[
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]
80.177.28.171
In Reply to: RE: "But I do feel that gear should be able to work well in the real world without band-aids." posted by rick_m on November 10, 2008 at 13:28:11
You see rick m. My problem with Unclestu's experiment with the Schumann generator (and his subsequent conclusion) is that he was HOLDING (touching) the Schumann device all the time during the experiment !! Which, as far as Unclestu is concerned, was how he wanted to TEST whether it was having a direct effect on a human being !! I think his observation was correct - that the sound changed for both him and the others in the listening room when the Schumann device was removed from the room - I have no problem with his observation - it is his method of testing and his conclusion which I challenge.
I think that if he had placed the Schumann device outside the room - but NOT touching it - and with him being still in the room - the result would be the same - the sound would have changed. TOUCHING it would be irrelevant - it is WHERE the Schumann device WAS in relation to the human beings in the room that matters.
Let me explain what my definition is of the questions I asked you regarding a direct or indirect effect.
If you work in a dry cleaning establishment and you develop constant headaches and nausea I would say that the dry cleaning chemicals are having a DIRECT on you - they are wafting around you and might even be getting at your skin..
So, I would say that the chemicals are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect would be DIRECT.
If you work under a radio transmitter and you develop constant headaches and nausea, I would say that you are being DIRECTLY affected by the radio waves. So, I would say that the radio waves are 'having an adverse effect on the human being' but this particular effect on the human being would be DIRECT.
If you are in a room and see a snake and you immediately freeze dead in your tracks I would say that 'you, the human being is being affected by the presence of the snake' but this effect is INDIRECT. The snake is not doing anything to you. It is not coiling itself around you, it is not biting you, it is just there - present - in the room !!! In fact, it might be as frightened of you as you are of it !!
But you can see where confusion can start if I use the sentence "it is the human being who is being affected". I am constantly meaning INDIRECTLY affected but, nevertheless affected.
The indirect effect of the snake (your reaction) has been programmed into you by millions of years of evolution. It is there, within you !!!
In exactly the same way that your body is programmed, by evolution, to be sensing/reading the temperature of your environment every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of your life - in order to maintain, for you, a constant body temperature. It is programmed so to do - whether you are aware of it or not, and whether you want it to or not !!!
Peter did not start with a particular concept and then develop products (devices and techniques) within and from that concept. It was the other way round. The surprise event came first, then the realisation, then developing the techniques.
Similar to Louis Pasteur's experience. 100 years ago the famous French chemist (i.e a 'professional in chemistry') Louis Pasteur, made his own wine. But he found that when he left the tops of the bottles open to allow the fermentation bubbles to escape his wine went off. He tried different experiments and, suddenly, he found that if he used a particular device on the bottles, one which allowed the fermentation bubbles to escape but kept the outside air from getting in, his wine was OK from then on. From that experience he deduced that there 'must be something in the air' which had been getting at his wine - what he named 'vibrios'. Here was an example of a 'professional in chemistry' being taken by surprise yes by something he had done in his normal domestic life, but being observant enough and aware enough to realise the implications of what he had discovered.
Dr Joseph Lister, a Scottish doctor and surgeon who, along with all his other fellow doctors and surgeons had many patients developing septicaemia and dying after operations was told about Pasteur's observations. Lister began to ask himself "Could there be 'some germs in the air' (like Pasteur had found) which might be getting into the patients open wounds and causing septicaemia ?" So started Lister's tortuous journey attempting to introduce antiseptic techniques into the world of medicine !!!!!
Peter's journey has been similar. A 'professional in audio' suddenly discovering 'things changing the sound' which defied logic and began to change our understanding of how we perceive (particularly) sound !!
Back to audio. Let me use just one example - one which I have used many times.
Say the human being is 'programmed' by evolution to read/sense their environment every second of every minute of every hour of every day of their lives, checking for danger/predators/intruders - to enable them to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Supposing there is - 30 feet away from them - something in the room which is pulsating away - 50 to 60 times per second. They immediately interpret what they SENSE as a danger/predator/intruder and stay under tension - unable to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'!!! You see. It is not WHAT that object is physically - it is how the human being is INTERPRETING it !!! It is not WHAT the human being can SEE, or HEAR, or TASTE, or SMELL, or TOUCH - it is what they sense !! Because the necessity to sense/read the environment evolved long before the development of the five senses as we know them now !! In exactly the same way that the body's necessity to sense/read the temperature of the environment to maintain a constant body temperature was developed long before our understanding of such things or of thermometers !!
