In Reply to: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... posted by clarkjohnsen on July 23, 2007 at 14:15:24:
Now Clark, regarding your comment "Cannot a procedure have duple or even triple reasons for its effect? "
Let us now look at the subject of double, triple or more explanations for a reported effect.
Let us use the example of a simple 'tweak' - tying a Reef knot in an AC power cable.
Tie a Reef Knot in a power cord of (say) the amplifier or CD player and listen. You will perceive an improvement in the sound (I have described what I call an improvement in an earlier posting). There can be many explanations given - such as 'something to do with EMI', or 'something to do with RF interference', or 'something to do with inductance' - those are just three explanations to begin with !! In other words explanations associated with 'something affecting the audio signal'.
Now, say you have a pair of Quad Electrostatic speakers just standing passively in a passageway or corridor outside the listening room. Tie a Reef knot in the power cables of the electrostatics - don't forget, these power cables are just dangling passively - not connected into the AC power supply - and then return to the listening room and listen again. You will now perceive a further identical improvement in the sound i.e even better height, width, depth, separation of instruments, resolution. Because nothing can associate the PASSIVE power cords of the Quad Electrostatics with the audio signal in the listening room, then other explanations will be put forward. Explanations such as 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing' or 'effective marketing'. We now have SEVEN different explanations for the same perceived effect !!
If you want to take one - RF interference - then any explanation to do with RF interference MUST be able to explain both what happened (to the sound/audio signal) by tying a Reef knot in the power cord of the CD player or amplifier AND with tying a Reef knot in the power cords of the passive Quad Electrostatics outside the listening room. The 'RF interference explanation' has to explain how the audio signal is affected and how the 'sound' can be changed. It does not make sense to have one explanation (say RF interference) for the effect of the Reef knot in the amplifier, a different explanation (say EMI) for the Reef knot in the CD player, yet another different explanation (say inductance) for the Reef knot in the DVD player, and yet more different explanations (say suggestion, imagination, audio faith healing, effective marketing) for the effect of the Reef knot in the power cords of the Quad Electrostatic loudspeakers !!! Yes, you can have a general explanation which explains everything I have described and that is 'suggestion', or 'imagination', or 'audio faith healing', or 'effective marketing' but if other people, present in the room and also listening who hear all the improvement in the sound which you hear but have not the slightest idea what you were doing or even that you were doing anything at all, then the explanation using such as 'suggestion' is not valid.
Regards,
May Belt.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - May Belt 08:03:31 07/25/07 (19)
- RE: First, quick response -- more to come. May, is there *anything* one can do to one's system... - rick_m 10:16:39 07/25/07 (0)
- The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - clarkjohnsen 09:06:10 07/25/07 (17)
- RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - Posy Rorer 14:46:58 07/25/07 (15)
- You write as though I'm denying the Beltist phenomena; I am not. I'm just trying to... - clarkjohnsen 08:28:45 07/26/07 (14)
- My argument is the lotion tweak is a Beltist tweak. And nothing else. - Posy Rorer 11:22:30 07/26/07 (13)
- How we gonna separate the variables? nt - clarkjohnsen 07:53:28 07/30/07 (6)
- Easy. Test passive devices in another room. nt - Posy Rorer 22:04:53 07/30/07 (5)
- Do we know that such a move obliterates the effect? Maybe go next door? nt - clarkjohnsen 08:41:19 07/31/07 (4)
- Yes, well going or placing the DUT next door will obliterate both conventional and Beltist effects. -nt - Posy Rorer 12:55:47 07/31/07 (3)
- What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) - clarkjohnsen 09:40:29 08/01/07 (2)
- RE: What if "next door" is an apartment and thier rooms are contiguous with yours? (Just askin'...) - May Belt 12:37:29 08/01/07 (1)
- "Science does not begin to touch a fraction of how and why things work." No argument here! And... - clarkjohnsen 12:44:37 08/01/07 (0)
- Wow. That was quite a string of insults! A+ for effort! - Enophile 14:53:34 07/26/07 (5)
- Awww shucks, tweren't nuthin'.... No, really. - Posy Rorer 21:40:45 07/26/07 (4)
- Poser, showing his reflective, thoughtful side.... - rlw 07:43:21 07/30/07 (2)
- RLW's reflective side: "Make the giant, manly leap and show up on my doorstep while runnin' yer big mouth." - Posy Rorer 15:35:39 07/31/07 (0)
- SF Tech troll, have you met the Richard L. Wainwright troll? - Posy Rorer 22:00:58 07/30/07 (0)
- Posy, that is quite a manifesto you have there... - SF tech 23:32:47 07/26/07 (0)
- RE: The examples you offer are geared towards a Beltist explanation. And... - May Belt 10:34:38 07/25/07 (0)