43:21
 
 You two should hook up, I'm sure you have a lot in common. Well me, for one. You're both touched in the head and have quite an obsession with me. You both declared you would ignore me, and like the Posey junkies you are, neither of you can do that to save your sorry lives. Sure is funny to hear you squawk about it though. You're both pretty slow on the uptake, so I don't think either of you will have a problem understanding the other.
 
 What else? Well, you're both pencil-necked geeks that are threatened and angered by me, as well as (of course) being in denial of such things. Also, you both have irrational fears of audio concepts that you're both baffled by, a strong desire to attack anyone who advocates such concepts, and you both share a complete lack of experience in these subjects that receive so much of your collective derision. Which nonetheless doesn't stop you from pretending to know something about it, oddly enough. Plus, you both spew so MUCH BS on such a consistent basis, that between the two of you, I'm sure you junior trolls could figure out a way to solve half the world's energy problem.
 
 So I'm sure you're gonna love rlw's post here. You can see by the sheer length of his latest Posey-rant that he went to a lot of trouble to impress me. Unfortunately for him, I never read his post. But you read it, and then he'll feel acknowledged and "important" that someone is listening to him. And isn't that what all lonely little trolls like you two are always seeking? LOL!
 
 Have a nice day.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Posy, that is quite a manifesto you have there... - SF tech 23:32:47 07/26/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Awww shucks, tweren't nuthin'.... No, really. posted by Posy Rorer on July 26, 2007 at 21:40:45
 
 You are certainly committed to your cause... And I salute you. You have taken the *long* way around!
 
 Cheers
 - RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - May Belt 10:34:38 07/25/07 (0)
 > > > "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.
- RE: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - May Belt 15:21:34 07/23/07 (24)
 > > > "Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect?
 
 And finally, when one destaticizes a CD or LP electromagnetically (or with a Bedini thingie), no cream, no touching, doesn't that surely suggest a non-Beltian attribute? " < < <
 
 Of course there can be double or even triple reasons for something's effect. But, at some point one has to come to some sort of conclusion or you just end up floundering about. As a 'professional in audio' one cannot 'flounder around', one has to at leasst have a firm basis (some good understanding) with which to work with.
 
 But such as 'destaticizing' a CD or LP and gaining an improvement in the sound is believed that it works by doing 'something to the audio signal - doing something to the information on the disc'. It is when you do exactly the same thing - destaticizing or demagnetising PASSIVE CDs, LPs, audio tapes, video tapes, pick up cartridges, even (as has been suggested) audio cables - just present in the listening room - and gain exactly similar improvements in the sound - whilst playing another CD or LP or audio tape - that you have to ask "Just how is the sound being affected ?" That is when you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. That is when you have to begin to question everything !!
 
 So, Clark, I ask you "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room ? How are you going to explain how the audio signal, or the audio information stored on the (playing disc), or the acoustic air pressure waves in the room are affected. ?"
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 - "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. - clarkjohnsen 10:57:07 07/24/07 (9)
 "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room?" Well, that would be the elimination of static charge! As on a cable, say, where the electron (or signal) flow can/could be molested by residual charge in the insulation. Or as on a CD, where a moving (whirling) static charge can erect a magnetic field (a la Maxwell) and hammer (a la the Beatles) the coils that drive the laser, sending them into mild conniptions unanticipated by audio designers and the Redbook people.
 
 I'm not denying Beltism, but as an ex optical systems engineer I always attempt to identify and isolate the variables.
 
 clark
 - RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. - May Belt 14:52:56 07/24/07 (8)
 > > "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat
 or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room?" Well, that would be the elimination of static charge! As on a cable, say, where the electron (or signal) flow can/could be molested by residual charge in the insulation. Or as on a CD, where a moving (whirling) static charge can erect a magnetic field (a la Maxwell) and hammer (a la the Beatles) the coils that
 drive the laser, sending them into mild conniptions unanticipated by audio designers and the Redbook people." < < <
 
 When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor.
 
 My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound - i.e could affect the information on the (playing) CD or affect the signal travelling along the (working) cable. Your answer (re the cable) was about (signal) flow being molested by residual charge in the insulation. Surely that answer is to do with the 'working' cable - the cable carrying the signal NOT to do with the passive cable I am talking about - i.e the cable strewn passively on the floor - not carrying any signal !!
 The question I asked was for you to give me your explanation as to how eliminating the static charge on a PASSIVE CD - on the table next to you - or eliminating the static charge on the outer insulation of the cable strewn passively on the floor could affect the sound of the playing CD or affect the signal travelling along the working cable or - the other alternative - affect the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.
 
 It is when you can 'do something' such as applying a chemical to the label side of a PASSIVE CD or apply a chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable and gain an improvement in the sound that you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. THEN you will begin to question such explanations as "eliminating the static charge". That is all I have been doing - challenging such explanations !!
 In exactly the same way that the explanation that the spread of cholera was caused by the Foul air had, eventually, to be challenged when one doctor removed the handle of a communal water pump and halted the spread of cholera in that particular district - even though everyone on that district STILL breathed in the same Foul air !! With further knowledge and further experience the original explanation was no longer valid !! The Foul air was still the same as it always had been, the cholera was still the same as it always had been - only the explanation had changed !!
 I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism.
 
