 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: The hearing aid example you mention is apt! posted by Enophile on November 06, 2008 at 14:15:46
Your quote :-
>>> "Do normal people buy hearing aids in order to achieve super human hearing ability?
Or, do they need them in order to be able to more closely hear things like you and I do, naturally?
Hearing aids are a 'remedial' tool.
I would say that there are many tweaks that work the same way, remedially, at best.
This notion also easily exlpains why so many people do not hear the result of remedial tweaks. They do not require remediation.
May, you claim to work with the hearing impaired, and I believe you." <<<
WOW !!!!
Many of the tweaks are "remedial" ??? !!!!!!
WOW !!!!
>>> "May, you claim to work with the hearing impaired, and I believe you." <<<
WOW - some jibe !!! I don't think that sentence was meaning just those few simple words - "May works with the hearing impaired." I think that sentence was meant to extend out much further, to extend to others !! In your rush to 'rubbish' me you have also inferred that many hundreds of people, by using various 'tweaks', "MUST require such remediation".
So, Enophile, I will repeat the questions I asked you some time ago but will alter them slightly.
I asked you certain questions regarding your concept that people who hear 'various tweaks' are "needing" them as a 'prop', as a 'talisman', as a 'ritual' and I quoted various 'tweaks' which certain well known and respected journalists had stated had 'improved their sound'.
I asked you if, in your opinion, THEY only 'heard' those 'tweaks' working (improving their sound) because they 'needed' them as props, talismen, rituals ??
Turning these same questions around slightly I ask :-
Are you saying that such as John Atkinson "heard" painting the outer edge of a CD with the Green pen improve his sound because that 'tweak' was a "remedial tool" which he needed to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
Are you saying that such as Michael Fremer "heard" demagnetising CDs and LPs improve his sound because that 'tweak' was a "remedial tool" which he needed to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
Are you saying that such as John Atkinson "heard" attaching Harmonic Dots to his speaker cabinets give him improvements in his sound because that 'tweak' is a "remedial tool" which he needs to enable him to hear what you say you are hearing naturally ???
And therefore, by that (your) definition, so do many other people !!!
I can't believe how you choose to 'jibe out' so many people.
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
Hi, May.
I'll try to answer some of those questions, using the examples you mention that I am familiar with.
1) John Atkinson's green pen.
If a tweak is actually effective, what characteristics can you think of that would be accurate about it? One important attribute would be that it continued to work over time. An indicator that it may have been placebo is that its use would decline over time as the placebo effect wore off.
Does JA still color his CD's with a green pen?
Looking around at all the tweakers here, what percentage do you think still diligently take each new CD and color its edge?
You left out the example of Fremer and his Tice Clock and its replacement. Recall his glowing review and his inclusion of a similar model clock in his reference system? How long did that stay listed in his reference gear? Why would it drift so quickly and so quietly out of his system if it were so night and day effective?
2) JA and the Hamonix Dots. Tell me, how many speakers does he continue to treat with this device? If they were so effective, why no continued application? JA says that they are glued on and he is unable to take them off, but recalls that they seemed effective at the time, fair enough, but then why no further use? I think the subsequent silence about their use is relatively damning.
An effective device would likely garner further use. No?
Why on earth would JA stop using such an effective tweak?
3) I mentioned Fremer already with regard to his falling out of infatuation with Tice Clocks. Only time will tell if he continues to 'demagnetize' nonmagnetic materials.
When talking about tweaks, it interest me that so many explode onto the scene with fanfare, then quietly exit stage left.
You mentioned JA twice regarding tweaks, so you seem to subscribe to his listening abilities. Fair enough. Tell me, what is his opinion of your work?
I mean, if he is fit to be used by you as an example of insightful listeners, we would seem to have source that you would endorse regarding his experiences with Belt tweaks.
May, I have nothing against 'talismans' and 'rituals,' they make tea taste better and make people's dashboards more interesting. I just think we should call these things what they are when it comes to talking Hi Fi.
My mom needs a St. Christopher on her dashboard in order to have a "better" driving experience. It has utility. It does require she know it's there in order for it to work for her. Why would I deny her that comfort?
I do, however, draw the line at her insisting that I require the same talisman in order to fully enjoy my own experience.
Hi Fi works the same way.
If those things work for you, and show continued benefit, unlike the examples you mention about JA, then great. But why the need to insist everyone require the same ritual and that it is you (who requires the ritual) claiming that you are hearing something superior to what others hear? Again, you history of work with hearing aids fits perfectly - some people do not need them.
So, if rubbing creme on a table makes your Hi Fi sound better to you, great. Claiming from anecdote that this MUST be true for ALL others is not a valid assertion.
An excellent post, Enophile. I have been wondering the same thing; somehow the latest hot tweak gradually disappears, and is usually not marketed after interest in it has died. Tweaks that do work are always with us; e.g., unplugging and plugging my components every few months really does make an audible difference. I read this tip in an audio mag years ago; it is and always will be useful advice. But I must admit, I too swabbed green ink on a lot of CDs once upon a time. Never really heard any difference, and now they are unresaleable at Academy Records downtown.
Alcohol wears off but it's a real effect.
The Economist just published a little review blurb discussing this.
Link below.
Probably some similarities wbetween being told the cost of a placebo or an alcoholic beverage and its effect on perceived 'quality,' as well!
It's too bad that the placebo effect is regarded as 'universal' by tweak haters, and 'impossible' by tweak proponents.
After all, most buyers don't use them after the first month or two...
The green pen thing was always player sensitive and with growing understanding it's likely that newer players became better isolated from reading induced problems. I tried it back in the day and it made no difference to whatever player I was using. I bought three Stereophile test CD's (because they were really cheap) figuring they would be a good test case. Of course as a good experimenter I listened to all three prior to applying the marker. One of them sounded quite different than the other two which sounded ALMOST the same. I coated one of the two that were close and heard no relative change. It's easy to lose control of experiments and even easier to overgeneralize the conclusions. I presume you tried it, how did your experiment turn out?
As far as reviewers using tweaks, that's the last thing in the world they should do. I want to know how well stuff works in the real world on it's own hook.
Rick
Well, if reviewers had the same results you did with tweaks, why should they even try?Ah, the pure sound of the components themselves? The real world for whom - the component fetishists? But, as there are many more component fetishists than tweakers, you just might get your wish...
