|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.253.179.5
In Reply to: RE: "I'm also in favor of tweaking actual gear!" posted by geoffkait on June 22, 2010 at 10:11:27
I suspect the Belt Rainbow foil acts like a constrained layer dampening device which helps dissipate the RF energy. The construction is a sandwich of plastic and aluminum foil. The foil itself is laser etched to extremely fine etchings, typically at the wavelengths of like ( in order that it have the proper effects on light), thus we have, in effect tiny antennas, and when trimmed to the small widths recommended it effectively can become RFI absorbers.
As for the crystals, simple experimentation has revealed that piezoelectric crystals seems to impart a greater sonic difference. The Shakti Stones are based on a similar application according to their patents, except their housings serve as microwave tunnels guides of sorts focusing the energy upon the crystals they use.
There are many circuit mods and such which have yet to be popularized, however. Power supply isolation and the implementation of isolated supplies, I find very critical for better sound. Very few modern designers really implement such designs, however. One interesting piece I had a chance to examine was a older Grommes design (IIRC). The amp had two rectifiers, a 5U4 for the power tubes and a 6X4 for the input tubes. Sounded good and it was quite interesting, but something no ,modern designer has really used (Although the CJ Premier 350 has separate rectifiers for the front end as well as the output devices).
I do believe that there is fundamentally sound science behind many so called "voodoo" tweaks. A better understanding provides not only better implementation but but also superior application.
Stu
Follow Ups:
From the Shakti Stone White paper:"Through a unique application of quartz oscillators, a broad spectrum of RFI is attenuated. Being a piezeo-electric (sic) material, quartz is capable of converting an electric field into mechanical energy. In situations where quartz is employed in active components, the desired goal is to accentuate one resonant frequency to the exclusion of all others. However, within this stage of SHAKTI, quartz is used in a manner to produce the broadest sampling of frequencies to better absorb the somewhat unpredictable EMI. One of the reasons quartz has never been used in this type of circuit is because, as effective as it is as a converter of electrical energy, its very high Q means that most of the conversion to mechanical energy swiftly changes back to electrical. To overcome this problem, careful experimentation produced the necessary resistive element that is incorporated to substantially lower the Q. The result is effective dissipation within the first 1/2 cycle. This stage provides absorption/dissipation benefits for both external and self -generated sources of RFI."
[A little odd that the author chose to use the term piezeo-electric as the correct term is piezoelectric.]
It should be pointed out that the Shakti Stone actually operates - according to the white paper and patent - via the converse piezoelectric effect - conversion of electrical energy (RFI/EMI) to mechanical energy. For this to occur successfully - as pointed out in the white paper - a resistive element is required. There is no reason to believe that a "piezoelectric crystal" (by itself) is capable of absorbing RFI/EMI without such a resisitive element and every reason to believe it can't.
I therefore propose there must be some other mechanism in crystals, when used individually or in groups - besides piezoelectric effect - responsible for the change in sound -- at least when discussing RFI/EMI absorption. I also propose that - in almost all cases - the actual operation of a crystal or group of crystals in an audio system has nothing whatsoever to do with RFI/EMI absorption - rather acoustic/mechanical energy absorption!
Edits: 06/26/10
The damping material can be something as simple as blue tack or any other viscous retaining putty. Again the principle is to simply convert the EMI/RFI absorbed into mechanical motion and thus to heat. You can use a crystal very precariously balanced ( say a round shape) or use a little dab of blue tack as I do. I like irregular tumbled crystals because I believe the frequencies absorbed are broader in bandwidth because of the irregular shape and since the vast majority of EMI/RFI currently encountered are higher in frequency, I use physically smaller crystals. Larger ones I place closer to the power transformers where the fundamental frequency is 50 or 60 hz.
In my experience crystals will absorb EMI/RFI irrespective of the mechanical resistive element. Without the mechanical lossy coupling however, the crystals impart a high frequency edge to the sound. This has been borne out with much experimentation with those beautiful but awful sounding fish scale type granite often encountered in shelving. Also in borne out in experimentation with larger quartz clusters which I collect.
Stu
There is a good chance you are misinterpreting what the crystal is actually doing in the case of the transformer. I suspect that the crystal is actually converting mechanical energy to mechnical energy. I.e., that no EMI/RFI is absorbed. Also that this mechanism of conversion of energy is NOT piezoelectricity but another, different mechanism in the crystal. Recall that piezoelectricity is the conversion of voltage to deformation of the crystal and that the converse piezoelectric effect is the conversion of mechanical pressure to voltage. So it doesn't make sense that EMI/RFI is being converted because voltage is either too low to accomplish much of anything in the crystal or that the pressure produced by EMI/RFI is too low to produce much of anything in the crystal. The actual mechanism is the vibration of the atoms of the crystal produced by mechanical vibration. This characteristic of the crystal - of mechancal/acoustic energy conversion - is more obvious when the crystal is placed on the wall (at points of high mechanical or acoustic energy), on speaker cabinets, on top of a CD player, near electron tubes, or in room corners.It is a *coincidence* that most crystals used in these audio applications happen to be piezoelectric; their primary characteristic is that the symmetry of atoms in the crystal lattice produce the vibration I'm referring to when activated by external sources. Crystals that are not strongly piezoelectric, that are only weakly piezoelectric, can also be used quite effectively in these applications. I now use at least 12 different crystals in my Brilliant Pebbles, depending on size; there are 4 different size of these products, including the X-Large size for very large rooms. Size of crystals in my products varies from 2 mm to 15 mm.
I do not close the door on the proposition that in some case, in some application, crystal could absorb EMI/RFI, but that it wouldnot be piezoelectric effect inthat case either, it would be some internal atomic mechansim - different from the one responsible for absorbing mechanical energy - within the crystal lattice structure that is responsible. But, as I said, almost all audiophile applications of crystals, if not all, appear to address mechanical/acoustic vibration, not EMI/RFI.
Edits: 07/17/10 07/17/10
Interesting post Geoff. I know you've mentioned this before but I appreciate the details. Maybe those jars of agates are doing more than I would have thought. They sit on a half-wall just behind my chair and above my head. I've always thought I should try a diffuser on the wall but it's never seemed cause problems as have other walls in the past. I'm sure being short helps but maybe it's also the rocks...
Is being in a lattice important? I think this would be good excuse for an experiment, I could go collect a bunch of basalt rocks from the beach which are far more common than agates. In fact I've always joked that if the beach were mostly agates that we would collect the black rocks.
Have you measured these effects? I've got an accelerometer around somewhere but I need to build a preamp for it. I could glue it to various rocks and, er, see if they Rock? I know they roll, even a casual observer can see that at the coast.
Rick
The basalt rocks don't have the well organized symmetrical crystal lattice that one finds in clear quariz, smokey quartz, aquamarine, topaz rumbled stones. When I refer to *crystals* I refer to quartz, agate, aquamarine, ruby, topaz, jade, tourmaline, etc. Of course, the purer the crystal the more uniform and symmetrial the lattice structure. This is not to say basalt will do nothing, there could be mass loading going on...who knows?The lattice is important because the atoms in the material are allowed to move back and forth with ease. If the structure were not symmetrical the atoms could not move freely.
Big doesn't necessarily mean better. My Mikro size BP comprise crystals of various types that are only 2-3 mm each. A Mikro packet comprises only 25-30 of these minuscule crystals.
Measurement is best done with SPL meter and test tone. This method allows determination of locations in the room where improvements to the sound will be experienced. Such as in or near room corners. Or on the wall at first reflection points, for example. Of course, anyone is free to measure these things any way they wish.
Edits: 07/17/10
A couple of questions...
1. Doesn't the container, i.e. Jar or Bag make a large difference in how rocks rock?
2. So if one were to set up his SPL meter on it's cute little tripod in the corner, note the SPL vs Frequency of a swept tone and THEN add the jar of pebbles and repeat... what sort of deltas would one expect?
I've come to believe that the details of acoustical specular reflections and general absorption have an outsized impact on our perceptions but I don't how to optimize it except raw trial and error.
On another note, you offer small packages of pebbles intended to be stuffed or propped where wires enter gear. Is that mechanical also?
Rick
I use the spl meter/test tone strictly to determine the points in the room where there are peaks more than 6-8 dB above the average level. These pressure peaks can be anywhere in the room, in the ceiling, on a wall, or anywhere in the 3-D space.The ziplock bags of crystals dissipate energy where the peaks are located. There are a great many peaks in the room, so the question will arise as to which ones should be treated first. :-)
The Mikro is smallest BP (about 1 oz) and can be placed on top of the RCA jacks, and yes, am pretty sure they act mechanically. They can also be placed next to small vacuum tubes, on top of CD player, on power cord plugs, taped to glass windows, sliding glass doors, taped to the wall in stategic locations, etc.
I should also add that my BP undergoes special treatments, even the assembly and choice of crystals is proprietary. All of this, including all of various applications for the different sizes, took a little bit of time to work out, as you can appreciate.
Edits: 07/17/10
"All of this, including all of various applications for the different sizes, took a little bit of time to work out, as you can appreciate."
I do appreciate that, way too many variables in audio. It almost is the very definition of audiophilism.
A few years ago I stuck a piece of RG-58 in my ear (NO, don't go there! It had a BNC connector on it and didn't go all the way through) and tapped on the other end (it was maybe three meters long). Twas right up there with Big Ben albeit monotonic. Rang for seconds. So I hooked it up to a scope and did the same thing and it looked just like it sounded. There's dielectric helping things out. Maybe I should try again with a crystalized version...
By the way it was regular ol' solid dielectric, I suspect foam would be better.
Rick
Somehow I think you are arguing again yourselfs.
"There is no reason to believe that a "piezoelectric crystal" (by itself) is capable of absorbing RFI/EMI without such a resisitive element and every reason to believe it can't."
Nah... Their Q may be high but it's not infinite and the Q is really only high if the crystal is very pure, cut on plane boundaries and mounted at mechanical vibration nodes in a vacuum. BUT, knowing that you are an old communications guy I know that you know this, you know?