 You say you look at things with the eyes of an 'ex optical systems engineer' so I would presume that you would explain the effect of marking the edge of a CD with a green pen as 'somehow dealing with the way the laser beam reads the digital information on the CD - i.e refraction or reflection of the laser beam'. But, when you can mark the outer edge of a vinyl record and gain a similar and identical improvement in the sound from the vinyl record then any explanation to do with 'reflection or refraction of the laser beam' is no longer valid and has to be challenged !! Ditto audio or video cassette.
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 - And more, and more - clarkjohnsen 09:13:26 07/25/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. posted by May Belt on July 24, 2007 at 14:52:56
 
 "When I talk about a PASSIVE CD or a PASSIVE cable in the room I mean a CD just passively on the table next to you or some cable just strewn passively anywhere on the floor." Indeed. And I moved erratically from that, to non-passive. Sorry!
 
 "My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound." OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?
 
 But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
 
 "I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism." Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way.
 
 clark
 
 RE: And more, and more - May Belt 03:51:15 07/26/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: And more, and more posted by clarkjohnsen on July 25, 2007 at 09:13:26
 
 > > > "My question to you was for an explanation how destating or demagnetising the passive CD (on the table next to you) or destating or demagnetising a cable (strewn passively on the floor) could affect the sound."
 OK, I'll bite: How *does* it?" < < <
 
 Because it alters the energy pattern (for want of a better word) which you are reacting adversely to within your environment. To enlarge on this. If destating or demagnetising something passive IMPROVES the sound, then prior to destating or demangnetising the effect MUST HAVE been adverse !! On you.
 
 In other words, it is not the audio information which is being affected - it is the way YOU are interpreting what is going on in the environment. You are already being affected (reacting to the environment) before any destating or demagnetising is done and then being affected DIFFERENTLY after destating or demagnetising is carried out. If the sound after is perceived as better, then the effect of destating or demagnetising must have been beneficial !! To you.
 
 > > > "But here's a question for you: Why does this cream from a jar have to be applied to a *CD*? Or to a *cable*? Or for that matter, to *anything*? Wouldn't (by your formulation) its very presence in the room in the jar (perhaps with the top off) be sufficient, Beltwise?
 
 "I appreciate that you are not denying Beltism."
 Nor am I affirming it! I'm kinda tricky that way." < < <
 
 ************
 
 I have no problem with you being "kinda tricky about Beltism". I would say that that is many people's reaction. Intelligently sceptical but interested.
 
 Let us look at your question re the Cream, the jar, the CD or cable and the room.
 The room is the room - meaning that if the room was completely empty then the adverse conditions would be lower than in a normal everyday modern room Fill the room with all the things belonging to the modern world and the room becomes more hostile (for want of a better word) and because of all these things you (the human being) - programmed by evolution to be constantly reading/sensing your environment in order to 'sign it off as safe' - are no longer able to do exactly that - sign it off as 'safe'. So, you stay under tension - which then affects the way you interpret the sound information.
 
 This is the discovery we made over 25 years ago. We had, over many years, accumulated numerous experiences of the sound altering where we could not explain those changes. If you like, look on it as having numerous random pieces of a jigsaw puzzle which do not fit together to make a recognisable picture. Then, gradually, other experiences (other pieces of jigsaw) present themselves until finally they all fit together to make a coherent picture. But, it is not a coherent picture which the world of audio is familiar with.
 
 Some of the random pieces of the jigsaw were different chemicals changing the sound, different colours changing the sound, different shapes changing the sound, etc. What made it all begin to come together was discovering that one chemical we had casually used on a coffee table and which had ruined our sound was being described in an article about plants as a 'stress' chemical produced when a certain plant was under 'stress'. The picture that emerged from the random pieces of the jigsaw coming together was that it was us (human beings) who had been (subconsciously) reacting to that 'stress' chemical and gone under tension ourselves - which in turn had affected the way we were interpreting the sound information we had been listening to. From that discovery we searched and searched for what might be the opposite - a 'reassuring' chemical. Hence the Cream.
 
 We then began to discover some of the 'tricks' (techniques) Nature uses and were then able to incorporate them gradually into our devices.
 
 > > > "Wouldn't the presence of the Cream, just in the room, be sufficient ?" < < <
 
 I wish !! You are asking a lot of a jar of Cream !! Although your reasoning is correct. If the Cream is providing a 'reassuring' energy pattern, allowing us to gradually begin to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe', then the presence of the Cream, in the room, could/might have a beneficial effect - in fact - some people can actually 'feel' the atmosphere begin to 'ease' before they even start to 'treat' anything.
 
 Say, hypothetically, there are 1,000 things in the modern environment which are a problem (causing tension) for us, human beings - i.e not allowing us to relax, not allowing us to 'sign off the environment as safe'. You are asking a lot for the Cream, by just simply being in the room, to provide enough reassurance for us (human beings) to ignore all the 1,000 adverse things. But, having said that, begin to 'treat' with the Cream, the CDs, the equipment, the cabling, the different plastic materials (different mixtures of chemicals) the this, the that and gradually the tension eases, you begin to be more reassured, you begin to interpret much better the musical information which is there, in the room and which has been there all the time.
 
