 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.137.212.78
In Reply to: RE: One wonders if a small Lead/Acid battery would do posted by rickmcinnis@dogwoodfabrics.com on December 28, 2010 at 08:32:13
better or worse for than the 9 volt?
Why?
What's the difference between the negative terminal of a battery and say, the tip of your nose?
The negative terminal of a battery has no particular relevance to anything beyond the positive terminal of the battery. Which in this case is out of the picture.
I had good results with the Ric Schutlz version of the "wire hanign off the ground post". I was very pleased and mystified by the result.
Have you tried placing photographs of yourself in your freezer? That's purported to bring about significant improvements in the sound of your system as well. In fact, it brings about a significant improvement in the sound of any every other system you listen to.
And it's cheaper than a battery.
Have you tried this yet?
First one observes, then they try to figure out what is happening.
Yes, and in trying to figure out what is happening, one must consider all of the possibilities. And among the possibilities here is that there's nothing going on beyond the mind of the listener. And until that possibility is adequately controlled for and ruled out, then speculating about batteries being better than wires or 12 volt batteries being better than 9 volt batteries gets one nowhere in terms of knowledge and understanding.
se
Follow Ups:
You would think that if it was as easy as adding a $1 retail battery and only hooking up the neg terminal to get better sound, that the manufacturers would already be doing this. And already have it as a "special" feature. They could make it a "special" battery and charge an extra $10-20 or a lot more because it is special and improves the sound.
And there is no way to get a 2dB increase for less than a dollar, so why would they not do it?
I think the reason is obvious.
did you bother to consider that this strange phenomenon, since it has yet to be explained, has just appeared? How can a manufacturer take advantage of something that has just been discovered?
Who is to say that NOW someone out there just might do this?
That is a fatuous argument.
I would think a man who works with someone who thinks Dr. Diamond has something worth hearing would not say "there is no way" before they have even tried the tweak.
I continue to be amused that a cable manufacturer would find all of this ridiculous, Mr. Eddy. You should be honest and say that your cables are just another dose of snake oil except your oil is cheaper than most, but still there is NO WAY they could make a difference in the sound of the customer's system.
I have heard that consistency is the bobgoblin of small minds; maybe that is what is at work here? Though, I doubt it.
Someday people will learn the difference between science and technology. Yes, when an idea has matured there are explanations for an effect but to say that all "scientific" concepts are born whole with explanation and understanding is just silly.
Bye,
I continue to be amused that a cable manufacturer would find all of this ridiculous, Mr. Eddy.
Why are you addressing me in a reply to someone else?
You should be honest and say that your cables are just another dose of snake oil except your oil is cheaper than most, but still there is NO WAY they could make a difference in the sound of the customer's system.
Because I don't know one way or the other whether or not they make an actual audible difference. So to that end, I make no claims one way or the other.
Someday people will learn the difference between science and technology.
And if they do, this forum would be the last place that happens.
Yes, when an idea has matured there are explanations for an effect but to say that all "scientific" concepts are born whole with explanation and understanding is just silly.
I've never said any such thing.
se
First of all let me state clearly that I am not convinced with any of the explanations given for this tweak. Let me clarify as well that my mindset would make me agree with most of what Steve Eddy says.
All that said, these damn things make an evident (better) difference in my system, no need to pay much attention. Especially in soundstage 3D.
I am able to spot their presence/absence even if somebody else manages their use/non use.
Puzzled but happy.
I am able to spot their presence/absence even if somebody else manages their use/non use.
in other words, the conditions were not double blind?
se
No, they were not. I am not claiming I made a scientific experiment.
What I did was a tentative to reduce the possibilities of fooling myself.
For sure the try was not conclusive but I can tell you that the difference was - by common sense - greater than changing interconnects.
However, given these damn things do not cost very much, why could not you try them in a more precise setup?
Maybe the results could save us a lot of time writing here :-)
Kind Regards
No, they were not. I am not claiming I made a scientific experiment.
What I did was a tentative to reduce the possibilities of fooling myself.
Then I don't see that you reduced the possibility at all.
Tests are double blinded to avoid the Clever Hans effect.
For sure the try was not conclusive but I can tell you that the difference was - by common sense - greater than changing interconnects.