Edits: 11/09/08
I've had pretty good luck with tweaks. The CD painting thing simply didn't make a difference in the player I was using, no big deal.
But I do feel that gear should be able to work well in the real world without band-aids. Why should a device with good power supply rejection and isolation not be recognized as superior to one that isn't designed as well? Assuming of course that they were comparable once the deficiencies in the latter were ameliorated with add-on "conditioners".
Sometimes reviewers are sensitive to this sort of thing and I appreciate it. They will say something like "I love the hootnscoot 17, but only when used with the orgasmatron MkII. Consider them as a unit when comparing price and value."
Rick
Well, it should be pointed out many if not most of the tweaks discussed on this forum are *independent* of the components, cables or speakers, even room acoustics. Examples, you ask? Schumann frequency generator, Clever Clock, the humble PWB rainbow foil, Ultra Tweeters, perhaps vibration isolation should be on the list as well.
Not to mention the many issues not perfected by manufacturers with respect to laser reading of the data on the disc, especially background scattered light.
It's all mos' likely a question of how far one wishes to go, and where one wishes to draw the line....
Hmmm, I'd agree with your first list. The second is, as you imply, stuff that if it really matters should be controlled by the manufacturer.
Overall I was trying to make three points: 1) Continued usage is not a reliable indicator of whether a tweak works or not, it's more of an indicator of whether it did enough to bother to keep refreshing it. 2) Many tweak tests lack adequate control. 3) Testing equipment in unusual conditions decreases the usefulness of the review.
This forum's tweaks are largely inseparable from all the others. I've seen no tweak advanced of any nature that was not controversial. If the mission statement here was reworded to state that the forum was for 'listener tweaks', it wouldn't help a bit since many folks believe that the majority of tweaks are 'listener tweaks'. If it were clarified further to "listener tweaks that go beyond belief" even that wouldn't help other than to cause some to say "I knew it, I knew it!".
May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener. Others, you for instance, are much less forthright about the putative mechanism of your offerings.
It seems to me that it's important to separate the two in the minds of the customers. We want to achieve as much enjoyment from our home audio systems as we can, and sifting out the mechanisms from one another can help a great deal. It's tough sometimes to separate room acoustics from electronics from speakers from mental problems due to bombardment of radio signals from Russia. (The latter's a real story... another time).
Closing the loop, now that the Schumman resonance interest seems to have died down, I would like to know if folks are still running them.
Rick
> > > "May is clear to a fault that their products are believed to work directly upon the listener." < < <
Rick m, can you also see the reply I have done to Unclestu ?
The stumbling block seems to be the expression you used - "works directly upon the listener".
These words imply that 'something' is either physically wafting across/past or wafting through the person or actually physically touching them.
Can I describe a hypothetical situation. Something in your room makes you suddenly alert. You don't know what it is but the hairs at the back of your neck suddenly stand up - in other words you have reacted to something !!!
Would you describe that as 'something working DIRECTLY on the person', or having an INDIRECT effect on the person ? If it is not physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism - then surely it has to be described as 'indirect' ?
If we can get some common ground in language, we might be able to progress further.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
Yes, I can see replies to all posts.
My experience is that that sort of alertness is sensory, usually hearing, sometimes smells, rarely sight if I'm at home. While I often don't know the source at first I always know which sense it came in on and initially investigate further using that sense.
In the above case the path is through the senses. If my brief experiment with generating a "Schumann resonance" frequency is telling, then there are also other routes. In both cases however I would say the effect was directly upon the person. If, on the other hand, I generate a signal which causes problems by altering the output of my audio system but doesn't if it's not active, I would say that is acting directly on the system, not on the listener who hears it as an alteration of the system's output. You've said it yourself a zillion times: Does it affect the sound waves in the room?
That's my take on it at any rate...
Regards, Rick
You see rick m. My problem with Unclestu's experiment with the Schumann generator (and his subsequent conclusion) is that he was HOLDING (touching) the Schumann device all the time during the experiment !! Which, as far as Unclestu is concerned, was how he wanted to TEST whether it was having a direct effect on a human being !! I think his observation was correct - that the sound changed for both him and the others in the listening room when the Schumann device was removed from the room - I have no problem with his observation - it is his method of testing and his conclusion which I challenge.
I think that if he had placed the Schumann device outside the room - but NOT touching it - and with him being still in the room - the result would be the same - the sound would have changed. TOUCHING it would be irrelevant - it is WHERE the Schumann device WAS in relation to the human beings in the room that matters.
Let me explain what my definition is of the questions I asked you regarding a direct or indirect effect.
If you work in a dry cleaning establishment and you develop constant headaches and nausea I would say that the dry cleaning chemicals are having a DIRECT on you - they are wafting around you and might even be getting at your skin..
So, I would say that the chemicals are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect would be DIRECT.
If you work under a radio transmitter and you develop constant headaches and nausea, I would say that you are being DIRECTLY affected by the radio waves. So, I would say that the radio waves are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect on the human being would be DIRECT.
If you are in a room and see a snake and you immediately freeze dead in your tracks I would say that 'you, the human being is being affected by the presence of the snake' but this effect is INDIRECT. The snake is not doing anything to you. It is not coiling itself around you, it is not biting you, it is just there - present - in the room !!! In fact, it might be as frightened of you as you are of it !!
But you can see where confusion can start if I use the sentence "it is the human being who is being affected". I am constantly meaning INDIRECTLY affected but, nevertheless affected.
The indirect effect of the snake (your reaction) has been programmed into you by millions of years of evolution. It is there, within you !!!
In exactly the same way that your body is programmed, by evolution, to be sensing/reading the temperature of your environment every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of your life - in order to maintain, for you, a constant body temperature. It is programmed so to do - whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you want it to or not !!!
Peter did not start with a particular concept and then develop products (devices and techniques) within and from that concept. It was the other way round. The surprise event came first, then the realisation, then developing the techniques.