 Let me take it out of audio for a moment and describe it by using a different example. Say a cat has peed in many different areas in a room, over quite a long time. There will be a dreadful, obnoxious 'cat' smell in the room. You ask me "Can the small air freshener you sell 'deal' with that problem.?" I would have to answer that you are asking a lot from a small air freshener to 'deal with' such a large problem - although someone MAY be able to detect a beneficial effect from just one squirt. I would have to recommend that the freshener spray is used in a few of the individual areas where the cat has peed in order to make a recognisable beneficial effect. I know that 'a cat peeing' is not a term used in the audio world but I see the problem in the modern environment (which we are reacting to) as just as adverse.
 
 I also know that the example of the 'cat pee' is not brilliant (but it is the best one I can think of at the moment) because others in the room would be able to detect the adverse effect (the obnoxious smell) as well as you could AND, they would be able to detect when that adverse effect was being 'treated'. Where it IS a good example is that it can give one an idea of how there can be adverse conditions which will not allow you to 'sign off the environment as OK' until those adverse conditions in the environment have been 'treated'.
 
 If you still stay with the hypothetical concept of there being (say) 1,000 adverse things in the environment that does not mean that anyone just 'treating' one thing would definitely hear an improvement in the sound. Someone 'treats' (say) 8 things, they may still not hear any improvement in the sound but, after treating two more things they suddenly say "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Yet a different person may have heard an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only 3 things !!! Again, someone may describe hearing an improvement in the sound after 'treating' only one thing - the CD which is playing. Someone else, trying exactly the same thing may hear no improvement but as soon as they then 'treat' (say) the AC power cord of the electric fire suddenly says "Oh I heard that, the sound is much better." Human beings are so diverse and their life experiences are so different and their reactions to different conditions are so different that it is difficult to guarantee what and where and when people will be able to hear improvements in the sound. They have to experiment for themselves.
 
 The whole story is well known and has been repeated often - at least it is well known by people who are seriously interested !!
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 Thanks for the essay, it elucidates the phenomenon wonderfully. - clarkjohnsen 08:18:56 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: And more, and more posted by May Belt on July 26, 2007 at 03:51:15
 
 I've been gone for a few days or I might have said more, and earlier.
 
 clark
 
 Perfect question. The whole jar being in the room or the house should have a proportionately large impact. - Enophile 10:36:07 07/25/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: And more, and more posted by clarkjohnsen on July 25, 2007 at 09:13:26
 
 Good question!
 
 How have people who have heard the effect of the tweak been reporting the effect of brining the whole jar into the room/house?
 
 This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream.
 
 That was an excellent point, Mr. Johnsen.
 
 Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system?
 
 Again, well done, Mr. Johnsen.
 
 __
 
 Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system?
 
 RE: Perfect question. The whole jar being in the room or the house should have a proportionately large impact. - Posy Rorer 15:12:19 07/25/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Perfect question. The whole jar being in the room or the house should have a proportionately large impact. posted by Enophile on July 25, 2007 at 10:36:07
 
 > > This has not been addressed, but should have been. I can't recall anyone mentioning the effect of the jar of cream. < <
 
 Actually, the question of the effect of the presence of PWB products in a room has been raised by otheres and addressed. I would know, I've responded to them numerous times. Maybe not right here, not right now, though.
 
 > > Posy: have you noticed an effect from moving the jar itself around the house or in proximity to your system? < <
 
 ....But then, I'm not even sure if we're talking about the cream electret here (I assume that's what you refer to by "jar") or some unnamed hand lotion. Yes, certainly I have tested the effects of moving PWB products around the house, and in proximity of the system, and I'm sure that includes the jar of cream electret. AFAIK, all PWB products have an effect by their very presence in the house, particularly in close proximity to an audio system. Some more than others. In fact, I have tested the effects of the presence of these products in recordings that I make. "An effect" however, is not necessarily "the effect". What both of you should understand is the effect had by Beltist products is a combination of (at least) two factors: the product, and the object it's to be applied to. The "magic" starts when you apply the product to an object that has had no such previous application (and yes, it can continue if you apply it in stages over various areas of the product).
 
 Usually, less is more, and this cream is effective at 1 micron thickness. What if you dump a pound of it on top of your cd player? You should not expect better results, but worse results, than if used effectively. It may not make much sense when you are looking at the problem with a conventionalist POV, but that's simply how the phenomenon works (and what it responds to). It doesn't care what you think makes sense to you. Look at what's happening when a jar of CE is in the room. A (relatively) large quantity, inside a jar (I dont think it matters much whether the top is off or on). The glass jar is sitting on an object (say, your desk). The creme is in contact with the jar. It's having a (relatively mild) effect on the jar (due to the quantity), the jar is (presumably) having an effect on the desk. This is all pretty diluted, as far as effects are concerned. In audio, you want to maximize effects. So the cream must be taken out of the jar and applied directly to an object, to create the real effect it was intended to create. And the effect is further maximized, depending on the quantity, the object you treat, and the location on the object.
 