"I also propose that - in almost all cases - the actual operation of a crystal or group of crystals in an audio system has nothing whatsoever to do with RFI/EMI absorption - rather acoustic/mechanical energy absorption!"
Well, you may well be right and it should be easy to tell whether the piezoelectric properties matter, just try a jar full of basalt and see if that causes your emotions to erupt or a some sandstone to smooth out the rough edges of the sound.
I know Stu uses constrained damping with crystals and so apparently does the Shakti stone people. It only makes sense, for their application lossiness i.e. low Q (For the jargon impaired Q (the 'quality' factor) is the energy stored over the energy dissipated in a cycle) is desirable for the same reasons that it's undesirable when using a crystal for timing.
No, I don't have little baggies of crystals, pot or dung taped to the outside of my breaker box. Should I? That's an interesting case, what do you suppose is they mostly do, if anything? I bet it depends upon where you stick them. Whether they damp out some of the induced mechanical hum or suck up EMI or just make the user feel better or cause him to be electrocuted they seem to me bound to be a force for good in reducing his listening angst.
Yours for crystalline clarity,
Radio Rick
with no real experience with crystals, just more angst and snootiness from the peanut gallery.
...I was a usin' FT-243 crystals when I was in Jr. High back in the ol' Kennedy era. Now them was the days, not a synthesizer in sight!
Why I even used to use a crystal microphone and in the really old days built crystal sets. And on the face of my watch, oh, nevermind...
R.
His estrogen patch must be running low.
Thanks for the concern, but he's probably right, I may not be totally up to speed on the latest Audiophile applications of crystal. But I have found them of use as an aid to consuming alcoholic beverages while listening. The long stem variety is especially good as I can sort of visually center it and twirl without blocking the direct sound field.
I suppose the next step is to obtain one for the navel. Perhaps ruby for CD's, tourmaline for DVD-A's and of course, a diamond for LP's. I understand that if you don't listen to records very often that you can get by with a sapphire...
Rick
When y'all get some experience with the crystals and the applications we're actually talking about, come back around, Gramps.
Edits: 06/29/10
has posted in the past about a large tourmaline cluster which seems to improve sound when placed on his gear.
Stu
I think you're referring to a cluster of agate he keeps around for decoration, but not on his gear. As I recall he never got around to actually experimenting with the cluster. Are we supposed to be holding our breath?
Hmmm, well it seemed large to me when I found it in the mine tailings...
As you can see I'm even using Stu's toroid tweak and some highly refined acoustical absorbing material. Maxed out she is, maxed out!
And it's scientifical, I tried a piece of basalt largely the same size and shape and the tourmaline ore sounded better, and looked better too. My camera batteries went dead but I can even take pictures of the jars of agates and a comparison shot of the rocks once I recharge them if you care. It might be tough to estimate the sonic qualities of the two rocks from a photo but you'd see the visual improvement right away.
Tweaker Rick
"I suspect the Belt Rainbow foil acts like a constrained layer dampening device which helps dissipate the RF energy. The construction is a sandwich of plastic and aluminum foil. The foil itself is laser etched to extremely fine etchings, typically at the wavelengths of like ( in order that it have the proper effects on light), thus we have, in effect tiny antennas, and when trimmed to the small widths recommended it effectively can become RFI absorbers."
Interesting theory; unfortunately, your theory cannot account for why the sound improves when applying a rainbow foil to an interior page of a book, say page 150. Or applying a rainbow foil to an unused battery hidden away in a drawer, or to the back of a wall mirror in another room. Sometimes the more obvious explanations don't hold up and one must look deeper.
Sorry, the rainbow foil does not work in any book that I have tried.
Stu
I am not very surprised.
Sorry, Geoff
I bought and still have about 6 linear feet of the rainbow foil, which is made in various configurations for such things as making stickers and such. You can find it a many silk screening supply houses, if you are curious, and in different diffraction patterns and sizes. Of course it needs to be treated in order for it to work effectively, but I assume you know about all of that, don't you?
Stu
There's no substitute for the real thing. You are only fooling yourself if you think you can knock off the holographic foils. Been there, done that. While it seems unlikely that there could be much technology behind the innocuous little rainbow foils, trust me, you have no idea.
Now I understand why you had no luck with foils on books. :-)"When you ASSume, you make an ass of me and Uma Thurman."
Edits: 07/17/10
What did you do in order to treat the foil? Seems that you have all the answers, but then again failure to replicate is hardly an answer, is it?
Stating "been there and done that", means absolutely nothing unless you provide details. I can unequivocally state that in controlled testing, my foil and the sample obtained from Belt, displayed identical properties every where I tried it. And while I can not vouch for your testing and methodology, I believe I go to far further testing than most people do.
You claim to be a scientist, of sorts, let us see your experimentation pattern. I seriously doubt if the Belts actually make their own foil
Stu
Quote by Geoff 17/07/10
[quote] here's no substitute for the real thing. You are only fooling yourself if you think you can knock off the holographic foils. [/quote]
Reply to Geoff from unclestu 21/07/10
[quote] I seriously doubt if the Belts actually make their own foil [/quote]
I think some confusion has arisen over the word "holographic foil" (Geoff) and "foil" (unclestu). In the confusion Geoff is obviously meaning "treating the basic Foil material" and unclestu is obviously meaning "making the actual material in the first place".
Of course we don't make the actual PRISMATIC material in the first place and I don't think that Geoff was meaning THAT, unclestu. However, we DO 'treat' the basic material in quite complex and sophisticated ways. Some people claim not to have heard our Rainbow Foil have any effect whereas you unclestu DO claim to have heard it produce an effect.
Because the prismatic material was chosen in the first place because it could give all the colours of the rainbow (and different colours are important regarding sound) then it would not surprise me if some people could hear the effect of using a material with all the colours on it. However, unclestu, I would challenge you again on your assumption of the Rainbow Foil "helping dissipate RF energy".
Because, we can 'treat' Clear Polyester Film and have THAT have the same beneficial effect on the sound as our Rainbow Foil - and, I am sure you will already know, Clear Film would not be doing the same 'dissipating of RF energy'. And, we can 'treat' our Cream (which I DO make with my own fair hands) which can then have a similar beneficial effect on the sound as our Foil and, as I am sure you already know, simple Cream would not be doing the same 'dissipating of RF energy'.
You are however right 'on the button' with your quote :-
[quote] "I do believe that there is fundamentally sound science behind many so called "voodoo" tweaks. A better understanding provides not only better implementation but but also superior application." [/quote]
Regards,
May Belt,
Stu said:
[quote] "I do believe that there is fundamentally sound science behind many so called "voodoo" tweaks. A better understanding provides not only better implementation but but also superior application." [/quote]
If I can be so bold, what Uncle Stu really meant by his statement above about "fundamentally sound science" is that conventional, already understood physics can explain voodoo tweaks. He's actually dismissing any "alternatuve explanations" for clocks, foils, chips, pens. Recall Stu concluded that the clever clock with magnets attached "channels RFI."
"already understood physics can [not] explain voodoo tweaks"
Ah, so you are explaining them with physics that isn't understood, surely an improvement...
Couldn't resist. Science is of course just our best guess at any given moment but has the saving grace of being a better set of guesses as we learn more. I was going to say 'as time passes' but I no longer believe in time.
I would in general consider 'science' adequate if it can be used for successful engineering. But monkeys are a curious breed and we like to know what makes things tick. Things like May's stuff, and yours, and the universe, whether there is a direct application or not.
This causes a constant 'conflict' whatever the mechanisms are. While it behooves you guys to protect your intellectual properties and business practices you have to balance that with customers' reluctance to buy a pig-in-a-poke. We'd like to believe that we are paying for something beyond just belief whether it's true or not.
I know that often that belief is poorly founded, especially with audio gear and we are all painfully aware that two components with essentially identical routine measurements may sound quite differently in a given application. It's clearly a systems issue and it falls on the poor user to try and patch together a satisfactory solution. So while we don't give much credence to the measurements that we do have, we want them so we know that we aren't buying 'snake oil'.
It's probably best not to ponder the human thought process too deeply, depression may ensue...
Rick (merely a human)
Hey, you pays your money and you take your chances. Even with stuff that can be measured, no? Besides, all the items you're so suspicious of come with a 30 day guarantee. So, where's the beef?
I should probably also point out that of my eleven or so products about half are fairly straightforward physics based... so again, where's beef?
Edits: 07/22/10
"Hey, you pays your money and you take your chances. Even with stuff that can be measured, no?"
Absolutely! That's what it comes down to in the final analysis. However, some of us, yours truly for instance, have a bend to not buy things based solely upon arm-waving. If only the rest of the electorate had that bend... Anyway it may not be logically defensible in this arena, but there you are.
If I think something is unlikely but am curious my approach is to try and cobble something up and see it has an effect. Sooner or later I'll probably buy a 'doubter's kit' or whatever it's called from May and play with it. Geoff, I'm not saying I'm sane, how would I know? But we all have our turns. I didn't think interconnect cables were important but eventually I tried some experiments and discovered that I was wrong. That's life!
Rick
If anyone has put more into attempting to explain difficult to explain tweaks than PWB or me I don't know who it is.
Geez, you don't expect me to hold my breath waiting for you to get a doubter kit, do you? :-)
Anyone put more into explaining the tweaks?
Don't make me laugh. Seems your fundamental approach is financial and thus advancement on an objective level is being foiled by your "attempts".
Stu
Apparently you haven't read the explanations of mine or the Belts. If you had, most likely you wouldn't be quite so high on your RFI theory.
Edits: 07/22/10
I've read your stuff. Highly misleading and it doesn't make any sense nor does it lend itself to any known principles of science. But in a world full of ether or something similar, it may have some application. But it doesn't hold sense in the world I live in.
Still you still avoid the issue. What have you tried to duplicate the foil? You're very good at coming back with misleading posts and comments, but really nothing verifiable by any other human, it seems. Mumbo jumbo does not constitute science, in my thinking, nor does it further the advancement of audio, because you leave nothing for serious experimentation.