Similar to Louis Pasteur's experience. 100 years ago the famous French chemist (i.e a 'professional in chemistry') Louis Pasteur, made his own wine. But he found that when he left the tops of the bottles open to allow the fermentation bubbles to escape his wine went off. He tried different experiments and, suddenly, he found that if he used a particular device on the bottles, one which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but kept the outside air from getting in, his wine was OK from then on. From that experience he deduced that there 'must be something in the air' which had been getting at his wine - what he named 'vibrios'. Here was an example of a 'professional in chemistry' being taken by surprise yes by something he had done in his normal domestic life, but being observant enough and aware enough to realise the implications of what he had discovered.
Dr Joseph Lister, a Scottish doctor and surgeon who, along with all his other fellow doctors and surgeons had many patients developing septicaemia and dying after operations was told about Pasteur's observations. Lister began to ask himself "Could there be 'some germs in the air' (like Pasteur had found) which might be getting into the patients open wounds and causing septicaemia ?" So started Lister's tortuous journey attempting to introduce antiseptic techniques into the world of medicine !!!!!
Peter's journey has been similar. A 'professional in audio' suddenly discovering 'things changing the sound' which defied logic and began to change our understanding of how we perceive (particularly) sound !!
Back to audio. Let me use just one example - one which I have used many times.
Say the human being is 'programmed' by evolution to read/sense their environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of their lives, checking for danger/predators/intruders - to enable them to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Supposing there is - 30 feet away from them - something in the room which is pulsating away - 50 to 60 times per second. They immediately interpret what they SENSE as a danger/predator/intruder and stay under tension - unable to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'!!! You see. It is not WHAT that object is physically - it is how the human being is INTERPRETING it !!! It is not WHAT the human being can SEE, or HEAR, or TASTE, or SMELL, or TOUCH - it is what they sense !! Because the necessity to sense/read the environment evolved long before the development of the five senses as we know them now !! In exactly the same way that the body's necessity to sense/read the temperature of the environment to maintain a constant body temperature was developed long before our understanding of such things or of thermometers !!
The object I referred to in the room was (is) the AC power cable. But the effect is not DIRECT - conventional theory would say that 30 feet away from the human being the electro magnetic field would have decayed with distance - so would have no direct effect on the human being 30 feet away from it ! How many times have the 'experts' measured the field from a computer screen or a television screen and declared that X feet away from it, there is no measurement, therefore there is no field left, therefore there is no (radiation) problem sitting (working) X feet away ?
Now. The pulsating thing (the AC power cord) cannot be affecting the acoustic air pressure waves (and therefore affecting the sound) i.e making the sound worse. Unclestu would argue that the pulsating AC power cord could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment. Yes - it obviously could and people will continue to believe that that is what is happening - UNTIL you do something strange. Until you leave the AC power cord exactly where it is (with it's supposed adverse effect on the audio signal), pulsating away in exactly the same way but 'treat' it in a certain way - and the sound is better !!!! The electro- magnetic field surrounding the cable would STILL be there, the 'supposed' adverse effect on the audio signal going through the equipment would STILL be there, unchanged, but the sound was 'better' !!! This now challenges the existing belief structure.
The 'treatment' is to superimpose, onto the pulsating cable, a 'reassuring energy pattern' which enables the human being to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, means that they are under less tension and which means that they are able to resolve more of the information within the music - information which has been there, in the room, all the time.
Because, as well as being programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for danger, the human being has also been programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for energy patterns of 'reassurance' - for signs that say "It's OK. The danger/predator/intruder has gone away. Or, "It's OK. Relax, I am a member of your family, herd, group, shoal, flock."
Back to Unclestu's experiments with the Schumann generator. I think that the Schumann device is doing something along those lines - creating conditions in the environment, reassuring conditions which the human being has been programmed to search for which, in turn, allows the human to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, allows the human beings to be under less tension, which then allows the human being to resolve more of the information within the music !! How many times do you read in people's descriptions of their experiences with the Schumann device that "as well as the sound being better they feel much more relaxed" ?????? And, that is why I used the Schumann device as an example in my articles in Positive Feedback Online.
Back to Unclestu's results. I think one way of explaining the results he obtained was that, with the Schumann device in the listening room, all the people listening were sensing a more 'reassuring energy pattern ', therefore creating less tension in THEM, which resulted in them resolving the musical information better. Take the Schumann device out of the room, the 'reassurance' is lost, back comes their tension, the sound is perceived as 'worse'!!!! It has nothing to do with actually holding the device - the effect is not a DIRECT effect on the human being.
I can fully understand people's dilemma when looking at the devices we produce and recommend. I can fully understand how they can ask "How on earth can pieces of different Foils, application of Cream, writing beneficial messages change the acoustic air pressure waves, or affect the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment ? How on earth can they have an effect on a human being if it is not by auto-suggestion etc. Etc. Etc. (all the list I have given previously). They don't fit the existing (audio) belief structure.
Unclestu was attempting to prove whether it was the human being who was being affected by the Schumann device or not (by actually holding the device). He did not prove NO !!! All he proved was that the sound was better when the Schumann device was in the room and worse when it was taken out of the room !! He had presumed that if it was him (holding the device and being beneficially affected by it) then with the device out of the room, the sound would still be as good for HIM - because he was still holding it !!
If the Schumann device, in the room, was enabling the human beings in that room to be under less tension, then the sound WOULD BE worse when the Schumann device was taken out of the room. Now, to prove whether the Schumann device is 'beneficially affecting the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment' (as suggested by Unclestu) you do the experiment of taking the Schumann device out of the room, experience the sound to be worse, still leave the Schumann device out of the room and create other 'reassuring' energy patterns in the room. If the sound is then perceived as back being good again, with the Schumann device still out of the room, then the explanation of 'the Schumann device affecting the audio signal' no longer holds water - and yet the original OBSERVATION was correct. The sound WAS better when the Schumann device was in the room.
You now have an observation without a explanation from conventional theory. Join the club of the many other experimentalists.
One problem with a lot of the listening tests carried out is if there is a particular belief structure, then the test which will be carried out will be governed by that belief structure.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,
You definitely have a different view of it than I do. I regard my senses as part of me so if they're affected, I'm affected. But I can see where you're coming from. Watching a boxer get slugged on TV isn't exactly the same as being on the receiving end of it myself. So when you say direct, I'll understand that usually you mean bypassing our senses, or at least believed to. Of course I've no idea what the mechanism is for sensing ULF radiation. I wouldn't be surprised if it's done in the inner ear.