 > > Plus, if there is no noted effect reported by users, and with the jar existing as just another passive device in the room/house, how does it NOT affect the sound of the system? < <
 
 It doesn't NOT affect the sound of the system. So long as it's in your house, your system is affected in some manner.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Thanks, your answer is logically consistent. We gotta drink and listen together. - Enophile 15:22:22 07/25/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Perfect question. The whole jar being in the room or the house should have a proportionately large impact. posted by Posy Rorer on July 25, 2007 at 15:12:19
 
 I'm working on auditioning some OTC creams this week and will report.
 
 Cheers.
 - RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. - May Belt 08:01:57 07/25/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. posted by May Belt on July 24, 2007 at 14:52:56
 
 Let us have a look at the explanation to do with 'static'.
 
 If you want to say that "Of course, getting an improvement in the sound by applying such as a hand cream to the label side of a CD is because the hand cream (the chemical) is 'dealing with' static build up on the disc." - then you have to describe just what had been happening to the digital information encoded on the disc BEFORE applying the hand cream (chemical). You have to try to explain just why you had not been able to 'hear' this additional information (giving the improved sound) prior to applying the hand cream (chemical).
 
 Was the build up of static on the CD not allowing the laser beam to read all the digital information correctly ? If the laser beam WAS actually reading the digital information perfectly correctly then where else in the CD player was this information (which had already been read correctly by the laser beam) being adversely affected by the static build up on the CD ? Then, when you feel you have successfully explained that, this same explanation has to also be relevant for applying the same chemical to a PASSIVE CD - not playing and not in the CD machine and getting a similar improvement in the sound !!
 
 Before I go any further let me explain what I mean by 'having improved sound' due to being able to hear additional information. I mean the working memory receiving additional information which allows it to create a better 'sound picture' to present to the brain. The better 'sound picture' being greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of instruments, better resolution etc.
 
 Back to the subject of the Nordost chemical which is also claimed to be dealing with the build up of static. All the same questions asked above regarding CDs apply to the claim that applying the Nordost chemical to the label side of CDs gives an improvement in the sound because the Nordost chemical is claimed to be 'dealing with the problem of static'.
 
 Similar questions have to be asked regarding the claim by Nordost that applying their chemical to the LABELS of vinyl records gives an improvement in the sound (because the chemical is 'dealing with the problem of static build up'). Prior to applying the Nordost chemical what was preventing this additional information being read/picked up by the stylus ? If the stylus WAS reading/picking up this additional information from the vinyl record perfectly adequately, then where else on the turntable/cartridge/pick up arm was this additional information being adversely affected by this problem of 'static'?
 
 Now to the question of applying the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables. Nordost claim that by applying their chemical to the outer insulation of audio cables, one can gain improved sound because there is a build up of static on the outside of a cable which is adversely affecting the audio signal travelling along the cable and their chemical 'deals with' this problem of build up of static. One has to ask the question "How, exactly, is this static on the outer insulation of cables having an adverse effect on the audio signal travelling along the audio cable ?" When you think you might have adequately explained that, then this same explanation has to explain how applying the same chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE cable gives a similar improvement in the sound !!
 
 All the claims so far have been about information stored on CDs or vinyl records and about the audio signal travelling along cables being adversely affected by 'static'. But, now we come to an even stranger claim. Nordost claim that applying their chemical to the outer insulation of AC power cables ALSO gives an improvement in the sound. That their chemical 'deals with' the static build up on AC power cables. One has to ask the question "How is a build up of static on an AC power cable having an adverse effect on either the information stored on a CD or vinyl record or travelling along an audio cable - when there is NO audio signal travelling along an AC power cord. Just what is being affected inside the AC power cord by a build up of static on it's outer insulation - which then, in turn, affects the 'sound' ?"
 
 Even stranger. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric clock on the shelf or to a PASSIVE AC power cord just dangling from the table lamp (the AC power cord on the table lamp NOT connected into the AC supply socket) you will get a similar improvement in the sound as you got from 'treating' the cables belonging to the working audio system !!!!! Explain THAT !! Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cable of the table lamp can be affecting the 'sound'.
 
 Even stranger still. If you apply the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of (say) the AC power cord of the electric food mixer, stored in the kitchen, you will experience a similar further improvement in the sound in the listening room. Explain how any 'build up of static' on the power cord of the food mixer in the kitchen can be affecting the 'sound'.
 
 I repeat. I am NOT challenging Nordost's (or other people's) observations that they have heard improvement in the sound by doing the treatments described. I am challenging the explanation that "it is to do with static". If this leaves many people with observations but without adequate (conventional) explanations then so be it - it will not be the first time in the history of science that this has happened !!
 
 To be continued.
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 A static charge - unclestu52 19:14:29 07/25/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "So, Clark, I ask you." And ye shall be answered. posted by May Belt on July 25, 2007 at 08:01:57
 
 build up on the insulation of a cable will manifest itself as capacitance. Supposedly that is one reason why most IC's have a certain amount of C which never really seems to be eliminated. Some cable manufacturers are using a conductive sheath in order to 'ground' this build up and lower the capacitance of their cables.
 You could claim, instead, a reduction in EMI effect is observed and many explanations then fall into place, however small they may be.
 