But that's all I ever expected from you any way. Lots of self aggrandizement, and very little substance.
Stu
"I've read your stuff. Highly misleading and it doesn't make any sense nor does it lend itself to any known principles of science."
Since I'm the scientist and you're the non-scientist - steel worker, isn't it? - I'll be the judge of whether my "stuff" lends itself to known principles of science. You can be the guy that just pretends to know all the principles of science.
"But in a world full of ether or something similar, it may have some application. But it doesn't hold sense in the world I live in."
I am still trying to figure out what world you live in -- it appears to be the same one The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight lives in.
"Still you still avoid the issue. What have you tried to duplicate the foil? You're very good at coming back with misleading posts and comments, but really nothing verifiable by any other human, it seems. Mumbo jumbo does not constitute science, in my thinking, nor does it further the advancement of audio, because you leave nothing for serious experimentation."
I already explained, as did May, that the rainbow foils are extensively treated. I also already stated that many other PWB foils are assembled by PWB. I've already given you the answers and you either ignore them or dispute them. Your continued demand for answers is just plain silly.
"But that's all I ever expected from you any way. Lots of self aggrandizement, and very little substance."
You get an A for Name-calling, F for Science and F for Experimentation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see a list the replicable treatments you have tried. Your seemingly ignorance of the scientific method is rather appalling and while I do not even claim to be a scientist, I believe my methodology lends itself more towards the "scientific" method than your useless prattle, which do absolutely nothing to illuminate the methodology and the procedures you have "attempted" to duplicate.That May does not make the foil is evidently clear. That she treats them is another subject. Unless May is either a God or a witch with supernatural powers, then her method of treatment should be replicable by any other mortal on the planet. However, you seem to be of the persuasion that her treatment is not replicable by another mortal. Maybe it is very directly applicable to your experience. It is vary difficult to ascertain because you have not and apparently will not define your past actions. You claim to have already written about it but you never answer a post with any clear and definite facts. Is it too much to ask for a restatement of your supposed facts and experimentation...
If you are the "scientist", I pity the school that gave you that degree.
Stu
PS. The mark of a true scientist would have been to ask how I treated mz foil. That way you could have replicated my experimentation. The fact that that simple question never ever entered your mind shows the depth of your supposedly scientific training.
And incidentally while I was a steel worker, and damn proud of the work I did, I also finished all my pre med courses with the exception of organic Chemistry. I took three semesters of calculus, I was only 8 credits short of getting a second degree in sociology, my degree was in Asian history. I graduated with 15 credits in applied music, too. I switched majors many times.
Edits: 07/28/10
You obviously have't examined the other PWB foils, aside from the rainbow foil; there are at least ten different ones, of various complexities. If you had, you would have observed they are specially fabricated and assembled by PWB. Even if you possessed a real PWB foil you'd be unable to fully replicate it because you don't know the technology, the "formula" as it were, they employ. You would only be guessing.By the same token, you can attempt to replicate the PWB Red X Pen, but your knock-off pen will not be nearly as powerful as the real PWB pen. That's because you don't have access to all the steps PWB employs to make the Red X Pen. You would only be guessing.
Edits: 07/22/10 07/22/10
and blatantly so.
When you say:"Been there and done that" You have not elaborated upon what you have actually tried ( and obviously failed to accomplish). Bearing in mind that failures are also part and parcel of the "scientific" method, failures are just as important as successes. However you fail to elaborate, except to make vague statements, which essentially tell the reading public absolutely nothing.
You obviously have not visited your local silk screening supply house which has diffraction foil in all types of configurations ( used for screening decals, and such). Again, I do not believe the Belts make their own foil, they treat the foil by their very own admission. If a man ( and a woman ) can treat the foil to have certain properties, what precludes another human from replicating the process.
Unless May and Peter are proved to have superhuman or super natural powers, I would simply conclude that their process can be replicated by another human. But then, perhaps, you are saying that they are not human.
YMMV
Stu
[quote] If a man ( and a woman ) can treat the foil to have certain properties, what precludes another human from replicating the process. [/quote]
Nothing precludes another human from replicating the process, the question is "WHAT process would someone want to replicate and for what purpose would they want to replicate it to do ?"
Of course there are many versions available of the basic prismatic foil, whoever is disputing that fact, unclestu ? Knowing that such is available from most silk screen suppliers is quite common information. Why would you want to just state a truism, unclestu ? Clear polyester film is also generally available - which is another material we use !!! And 'treat' !!!! It is like you stating that you know what Red Pen we use and that they are available from stationers !! Of course you know and of course they are available. We actually TELL people what Pen it is we use !! The secret is in knowing WHY you want to use it and WHAT you want it to do and HOW you are going to 'treat' it to do what you want it to do much better !!!!
I would ask you, unclestu, what process of treating the Foil, (which you think we might be applying), would YOU want to replicate and WHY would YOU want to replicate it. WHAT would YOU wish to achieve after doing so ? Dissipation of RF energy ?"
If you REALLY knew what process we were applying to the Foil and for what purpose we were doing so, then you would not continue to claim that our 'treated' Foil was for the purpose of 'dissipation of RF energy'. As I have already said, we can just as equally use 'treated' Clear Film and just as equally use 'treated' Cream to achieve similar results !!! And it has nothing to do with 'dissipation of RF energy' !!
Some of our 'treatments' work best with the 'squared' (arranged) prismatic Foil and other of our 'treatments' work best with the random (scattered) rainbow Foil. If you are so 'with' our 'treatments', and can replicate them (as you seem to claim), then you would know WHY, wouldn't you ??
[quote] simply conclude that their process can be replicated by another human. [/quote]
Simply concluding that any process we do can be replicated by another human being does not take any discussion any further forward !!! It is WHY anyone would wish to replicate it that is the most interesting question ? WHAT would they be wanting to achieve after they have replicated the process ? They would need to know what they are wanting to achieve before they would know what process to apply !!!!!
Geoff's sentence "When attempting to replicate something, wouldn't it be rather important to first understand how the thing works?"
Could not be more apt !!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
But please explain to Geoff that treatments are made by mortals and can be replicated by other mortals. Geoff's failure merely applies to himself.
Stu
[quote] "But please explain to Geoff that treatments are made by mortals and can be replicated by other mortals. Geoff's failure merely applies to himself. " [/quote]
I repeat again, unclestu, "WHAT process which we carry out on our devices would someone want to replicate and for what purpose would they want to replicate it to do ?"
I know that Geoff can replicate SOME of our treatments because we have told him some of the techniques. But, unclestu, the important thing is that he knows WHY he wants to do such.
Unless you know WHAT our treatments want to achieve, then how could anyone know what treatments to carry out on the basic materials which are generally available ?.
Take one of your latest comments.
You described one of your investigations on another 'thread' (Tweaks section).
[quote] "Cut apart a Shun Mook disc and you will find a small faceted crystal. I had the disc X rayed prior to cutting apart in order to determine that there was something within the disc. You can purchase m'pingo wood from Gilmor Woods up in Portland, IIRC. That way, you can investigate the role of the wood itself." [/quote]
And Alan Kafton asked you ""Was that "within" the directional portion of the disk? I seem to remember a small "dot" of wood at the surface that indicated such direction."
I would ask YOU "Is taking something like the Shun Mook disc apart to see what it is made of what you regard as 'investigating how something works in order to replicate it' ???
If YOU wanted to then replicate the Shun Mook device, for WHAT purpose would you want to replicate it ? WHAT would you want it to do, HOW would YOU apply such as the directionality and WHY would you want to apply directionality in the first place ?
And, if YOU have investigated the m'pingo wood itself, what conclusion did you come to as to why it might be effective ? And, even more interesting, did you find out if there might be something even MORE effective than m'pingo wood !!!!!!!!!!!!
ANYONE can try to replicate what our devices LOOK like - that is not the point. For example. You can try to replicate what our Red 'x' Pen looks like - especially when you can actually buy the same Staedtler Pen from a stationers, but if you don't know WHAT you would want the Red Pen to do and WHY you would want it to do something is the crucial point !!
I am in no doubt that you, unclestu, have done numerous investigations but, if at the end of all the investigations you have done, you can still fit all the results you have obtained within the conventional 'something having an effect on the signal' or 'something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room' explanations then, in my opinion, your investigations have not yet been thorough enough. !! HOWEVER many you might have carried out !! Our investigations have shown that quite a lot of what people are experiencing regarding sound and changes in the sound cannot be fitted into conventional electronic or acoustic theories
[quote] "Bearing in mind that failures are also part and parcel of the "scientific" method, failures are just as important as successes." [/quote]
Couldn't be more true !!! Sometimes the Failures are what give scientists important clues !!
However, unclestu,
(1) things you tried and expected would improve the sound but, instead, got worse.
(2) things you tried and did not expect any changes to occur but either got improvements in the sound or the sound got worse
(3) things you tried and expected the sound to be worse but, instead, the sound was better.
SHOULD have given you enough clues that ALL changes in the sound cannot fit neatly into the conventional 'something having an effect on the signal' or 'something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room' !!!!
Your [quote] "In examining the insides of most audio components, there is very little that is truly custom made. Most components use off the shelf components that can be relatively easily replicated. I find it more interesting to find out why certain components make the kind of difference that is attributed to them ( caps, resisters, wires, etc). - [/quote]
So, unclestu, WHY do some caps, resistors, wires etc make the kind of differences attributed to them ? You KNOW why (such as) different capacitors made from different materials (tantalum beads., polystyrene, mylar film, polypropolene, metal film, ceramic, polyester film,) all sound different, do you ?? You KNOW why different wires sound different, do you ?? And, does EVERY experience of yours fit neatly into the conventional 'something having an effect on the signal' or 'something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations in the room' ??
You know what to do when such as a capacitor which has the best specification and the best measurements but sounds the worst, do you ? You KNOW how to 'treat' it so that it WILL eventually sound the best, do you ? You KNOW how to 'treat' a lesser sounding component so that it sounds better than an 'untreated' but better specification component, do you ? And, I am even talking here about components which might NOT be in the signal line !!!!