As to radiation from things like power cord and Schumann generators, in free space they extend to infinity, but eventually become indiscernible from the rest of the noise that they are now part of. Taking the Schumann box out of the room probably had no effect upon the field strength in the room other than mere distance, most interior walls would have little effect on it. The near field of a loop drops off with the third power of the distance on axis beyond one radius, so bending your elbow while you hold the device would have a tremendous effect on the field that hits you depending upon it's orientation but walking a few feet out of a reasonable sized room into another would have little effect as it's now a much weaker field and unless the orientation is exact, probably dropping with the square of the distance which was much further in the first place.
If there's anything that makes my eyes cross about much of this stuff, it's the belief in walls. Walls make a substantial effect on airborne waves since they are a very deliberate opaque to them. They wouldn't keep us snug otherwise. They may have an effect on light depending upon the material, but unless specially designed, they are largely transparent to RF energy.
So... by dint of my razor sharp logic, I conclude that the most likely thing walls affect is human judgement. This seems especially the case when a gadget is said to work in the house and in your car while you are in the house, but not on the step. If the effect stops by just moving it to an adjacent interior room, the effects seem limited to smell or judgment. And if it's smell, one should be able to tell by the transient response as smells linger.
You are spot on about listening tests. Any tests for that matter. You find what you look for. If what you are looking for is well correlated with what you care about, things are good, if not, well...
Regards, Rick
fact that low frequencies, like those generated by a Schumann generator, travel much farther than high frequencies. There may be something to May's hypothesis. That being said, however, I had also tried placing the Schumann generator on the ground inside and outside the room and walked inside the playing room to check the sound difference, if any. The wall was standard hollow wall gyp board construction and thus is not very soundproof at any frequency really, but one would suspect that it should deflect some sound and the effect should be lessened the farther you are away from the generator (inverse square law). No perceptible differences were heard between inside and outside: System comprised of full sized Kharma speakers and a full set if Lamm electronics. I forget what CD player was used, but the TT was a Walker reference, for what it is worth.
Unplugging the Schumann produced an instantaneous change in both locations.
In the case of the negative ions, there is a change in the intensity of the effect as you place the generator closer to the electronics.
Stu
Stu,
The Schumann generators I'm thinking of generate about a 10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna. Almost any interior wall will be transparent to that sort of signal so I think your results make sense. I want to play with them some more, it's interesting and likely not too dangerous. If my posts suddenly seem very strange, fly over and unplug my brain machine...
Maybe I can make my fortune selling Electronic Pseudo-Tarnhelms (EPTs). They wouldn't actually make you invisible but you'd be so mellow you wouldn't care.
Rick
Please don't say, "Magnetic field." :-)
Question:
How can a relatively small/short loop or coil antenna produce a 10 Hz frequency EM wave?
Geoff,
Just had a thought (last one for this year?). Rather than use the Biot-Savart law, you can use FEMM to do a model and get a picture (suitable for framing) with colors and vectors showing the field at any listening position. It's a cinch to model because it's axisymmetric and you lose no generality beyond 1r by using single current filament.
And it's free.
Rick
But it's not the "field" per se that's the issue. It's the frequency and the wavelength. (Neither of which is a characteristic of a magnetic field.)On subj, recall that Acoustic Revive has demo'd their SF generator in large auditorium, so (close) proximity to listener might not be an issue either.
Edits: 11/13/08
Acoutic revive recommends that the Schuman generator be placed at ear level.
using the formula Frequency=wavelength/speed of sound the Schumann wavelength comes to 8,847.9 feet.
Stu
but the AR device produces an electromagnetic wave (vice acoustic wave) so a different formula must be utilized.
Cheers, Geoff
The definition fits most any frequency, except for those needing correction in a medium. You could substitute the speed of light, if in a vacuum, and the pulse is purely electromagnetic. That loop antenna in the AR is not any where close to that wavelength, however, since it is coiled in a 6 by 6 square (approximately).
Stu
Stu,
Any size loop can be used for any frequency. The rub is the radiation resistance. In other words if a loop is very small with respect to the wavelength of the signal it won't couple for beans to the ether. I touched on this in some earlier postings with Geoff when I was at the coast. Since I'm home now and have access to my library I can put some numbers to it.
The radiation resistance of a small loop per Kraus, Antennas, 1950 is:
Rr=31,200[n(A/lambda^2)]. Where n=turns,A=loop area,lambda=wavelength.
Running the numbers for F=8.3Hz gives a Rr=5.6E-12ohms. Free space is around 377ohms so there is huge mismatch. That just means that there will be almost no far-field radiation. Near-field, which in this case is about anywhere in the same hemisphere, the field will be predominantly magnetic and as I suggested can be readily calculated using the Biot-Savart law or modeled with FEMM. Easier yet, we've all seen the "lines of force" in iron filings from a bar magnet, imagine one of those sticking vertically through the axis of the loop and you will have a good mental picture of the relative field strength and vectors produced by the loop.
By the way, I used 10 turns in the numeric example above. The inner turns on a PCB loop do essentially nothing because their area is small so I figured that was a reasonable estimate.
So forget the wavelength, it's just a red-herring in this case. All that matters is the magnetic field and the sensitivity of the listener or equipment or whatever to it. As you get further away, it just gets weaker if you stay on the same angle. It will be much stronger on axis than off to the side and drop more quickly as you get away from it. If you really want a dose, put it on top of your head. But I don't recommend that on general principles. I'm with Thurber: "Leave your mind alone."
Rick
as the tiny flicker of light ignites above my head (cognitive impairment and all that stuff, you know).....Maybe I should pick up the book on antennas I have sitting beside me, but I only read the part on radio reception, where you wanted the antennas at a fraction of the received bandwidth.
Certainly since the Schumann generator is roughly half the footprint of a piece of paper and uses a wall wart power supply it can not generate much of a magnetic field (I gotta dig up mu gaussmeter).
The magnetic field should be toroidal since the loop antenna in the unit is in the form of a square pattern on a printed circuit board. I would assume that the field is then most intense when in line with the sides of the unit rather than in the vertical plane, directly above or below the unit. If so then placing the unit at the ear level would be preferable to placing on top of the head and thus the manuals admonition the place the unit at ear level. Sorry, just musing out loud....
