Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES?

Posted by Analog Scott (A) on May 16, 2007 at 16:52:52

In Reply to: Re: Clark, etal: Why the long face on the AES? posted by May Belt on May 16, 2007 at 09:25:32:

>>> "Here is a very simple question for you May. Do you believe that when one listend to a Belt tweek and percieves a difference in sound that it *must* be the result of a physical change in the physical sound or do you believe that it *may* be a change in the listeners state of mind? " <<<

>>I would (obviously and sensibly and logically) never say NEVER !! So, I could never say that a change in the sound when using a Belt Tweak may NEVER be a change in the listeners state of mind. I am not that stupid to make a declaration like that !!<<

O.K. So you acknowledge the possibility that the percieved differences made by Belt tweeks may in any given instance be the result of bias effects. That would seem to be a step in the right direction. But, alas you do go on to say things here that kind of expose the fact that you have not really taken that step.

>>But, Analog Scott, your question shows that you have not yet reached a level of understanding about our concepts.<<

Sorry May but it does no such tning. It_was_a_question. It was not any kind of a statement about my undrstanding of your tweeks.

>> You are still making the wrong presumption. When I say that our concept (based on our past 25 years of research which came after the previous 30 years of manufacturing audio equipment completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories) is that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on us (human beings) which, in turn, is having a physical effect on the electro-chemical information travelling through the hearing mechanism,<<

And yet in those 25 years you have done NOTHING to test this wild theory. Even worse, you have done nothing in 25 years to test the possibility that it was mere bias effects. Bias effects are well documented and esily demonstatable. How on earth can anyone spend 25 years promoting such a wild concept when it is sooooo easy to test whether or not it is the result of a common and well researched effect? What you have done quite frankly is the equivalent of assuming leggless dogs are deaf because they don't come when you call them. It is inexucable not to test the likely cause and then assert unknown forces are at work.

>> I am NOT saying that there is something physical happening in the modern environment which is having a physical effect on the (ACOUSTIC) sound and that our tweaks alter that (acoustic) sound - which is your interpretation !! My use of the phrase 'affecting the sound' means affecting the information which travels through the hearing mechanism to the working memory. And my use of the description 'improving the sound' means allowing more of this information to be resolved by the working memory so that it can do a better job of presenting a better 'sound picture' to the brain.<<

I get what you are saying. What I don't get is how any reasonable person could jump to such a conclusion in the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever to suggest your "concept" is at work. You are making claims of a biological effect with absolutely no known possible mechanisms. This is simply particularly absurd in the face of the fact that there is a mountain of evidence showing that bias effects do exactly the same thing you are claiming your tweeks do without any need for some unknown undiscovered mechamism of causality.

>>Some people have been following the Belt story since the beginning and the ones interested can (more or less) understand what the reasoning is behind our concept and how it has come about (although I also appreciate that they can struggle sometimes).<<

Sorry May but I have been following this stuff since the late eighties and I have to say all I see is a complete lack of reasoning.

>> Others have no understanding at all, do not want to understand, do not want others to understand<<

"Understand?" What am I not understanding? For 25 years you guys have been coming up with tweeks that you assert affect a biological change in the listener but you have no idea what the mechanism much less the physical forces at work. You have done nothing to test this assertion of a biological affect and you have never tested for bias effects to eliminate that as a possible cause.

>>- leading to such comments as AJinFLA's "Dismissing such things as utter nonsense, and possible signs of mental illness."<<

I think he is over the top and even out of line. But I think there has been at the very least a complete lack of reasoning or due attempts to investigate likely causes for what is quite frankly a highly improbable assertion of a biological affect of these odd, profoundly unextraordinary and widely varied tweeks.

>>The relevance today of the examples given from the past history of science is because many people are aware that the parallel is still happening - today - and that is why the examples continue to be given.<<

The problem here May is that there is no science going on with the Belt tweeks so any comparison to any previous scientific discoveries are meaningless.

>> Your sentence "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports a specific audio tweek you have no relevant analogy" show exactly that.<<

NOOOOO. It is simply dead on since you are citing actual scientifically tested phenomenon to Belt tweeks.With Belt tweeks Where's the science?

>> Your sentence is no different to, 100 years ago, someone saying to Dr John Snow "Until you have a body of scientific evidence that supports your specific challenge to the conventional belief, you have no case."<<

That's how science works. Sorry May, Belt tweeks don't get any special exemption. IF, IF scientific varification is what you seek you have to do it the old fashioned way. The scientific method.

>>No different to the reaction to<<

Sorry May. Gotta cut you off here. Until you guys do the science all comparisons to previous scientific discoveries are irrelevant.

>>What is the difference between this reaction to Jenner 200 years ago and AJinFLA's reaction dismissing some things as 'voodoo, witchcraft' in 2007 ?<<

Scientific investigation???? What is the difference between your assertions and the assertions of cold fusion before it was put to the test?

>> As I have always explained. If there is a phenomenon to be discovered then more people, other than Peter and I, will discover it - and that is what I described in a 'posting' a few days ago which was mysteriously deleted. I explained that others had been discovering things which affected the 'sound' but had given their findings other explanations, even though the explanations do not hold up under further scrutiny.<<

And what others have numerously explained to you is that for any new "discovery" to be taken seriously by SCIENCE it needs to survive the rigors of real scientific investigation and scrutiny. Belt tweeks have not been put through the rigors. They have no SCIENTIFIC leg to stand on thus far. If that bothers you then do the work. I mean really... 25 years and not even any attempt to test well established causes that fit your claims like a glove. That is either lazy or completely unreasonable action (or lack there of) on your part. OTOH had you just stuck with "It works for us and we have no idea why." You'd get no argument from me.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.