 Stu
 - You presume, of course,... - rlw 10:53:25 07/24/07 (12)
 ...that a change is heard.
 
 "It is when you do exactly the same thing - destaticizing or demagnetising PASSIVE CDs, LPs, audio tapes, video tapes, pick up cartridges, even (as has been suggested) audio cables - just present in the listening room - and gain exactly similar improvements in the sound - whilst playing another CD or LP or audio tape - that you have to ask "Just how is the sound being affected ?"
 
 Well, if one does not hear a difference the first time (when the original CD was treated), and then does not hear a difference the second time (when a PASSIVE CD is treated) I suppose one could say that the treatment had no effect whatsoever, correct?
 
 Or do you have to have a certain "attitude" in order to hear a difference? Surely, if the treatment has an effect that is clearly audible - as many of the Inmates have claimed, one's "attitude" should have no bearing on whether they hear an effect or not.
 
 If one's "attitude" *does* have an effect, then you should be able to elucidate what the attitude must be and share that with us so that we can then proceed with an "attitude adjustment" in order to hear the effect.
 
 I'll wait while you collect your thoughts...
 
 -RW-
 
 That is when you will be 'knocked back on your heels'. That is when you have to begin to question everything !!
 
 So, Clark, I ask you "What is your explanation for the sound being improved when you destat or demagnetise PASSIVE things in the room ? How are you going to explain how the audio signal, or the audio information stored on the (playing disc), or the acoustic air pressure waves in the room are affected. ?"
 - RE: You presume, of course,... - May Belt 14:49:06 07/24/07 (7)
 > > > "Well, if one does not hear a difference the first time (when the original CD was treated), and then does not hear a difference the second time (when a PASSIVE CD is treated) I suppose one could say that the treatment had no effect whatsoever, correct?" < < <
 
 No. Not correct. All it means is that if YOU do not hear a difference on either of the occasions described, then you do not hear a difference. If others can hear differences on either or both occasions described, then the treatment works for them. All people can do is to try for themselves.
 
 > > > "Or do you have to have a certain "attitude" in order to hear a difference? Surely, if the treatment has an effect that is clearly audible - as many of the Inmates have claimed, one's "attitude" should have no bearing on whether they hear an effect or not. " < < <
 
 You (anyone) does not have to have a certain attitude - one's 'attitude' to the situation has no bearing on whether they can hear an effect or not.
 
 There is something condescending and patronizing about your questions, your 'attitude' to me however. How many times, when others have described hearing an effect from some particular 'tweak', have YOU asked THEM "if you have to have a certain 'attitude' in order to hear a difference" - obviously implying that one has to be a 'believer' first !!
 Regards,
 - Only because Posy claimed that was my "problem"... - rlw 09:46:34 07/26/07 (6)
 
 In Reply to: RE: You presume, of course,... posted by May Belt on July 24, 2007 at 14:49:06
 
 "How many times, when others have described hearing an effect from some particular 'tweak', have YOU asked THEM "if you have to have a certain 'attitude' in order to hear a difference" - obviously implying that one has to be a 'believer' first !!"
 I'm simply trying to get to the facts of the matter. You say "attitude" has no bearing. Great, I suspected as much. However, Posy directly contradicts this, hence my questions to you. He does a lot of speaking for Belt effects and I figured it would be best to actually hear from a Belt on the truth of the matter.
 Thanks for clearing that up.
 Posy, you got some splainin' to do.
 -RW- I can't *wait* to see Mr. Rorer's tap dance around this one...
 
 Edits: 07/26/07
 
 RE: Only because Posy claimed that was my "problem"... - May Belt 02:01:32 07/27/07 (5)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Only because Posy claimed that was my "problem"... posted by rlw on July 26, 2007 at 09:46:34
 
 > > > "I'm simply trying to get to the facts of the matter. You say "attitude" has no bearing. Great, I suspected as much. However, Posy directly contradicts this, hence my questions to you. He does a lot of speaking for Belt effects and I figured it would be best to actually hear from a Belt on the truth of the matter." < < <
 
 *************
 
 Methinks you are just being argumentative - you seem to be wanting to be argumentative over the word "attitude".
 
 My reply was that you do not have to be a 'believer' to hear the effects of our treatments.
 
 I, however, think that Posy, if he mentioned 'attitude', must have been meaning that if you have a definite 'attitude' of absolute disbelief, going into an experiment or into a situation, then that 'attitude' must play a part.
 
 Just as if you went to hear an opera but went with a dislike for the composer, or a dislike of the particular conductor of the orchestra, or a dislike for the particular theatre seat you have been allocated - or all three - then it would not be surprising if you came away not having enjoyed the performance !! Alternatively, it does not mean that if you went to the performance liking the composer, liking the conductor, liking the particular theatre seat it would be guaranteed that you would enjoy the performance.
 
 When intelligent people are holding a discussion, then such things are taken 'as read', as so generally understood that they are not mentioned, it is presumed (giving the people you are discussing with the credit of having intelligence) that it is already understood that such things take place so they don't need to be referred to or explained EVERY TIME.
 