Thanks,
Stu
Hi Stu,
I can make you a picture, but let me try to describe it. The magnetic field circles the current path. The mnemonic is the "right hand rule": if you grab the wire with your right hand and have your thumb in the direction of the current, you fingers are aligned with the magnetic field which comes out of your nails.
Thinking along those lines imagine a loop wrapped around a clock face which you are viewing from the center. If you grab it at 3:00 your thumb points up (iffins the clock is on a wall) and you fingers point at you from the right. If you grab it at 9:00 your thumb points towards the floor and your fingers point at you from the left. And you just threw your back out of joint trying to do the demonstration. The punch line is no matter where you grab it, the field is coming towards you from the inside of the loop and going away from you on the outside.
You're right about the field being sort of toroidal, but that is only when very near the conductor. The field mostly cancels out as you get a little ways away from the loop. It's all a matter of symmetry. Along the wire the field coming out on the inside is matched by field going in on the outside. The center of the loop is "special", again due to symmetry. It is where the vectors from the whole loop sum together in a single direction. The matching vectors outside of the loop are at infinity so it can actually escape.
So... As you get a little way from the loop, the strongest signal is on axis, in the center and the polarization is orthogonal to the plane of the loop. Going back to the loop wound around a clock, just rip the hands off and jam a bar magnet in the hole and the field looks about the same.
If the loop works best about head level off to the side, you can get the same polarization and a stronger signal by gluing it to your beanie. Another way to think of it is imagine that you've got the loop off to the side six feet away. How much of the overall field does your head occupy? Bear in mind that near-field magnetic fields are closed so all the "lines" that are are everywhere outside the loop, go through the inside of the loop also, so obviously they are much more concentrated there.
You probably can't measure it with your gauss meter, although you might be able to see the needle wiggle.
You are right again, you do want your loop to be a fraction of the wavelength. These are, just a very small fraction. The smaller the fraction, the worse the coupling and thus the lower the radiation resistance.
I need to look up more info on the Schumann levels, but it probably takes far less of a loop or drive levels to exceed that signal strength than you would suppose because you are very close to your local loop. It's easy to generate either an electric or magnetic field locally at most any frequency, the wavelength is inconsequential as you don't give a hoot about far field.
If you antenna book covers loops, give it scan. Sort of interesting stuff if you've got a bend in that direction.
Rick
Got it: I picture it sort of like those pulsars in space.....of course not quite as intense.
Incidentally, I may have sent you some ERS a long time ago; it was that grey stiff paper.
Stu
Stu,
I don't see it in the bag with the remaining quartz and blu-tak. I also can't cogitate up a mental image of it but you well may have. I'll keep my eyes open, if I got it it's probably in a stack somewhere, as my wife will attest I'm not one to throw stuff out...
I think I've got some available time coming up and among other things will try to do some measurements on the stuff you sent. Nothing fancy but worth a shot. I've been using the core over the power transformer right along.
I'm not sure that having a tame pulsar in my room is a very comforting thought, but I suppose the radiation pattern is similar!
Rick
For purposes of this audio-related discussion, could the Schumann Freq. Generator be a CD (acoustic wave generator)? (or is that snake oil?)
Beats Me.
I suppose so since there were posts a few months ago about that very product... Hmmm, I just did a little search to thoughtfully help you find the information and lo and behold, the information came from YOU back in March.
So... what's the deal, did the CD do anything for you?
BTW, it certainly wasn't my intention to try and pass myself off as knowledgeable about things Schumann as I decidedly am not. But I am interested. On the other hand I may know more about small loops than most folks since I used to use them in designs and that gives me a little something to throw into the collective kettle.
Rick
I played around with the CD that produces the Schumann Freq. using 2 beat frequencies, with speakers and headphones, but didn't obtain results I could hang my hat on...G
Edits: 11/17/08
Thanks, good info.
Have you tried one of the electronic varieties?
No, can't say as I have.
Don't radio waves travel at near speed of light in air?
Could the AR device be producing two higher "beat" frequenices, indirectly obtaining the 7.83 Hz SF?
I admit I'm puzzled by the SF generators...
~ Cheers
0...
Transverse Electromagnetic Field?
Daisy field?
Field of dreams?
Out standing in my field?
I aim to please!
1...
Well, you squirt the AC current into the loop, the current goes round and round and it comes out transmogrified into a magnetic field. And heat. Mostly heat actually. Since the radiation resistance is low, it isn't a very good match to free space and the near field is almost all magnetic so it's usually called a magnetic field, especially by them's that are not too fussy. If you're in the mood you can calculate the field strength using the Biot-Savart law. It's especially easy for the on axis field from circular filaments.
3...
You're asking ME??? I would be glad to offer an absolute guess: Maybe it's the mean height of the listener's head sitting or standing. If that's the case it could indicate that whatever the mechanism is it is quite sensitive to the MAGNETIC field vector.
Regards, Rick
Posted by geoffkait
RE: "10Hz magnetic field from an internal loop antenna."
------------------------------
Please don't say "magnetic field."
A pop quiz for rick_m:
1. How can a relatively small loop antenna produce an 10 Hz EM wave?
2. Why is the recommended height above the floor for the SF generator
often reported as about 5 ft.?
The Schumann Frequency wavelength is rather on the long side. How long is it and how does it all fit into the room?
IIRC, the Schuman is 7.83 Hz a very long frequency. In the room where I experimented with the device, The back wall was open to a littel Japanese style garden, screened over but open to the elements. In addition, the back wall was likewise open to the true living room. There was more than sufficient length to generate a waveform, being open to the exterior of the home. The listening area measureed about 20 feet deep and opened into another room about 30 feet deep (it was a large house and the owner did well as a lawyer).
Stu
But how long is the SF wavelength?
WOULD YOU QUIT DELETING YOU POSTS BEFORE I GET MY SNAPPY REPLY DONE? I'm not about to waste one so here it is for your enjoyment:
Oh, that is a good one, how could I forget Sally?
Would you settle for magnetic component? As a practical matter that's about all there is in the near field of a loop antenna. And man at 10Hz near field goes a fer piece.
But hey, don't compromise your principles. Go ahead and build a 1/4 wave 10Hz vertical with good ground radials and fire it up, I'll know it's you even out here on the west coast as I get slammed by a wave of mellow...
R.