[quote] "Unless May and Peter are proved to have superhuman or super natural powers, I would simply conclude that their process can be replicated by another human. But then, perhaps, you are saying that they are not human." [/quote]
By that quote, unclestu, you are obviously trying to imply that YOU (or anyone else) can replicate the processes Peter and I use. We ARE human, obviously, and nothing we do is supernatural - only UNUSUAL - as procedures when viewed in relation to conventional audio and sound - but unless YOU (or anyone else) knows and understands WHAT process to use and for WHAT purpose one would want to use it, then I don't believe that you are, or can, replicate our processes !!! Our 'treatments' have been developed by us, are unique to us and are secret and are so unusual that I doubt that anyone can replicate them ALL !! Bearing in mind our more expensive Foils can have 100 different 'treatments' !! You still claim YOU can replicate all those, do you ?
I would not be at all surprised that you could have heard an 'effect' by using the standard prismatic foil. The colours of the material alone would have given you an 'effect'. It is knowing how to 'treat' it further and for what purpose and for what effect you want to 'treat' it to have which is the important thing !! Nor would I be surprised if you had discovered a technique of your own which might give you results similar to results obtained from our devices - as the saying goes "There are many ways to skin a cat" but to claim that you can REPLICATE the 'treatments' we ourselves apply, without us telling you how, NO way unclestu !!
So, in answer to your request "But please explain to Geoff that treatments are made by mortals and can be replicated by other mortals."
Geoff understands WHY certain specific 'treatments' are required !!! Do you ???????????
And Geoff knows how to carry out some of our 'treatments' but I certainly have not told you, and neither has Peter. Other mortals could carry out our 'treatments' (as you put it) but only if Peter and I tell them HOW to first - and we certainly have not told YOU how to.
So, unclestu, WE are the only people who KNOW what 'treatments' we apply to our devices so, implying that you know WHAT treatments we do, cannot be correct !!!!!!!!!!
To illustrate how ludicrous is the argument you are having with Geoff.
You seem to be claiming (and claiming regularly) that because you can buy the basic prismatic Foil and because you are mortal and a human being, that you can guess/work out what treatments to apply to the basic Foil material to replicate what we do !!
Hypothetically, what you are claiming is that if we (at PWB) apply 15 different 'treatments' that YOU can replicate those 15 different 'treatments' - and, even better - that if the 10th 'treatment' we do is something as unusual as heating the basic Foil material in Rape seed oil for 20 minutes - that YOU would have known (guessed /worked out) THAT as well !!!
You can't replicate our 'treatments' unless we tell you how to. That you could create some similar effect as some of our devices - that I would not doubt. If the effect is there to be found, then it is there to be found, by mere mortals and human beings !!! - that bit you are right about !! But other knowledge such as knowing what 'treatments' to do to make the Foil work just as effectively 'outside' the room - then that is something different !!
Regards,
May Belt.
So you are saying no one else can duplicate your treatment unless you or Peter tell them....
Interesting, since that basically says that you believe everyone else on the planet is inferior to the intellect you seem to possess.
Stu
[quote] So you are saying no one else can duplicate your treatment unless you or Peter tell them.... [/quote]
The EXACT treatments, yes.
However, that does not prevent anyone else discovering different techniques which could have somewhat SIMILAR effects (on the sound) - as is evidenced by other people having and using many DIFFERENT techniques but gaining similar improvements in the sound !!!
As we have said for some 30 years now. There is 'something going on', in the environment, which is having an adverse effect on ???????????? What ?? On us ?????????? Which then affects the way we (human beings) resolve the (sound) information we are receiving via the audio equipment !!
That others can discover a technique (for themselves) which can reduce that 'adverse effect', then, again as I have been saying for the same 30 years, "If a problem - and then some form of resolution - (an effect) is there to be discovered, then it is THERE - waiting in the wings - to be discovered by anyone !!"
We (Peter and I) are NOT unique in discovering it (the EFFECT first and then realising what the problem was in the first place) - just much earlier in doing so than others.
You have used the singular word 'treatment' to describe what we do to the many and different basic materials which are available and which we make use of.
The plural word 'treatments' should be the correct word. Our 'treatments' are multiple 'treatments', complicated 'treatments', diverse 'treatments' so, yes, without we describe ALL those multiple, complicated, diverse 'treatments' to someone, then they could not replicate EXACTLY what we do !!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote] Interesting, since that basically says that you believe everyone else on the planet is inferior to the intellect you seem to possess. [/quote]
No, what I describe does NOT SAY (or imply) that !!! Don't put words or thoughts into my mouth which are not there !! We (Peter and I) have never failed to acknowledge that we would NOT be at the stage of intellect and understanding where we are at now without standing on the shoulders of others - but others in their own particular and different field of the sciences !!!!!!!!!!!! Because we would just not have understood the implications of what we had been discovering over these past 30 years without the results of other people's investigations. Instead of trying to imply we are arrogant, it is more that we acknowledge, with humility, other's work - which, in turn, has led to OUR greater understanding !! That we may be further along that path with regard to matters audio, then that surely is life coupled with experience, but only further along the narrow (audio) path - not the path of the entire sciences - which is what you seem to want to imply with your remark !!
What we have discovered is there to be discovered, by anyone who is prepared to remove the blinkers. Trying to fit everything which changes the sound and music into the conventional 'it must be having an effect on the audio signal, or it must be having an effect on the room's acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations' is far too limiting, as others in audio are now finding !!
Regards,
May Belt.
because you have long maintained that the treatments and tweaks affect the listener more than the the gear. That certainly may be true, but therein lies a major conundrum.
One major issue is the variability of human sensitivity. Levitin states the cochlear sensitivity can be as little a 4 nM and that time differences of 10 uS are discernible. Obviously since there are deaf individuals, the range goes from zero to such numbers so that there is a wide range.
Are you stating that every individual has sufficient sensitivity, and if not, then what exactly is that sensitivity comprised of?
When Geoff states that a piece of rainbow foil in page 150 of a book in another room has can effect, then I would suspect that the foil does not obey the inverse square law, so that someone with a larger strip then should have an effect on his neighbor's sound system, and that your home or warehouse should have quite an effect on at least the entire block encircling your facility.
It brings to mind the theories of phlogiston and ether a century or two earlier. Interesting but of no discernible means of investigation ( I take that back, as Michaelson-Morley disproved the ether theory).
Again, my quarrel is essentially with Geoff, has never tendered workable and truly workable explanations. For example his explanation of brilliant pebbles was that it was tuned to 320 Hz. Why 320 Hz? Why not use a tuning fork? Why use a bunch of colored rocks in a plastic or glass jar?
In terms of advancing audio, it does little to advance the field.
Stu
[quote] "because you have long maintained that the treatments and tweaks affect the listener more than the the gear. That certainly may be true, but therein lies a major conundrum.
One major issue is the variability of human sensitivity. Levitin states the cochlear sensitivity can be as little a 4 nM and that time differences of 10 uS are discernible. Obviously since there are deaf individuals, the range goes from zero to such numbers so that there is a wide range." [/quote]
A major conundrum may exist BETWEEN different people with a varied and wide range of hearing abilities but not necessarily with the SAME person, regularly, day in, day out !! Such wide variability of sensitivity you refer to does not usually vary that much with ONE person - and certainly not on a daily basis. So, I think one could sensibly presume that any ONE person does not go from the extremes you list (4 nM to 10 uS) on a regular basis - so I think we can accept that if a particular person says that they have heard differences (better or worse) in their sound, then they have HEARD those differences i.e that the differences ACTUALLY took place in the sound and not on their cochlea and not because one day their sensitivity was SO different to what their sensitivity had been the day before !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[quote] "When Geoff states that a piece of rainbow foil in page 150 of a book in another room has can effect," [/quote]
Geoff is correct. But Geoff (I presume) is talking about one person's reaction to what is going on in their own environment - and it is their OWN environment which people are concerned about (sensitive to) and react to !! Nothing to do with :-
[quote] "then I would suspect that the foil does not obey the inverse square law, so that someone with a larger strip then should have an effect on his neighbor's sound system, and that your home or warehouse should have quite an effect on at least the entire block encircling your facility." [/quote]
You are STILL trying to fit things you are not understanding into the conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
Our discoveries and our descriptions of our discoveries have been going on for the past 30 years. Many of our customers have been with us each tortuous step by each tortuous step and have therefore been able to follow (to some small amount) our experiments and subsequent reasoning as to why certain things are happening with sound.
I have always described it as 'venturing along a set of stepping stones', one by one. You don't have to abandon your past, you don't have to abandon what you have already learnt and you can easily retrace your steps back to where you started from but at least, if you are prepared to venture out, you can learn much more in your travels.
It would nearly take me the next 30 years to DESCRIBE the past 30 years and WHY and HOW we have reached the conclusions we are reaching (work is still ongoing) but a lot of it has already BEEN explained, you have obviously not been taking particular notice, unclestu !!! I say 'obviously' because if you HAD been taking more notice, you would be as aware as Geoff (and many others) are of our work and discoveries !!
In response to some questions put to me on the Stereophile Forum I have just recently made another attempt at explaining a general concept. On the Stereophile Forum there is a 'thread' entitled "Controversial discussions" within the "Tweaks'n'Tips" section. It is a long thread but within it I have made various attempts to start explaining again where our thinking is at and why and how we have reached this point in our 'extensive years in audio'.
Basically one has to view the whole thing as the full AUDIO system. I.e.
The musical information of Dvorak's New World is on the disc, the musical information of Dvorak's New World travels through the audio equipment and the wiring and, yes, is vulnerable to being affected during those travels. The musical information Dvorak's New World is presented into the room, via the loudspeakers and travels across the room to the ear drum as acoustic musical information Dvorak's New World and here also it is vulnerable to being affected. The musical information Dvorak's New World is then handled by the hearing mechanism until it reaches the start of the auditory nerve - past the chochlea !!!.