 Similarly, regarding the response "If you heard changes to the sound which we cannot understand, then it must be suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, audio faith healing or effective marketing." When intelligent people are holding a discussion, then such things as taken 'as read' - as so generally understood that they are not repeated over and over again. It is already understood (between intelligent people) that those are the FIRST things intelligent people will consider, then the second, then the third, then the fourth, then the fifth. Only THEN, after all those things have been considered repeatedly and found not to be the explanation, do people ask "What else can be going on ?"
 
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 
 Sorry, May, the record speaks for itself... - rlw 05:39:40 07/27/07 (4)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Only because Posy claimed that was my "problem"... posted by May Belt on July 27, 2007 at 02:01:32
 
 A direct quote from you:
 
 "You (anyone) does not have to have a certain attitude - one's 'attitude' to the situation has no bearing on whether they can hear an effect or not."
 
 And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints.
 
 I am, admittedly, a skeptic. But, I can be convinced *if* I hear what everyone is claiming to hear. So far, despite repeated attempts, I have yet to hear any effects whatsoever, beneficial or otherwise.
 
 I will continue to try the freebies and listen intently. If I do hear an effect, beneficial or otherwise, I'll report on it. I will *also* report when I try something and hear no effect. Posy and the rest can attack all they want, but they look childish by attacking the messenger because they do not like the message...
 
 -RW-
 
 Yes it does. And the record shows that you're an insincere troll with a tweak-bashing agenda. - Posy Rorer 08:59:40 07/28/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Sorry, May, the record speaks for itself... posted by rlw on July 27, 2007 at 05:39:40
 
 ...I have already proven this in another post on this forum, using quotes from your various "contributions" to these forums on this topic. You are again not being sincere with us when you describe yourself as an admitted "skeptic". I agree with what others say about you, which is that you are an -eternal skeptic- on the subject of what you have called "wacky and implausible tweaks". Not only do you, without provocation, attack those discussing such 'tweaks', but you attack those who merely express thoughts that stray from your most conservative views on audio. And while most naysayers are upfront about their hatred toward alternative audio, you do it in the most deceitful ways of any other eternal skeptic I've seen on these forums. I also agree with what others have said about you being a "devious troll". You only pretend to be interested in alternative audio concepts, to undermine all those (like me) who genuinely are, because what you really think is, it's all a "snake oil scam". A dynamite bomb blast wouldn't budge your true opinions on that, so spare us the phony interest you drum up just to disrupt the discussions of mature and sincere audio hobbyists, and put us off track.
 
 Now as to the dross you wrote.... the first obvious question that comes to my mind is, if the record speaks for itself, then why do you need to put words in my mouth and twist May's around? The answer is obvious: you're trying to harm the reputation of PWB and anyone who advocates their products. That's why you're arguing semantics over what has become a key word for you, "attitude", which you intended to use as a weapon (as it seems May had already suspected about you). Perhaps May was basing her suspicions on this:
 
 QUOTE:
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 rlw:
 ".that if you happen to disagree with Posy's findings - or fail to hear what he claims to hear, he'll immediatley cast aspersions on your hearing, your belief system, and your attitude. There is no room for dissent from the party line as dicatated (sic) by Herr Rorer.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 ....where you used the word "attitude" as a weapon, comparing me to a Nazi. When I called you out as not only an insincere troll, but a most OBNOXIOUS and deplorable one for resorting to Nazi comparisons in a discussion about a hand cream tweak, your response was: "Not Hitler, you dolt, it's the Chermans, Tommy! How can we trust you for anything if you can't even get that right? Now get back in your bunker and take a timeout, young man. - RW".
 
 Needless to say, I ignored you after that, so you then went to pester May Belt to get her to argue with you over that precious word of yours, "attitude". If nothing else, you going after May to explain something that **I** said to you, clearly demonstrates that you are damn near insane and not to be taken seriously. Particularly since my opinion on your attitude has nothing to do with hand cream lotion or her company's products (as much as you were desparately trying to make a connection here). It's a general POV that could be ascribed to anything in audio.
 
 But even though you knew that, your transparent intention here was to try to convince others that none of her company's products work, because if people test them and find they can't hear changes, the spin you were trying to get out was that you'd be told you required a certain attitude to hear these changes. Hence the reason for this phrase:
 
 "How can we trust you for anything if you can't even get that right?"
 
 As deceitful a troll as you are Richard L. Wainwright, trust me when I say,you're not a very clever one. If you were, I would not have a problem giving you credit for that. But after twenty years of dealing with sewage like you, cement-headed anti-audio nuts who are irrationally hostile to tweakers, I've seen enough to know that you've got no game. The above is one of many examples from you of amateurish debating tricks I've seen many times before, that various lowlifes use when battling their ideological enemies on the net. It's not new, it's not original, it's not clever. It's only deceitful is all.
 