By what common sense?
However, given these damn things do not cost very much, why could not you try them in a more precise setup?
Because I'm not the one claiming they produce an actual audible difference.
se
I share with you (even if not so strictly) the scientific mindset, but there are occasions in which spotting a difference using a perfect experiment setup would be a waste of time and money, as common sense(s)
are very good to distinguish it. A different issue is the eventual necessity to invent and test a new theory to explain it (but this activity stems from unexplained exceptions).
I mean, I can agree with you that what follows is not a scientific law, but "I can assure you that my beloved Tivoli One, on my desk, doesn't sound as good as my HI-FI system".
And probably even you would agree without performing a double blind test.
That would not bother you because it would be explainable within our knowledge and technology.
What I am trying to communicate is that the difference is so evident that I can reasonably trust my ears without doubting that I am fooling myself. I mean, it is not so subtle that I would need more precise investigation. That said I cannot affirm that my sentence can pass a scientific test. Neither does the sentence over my Tivoli.
Nor the preference of a Brunello di Montalcino over a one euro wine.
But in this case you do not agree because this damn trick is not explainable. So now we need two things: verify if the phenomenon exists (many here affirm it does) and - separately, if it does - try to explain within our knowledge or modifying it.
Obviously what I say it is not meant to change your mind, only to warn you that in my opinion this tweak "does" something (good). We can fool ourselves, but I can assure you that in the past I returned tweaks that in my opinion did nothing (and their price was much, much higher. The cost invested being one of the elements that can contribute a complacent response).
All what I said is, more or less, what I meant with "common sense".
As to the possibility of trying, why wouldn't you take a look into Galileo's telescope? :-)
Kind Regards
What I am trying to communicate is that the difference is so evident that I can reasonably trust my ears without doubting that I am fooling myself.
I don't know what you mean by "so evident." So evident by what measure exactly?
If something was "so evident" that one can be reasonably sure that they're perceiving an actual audible difference, then I think it would follow that SOMEONE by now would have established actual audibility, or shown the effect by measurement.
But no one has been able to do this in the 30 some odd years I've been involved in audio.
Funny, that.
As to the possibility of trying, why wouldn't you take a look into Galileo's telescope? :-)
Because simply "looking" doesn't necessarily tell you anything.
Percival Lowell simply "looked" through a telescope once. He saw canals on Mars. And he too felt they were so evident that he could reasonably trust his eyes without doubting that he was fooling himself.
se
> > What I am trying to communicate is that the difference is so evident that I can reasonably trust my ears without doubting that I am fooling myself.
> I don't know what you mean by "so evident." So evident by what measure exactly?
You're beginning to sound like that old Elvira program that just regurgitated whatever the user typed with a question.
-Rod
"Someday people will learn the difference between science and technology. Yes, when an idea has matured there are explanations for an effect but to say that all "scientific" concepts are born whole with explanation and understanding is just silly."
Right on! Science largely exists to explain observed phenomena and to aid the technologist in understanding, optimizing and expanding his techniques.
Good observers are golden. The world needs more people with intransigent minds who are willing to report accurately even if they don't know just why the emperor is naked. That's what makes AA great. What makes it not so good is arguing about why he has abandoned clothes without adequate research.
Are you old enough to remember reading 'Stranger in a strange land' way back when? The thing that left a lasting impression for me was what Heinlein called (I think) 'true witnesses'. People trained to report what they saw, rather than what they thought of it.
Regards, Rick
Is someone just born with this ability? Most of us cannot do it.
I make no claims as to being good at it.
It is a gift.
Sure, I have said "impossible" before about plenty of things. Sometimes I am right, but it was luck not my own observations that proved me right.
I can understand the impulse but one needs to govern their need to make a pronouncement before experiencing the phenomonena. At the age of fifty-five I, finally, have learned to take my time with my opinions.
Mr. Purvince strikes me as having a very special brain. One that is the essence of scientific observation. The genesis of science. Where do we go without a beginning?
Thanks for chiming in.
Mr. Purvince strikes me as having a very special brain. One that is the essence of scientific observation. The genesis of science.
Science? Are you kidding me?
Sighted listening? A bunch of gibberish?
There's not one lick of science going on here.
se
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