It is STILL musical information Dvorak's New World !!! As it is conveyed along the auditory nerve (similar to being conveyed along an audio cable but by electro-chemicals rather than an electrical signal) it is just as vulnerable to being affected !!! It is the musical information which eventually reaches the working memory - for the working memory to resolve and present a 'sound picture' to the brain which is the ACTUAL "sound" - NOT what might have originally been on the disc !!!! It is what musical information reaches the working memory - at the end of it's travels - which is the actual 'sound' !! You might get most of the original information which was on the disc reaching the working memory, on the other hand you might have lost (or changed) 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% - who knows. You only KNOW when you do something, in the room, which allows you to resolve far more information than you had heard previously !!! By doing something which cannot possibly have affected the audio signal, cannot possibly have affected the acoustic information but has yet changed the sound !!!
In exactly the same way that the musical information Dvorak's New World can be affected as it goes through the audio system - by such as capacitance, inductance, resistance, the dielectric effect, RF interference (to name but a few), then the information reaching the ear drum will be different to the information orginally on the disc. Yes, enough information will get through for the working memory to still identify the musical information as Dvorak's New World but with some of the information either missing or altered !!!!!!!
So, Yes. Unclestu. The musical inforrmation Dvorak's New World CAN be affected and changed whilst travelling through the audio system. Yes, the acoustic musical information Dvorak's New World in the room CAN be affected and changed as it travels across the room. Yes, an individual's own hearing mechanism (chochlea etc) comes into the picture also but the point I am trying to make is that there is still the auditory nerve STILL as part of the WHOLE audio system, no different to the actual audio wiring being part of the audio system!!
If a problem - an effect on the audio musical information Dvorak's New World - IS at the auditory nerve, then the actual audio equipment, the actual acoustics of the room, the hearing mechanism has all been left behind - the musical information is already past them - so they no longer come into the picture !!!!!!!!! Or into the argument, or into the discussion.
You then have to start asking " What can be affecting this musical information as it travels along the auditory nerve ?" Other stress chemicals affecting the actual electro-chemicals carrying the musical information ??? Stress chemicals caused by what ????? By all that is going on in the modern environment ????
THIS is where we (Peter and I) started OUR 'stepping stone' journey 30 years ago. When we experienced changes in the sound we could not explain from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories. When various 'clues' presented themselves as possible explanations. But, unclestu, to recognise them as various 'clues' one has to stop looking for solutions and for ALL the answers SOLELY from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!!
Many have argued (in relation to the concept that it is the human being who is changing the 'sound') that, in that case, it must be emotional or psychological changes causing the tension within the person, such as happiness or sadness and NOTHING to do with any actual PHYSICAL changes taking place in the environment, outside the human being.
Whereas I would argue that there ARE physical changes, outside the human being, which can then be the cause of the tension and the resulting 'stress chemicals'.
And that these 'outside physical changes' CAN be influenced, physically, which in turn can reduce adverse things in the environment, which had been causing the tension in the first place.
Nothing to do with Enophile's conclusions "There must be a defect, within the particular human being, which NEEDS the remedial action of a tweak i.e as as a "prop", as a "potion", as an "elixir", as a ritual" in order to correct that defect". And, before I get the usual retort "There is nothing to be ashamed of if someone requires a remedial action" from Enophile. No one is debating that one should or should not be ashamed, what I try to emphasise, each time I challenge Enophile's use of that term 'remedial', is that whilstever people (him in this case) think in terms of 'remedial', 'defect', they are actually then blinkered against other concepts. In exactly the same way that you, unclestu, are blinkered against other concepts if ALL you can consider, re changes in the sound, is that the changes are caused by changes to the audio signal or changes to the acoustic air pressure waves and vibrations.
To explain the effect of books, of words (which are all just examples of MODERN communication) and don't forget, communication in one form or another has been around millions and millions of years throughout evolution, (words and their meaning are just the lastest, more sophisticated version of 'communication') I would have to go through EACH step, show EACH clue which took us in a particular direction. Many people have already been along that path with us - some from the beginning, some such as Geoff for quite a lot of that time !!
Your mockery of Sheldrake and Sheldrake's concept of 'linkage' by morphic resonance shows more a fear of being challenged than any desire to venture along 'any stepping stones'.
Regards,
May Belt,
Stu, apparently you haven't glommed onto the Belt theory yet. The foils and most if not all of the other Belt items do not obey the inverse square law. And why should they? They aren't operating according to the standard theories of acoustic resonance, electromagnetic absorption, absorption of photons or any of the other usual explanations associated with audio tweaks. Can I suggest hitting the books to avoid getting wrapped around the axle every time this discussion of the foils or clocks comes up?
A 315 Hz signal - in conjuction with a SPL meter - is suggested for determining the proper location of some of my Brilliant Pebbles devices (the larger sizes). The 315 Hz is suggested because it is effective for finding peak sound pressure levels in the room (that one would rather eliminate or attenuate) and because it's readily available. The crystals (I use up to 10 different crystal types in each device) respond to other frequencies as well, obviously. The 315 Hz is a suggestion, finding the locations for the crystals can be done by ear, but that method is less reliable.
Earlier you claimed the jar was tuned to 320 Hz, so apparently it is apparent you are not quite certain of the operating mechanism yourself. You had not mentioned using a 320 Hz test tone and an SPL meter before either.
As a scientist you have provided precious little to work on, making any outside verification quite difficult if not impossible,
The websites of Sheldrake seem to be down, and the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories. Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas. If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven.
Now since you claim to be a scientist and I am apparently an ignorant steel worker, where is your proof. If you claim that morphic resonances are the causality and since Sheldrake says such resonances are an inherent part of every being, animal and part of the natural world, then obviously you have found a way to channel such resonances. As such, the channeling of morphic resonances ought to earn you the Nobel prize.
I suspect that all your verbosity is merely hot air, however. However, being the scientist you claim to be, I find it difficult to find in your statement, that you are using different theories or, at least applications, in order to achieve an effect. When examining certain tweaks, I always reduce to the simplest factors in order to assess them individually. Mixing variables is definitely not a good means for any real science.
But then, All hail Geoff the world re known scientist.
Stu
Earlier you claimed the jar was tuned to 320 Hz, so apparently it is apparent you are not quite certain of the operating mechanism yourself. You had not mentioned using a 320 Hz test tone and an SPL meter before either.> > > > > > > > On the contrary, I have always stated 315 Hz test tone + SPL meter in my paper on the crystals, published on my web site 7 years ago, states this quite clearly. If you think I've stated this incorrectly somewhere, prove it!
As a scientist you have provided precious little to work on, making any outside verification quite difficult if not impossible.
> > > > > > > Again, you seem to ignore that I've provided a complete theory of operation as well as the method for finding the locations for Brilliant Pebbles - or similar resonators - using a 315 Hz test tone and SPL meter. It's not my fault if you don't do due diligence. Anyone can easily verify the effectiveness of both the SPL meter + 315 Hz test tone method as well as the effects of the crystals - heck you can even measure them! So, you're quite incorrect about your assumptions.
The websites of Sheldrake seem to be down, and the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories.
> > > > > > > And who are these people in the general scientific community you refer to - overly suspicious skeptics like yourself? If his theories were not discounted by a lot of scientists they wouldn't be controversial, now would they? Do you think ALL scientists agree with ALL theories? Ha Ha Ha
Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas.
> > > > > No, actually a theory doesn't require proof, that's why it's a theory. People can disagree about a given theory and there can be different theories for a given phenomenon. I'm pretty sure you didn't get the memo regarding the $10, 000 prize awarded to the person who proved that the theory of morphic resonance works. Another case of insufficient due diligence on your part.
If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven.
> > > > > You had success with the foils, right? And with the clock, right? You did not attempt to measure the effects, right.? So, why the hang up on meaurements? Have you ever tried to measure the effects of greening the CD or green CD mats or demagnetizing discs or even new interconnects? I thought not.
Now since you claim to be a scientist and I am apparently an ignorant steel worker, where is your proof?> > > > > > The proof of the pudding is in the eating, silly. If you can hear it, it must be working. As I said, theories do not require proof. Methinks you're getting hung up on having to prove the operating mechanism of a device before you will accept that it works.
If you claim that morphic resonances are the causality and since Sheldrake says such resonances are an inherent part of every being, animal and part of the natural world, then obviously you have found a way to channel such resonances. As such, the channeling of morphic resonances ought to earn you the Nobel prize.
> > > > > I'm not sure the foils, the clock, the Red X Pen and the teleportation tweak are worthy of a Nobel prize, but who am I to argue? LOL Are you trying to say that an audio tweak must win a Nobel prize before it is accepted by the audiophile community, or just the "general scientific community?" LOL The general science community has successfully accomplished quantum teleportation for a distance of 3 feet (2 years ago). I have successfully accomplished it for a distance of 10, 000 miles. I think I deserve at least a handshake. LOL
I suspect that all your verbosity is merely hot air, however.
However, being the scientist you claim to be, I find it difficult to find in your statement, that you are using different theories or, at least applications, in order to achieve an effect. When examining certain tweaks, I always reduce to the simplest factors in order to assess them individually. Mixing variables is definitely not a good means for any real science.> > > > > > > I'm afraid you win the Verbosity prize.
Edits: 08/05/10 08/05/10
conclusions shows your great scientific nature, Oh Great Scientist.
As a matter of fact, using my Genrad SPL meter I can measure the difference in peak dynamics by using a green CD mat. With my Lakeshore meter I can measure the effects of degaussing a CD or LP, for that matter.
Your claiming of what would be termed "voodoo" science, probably works well for sales to the gullible. Its like the Shun Mook people. One guy was an MD, one a engineer, and one a machinist. I gave them some ideas which culminated in some new applications for their products, and they in teurn admitted that the use of mysticism was simply easier to market their products to a certain niche.
Ben Piazza of Shakti is similar. He has a white paper with measurements, but that is not what sells his product....but he is willing to admit it and I respect him for it.