 So as we continue to see, you go on with your little games....
 
 rlw:
 > > And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints. < <
 
 "Most certainly" and the word "attitude" is being emphasized by you to "prove" the spin you're trying to shove down people's throats. Which is that there can be no dispute that tweakers will adopt a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" position against any who claim they heard no effects (which in turn is supposed to prove your position that all 'wacky and implausible sounding' tweaks are snake oil, of course). Because the Richard L. Wainwrights of this world, and other such weasels, certainly wouldn't have people take the risk and find out for themselves. So you make yourself as much a nuisance as possible here, trying to do their thinking for them. Even though you do it in such an insidious manner. Here's an example of you dredging up a thread that died nearly a month ago, just so you could take another cheap shot at Geoff Kait, who's time and efforts you deliberately wasted, just so you could later have a plausible reason to take as many cheap shots at him as you could want to:
 
 posted by Richard L. Wainwright on 07/25/2007:
 
 "The Teleportation Tweak makes the Intelligent Chip look like real rocket science. Hold onto your money, son"
 
 The first thing that came to mind when I read all this desparate trolling of yours on the word "attitude", is: "Well why do you care, exactly?" Why should it matter to you what my opinion is on "attitude" or May's? Yet it mattered -so much-, that you found it appropriate to compare me to Hitler, on this issue. Implying that I'm a German fascist dictator, for offering my opinion in an audio tweak thread that the wrong attitude can lead to the wrong conclusions. You thus implied that if someone were to try the hand cream tweak and find no changes, I would have them murdered in the gas chambers and use their skin for a lampshade.
 
 There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but out of respect for certain members of my family who -were- murdered in Hitler's gas chambers, I chose not to respond to your scumbag-level remarks. Thereby using the memory of their suffering as a tool to get ahead in the ideological wars of audio, as you have no problem doing. Then after pestering May with the same issue, you wrote: "Posy, you got some splainin' to do. I can't *wait* to see Mr. Rorer's tap dance around this one..". Showing that this wasn't about the sincere desire to be informed, this was about **fighting the enemy**. Who is anyone that advocates "wacky and implausible tweaks", to you. There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but again, for good reasons, I chose not to respond to your blatant trolling.
 
 If I did, the most obvious response to your obvious trolling games would be: Are you not capable of forming your own opinions about these things? Or are you that empty-headed that you must follow someone else's opinion, but you're genuinely confused because you're too slow to realize that me and May are saying the same thing in different ways? No, despite that you are slow, I think you can perfectly well come to your own conclusions about a tweak you did or didn't hear. Yes, even one you never actually tested but pretended to on an internet forum, so you can annoy the adults discussing it.
 
 May got it right when she wrote: "But I get the impression that you don't want to see both interpretations.". And even though I'm under no obligation to do so, I agree with her saying:
 
 "My interpretation of the word 'attitude' was that you don't have to be a believer to hear our devices work."
 
 In fact, I'm already on record many times now on AA for having said that I tested people who did not know that PWB devices were in place (or even what PWB devices were), and they heard the effects of the PWB products - even under blind conditions, when they didn't know whether any device was in place.
 
 And even though I'm under no obligation to do so, I am also in agreement with her second interpration (while fully realizing that you are trying hard to ignore the fact that there can be more than one facet to the issue of "attitude" in listening tests):
 
 "But, as I explained with my example of going to the opera if you have a dismissive, negative attitude when you go to the opera (for whatever reason), then that 'attitude' can be a factor in preventing you enjoying the experience."
 
 Except I go one further to say that one who has demonstrated that he won't stop at desecrating the memory of 6 million Jews in his efforts to bash tweaks and tweakers, is probably not going to hear the effects of the tweaks that the creep has spent his lifetime bashing. Especially if he lied about doing the damn tests in the first place. In case it isn't obvious yet, yes I'm talking about you, Richard L. Wainwright.
 
 I've exposed you as a tweak-bashing troll just out to harm the reputations of those who are "diametrically opposed" to your audio religion. As you tried to do with Geoff and others..... until you met up with me. From here on in, it's gonna be a bumpy ride for you, if your intention is to keep your charade up. And by that, I mean disrupting our serious conversations with your deceitful tweak-bashing trolling. If you want to continue being a rabid tweak-hater who will stop at nothing to fight tweakers, while at the same time pretending to also be a sincere, open-minded individual who will let no inbuilt prejudice stop him from trying tweaks, no matter how "wacky and implausible" you think they are, then I say, save yourself and us a lot of grief and just don't get involved with this forum. Don't try ANY tweaks (or if you do, don't tell us about it). Tweaks are not for you. Go back to fiddling with your EQ knobs and your SPL meters, let us discuss alternative audio concepts on AA without your belligerent disruptions, and everyone will be happy.
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 Man, I'm LOVIN' this! - rlw 15:38:57 07/29/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Yes it does. And the record shows that you're an insincere troll with a tweak-bashing agenda. posted by Posy Rorer on July 28, 2007 at 08:59:40
 