PS: The answer is about 1/250,000 the length of your antenna. Didn't you used to work on VLF stuff? Maybe you really could do a wave of mellow, the world could sure use it.
You do go on about magnetism, but no harm, I suppose. Wonder if anyone out there has used a Radio Shack Bulk Tape Eraser to administer a cranial massage.It was ELF - you know, the one with 14 miles of antenna....and that's for 75 Hz EM wave
You've probably seen me ask this a couple times, but how long is the wavelength for the Schumann Frequency?
:-)
Edits: 11/13/08
Let's see. That's about 24,000 miles for 7.8Hz, or one trip around the planet. What's that, mode II longitudinal I suppose. I'm at the coast and so had to do it with my computer's calculator which detest, but you're welcome.
ME go on about magnetism??? There is no magnetism without electric charges gallivanting around so "electromagnetic" is really rather repetitious and old fashioned wouldn't you say? Methinks that you are trying in vain to make an effete point. If you think a bar magnet only generates magnetism, just give it a spin. And loop antennas work down to DC.
Personally I wouldn't use any tape eraser that wasn't endorsed by Rose Mary Woods. Before your time?
Rick
One doesn't see the word effete and the name Rosemary Woods in the same post very often. Do you think Spiro Agnew would endorse spiracone antennas?
Ah, Spiro...
Haven't thought much of him in a long spell. Of course I didn't think much of him then. You know, more recent administrations may have upheld the standards of ethics established by those greats, but they sure haven't delivered the same level of entertainment...
You make an excellent point. Tricky Dick was my all time fav when it came to entertainment. But that's just me.
may have some influence on the body. After all the brain wave activity is divided into Alpha, Beta, Theta, and other wave frequencies.
That being said my initial experimentation precludes a human influence. My friend employs a Schumann generator and has in placed in the far rear left corner of his listening area. holding the generator I could simply extend the power cord and pass out of the room proper. I could hear, and so could the two others in the room (my host had consumed several glasses of a good wine and was, ah, slightly impaired in his physical abilities), the simply movement of the generator from one room divide into the other. Mind you, I was holding the unit in my left hand in doing so, so it should not have affected my hearing in any way.
Hence my conclusion that the effect was upon whether the room or the equipment but not the person.
In regards to other tweaks. I no longer color my discs. However I use a simple CD shaped disc to place upon my playing discs. The effect is often subtle but it is there. There is a simple explanation for it too: the absorption of scattered light.
I use that same disc, cut suitably, to line the bottom of the CD/DVD tray with good results. Again, examining the principle of operation of the player also reveals a weakness in the focusing mechanism. It is a feedback style motor operated system allowing for the laser lens to move up and down and in and out in order to keep the digital bit stream in focus.
At one point in time, there was a product which reduced the aperture of the lens assembly. That was interesting and it worked to varying degrees. Once I obtained ferrofluid I simply saturated the motor coils of the focus motors and that simply blew away any aperture reducing system. I do not believe any manufacturer uses ferrofluid today but it adds tremendous dynamics and significantly increased detail, simply by speeding up the focusing mechanism.
Once the focusing mechanism had been optimized, then the other tweaks like coloring the edges become much more prominent, at least audibly. I do have to warn any experimenters to experiment with an older player first. Any mistake in placement and the ferrofluid inside the lens assembly generally spells death for the laser head assembly. That silicon is not easy to flush out!
Stu
When you packed the Schumann generator into the other room, you would have decreased it's field strength somewhat for the in-room listeners and the audio field for you, so it's hard to tell. Like a lot of folks one of the tests I do is listen to my stereo from other rooms to get another take on it. I used to have a house with a larger listening room, I think around 20 x 12 and even there couldn't get my ESS towers to sound good in the bass. But if I went outside and opened the sliding door which was in the middle of one of the long walls, it sounded very much like there was a band playing inside. I ended up replacing them with Infinity quantum 3's and they sounded ever so much better inside the house, but worse on the patio. Since it's almost always raining, windy or pollen packed here, that was an excellent compromise.
I happen to have a bunch of loops laying that are around a foot across and when the Schumann stuff was first starting up tried just hooking one to a function generator and driving it with a squarewave at the magic frequencies out of curiousity. I noticed that I felt a little woozy, sort of like mild car-sickness. I tried changing the frequency up a little and it cleared right up. After that I read a bit more it appears that the mean frequency of the resonance was about where I had mine when it didn't bother me. I thought "that's interesting, it needs more playing" and that's where it still lies. I'd rather forgotten about it until I read Geoff's post. But that brief and poorly controlled experience convinced me that there was indeed something there...
I think the trick to tweaking is to do what helps in any given instance. It's tough to generalize. One of these days I would like to figure out why the two drives in my computer sound differently. I don't have much extra HD space and don't mind just playing the CD's while I work. But some sound the best on one, some on the other. I even hit a case last week where one wasn't even recognized by one of them. I think the notion of getting a good read and playing the data from a HD or RAM makes a world of sense, still it would be satisfying to know what's going on.
Rick
> > > "That being said my initial experimentation precludes a human influence. My friend employs a Schumann generator and has in placed in the far rear left corner of his listening area. holding the generator I could simply extend the power cord and pass out of the room proper. I could hear, and so could the two others in the room (my host had consumed several glasses of a good wine and was, ah, slightly impaired in his physical abilities), the simply movement of the generator from one room divide into the other. Mind you, I was holding the unit in my left hand in doing so, so it should not have affected my hearing in any way.
Hence my conclusion that the effect was upon whether the room or the equipment but not the person." < < <
You have described an experiment with a Schumann generator. Your conclusion after doing the experiment was that because YOU were holding it at all times and if the explanation was that the effect of the Schumann generator was DIRECTLY on YOU, then there should have been no change in the sound whether the Schumann device was in the room or not - if you were still holding it !!!!!!
Is this a correct assessment of your conclusion ?
Can you see the reply I have done to rick m ? In the hypothetical example I have given, would you say the effect I describe as direct, or indirect - if nothing was physically touching the person or radiating through them - as in radiation or magnetism ?
Regards,
May Belt.
Well, that's not entirely true as most of my offerings have (detailed) explanations. Explanations for two exceptions I can think of aren't provided for a couple of reasons, mostly as protection. You've heard the word proprietary, I'm sure.
So if I signed an NDA...