Stu
Not sure where you get your "information," but the Shun Mook folks clearly state their products work according to sympathetic vibration. If you have any evidence that Shun Mook encourages a "mysticism" explanation I suggest you provide such evidence. Perhaps you mean they cannot stop whatever a person wishes to believe. That is a different story. LOLObviously, many naysayers and so-called skeptics use the terms mysticism, psychological effects or ritualism to explain why controversial tweaks are heard by audiophiles. What else can they do? LOL
"You can't kill kill." - Charles Manson
Edits: 08/12/10
"Can I suggest hitting the books to avoid getting wrapped around the axle every time this discussion of the foils or clocks comes up?"
What books oh sahib?
Other than Sheldrake of course. Tried him, nobody home...
Rick
Good question. If you haven't had success with Presence of the Past, though I can't fathom why not as it is ultra-revealing, try browsing Belt web site, esp. the essay What's Wrong with Reality or somesuch title. Unfortunatley, it is my chore to inform you I kind of doubt you will find the quick and easy to understand explanations you seek. Like they say in France, if you haven;t found it already you're probably not going to find it anytime soon. Heh, heh. You might find solice in Time's Arrow by Huw Price or perhaps Time Warps and Black Holes by Kip Thorne or even The Making of the Atomic Bomb, though not on topic. Or just google Sheldrake interview, he explains things pretty well. The problem is even if you buy into Sheldrake it doesn;t necessarily insure success in buying inot the Belt concpets, since Sheldrake doesn't know from audio or audiophiles.
"What's Wrong with Reality"
Found it, thanks. I'd glanced at it before, now I've read it.
Rick
Multiple choice
1. The article on the PWB Electronics web site didn't make sense.
2. While it was interesting, I don't see what any of that has to do with physics.
3. While it was interesting, I don't see what any of that has to do with home audio reproduction.
4. The article did not make it clear what morphic resonance has to do with home audio reproduction.
5. All of the above.
Guess you've got my number...
R.
I see. Is ether and phlogiston just around the corner, too? I do not dispute that that there are influences on the human body, but Robert Becker, Candace Pert, and the work of many other molecular biologists suggest other influences. But somehow, I believe you have yet to assimilate their research, or perhaps their morphic resonance have yet to reach you.
Stu
Stu
I see. Is ether and phlogiston just around the corner, too? I do not dispute that that there are influences on the human body, but Robert Becker, Candace Pert, and the work of many other molecular biologists suggest other influences. But somehow, I believe you have yet to assimilate their research, or perhaps their morphic resonance have yet to reach you.
> > > > Of course there is more than one theory of biology! Nothing wrong with that.Anyway, the morphic resonance theory has more to do with the brain, learning and perception than it does with the body or biology per se, so it's a bit of a strawman argument to focus on molecular biology theory. *Mind-matter interaction* is probably a more appropriate terminology for morphic resonance, as opposed to strictly *biological influences* -- mind-matter interaction defined as the interaction of the mind with inanimate objects, chemical and materials -- even when they are not in plain view! Not to mention the mind's interaction with magnetic fields, electric fields, colors, shapes and images - even when they aren't in view.
Edits: 08/05/10 08/05/10
[quote] "I do not dispute that that there are influences on the human body, but Robert Becker, Candace Pert, and the work of many other molecular biologists suggest other influences." [/quote]
Of course Robert Becker (his book "The Body Electric") is correct. Of course there will be 'electrical' influences both on the body from outside and inside the body itself. No one is disputing that !!!!!!!
But as well as Sheldrake, other scientists are also having to 'go down the thought path' of 'linkage' !!!
Bohm's Book "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process.
From the Cambridge physiologist Horace Barlow:-
[quote] "a type of computer model, programmed by past experience and continuously updated by new sense data from millisecond to millisecond, are running inside the skull of every swimming fish, every galloping horse, every echo-ranging bat." [/quote]
[quote] "The websites of Sheldrake seem to be down, and the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories. Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas. If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
THAT is some statement of yours, unclestu - that "the general scientific community has largely discounted his theories. Now as a theory, it means there insufficient proof of the workings of his ideas." You KNOW this how ???? I thought that 'as a theory' it is still being considered and efforts are continually going on to find repeatable evidence of such !! From what I know of science, theories are picked up, considered, put down, put on a shelf (NOT discarded or discounted) picked up again when something new happens, put down again until someone else finds something to ressurect the theory again - and so on 'creeps the petty pace from day to day' (Shakespeare not me) !!!!!!!!
[quote] "If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
Those OTHER causalities (which you are inclined to believe and which you say can be measured) I would definitely be interested in knowing of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as I am aware, much of the 'thinking' is STILL in the air. Because the Genes and DNA code for PROTEINS, the scientists are stuck on the subject of "What governs behaviour and communications ?" A common, universal memory to be 'tapped into' ?? Rather like the worldwide radio broadcasts being 'out there' i.e not IN each radio but available to be 'tapped into' if required !!! Providing the necessary circuitry is in place within the radio !!
They (the scientists) are even debating as to where memory actually resides !!! Within the brain or outside the brain ?? Again, these OTHER causalities (which can be measured) which you refer to I would be very interested to know about !!!!!!!!!!
If such knowledge IS already in place, (as you are suggesting) then just WHY are so many STILL searching ??????????????
Regards,
May Belt.
is that it lends itself to changes as proof arrives or is created.
That being said, the ability to channel Morphic resonances, means that the person doing the channeling has more than just an understanding, but a means to manipulate that morphic resonance. Now the ability to manipulate means that more than a theory has been arrived at, particularly since Sheldrake claims that it is inherent in every part and parcel on the planet, if not the universe.
If you and Geoff have the means to manipulate morphic resonance, to the exclusion of any other possible causalities, that goes far beyond what Sheldrake has claimed so far.
Your position is that you have achieved the manipulation of the resonance. Others have not achieved such manipulation, at least not without excluding possibly other effects. You and Geoff are claiming that the causalities I have claimed creating such influences are wrong and impossible to exist. But yet there is no other explanation other than an unproven theory which both of you forward.
Again, my point to the great scientist that Geoff claims himself to be, is that where is the proof? For the diarrhea of words he writes about this he presents no proof that morphic resonances exist to the exclusion of any other possible variable. He patently ignores his writings on this forum, often amending statements already written in order to make it seem like he had stated something prior.
Some scientist.
I do not dispute that certain sonic effects do exist from certain tweaks. I certainly do not claim anything supernatural as being the cause, however, and I have done experimentation in placement and application which are consonant with the more mundane explanation.
If the mundane explanation takes away the mystery of audio, so be it. But then I have nothing to really sell ( although, unlike Geoff, a product I made actually made the Stereophile's recommended components list in Feb 1991, along with a review).
Stu
[quote] "The beauty of science is that it lends itself to changes as proof arrives or is created. [/quote]
The beauty of science (of Nature) is that it can exist for a long, long time before ANY proof arrives but a subject can be EXPLORED and EXPLORED long before any proof can be created !!!!!!!!!!
Such as - The beneficial effect of certain plants was known about and used - without any scientific knowledge or PROOF - for thousands and thousands of years !! Nature had developed certain techniques - LONG before science (and scientists) ever came along !!
[quote] "particularly since Sheldrake claims that it is inherent in every part and parcel on the planet, if not the universe." [/quote]
NOT only Sheldrake !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your quote. Unclestu !!!! [quote] "Yawn... back to morphic resonance," [/quote]
Your BOREDOM with the subject of 'morphic resonance' illustrates your outlook regarding science in general.
Thank goodness others are not so easily bored !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I quote from Sheldrake's own book :-
[quote] The unsolved problems of biology summarized were unsolved in 1981, and they are still unsolved today. The questions discussed this book remain completely open. The debate continues. [/quote]
Quote from David Bohm (the eminent Quantum Physicist) during a conversation between David Bohm and Sheldrake:-
[quote] "One of the early interpretations of the quantum theory I developed was in terms of a particle moving in a field - the quantum potential . Now the quantum potential had many of the properties ascribed to morphogenetic fields and chreodes, that is, it guided the particle in some way. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of it's intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not it's amplitude or it's magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn't, within it's limits, depend on how strong the radiowave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons........ So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles........ So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field." [/quote]
So, unclestu, words such as "morphogenetic fields"., "formative fields"., "the wholeness of a system"., "this effect does not follow an inverse square law" used by an eminent scientist !!!.
Things you do not seem to be interested in with your "YAWN" !!!!!
More from David Bohm on his vision of a world of "unbroken wholeness":-
[quote] "The universe was a vast dynamic cobweb of energy exchange, with a basic substructure containing all possible versions of all possible forms of matter. Nature was not blind and mechanistic, but open-ended, intelligent and purposeful, making use of a cohesive learning feedback process of information being fed back and forth between organisms and their environment. Its unifying mechanism was not a fortunate mistake but information which had been encoded and transmitted everywhere at once.
David Bohm has postulated that all information was present in some invisible domain, or higher reality (the implicate order) but active information could be called up, like a fire brigade, at time of need.
Still YAWNING, unclestu ??? Still believing that "the general scientific community has largely discounted Sheldrake's (and other's) theories. ??????????
[quote] "If you and Geoff have the means to manipulate morphic resonance, to the exclusion of any other possible causalities" [/quote]
What Peter and I have said, from the very beginning, is that when we discovered that some things which are identical appeared to be 'linked' and appeared to 'know the existence of each other', the only concept we could find which could 'best' explain that phenomenon was the concept of 'morphic resonance' being put forward by Rupert Sheldrake !!! When we recommended certain procedures and techniques to our customers we knew that they, being intelligent people, would want some sort of explanation as to WHY we were asking them to do certain unusual techniques.
The more we followed the concept of 'things which are identical being linked' the more progress we made !!! I can't repeat enough. Peter had ALREADY been down all the conventional theory paths - the very paths you, unclestu, are going down to find explanations of your own.
[quote] "You and Geoff are claiming that the causalities I have claimed creating such influences are wrong and impossible to exist. But yet there is no other explanation other than an unproven theory which both of you forward." [/quote]
AGAIN, you are putting words into my mouth that are not there and never will be !!!