The object I referred to in the room was (is) the AC power cable. But the effect is not DIRECT - conventional theory would say that 30 feet away from the human being the electro magnetic field would have decayed with distance - so would have no direct effect on the human being 30 feet away from it ! How many times have the 'experts' measured the field from a computer screen or a television screen and declared that X feet away from it, there is no measurement, therefore there is no field left, therefore there is no (radiation) problem sitting (working) X feet away ?
Now. The pulsating thing (the AC power cord) cannot be affecting the acoustic air pressure waves (and therefore affecting the sound) i.e making the sound worse. Unclestu would argue that the pulsating AC power cord could be adversely affecting the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment. Yes - it obviously could and people will continue to believe that that is what is happening - UNTIL you do something strange. Until you leave the AC power cord exactly where it is (with it's supposed adverse effect on the audio signal), pulsating away in exactly the same way but 'treat' it in a certain way - and the sound is better !!!! The electro- magnetic field surrounding the cable would STILL be there, the 'supposed' adverse effect on the audio signal going through the equipment would STILL be there, unchanged, but the sound was 'better' !!! This now challenges the existing belief structure.
The 'treatment' is to superimpose, onto the pulsating cable, a 'reassuring energy pattern' which enables the human being to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, means that they are under less tension and which means that they are able to resolve more of the information within the music - information which has been there, in the room, all the time.
Because, as well as being programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for danger, the human being has also been programmed by evolution to read/sense the environment for energy patterns of 'reassurance' - for signs that say "It's OK. The danger/predator/intruder has gone away. Or, "It's OK. Relax, I am a member of your family, herd, group, shoal, flock."
Back to Unclestu's experiments with the Schumann generator. I think that the Schumann device is doing something along those lines - creating conditions in the environment, reassuring conditions which the human being has been programmed to search for which, in turn, allows the human to be better able to 'sign off' their environment as 'safe'. Which, in turn, allows the human beings to be under less tension, which then allows the human being to resolve more of the information within the music !! How many times do you read in people's descriptions of their experiences with the Schumann device that "as well as the sound being better they feel much more relaxed" ?????? And, that is why I used the Schumann device as an example in my articles in Positive Feedback Online.
Back to Unclestu's results. I think one way of explaining the results he obtained was that, with the Schumann device in the listening room, all the people listening were sensing a more 'reassuring energy pattern ', therefore creating less tension in THEM, which resulted in them resolving the musical information better. Take the Schumann device out of the room, the 'reassurance' is lost, back comes their tension, the sound is perceived as 'worse'!!!! It has nothing to do with actually holding the device - the effect is not a DIRECT effect on the human being.
I can fully understand people's dilemma when looking at the devices we produce and recommend. I can fully understand how they can ask "How on earth can pieces of different Foils, application of Cream, writing beneficial messages change the acoustic air pressure waves, or affect the audio signal travelling through the audio equipment ? How on earth can they have an effect on a human being if it is not by auto-suggestion etc. Etc. Etc. (all the list I have given previously). They don't fit the existing (audio) belief structure.
Unclestu was attempting to prove whether it was the human being who was being affected by the Schumann device or not (by actually holding the device). He did not prove NO !!! All he proved was that the sound was better when the Schumann device was in the room and worse when it was taken out of the room !! He had presumed that if it was him (holding the device and being beneficially affected by it) then with the device out of the room, the sound would still be as good for HIM - because he was still holding it !!
If the Schumann device, in the room, was enabling the human beings in that room to be under less tension, then the sound WOULD BE worse when the Schumann device was taken out of the room. Now, to prove whether the Schumann device is 'beneficially affecting the actual audio signal travelling through the audio equipment' (as suggested by Unclestu) you do the experiment of taking the Schumann device out of the room, experience the sound to be worse, still leave the Schumann device out of the room and create other 'reassuring' energy patterns in the room. If the sound is then perceived as back being good again, with the Schumann device still out of the room, then the explanation of 'the Schumann device affecting the audio signal' no longer holds water - and yet the original OBSERVATION was correct. The sound WAS better when the Schumann device was in the room.
You now have an observation without a explanation from conventional theory. Join the club of the many other experimentalists.
One problem with a lot of the listening tests carried out is if there is a particular belief structure, then the test which will be carried out will be governed by that belief structure.
Regards,
May Belt.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2008, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]