 "You thus implied that if someone were to try the hand cream tweak and find no changes, I would have them murdered in the gas chambers and use their skin for a lampshade."
 Yep, that's *exactly* what I did - at least that's how you have interpreted it. Others might see that I was making a reference to the movie "Snatch", much as you did to Blade Runner. But no matter, *your* interpretation is SO much more fun, and also allows you to get all huffy and such, so let's go with that one. However, you forgot the part where I implied that you would inscribe their forearms with tattooed numbers. Don't forget that part, it's real important.
 "There are many ways that I could have responded to that, but out of respect for certain members of my family who -were- murdered in Hitler's gas chambers, I chose not to respond to your scumbag-level remarks. Thereby using the memory of their suffering as a tool to get ahead in the ideological wars of audio, as you have no problem doing. "
 This is EVEN BETTER - you now claim to NOT have responded to my post - BY RESPONDING TO MY POST! And, by throwing in the reference to victims in your own family, well that's the best part. You can feign outrage, hurt, and even get off an insult or two. All while appearing to "take the high road" by saying up front that you're NOT going to do that. Brilliant, simply brilliant.
 My basic plan from this day forward is to sit back and watch you rant and froth over every slight you suffer here on these fora, real or perceived. And the Text Value Ratio (tm - TVR) you provide is really quite high. If I post just the right messages, your responses spew forth like a big ol' gusher a comin' in, Pa! I can fire off a 50 word post and you'll respond with *thousands* of words. Granted, most of those posts show a lack of any real, clear logical thought process, and they generally quickly devolve into name-calling and such.
 But you know something, I'm quite happy with that - just watching you go, girl, gives me *quite* a bit of satisfaction. And, based upon the emails I've received from other Inmates, they, too, are deriving real pleasure from your eruptions. It's kinda like having our own personal Vesuvius to watch. Only you're MUCH more reliable. *And*, you can be made to erupt several times a day.
 The *coolest* part is that even though you may tire of sparring with me, I know, for sure, that someone else will poke the Poseybear and I can enjoy your responses vicariously. You can't help it, and I'm bankin' on it! Keep it up, my good man, you are providing a valuable service to all of the Inmates. I know my day was lookin' pretty gloomy and boring until I logged-on here and found your responses. Thanks, dude, you're the gift that keeps on giving.
 And giving.
 And giving.
 And giving.......
 -RW- Love ya, babe, don't change a thing!
 
 Edits: 07/29/07
 
 Great job, "rlw". Thanks for confirming your troll status. You can be safely ignored now. -nt - Posy Rorer 22:11:28 07/30/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Man, I'm LOVIN' this! posted by rlw on July 29, 2007 at 15:38:57
 
 nt
 
 "silence tells me secretly, everything..."
 
 RE: Sorry, May, the record speaks for itself... - May Belt 08:42:03 07/27/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Sorry, May, the record speaks for itself... posted by rlw on July 27, 2007 at 05:39:40
 
 > > > "And Posy *most certainly* claimed it was my "attitude" that kept me from hearing the effect. So which one of you is correct? It can't be both, you have diametrically opposed viewpoints." < < <
 
 ***********
 
 I still think you are being argumentative. I think that both interpretations of the word 'attitude' can be correct - within the context it is being written. But I get the impression that you don't want to see both interpretations.
 
 My interpretation of the word 'attitude' was that you don't have to be a believer to hear our devices work. But, as I explained with my example of going to the opera if you have a dismissive, negative attitude when you go to the opera (for whatever reason), then that 'attitude' can be a factor in preventing you enjoying the experience.
 
 The reason why I enlarged on my previous answer is that I do not wish any sentence of mine to be used as a 'tool' - a 'stick with which to beat someone else'. So, I always try to make myself clear (and unambigious).
 Regards,
 May Belt.
 - "I'll wait while you collect your thoughts..." Condescending, patronizing, fatuous... - clarkjohnsen 11:01:16 07/24/07 (3)
 I'm collecting my thoughts on your attitude to Mrs. Belt.
 - Well, well, Mr. Johnsen... - rlw 11:12:27 07/24/07 (2)
 
 In Reply to: RE: "I'll wait while you collect your thoughts..." Condescending, patronizing, fatuous... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2007 at 11:01:16
 
 I was wondering when you might chime in. So, now it's "patronizing, condescending, AND fatuous" to ask for *any* explanation of how one should approach these experiments?
 
 Sorry you feel that way, I'm sure you'll get over it quite soon. In the meantime, I'll continue to wait for Ms. Belt's thoughts on the matter.
 
 Thanks for adding your illuminating comments.
 
 -RW-
 
 It's your "attitude*, dude, not your questions. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:30:45 07/24/07 (1)
 
 In Reply to: RE: Well, well, Mr. Johnsen... posted by rlw on July 24, 2007 at 11:12:27
 
 x
 
 You might be on to something there, dear boy... - rlw 11:46:34 07/24/07 (0)
 
 In Reply to: RE: It's your "attitude*, dude, not your questions. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 24, 2007 at 11:30:45
 
 This is the 2nd time today that someone here has commented on my "attitude". It's a good thing that I have those questions out there to May about that, I'm sure she'll have something of value to offer.
 
 Thanks for caring, it means the world to me.
 
 -RW-
 - "As a 'professional in audio' one cannot 'flounder around'" - pburant 08:43:35 07/24/07 (0)
 That's pretty funny, May.
 
 Your explanations for all things Beltian are different from floundering....how?
 
 -Pete

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.

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

Kimber Kable

Isolation Ward

Hand Cream and static.

Not a pretty picture at all.

Post a Message!