I have NEVER said that any causalities you have claimed are WRONG and IMPOSSIBLE to exist. I KNOW about how some things can affect the audio signal travelling through an audio system, I KNOW about how some things can affect the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !! I KNOW such things exist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DO NOT put words into my mouth which are NOT there !!!!! DO NOT assign ignorance to me.
You talk about unproven theories of ours. But, sir, some of the theories of YOURS are just as unproven !! They are theories put forward because you (and others) can find no other theories !! So, they are put forward as the only possible explanation !!!! What I am saying is that they are NOT the only possible explanation
Let me give you two examples.
1) The Nordost chemical ECO 3. I have been down this path before with you.
Nordost claim that applying their chemical to such as the outer insulation of cables ( and gaining an improvement in the sound) is because their chemical 'is dealing with the problem of static'. When I described to you that one can apply this chemical to the outer insulation of such as an AC power cable of a table lamp, with the power cable not connected to the AC supply (just dangling passively from the table lamp) and the table lamp situated some 20 or more feet away from any audio equipment and audio signal and gain an improvement in the sound, I challenged the explanation being put forward that 'any problem of static' on THAT cable could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment 20 or more feet away. That applying the Nordost chemical to THAT particular cable (and supposedly 'dealing with any static') could not be explained from a conventional 'static' explanation. Your reply was "Of course it could be explained from 'conventional static theory'" So, unclestu, where is YOUR proof that 'static' on a PASSIVE AC power cable, NOT connected into the AC power supply and situated some 20 or more feet away from any audio signal, could be having an adverse effect on that audio signal so that 'dealing with that static' with a chemical can then reduce or eliminate the adverse effect on the audio signal ???
Whereas, from our own work and discoveries we suggest that what such as Nordost have discovered is one of Nature's techniques - a technique of providing a 'reassuring signal' (It's OK, the danger has gone away) - in this instance with a chemical. That Nature had been providing such techniques for millions of years, long before words, hearing, sight etc ever evolved.
When I challenged the explanation of 'static' being put forward you kept insisting that there IS SUCH A THING AS STATIC as though I am so stupid as not to know that there is such a thing as static. But, unclestu, what your approach seems to be is that because there IS such as thing as static, then THAT MUST BE the explanation - because there IS such a conventional thing as static !!!!
[quote] "If others can find other causalities for certain effects attributed to morphic resonances, I am inclined to believe those causalities which at least can be measured and either denied or proven." [/quote]
So, Unclestu, you believe that applying the Nordost chemical to the outer insulation of a PASSIVE AC power cable (not connected into the AC power supply, and situated some 20 or more feet from any audio signal) and gaining an improvement in the sound can be PROVEN by measurements ?? Do you HAVE this PROOF, or is it as you say "you are INCLINED to believe" ???? Surely an 'inclination' to believe is SURELY what you rail against all the time - with your demands for PROOF ??????????????
Either we are on a 'path of discovery' or all is already known ??
Have you also experimented with Dieter Ennemoser's C.37 lacquer in areas where the explanation for the improvement in the sound could not possibly be about 'resonances' or 'vibrations' ??????????????
2) Carol Clark of Positive Feedback Online did the experiment we describe of writing 'beneficial messages' with our Red 'x' Pen and gained improvements in the sound. She did the experiments sighted but her husband David Clark heard identical improvements in the sound 'unsighted' !!! I would not be so stupid to claim that Carol's experiences as PROOF but what I seriously say is that one possible explanation (a strong possibility) is within Sheldrake's concept of 'morphic resonance' !!! That words and their meaning 'resonate' and are 'linked' - and the more the words (and their meaning) are used, the stronger will be their 'resonance' (and their 'linkage')!!
Back to Bohm's "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. !!!!!!!!!
[quote] "I do not dispute that certain sonic effects do exist from certain tweaks. I certainly do not claim anything supernatural as being the cause, however, and I have done experimentation in placement and application which are consonant with the more mundane explanation." [/quote]
I strongly suspect that the experiments you HAVE done are consonant with mundane explanations - what I DO suggest however is that you have not done identical experiments but in areas which could not possibly be consonant with mundane explanations and yet gained identical improvements in the sound !! If you HAD done such experiments, you would not be so insistent that EVERYTHING can be explained from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
I repeat Sheldrake's own words again :-
[quote] The unsolved problems of biology summarized were unsolved in 1981, and they are still unsolved today. The questions discussed this book remain completely open. The debate continues. [/quote]
The debate continues - at least continues with SOME people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Now, May, wouldn't a static conductive fluid automatically wick away a certain amount of EMI/RFI? A piece of copper foil or even aluminum foil wrapped around a wooden table leg can do the same thing. Now, can you show that this conductive property has nothing to do with your morphic resonances? Again, if you can show me that this effect can be totally isolated from the conductive properties but duplicated by something like pure water, ph of 7, then we're talking.
So adding a lacquer with carbon added ( a slightly conductive element, IIRC) and coating IC's or cones can not affect the mechanical resonance? or is it just possible that the slight conductivity may possibly have an influence?
One line of a green felt pen on the back of CD also makes a difference, but I wouldn't claim morphic resonance as a cause. You could write almost anything on the back of a CD and hear a difference and words need not be "beneficial". In fact very early on, I played around with drawing geometric shapes, before I even heard of your website.
Similarly Combak and Harmonix marketed some plastic stickers (green ones, IIRC) that you were supposed to place in the corners of your room and midway along the upper walls, similar in application to some of your recommendations, but no word of morphic resonances were ever mentioned
But I digress here, because I believe it is you who are putting words into my mouth. When I state that using your rainbow foil in a book outside my sound room had no effect, I believe the experiment is consonant with my conclusions, and, as a matter of fact, support it. I hear no difference with freezing my photographs either. While it does not support your thesis, I have no thesis about such effects, having not heard any effect ( I do have a -100 lab freezer also, BTW).
It is interesting also that I have said that the color of wire insulation makes a sonic difference, but I do not attribute that to morphic resonances, merely to dye lot contamination. Mundane, perhaps but easier to investigate and to verify.
Stu
[quote] "Now, May, wouldn't a static conductive fluid automatically wick away a certain amount of EMI/RFI? A piece of copper foil or even aluminum foil wrapped around a wooden table leg can do the same thing. Now, can you show that this conductive property has nothing to do with your morphic resonances?" [/quote]
Can I address some of your reply systematically ?
I have never said that "morphic resonance" EXPLAINS EVERYTHING happening in audio. I have said that "morphic resonance" (or other scientist's theories of 'linkage') is one strong explanation for the effect of writing words (language, communication) and for being able to 'treat' certain areas such as bar codes, Brand names (i.e things which will have 'linkage' if there is such a thing as 'linkage with identical things') and for being able to use certain words.
Regarding my reference to Nordost's static conductive fluid. YOU, sir, were the one who (previously) claimed that IF a problem of static could be eliminated on a passive cable 20 plus feet away from any audio system, then it COULD affect the audio signal travelling through that audio system, because (you claimed) the static which had originally been on the outer insulation of the cable 20 plus feet away from any audio equipment or wiring COULD HAVE BEEN adversely affecting the audio signal !! I had never mentioned anything to do with "morphic resonance" in that particular respect. I don't mention "morphic resonance" as being associated with everything to do with audio matters !!!!!!!!!!!!
To my understanding of static (within audio), claiming that eliminating static from the outer insulation of a cable 20 plus feet away from any audio equipment or wiring can affect the audio signal so that it can give the improvements in the sound which people have described seems a far more NON plausible explanation than an explanation that the particular chemical used could be one of the 'reassuring' communication techniques which Nature uses !! And which WE (human beings) could be sensitive to !! Hence, wherever you apply it in the room, it will have it's beneficial (reassuring) effect !!! Nothing to do with 'an effect on the audio signal'. IF static, present on a cable 20 plus feet away from audio equipment and wiring, COULD have an adverse effect on the audio signal, then surely there would be measurements to support that theory ???
The particular explanation I have put forward can explain so much of what is going on in the world of audio than EVERY change being reported in the sound having to have an explanation to do with 'something affecting the audio signal or something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves'.
Have you ACTUALLY tried the Nordost chemical on the outer insulation of PASSIVE cables 20 plus feet away from your audio equipment and wiring and heard improvements ?? Have YOU actually tried such as the Nordost chemical on other NON AUDIO items in your listening environment. I am sure that IF you had, you would have encountered changes in the sound which CANNOT be explained as 'affecting the audio signal or affecting the acoustic air pressure waves in the room' !!! Which CANNOT be explained as 'somehow dealing with EMI/RFI' and therefore 'having an effect on the audio signal or on the acoustic air pressure waves'!!!
[quote] "So adding a lacquer with carbon added ( a slightly conductive element, IIRC) and coating IC's or cones can not affect the mechanical resonance? or is it just possible that the slight conductivity may possibly have an influence?" [/quote]
Again, unclestu, you are back to referring to 'treating' IC's or cones' with a lacquer and trying to keep the reference (and any explanation) within "what can affect an audio signal" !!! You are back with the blinkers on again. I was originally talking about applying the lacquer to OTHER areas, to OTHER things, in the environment and gaining an improvement in the sound - where again it would be SOOOOOOO outrageous to believe that applying the lacquer to numerous non audio things around the listening environment (where it's slightly conductive element affecting mechanical resonance or it's slight conductivity} could affect the audio signal or the room acoustics.
I was not talking about applying it to IC's or cones or to general audio equipment. It is when one moves away from audio equipment and anything associated with audio equipment and yet can gain identical improvements in the sound by applying the SAME lacquer - is what I am talking about. THAT is why I said that you only seem to have done experiments which can be associated with audio equipment and the audio signal and where the results can be explained from conventional theories.