I'm OK with trade secrets. In fact I believe that they are far and away the best bet if the underlying mechanism is resistant to discovery by routine reverse engineering.
That doesn't necessarily mean that disclosing whether the device affects the equipment or the listener would unduly expose them, but it might.
Regards, Rick
> > > "You mentioned JA twice regarding tweaks, so you seem to subscribe to his listening abilities. Fair enough." < < <
I have not kept up with ALL the audio journalists who write for American traditional (printed) Hi Fi magazines or American Hi Fi Internet sites so I specifically used John Atkinson and Michael Fremer as people who the majority of readers in America would know about. AND might probably have respect for their individual experiences !!
> > > "If those things work for you, and show continued benefit, unlike the examples you mention about JA, then great. But why the need to insist everyone require the same ritual and that it is you (who requires the ritual) claiming that you are hearing something superior to what others hear?." < < <
I (WE) have NEVER insisted that everyone requires ALL the same 'tweaks' as we use and supply. Or insisted that everyone requires ALL other 'tweaks'. In fact, we deliberately encourage people to try many things for themselves as we KNOW that people differ in their individual sensitivities and perceptions !!!!!!!!
> > > "So, if rubbing creme on a table makes your Hi Fi sound better to you, great. Claiming from anecdote that this MUST be true for ALL others is not a valid assertion." < < <
Again, we have NEVER claimed that this MUST be true for ALL others. Can we please keep it at the intellectual level that I KNOW that people (and their experiences) differ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether John Atkinson still uses the 'tweak' of painting the edge of a CD green or not. The CRUCIAL part is what happened when he DID !!
It is irrelevant whether Michael Fremer will still be de magnetising his CDs and LPs in a few years time. The CRUCIAL part is what happened when he DID !!!
Their SOUND changed !!! How did it change ? Why did it change ? What changed ?
It is what happens (has happened) to the 'sound' which is the CRUCIAL thing in AUDIO !!
Just because they (and others) might not continue doing the same thing they had previously done and written about, day in, day out, year in, year out, does not discount what originally happened. In exactly the same way that I do not marinade kebabs every time we have kebabs - even though I know that kebabs which have been well marinated TASTE much better and even though I have a recipe for an excellent marinade, a lot of the time I don't have the time, and the energy and the inclination to marinade kebabs every time, day in, day out, year in, year out !!! I might EVEN buy ready made meals. Does that really negate all my experiences with kebabs ???????????????? And, would that really negate ALL that I might have written in the past concerning food ???????????
Nor does it discount all the times I have told other people the recipe for a good kebab marinade !!! That also does not mean that I INSIST that they use it because I have told them about it !! It is their choice what to do and always will be.
It is what happened when John Atkinson used the green pen on the edge of the CD. He heard his sound improve - meaning that he was suddenly able to resolve more of the information within the music. MORE than he had heard the week before - from the same CDs and from the same audio equipment !!
It is what happened when Michael Fremer demagnetised his LPs. He heard his sound improve - meaning that he was suddenly able to resolve more of the information within the music. MORE than he had heard the week before - from the same LPs and from the same audio equipment !!
What you are not doing Enophile is stepping back and looking at what has been happening, from a historic viewpoint, in audio, over these past three decades.
You are not seeing audio professional after audio professional after audio professional 'reeling' (what I call being 'knocked back on their heels') at what they have just experienced. At how their sound has UNEXPECTEDLY been changed !! That they are suddenly resolving more of the information contained in the music AFTER applying a particular 'device' or a particular 'technique' - far more information than they heard the day before, the week before, the month before - from EXACTLY the same CDs, LPs, from EXACTLY the same audio equipment and in EXACTLY the same listening environment.
It is that realisation which makes them 'reel' in disbelief !!
From Jean Hiraga (Editor of the French magazine), in the late 1970s, describing how he had heard different cables and interconnects change his sound !!
The reaction, 30 years ago, to Jean Hiraga's reports was as Keith Howard describes :-
"Eight-on-the-(audio) Richter-scale. Nothing of the old view could be taken for granted any longer. Intellectually, the earth had moved."
Through the cryogenic treatment in the late 1980s giving improvements in the sound !!
Through painting the edge of CDs, demagnetising CD and LPs and so on.
Year after year for the past 30 years, one 'professional in audio' after another 'professional in audio' struggling to come to terms with what they are experiencing.
You just don't see their struggles, do you Enophile ? Or, if you do, they must be meaningless to you - of no particular importance - because you can dismiss them so simply.
Take Peter and I and our techniques and devices completely out of the (audio) picture. As if we had never existed - if it is what Peter and I advocate which gives you problems !!! There would STILL be numerous other techniques and devices which other people have found improved their sound - which have caused 'professionals in audio' to be 'knocked back on their heels' - over these past 30 years and struggling still, today and tomorrow, to try to explain what they are experiencing !!
John Atkinson describes his experiences quite well and simply :-
> > > "I continue to be surprised by things I think should matter having little effect on what I perceive and by things my preconceptions would lead me to dismiss apparently having a significant effect (positive or negative) on perceived sound quality. So when presented with something that appears to defy logic or my understanding of how the world works, I try not to dismiss it, instead filing it away under "things to return to if there's time." < < <
Instead of realising that all those people's experiences are telling you something, something important Enophile, you prefer instead to dismiss them with the equivalent of 'a wave of the hand', a 'shake of the head', a 'grimace of sympathy'.
With such as - "those people must NEED those 'props', those 'talismen', those 'rituals' in order to 'get into' their music better.
With such as - "I would say that there are many tweaks that work, remedially, at best."
And yet other people dismissing those people's experiences with :-
"It must be 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on.
And, yet more simplistic :- "changes in humidity and temperature., environmental changes, barometric pressure, sinuses, mental state., Mood, distraction, fatigue, and so on", the list is endless.
I will use Uncelstu again as an example of what I mean.
You can see from the way he writes that he struggles to try to explain (to himself at least, if not also to others) what he is experiencing when trying this device, that device, this technique and that technique. He KNOWS that the devices and techniques are NOT 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'remedial tools', 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on.
Regarding your own experiences with crystals, Enophile ?
Your quotes :-
> > > "Undamped crystals leave a little smear. The oil damping leaves the benefit and removes the smear. Interestingly, the oil leaves the crystals more free to do their work.
The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay.
The oil alters the resonance frequency of the container/crystals, with the most significant impact being, like the trough of a Well Tempered Arm, a sort of "instantaneous" damping of induced vibration.
With the crystal/oil matrix, the original vibration would be transmitted, but any continued response to the vibration would be damped.
I find that by attenuating ongoing oscillation produces as better "leading edge" on the sonics - hence, my comment about "smear."
It may be something I listen for that others may not.
The same goes for quality of decay - it seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were.
Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor, with too small or too large not getting the job done." < < <
*******
" > > > The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay. "better "leading edge" on the sonics., "seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were." < < <
Just where was that 'better imaging' the week before trying the crystals ? Where was the 'better leading edge on the sonics' the week before trying the crystals ? Why didn't you have more 'seamless transmission of sonic decay' the week before trying the crystals ? Where was all that additional information which was allowing those improvements in the sound the week before trying the crystals ?
Was your experience all (or any) of the things you have listed to describe other peoples experiences or did your sound ACTUALLY change ? Did you ACTUALLY 'hear' all that additional information which enabled you to resolve more of the musical information ?
If your sound did actually change when using the crystals, then perhaps you have an answer to Geoff's original question ? "Any theories as to why the system can sound very good one day and horrid the next? Once the usual suspects - break in of cables, components, speakers and contact enhancers - are dispensed with, what's left?"
Why did your sound change the very day you used the crystals ? If you remove the crystals, does the sound revert back to being 'not as good' ?
I get the impression that you think I am reacting to the words you use - to your descriptions of 'props', 'talismen', 'rituals', 'remedial' with which you explain your view of 'tweaks'.
I do not react to those specific words, I react to what they represent. I.e your very use of them shows that you are surrounded by a forest but cannot see the wood for the trees. You cannot see what so many people's experiences with all the various 'tweaks' are (should be) telling you.
I don't for a moment think that John Atkinson NEEDED the 'prop', the 'talisman', the 'ritual', the 'remedial work' of painting the edge of a CD in order for him to 'hear' what his equipment was capable of. I would presume that John did not even want to admit to himself (let alone in print to hundreds of others) that painting the edge of CD gave him improvements in his sound.
Michael Fremer, in October 2006, even said "I don't want the demagnetizing of LPs to work. I really don't." !!!!!!! So, he wasn't actually NEEDING that technique as a 'prop' as a 'talisman', as a 'ritual', as 'remedial work' !!!!
Let us look at audio history.
Fifty years ago there was the birth of transistors, when there had only been valves. There was the birth of stereo, when there had only been mono. If there were ANY 'tweaks' then, they would only be such as what support table to use for the record player and, if you wanted better sound then just remove the decorative speaker fronts.
Thirty years ago there was Jean Hiraga and his experiences hearing different cables sound different. There was Enid Lumley describing her experiences 'dealing with the Gremlins' which were having an adverse effect on her sound. There was Ed Meitner describing how you can have much better sound if you cryogenically freeze CDs, LPs, Laser-vision-format video discs, speaker cable, interconnects, integrated circuits and musical instrument strings.
All these the 'saplings', the start of the forest.
Now there is a forest of trees !! A multitude and variety of different devices and techniques which different people have heard improve their sound and which others have confirmed such. It is far too SIMPLISTIC to dismiss all those as - firms out to con people, to exploit gullible people. It is far too simple to dismiss all those people as being influenced by 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on. It is far too simple to dismiss all those people as NEEDING those devices and techniques as 'props', as 'talismen', as 'rituals' etc.
All these devices, techniques and people are telling you something Enophile. They are telling you that there is something going on which many people are experiencing, something affecting 'sound' which many people are experiencing, something going on which 'defies logic and which challenges the way we see and understand (and have seen and understood) the world of audio, something going on which needs investigating - and NOT dismissing !!!!
I can't put it any better or more simply than that !!
Regards,
May Belt.
May, if they worked, they'd still be in the system.
As to the oily crystals...sometimes I like to ask about hypotheticals.
Your quote Enophile.
> > > "As to the oily crystals...sometimes I like to ask about hypotheticals." < < <
Your description of the effect of the oily crystals was not you "sometimes asking about hypotheticals".
There was nothing hypothetical about your words - they were DEFINITE descriptions of your experiences with the crystals !!
< < < "The damped crystals make for better imaging and sonic decay. "better "leading edge" on the sonics., "seems to make for a more seamless transmission of sonic decay as sounds end - less "smearing" of the end of the signal, as it were. Not to sound crazy, but there also seems to be a crystal size factor," < < < Enophile.
Again, did you hear an ACTUAL improvement in the sound ? Did you ACTUALLY 'hear' all that additional information which enabled you to resolve more of the musical information ?
OR, was it that you were needing the crystals as 'props', as 'talismen', as 'rituals' etc.
OR were you being influenced by 'auto-suggestion'., the 'placebo effect'., 'imagination'., "having your local priest blessing your listening room", "snake oil", "audio faith healing", "magic talismans", "effective marketing", and so on. ?
Regards,
May Belt.
"Why do I not hear the Tice Clock when other folks do?"Shall we revisit Geoge Tice's 4 reasons why folks do not hear his clock (or think the effects are subtle)?
:-)
Feel free to substitute Shun Mook Discs, crystals, high end power cords, demagnetizers, deionizers, green pens, Schumann resonators, the Intelligent Chip or just about anything else in high end audio for "Tice Clock."
:-)
Edits: 11/10/08
One day he hears it, the next, not.
Proponents exclaim that he heard something!
Opponents point to its effect going to extinction, placebo-like. Writing off an effect.
Proponents boast about his apparent infallibility when he hears it. It cannot be questioned.
Opponents point out the path from perceived effect to no effect. That cannot be questioned, either (to them.)
Luckily for the reviewer, he is infallible to each group at some point.
;)
I guess Fremer hasn't read George Tice's 4 reasons why people cannot hear the Tice Clock, either. :-)
So Fremer recanted? That's a shame. So did Atkinson. They all do it. :-)
that's one of the most brilliant, valid and comprehensive posts (of quite a few) you've made.
Reminds me of the backlog of dozens of CDs that need treatment that I've been too busy listening to and enjoying to ... treat!
(Of course they will sound better after I treat them...)
Thanks!
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