[quote] "One line of a green felt pen on the back of CD also makes a difference, but I wouldn't claim morphic resonance as a cause. You could write almost anything on the back of a CD and hear a difference and words need not be "beneficial". In fact very early on, I played around with drawing geometric shapes, before I even heard of your website." [/quote]
Of course you can get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the back of a CD. When have I ever claimed that it was SOLELY to do with 'morphic resonance' ????? What I say is that human beings are sensitive to colours (all colours) and react differently to different colours. This is because we are sensitive to what is going on in our environment !!
Again, of course you can write almost anything on the back of a CD and get a change in the sound !! But you are wrong if you believe that ANY words will give you an improvement in the sound. Write the words GOOD, EXCELLENT, PEACE on the label side of the CD, listen, get used to that sound, then erase those words and instead write the words WAR, BAD, DANGER and listen again. You will have worse sound !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Read Carol Clark's article, she experimented with just that !!!
With regard to the actual words used, then yes, I would suggest that it COULD be a 'tapping into the linkage and the meaning of words (communication)' - i.e Sheldrake's 'morphic resonance', Bohr's "Thought as a system" - the whole society sharing thoughts - it's all one process. !!!!!!!!!
Of course you can get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the label side of a CD. I presume your explanations would be along the lines of "The pigmentation of the colour can be having an effect on the static of the disc and therefore affecting how the information on the disc was read." OR, "That the colour on the label side of the CD could affect the way the laser beam reads the information on the disc." The problem, unclestu, occurs when you can yes, get a change in the sound from making a line with a green felt pen on the label side of the CD being PLAYED, but when you apply an identical line with an identical green felt pen on the label side of an identical but PASSIVE CD, just resting on the sofa next to you, and you get an identical change in the sound !!!!!! Now, in that example there can be NO problem with pigmentation of the colour affecting the static on the disc, which could affect the information being read because it is a PASSIVE disc (not being played) and there can be NO problem with how the laser beam reads the information BECAUSE there IS NO laser beam reading information on the PASSIVE DISC. !!!!!!!! And yet, doing the identical thing on the PASSIVE CD gives you a change in the sound identical to the change in the sound by doing the same thing on the CD being played !!!!! Explain that from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories.
Of course drawing geometric shapes will give you changes in the sound. How do you think WE discovered the same thing - by just drawing different geometric shapes and listening each time !! LONG before we ever began investigating WHY !!!! Unclestu, have YOU ever investigated WHY different geometric shapes change the sound ??????????????? You KNOW why geometric shapes change the sound, do you ??
[quote] "But I digress here, because I believe it is you who are putting words into my mouth. When I state that using your rainbow foil in a book outside my sound room had no effect, I believe the experiment is consonant with my conclusions, and, as a matter of fact, support it. I hear no difference with freezing my photographs either. While it does not support your thesis, I have no thesis about such effects, having not heard any effect ( I do have a -100 lab freezer also, BTW)." [/quote]
Of course if you heard nothing by doing those things, then your conclusion WOULD be that nothing is happening. Of course you would not need any thesis if you had never heard any effect. But such as Carol Clark (audioMUSINGS) DID DO the experiment of putting her photos in their deep freezer and DID hear a beneficial effect on the sound !!
If trying our Rainbow Foil inside books and trying freezing your photograph in your deep freezer had no effect, then they had no effect. For YOU. This particular part of the discussion ends there. But, if you HAD heard improvements in the sound by doing so (which many other people have) then you would need an explanation !!! In which case you would need a thesis from me !!!
In exactly the same way that if you had tried different cables and heard NO differences in the sound, then obviously you would NOT need any thesis, YOU would not need any explanation. But. if you HAD tried different cables and DID hear differences in the sound, then, yes, you WOULD need a thesis !!!
Just because YOU can't hear things (which others can) does not make me wrong !!! It just means that YOU cannot hear the things referred to !! You can probably hear different cables sound different but others can't. And, because THEY can't, then they do just what you have just done - dismiss others experiences !! And dismiss explanations for those experiences !!
[quote] "It is interesting also that I have said that the color of wire insulation makes a sonic difference, but I do not attribute that to morphic resonances, merely to dye lot contamination. Mundane, perhaps but easier to investigate and to verify." [/quote]
Of course you have heard (and said) that different colours of wire insulation makes a sonic difference. I have never claimed that the effect is due to "morphic resonance". But, sir, your explanation of "merely due to dye contamination" IS too easy !!!!!!!! Dye contamination effect on WHAT ??? Presumably you are meaning "due to dye contamination of the colour of the insulation material it was having a dielectric effect on the signal" - or by "reducing the effect of EMI/RFI" ? .
But those explanations do not explain an identical effect on the sound from changing the colour of the insulation material on other PASSIVE cables, many metres away from the audio equipment !! PASSIVE cables not connected to any equipment and not connected to the AC supply !!
Change the colour of ANYTHING in the listening room and you will change the sound !!! Change the colour of the cushion you are resting on, change the colour of the curtains, change the colour of the walls, change the colour of the table lamp shade, change the colour of your watch strap - and you will change the sound !!!! STILL "the dye contamination" - on WHAT ???? STILL "on the audio signal" ???
Again, unclestu, the story is well known how we discovered that different colours change the sound - and this happened long before we ever owned a CD player or CDs, i.e when we were still using vinyl as the source !! So, by the time we had acquired a CD player and some CDs, we were already aware that colours are important and that such as the colours printed on the label side of CDs have to be 'dealt with' !!!!! But the significant part of our experiences was in 'treating' the label side of an identical but passive CD - identical to the one being played - and gaining an identical improvement in the sound. Some of the first CDs we owned came attached to the front covers of Hi Fi magazines. We then found that we had to 'deal with' the psychedelic colouring of the front cover of the Hi Fi magazines !!! Then we found that ANOTHER important area on the magazine's front cover which needed 'treating' which was not part of the complicated colouring but the actual Bar Code on the magazine's front cover !!!! We then found that ANOTHER important area on the CD label which required 'treating' as well as the complicated and coloured art work was the CD logo !!!!!!!!!! And, so it progressed !!! And which we then had to search for some explanation for. Because the explanation was NOT in the audio text books nor within conventional electronic and acoustic theories !!
Back to the colour of the insulation of wires. Yes, you could change the colour of the outer insulation of a cable carrying the audio signal from (say) Black to Red and get a change in the sound. Your explanation would presumably be that the different pigmentation of the colour had a different effect on the audio signal. But, unclestu, you could have an IDENTICAL cable but this time just passively resting on the carpet in front of you - some 20 feet away from the audio equipment - not connected to the audio system and not connected to the AC supply. You could change the colour of the outer insulation of this identical but PASSIVE cable from Black to Red and you would get an identical change in the sound as the change you got by doing the same thing with the 'working' cable !!!
Just WHY can't the human being be sensitive to different colours - nothing to do with 'an effect on the audio signal' or 'an effect on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room' ?? And nothing to do with the actual 'visual' colour. If the scientists are correct that each colour has it's own frequency, then why can't we (human beings) be sensitive to those different frequencies in our listening environment, and react differently to each different frequency ??
Nothing to do with the "dye lot contamination" of the particular colour 'having an effect on the audio signal' !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Pretty strong words coming from someone who hasn't gotten any further than concluding that Silver Rainbow Foil operates on RFI and the Clever Little Clock channels RFI.
When attempting to replicate something, wouldn't it be rather important to first understand how the thing works?
[quote] "I suspect the Belt Rainbow foil acts like a constrained layer dampening device which helps dissipate the RF energy. The construction is a sandwich of plastic and aluminum foil. The foil itself is laser etched to extremely fine etchings, typically at the wavelengths of like ( in order that it have the proper effects on light), thus we have, in effect tiny antennas, and when trimmed to the small widths recommended it effectively can become RFI absorbers." [/quote]
Taking your assumption of the Rainbow Foil "helping dissipate RF energy" - helping dissipate RF energy from what ? From the audio signal ? From the acoustic air pressure waves in the room ?
[quote] "I do believe that there is fundamentally sound science behind many so called "voodoo" tweaks. A better understanding provides not only better implementation but but also superior application." [/quote]
It is SOOOOOOOOOOOO refreshing to see 'someone' in audio "thinking" !!!
Even just someone thinking "There HAS TO BE an explanation why so many people can hear so many differences in the sound from so many different things which can appear SO unusal !!
Regards,
May Belt.
P.W.B. Electronics.
Very cute trying to keep the target moving.
One day it's "tension" release via the device's effect on some faith based universal force, the next it's 'refreshing' thinking about mechanical effects
So, May, if you now find the 'constrained layer' theory so refreshing, then please explain it in the context of Geoff's 'inside a book' effect.
You are at it again, Enophile - misinterpreting what I am saying.
You know perfectly well I meant that it was GOOD to see someone (Unclestu in this instance)being prepared to struggle to find a scientific explanation for one of the numerous 'tweaks' which people report have 'improved their sound'.
I said it was refreshing that there was someone "thinking" about such tnings - full stop. As opposed to someone "not thinking".
I have 'sparred' before with Unclestu, specifically on the area he was referring to and I asked him where exactly, in his opinion, our Rainbow Foil was 'dealing with' RF, exactly in his opinion, this was being effective,
1) on the audio signal or
2) on the acoustic air pressure waves in the room.
Unclestu may have only been considering 'an effect on the RF when strips of Rainbow Foil were attached to the label side of a CD. But, as Geoff has pointed out, how can an affect on RF be the explanation when one can apply similar stripts of Rainbow Foil on an audio cassette, left in the cassette player, when the casette player is disconnected from the audio system and yet an identical improvement in the sound is heard.
At least Unclestu isz putting some thought into it, and not constantly referring to various 'tweaks' as 'being the supernatural arena' !!!!
Unclestu is to be congratulated in at least struggling to find a scientific explanation and not dismiss things as 'supernatural'.
Coupling human beings and their environment is not 'supernatural'. The human body, programmed to read/sense/monitor the temperature of it's environment every millsecond or every second of every minute of every hour of it's life is not 'supernatural'.
It is not the science of audio, nor the science of electronics, nor the science of acoustics, but it is STILL science !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
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: