|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
87.185.82.216
In Reply to: This guy might be a genius... posted by Wellfed on March 19, 2007 at 10:06:35:
It is rare to read 3 pages of quotations including jokes without a glimmer of something to disagree with. He was indeed a remarkable man.To answer your post in the thread which has disappeared off the right hand side of the page.
> In any event, these were the two actual sticking points expressed by JREF
> as the reasons why neither test proposal was acceptable. You tell me which
> party was willing to have the test go forward, and which party wasn't?Did you respond by simply deleting the sticking point and sending in the revised proposal stating this is the new proposal so lets get on with it? If not, why not?
> I have yet to find a sceptic willing to examine the facts. You guys just
> buy into Kramer's deception hook, line and sinker. What's up with that
> anyway?What people can reliably examine is what is in the JREF archive and not what you claim happened. The relationship between the archive and the full truth involving other means of communication is not known. What is in the archive appears a reasonable explanation of what happened and that is broadly that your correspondence was irrational.
Follow Ups:
An old friend of mine from school, Alton Keel, hired Feynman for the Rogers Comission investigating the Challenger disaster, along with Sally Ride and other luminaries. Feynman, of course, was the one who dunked a small rubber ring in a glass of icewater during a meeting of the commision, demonstrating the feasibility of the theory that icy conditions at time of launch were responsible for the failure of O-rings. Keel was executive director of the Rogers Commision. There is a story running around that when Feynman first met Keel in DC he said something that pissed Keel off, but noone seems to know what that was.
Wellfed, I might point out what my friend and physicist Jack Bybee thinks how Feynman would have reacted to the IC. He would have tried it. Jack, by the way, worked with Richard Feynman as a consultant on superconductivity in the late '60's, at Caltech so he knew him well.
Feynman also had an opinion on 'The Scientific Method' .
He said: "Briefly, However, the only principle is that experiment and observation is the sole and ultimate judge of the truth of an idea. All other so-called priciples of the scientific method are by-products of the above which depend on the nature of the material and what is found out. There are, furthermore, a number of tricks (like reasoning from analogy or choosing the "apparently simplest" explanation) which have been found to increase the ease with which we cook up new ideas to subject to the test of experience"'Perfectly Reasonable Deviations (from the beaten track)' by Richard P. Feynman p.141
My admiration for the late Richard Feynman grew tremendously after reading his "Lectures on Physics" and the book "Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman". Here I saw a scientist who was prepared to think, think, think and think again - to think forwards, backwards, sideways and upside down. To think about all manner of obscure things such as how does a seed, deep in the ground, KNOW to send a root down and a shoot up ?
I also got courage from Feynman to tell a story to illustrate something you wish to convey. Feynman would tell a story to illustrate a particular point - at the 'drop of a hat'.One of my favourite Feynman quotes is:-
The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another"
This is particularly relevant when anomalies occur - as Thomas S. Kuhn eloquently points out, quite regularly, in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
To quote :-
"Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science..... Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory.
> > Discovery commences with the awareness of anomaly, i.e., with the recognition that nature has somehow violated the paradigm-induced expectations that govern normal science.. < <No such anomaly has been demonstrated either for the IC or for any of the PB tweaks. There is nothing to explain. No paradigms have been violated.
I think JC is right, by the way. I think Feyman WOULD HAVE tried the chip, with an open mind. In the right setting, he might even have heard an effect. And he would have concluded, eventually, after further investigation, that this was still more evidence for the power of suggestion and the fallibility of human perceptions. And he would have found it fascinating.
He might even have tried the photo-in-the-freezer thing...but it would have been, for him, an experiment in the freakiness of human perceptions and the power of suggestion. And he would have found that no less interesting than if the effect had been real.
In a separate reply, I will give some of the anomalies you are requesting from within the world of audio.My brief reply, to an earlier posting of yours, (link below) was in exasperation because, contrary to what you said, I felt you were NOT grasping what I was trying to convey. In my struggle to convey my thoughts I wanted to point out that we (human beings) had never acquired the ability to 'deal with' (modern) electromagnetism and, I might add, plastics (different mixes of chemicals), man made materials etc - all things now common in the modern environment. You are quite right, these things have only been with us just over a hundred years ( plastics - different mixes of chemicals - only since around the 1920s). What YOU suggest is that because electromagnetism had never been a threat earlier in evolution, therefore we (human beings) do not now see it as a threat (as danger). Whereas my concept is that if we have (such as) a pulsing energy (caused by such as the modern level of electromagnetism), present in the environment, we therefore do not know how to 'deal with' it, therefore we cannot 'sign off' the environment as safe !! THIS is the crucial part of my concept. That we cannot 'sign off' our environment as 'safe'. And, because Nature dictates that if we (and the earliest of creatures) cannot 'sign off' the environment as 'safe', then we (they) must remain under tension. My use of a 'snake' as a quick illustration was, obviously, way out of your thought process because you ended up asking "Are we seeing the cable as a snake" i.e (using sight), whereas I am, most of the time, referring to a time in evolution when there were none of the senses as we know them. And, yet, the earliest of creatures could 'read/sense' their environment without these senses. So, Nature had some tricks up her sleeve !!!
So, how did Nature perform such tricks? How did Nature get the early creatures to sense their environment ? How did Nature get the early creatures to communicate with each other, both to communicate "Watch out there's danger about" and also to communicate "It's OK, you can relax, the danger has gone away" ? And to do this long before the senses as we know them evolved !! For the early creatures to be able to communicate, they had to have both some form of transmitter and some form of receptor - so what did Nature use ?
What WAS available within creatures was chemical concentrations and dilutions !! Is this how the early creatures communicated - by regulating their own chemicals and being receptive to other's chemical changes ?
To give one example. It is known that tobacco plants communicate - that when a tobacco plant is affected by the tobacco leaf virus, it can communicate to other (healthy) tobacco plants - to warn them ??? They cannot communicate by sight, nor by sound, nor by touch, nor by smell, nor by taste - so how do they do it ?
How does a shoal of fish turn 'as one'. instantaneously ? It cannot be by sound - by leader fish shouting "Turn left" or "Turn right" because by the time this (sound) instruction reached the fish at the back, it would be too late for them !!! It cannot be by leader fish using sight - by using semaphore signals - because by the time this instruction reached the fish at the back, it would be too late for them !! Ditto touch, taste, smell !!! And so on - and on.You asked "Why is (my example) a 'snake' on cable risers less threatening?" I used that as a way of trying to illustrate how there are degrees of 'tension'. That even though we are not 'programmed' to deal with electromagnetism (pulsing energy) as a threat, we are still attempting, somehow, to 'deal with it' by asking ourselves "What is that pulsing energy doing in our environment ?" That if you were then INTERPRETING the pulsing energy as "Watch out there's a Lion about", then you would react as though your life would be in danger - it is not what we SEE but HOW we are INTERPRETING what we sense !! Now, if we INTERPRET the pulsing energy as "Watch out there's a hedgehog about." Then the only thing in danger would be that our stash of food could be eaten. Therefore our life would not be in danger, we would be under slightly less tension, therefore we would (feel !!) more relaxed - creating less stress chemicals !!
What I was trying to point out is that it does not take much to change the energy pattern(s) to one(s) where we feel slightly less tension, therefore produce slightly less stress chemicals.You would be amazed Jim, at just what SMALL things can be done which can change our perception of our environment and which, in turn, can create a more 'reassuring' atmosphere which, in turn, allows a lessening of 'tension' which, in turn, can change the way our working memory constructs a 'sound picture'. What YOU and many other hundreds if not thousands of people have been doing, without realising it !!! Yes, you have heard changes in your sound but you have been struggling, stretching, bending, pushing, shoving conventional theories to try to find some sort of explanation - as to why what you had observed could possibly have affected the audio signal going through the system or could possibly have affected the acoustic air pressure waves in the room !!
The problem, Jim, in debating different understandings of a concept is that that is where it stays - a disagreement in understanding - rather than an attempt to find an explanation for people's observations !! To my knowledge, for decades, people have been describing changes to their sound which they have not been able to explain from within conventional electronic and acoustic theories. THIS is the problem we have to try to solve, THIS is what we have to struggle to try to explain, and constantly dismissing their experiences down to "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" in no way addresses the problem. This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc.".
To return to the early creatures and their reading/sensing of their environment. Were they 'sensing' chemical changes ? Different changes in chemical dilutions and concentrations giving 'danger' signals or giving 'reassuring' signals ? Could this be how Peter and I could sense a 'stress' chemical which, in turn, caused such a deterioration in the sound and then sense a 'reassuring' chemical which, in turn, gave such a unbelievable improvement in the sound ?
Regards,
May Belt.
"You would be amazed Jim, at just what SMALL things can be done which can change our perception of our environment and which, in turn, can create a more 'reassuring' atmosphere which, in turn, allows a lessening of 'tension' which, in turn, can change the way our working memory constructs a 'sound picture'."I believe that more succinctly summarizes the Belt position than anything else I've ever read.
Thanks, May. Perhaps someday sooner than expected, the paradigm-obsessed audio "experts" in academe will... relax and listen.
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
That's more than some tweaky products do . . . .
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
She just presents a lot of motherhood statements about open-mindedness and scientific method, but she doesn't prove all her products do anything worth while.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
May,Thanks for your thoughtful message. Because I don't have much time, I'm intentionally engaging just a couple of points here.
First--because it's the most important point, IMO--I must take issue with this statement:
> > This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc.". < <
I think this is exactly wrong--and this difference of interpretation probably lies at the root of our disagreement. To me there is nothing demeaning about the notion that our perceptions are fallible. It is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's true of me and it's true of you. I do not understand this reverence for (what amounts to subjective) perception. I do not know why you (and, certainly, others) would put what we perceive, or believe we perceive, on such a high pedestal. If this is an issue of human or individual dignity, then none of us have it.
Moving on...
Interestingly, I suspect there may be evidence one way or another about how species react to environments they have not adapted to, but I don't know the evolutionary literature well enough to know with certainty what the answer is. How do creatures respond to threats/influences they have not been evolutionarily programmed to deal with? (there is of course the whole separate issue of learned behavior...).
I BELIEVE the answer is that they ignore them and (if they are threats indeed) they--the oblivious prey--are eaten. This is one of the reasons why isolated populations are so vulnerable--they do not know enough to fear their new predators. But my understanding of this is anecdotal and incomplete. This remains an open--but, I suspect, answerable--question.
Finally, there really must be a mechanism for influencing the mind. It's true that we wouldn't necessarily have discovered it yet. But there are a couple of reasons, intellectually, to be wary of such a proposition. The first--and this is what I meant when I said before that the "threat field" you propose (though the phrase is mine) is "ethical"--is that it's nonspecific. The potential threats are diverse. What mode of influence--what mechanism--would work the same way for an electromagnetic field as it does for floor polish or carpet fibers? This would be unlike anything known to science in its ability to communicate.
The second reason for skepticism is that such things--hidden fields, hidden mass, hidden deities--have been proposed repeatedly in the history of science, and have consistently proven to be wrong. "Hidden mass" or energy theories have a logical defect in that they can explain any observation by putting the right mass or energy in the right place. They can explain anything and so therefore they explain nothing. (The phrase "hidden mass" refers to an alternative to Einstein's general relativity theory--I think it was from Ernst Mach but I could be wrong--that explained the anomalous precession of the perihelion by hypothesizing a massive object hidden behind the sun. Such a theory could explain anything if you set the amount and position of the mass just right. Einstein's theory, in contrast, made one very specific prediction, which happened to compare remarkably well with rigorous, quantitative observation. I think the agreement was to the 8th decimal place.).
The key fact remains, however, that no one has established that there are any anomalies to explain--unless you have undue faith in people's perceptions.
Jim,I'm only going to address one point of this discussion, ok?
May stated: This dismissing of people's experiences denies them their intelligence - intelligence to be able to think about and then make a judgement as to whether what they had heard could be "Suggestion etc. Etc. Etc."
To which you responded: I think this is exactly wrong--and this difference of interpretation probably lies at the root of our disagreement. To me there is nothing demeaning about the notion that our perceptions are fallible. It is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's true of me and it's true of you. I do not understand this reverence for (what amounts to subjective) perception. I do not know why you (and, certainly, others) would put what we perceive, or believe we perceive, on such a high pedestal.
I have a problem with your position. As a subjective listener I readily admit that our perceptions are fallible. After all illusionist play on that fallibility all the time. Why then should I or any other subjective listener take acception to your assertation that we're perhaps being fooled by our fallibilites? The problem lies when you and those who agree with your beliefs automatically assume we are being fooled. As much as you wish to claim this fallibility is a scientific fact that has been demonstrated repeatedly in the most rigorous way. It's also equally true that I nor anyone I know NEVER mistakes live music for recorded or visa versa! In the area of music, the human ear/brain combo is remarkably adept at recognizing the traits that make live music live music. It also equally adept at recognizing when those traits are missing and thus is listening to recorded music too!
Why then would it be so difficult to believe that some people might be more adept than others recognizing when more or less of these traits are present? Even Peter Aczel readily admits: "Thus, if a loudspeaker (and I add any other audio componenet) has a huge dip at 3 kHz, it will not sound like one with flat response to any ear, golden or tin, but only the experienced ear will quickly identify the problem. It’s like an automobile mechanic listening to engine sounds and knowing almost instantly what’s wrong. His hearing is no keener than yours; he just knows what to listen for.
You could do it too if you had dealt with as many engines as he has."That's all we're claiming too, Jim! We don't have "super" hearing abilities nor are we being decieved. We're just doing what any other rational music lover/audiophile knows ANYONE without any hearing disability can do. The difference between what subject listeners and those who want to proclaim subject listeners have "super" hearing abilities or are being decieved, is that subject listeners have just taken the time to train their ears. Thus it's through this training that they have developed the experience to know what to make of what they hear and then how to interpret it. Even Peter Aczel agrees with that! So whereas it's true that we are all falliable we're not as quite as falliable as many would like to claim we are. What I and I believe May and others take acception to is your quickness to believe we're automatically being decieved by our fallible perceptions, when we claim we hear something you might not believe we can hear, when it's equally possible that some of these people just have better trained ears...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Tubeguy,I respect your position. I'm not going to try to talk you out of it. I have myself argued that it's one thing to KNOW something and another thing to PROVE it. And that, here, is a key difference.
You have no obligation to anyone, least of all me, to prove to me that you really hear what you hear. And you're free to dismiss my objections as misguided or even offensive-though they are not intended to be, as I said.
Yet, as the saying goes (more or less), extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would settle for ANY proof. And what May, and Geoff, are claiming is nothing if not extraordinary.
I stand by what I said. There's something deep in the human psyche that wants to believe in its own perceptions. And maybe, in your case, those perceptions are perfectly real. But those of us who haven't heard what you heard--or, anyway, who haven't been convinced that what we thought we heard was real--have other, simpler, more probable explanations to fall back on. I don't expect it to be a popular position, but there you go.
And by the way, I certainly accept that training the ear is possible. I have experienced it myself. I can easily identify things now that I may not even have heard a few years ago--when my ears were probably better but less well trained. But there's a world of difference between a dip at 3 kHz and a photo in the freezer. Yes, you can hear real differences, and whatever claims you make (or don't make) for yourself, I'm sure you can do so with considerable skill. But you--and me--also hear differences that aren't there.
Respectfully,
Jim,After reading your last post I'd like to say I also respect your position. Nor am I going to try to talk you out of it. As I stated previously I accept that we are fallible. You seem to be in partial agreement with my POV as I find I'm in partial agreement with your POV. It's this attitude on both our parts that helps foster a better understanding between the differing POVs.
In fact overall the only point you made that I'd disagree with completely is your statement of: you--and me--also hear differences that aren't there. I'm open to the possibility of that statement being true, but will have to disagree with it until it's been proven to me, personally that it is indeed a fact and not just an opinion. In any event, good listening to you Jim.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I'm just wondering what we're talking about: Just what is it that you hear that you believe in and I might not? Are you a "chip" proponent? Do you hear its effects? Or are you talking about (eg) cables? Because if it's cables, I won't even suggest that it's only in your mind. I have other thoughts about that--not original, I'm sure--that I'm not quite ready to share. But the point is that, despite what some folks on AA would have other folks believe, there's a world of difference, technically, between cables having a particular sound and little chips permanently making CDs sound better.
Jim,I was talking specifically about wires. I don't mean to speak against John Curl, I have great respect for his work having previously owned the JC-2 and ML-2 audio components he designed. I have to be honest and state having not heard the "chip" I have difficulty understanding how it is supposed to actually do anything. Thus I'm very skeptical of the "chip" while remaining open-minded that it could possibly work.
The reason I try to stay open-minded to tweaks I don't understand is because many years back I visited Leo Oxley a rep for Hartley speakers in Connecticut at that time. He played a tubed Acoustic Research amp and preamp for me and my friend Rick. While the music was playing Leo placed a VPI Magic Brick on the amp's transformer and asked us if we heard a difference. I said no and Leo said keep listening. Well I listened and listened straining to hear a difference, but I just couldn't.
After 15-20mins Leo asked once again if we hear a difference. I said no and this time Leo said, OK I might as well remove it then and BAM! As soon as he took the VPI Magic Brick off the amp's transformer the sound got hazy and a lot less clear. Whatever the Magic Brick did, it did so slowly I couldn't hear the change, but damn it definitely did something. I think it either damped the transformer or possibly absorbed magnetic fields???? I honestly don't know what it did but it sure did do it. That experience forever changed my opinion about tweaks.
Sure I'm skeptical about "chips" and the such, but try to remain open-minded as well...
and it pisses me off that I can't figure out if it is in my mind or is real (you know I think the very concept of DBTs for audio is flawed, so I won't entertain one in this case!). I am firmly in the camp that believes there are things that can happen that appear irrational or against known scientific concepts, but I still think I can smell a scam. Hence my complete dismissal of Mr. Kait's "products." Remember that scene in The Jerk (Steve Martin at his best) where his "father" shows him a can of Shine-ola and a pile of dogshit???Cheers to you Tom. Amazing how even when these threads start out with gobs of rancor, one can find a nice piece of conversation hidden somewhere down the line...;)
Now it's back to a little frolic on the logic lawn with Andy19191......d'oh!
Hello Robert,In the case of the VPI Magic Brick, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it did something very audible & for the better! I'll also readily admit I ONLY have my beliefs of what it did, which are: 1) It dampened the transformer's vibrations & 2) It affects the magnetic field around the transformer. For all the naysayers I KNOW, not believe it's wasn't "expectation" bias or me fooling myself into believing I heard something that didn't exist in this case! How do I know? I know because I didn't hear a damn thing when I was told I'd hear a difference & when I expected to hear a difference. Instead I heard a difference when Leo removed the brick, I believed the test was over and didn't expect to hear anything different!
I just did a search on VPI's Magic Brick and found on diyAudio Forum this comment by BHD that basically agrees with my POV. BHD stated: "Actually, I think it affects the magnetic field of the power transformer, becuase it's not directly on the transformer itself, it's on the chassis - and it cuts the vibration of the power transformer even when I'm holding it just *above* the chassis. You can feel the reduction of vibration in the chassis and you can hear it as well." Here's a link to his comment: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=431049
Also according to a review in Postive Feedback the VPI Magic Brick as well as the Sakti Stone & Quantum Physics Noise Disrupter are absorbing EMI noise. The complete review can be seen here: http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue23/quantum.htm
But finally I found an article on Six Moons wherein the author wrote: "Let's get one thing straight right away: There's very little of mystery about the Brick. It's a nicely dove-tailed wooden block that frames a heart of laminated iron in a transformer-type core. In Mr. Weisfeld's own words, "The main idea was to redirect the flux lines away from the chassis and remove the many eddy currents it would produce. I think [the Brick] was doing this quite well, plus [providing the additional benefits of] the mass damping of the concentrated weight." Harry, ever the engineer, sure ain't speaking lightly of "concentrated weight". This innocuous looking, 4-7/8" x 3-7/8" x 2-5/16" block of blonde wood weighs in for the fight at an impressive 8lbs" Here's a link to that article: http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge1/edge1.html
So it would appear that my beliefs about the Magic Brick were indeed correct. Like you Robert I remain skeptical about "chips" and tweaks of that sort. That doesn't mean they cannot possibly work, it simply means it would have to be proven to me that it does!
While I don't discount your experiences tubeguy, consider another one. You say the VPI bricks weigh 8lbs. My audio dealer recently told me that he'd tried these, and while they had an effect, they also tried putting a dead weight on the amp, and it had the same effect.And those Shakti things? (Are they the one's that look like large wooden candleabras?). They cost maybe $1500, and he said they improved things, but that the effect was nominal - he couldn't sell them because he couldn't stand behind them. He told me that a potted plant about the same height as the candleabras actually had a better effect than the audio product. 2nd hand info yes, but perhaps worth considering.
Hi Posy,I'm 100% sure that the weight itself played a part in damping the transformers and/or chassis. However I also believe these devices are somehow effecting the magentic field around them as well. I suppose that's why people claim there are differences in the VPI magic brick, the Shakti stone and the Quantum Physics noise disrupter, i.e. amount of weight of each device and how it effects the magnetic field around the transformers.
I admit your theory sounds plausible. I have not attempted to use just an object of some weight on my amp's transformers. I also don't own any of the previously mentioned devices to compare with a heavy object of given weight. I wonder did your friend hear a difference immediately when he put the Shakti stone on the amps, or did he notice after some time or after removing them?
Everyone I know personally who has used any of these devices only noticed an effect after some decent amount of time passed or after removing them (IMHO that's the best way. Leave them on for about 20mins and just keep listening. Then while a song is still playing have someone remove the device from the transformer --- BAM! That's when you'll hear what it was doing, after it's gone!) Just like the Joni Mitchell song says, don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you had till it's gone...
Maybe Robert will let me try his Shakti stone. If he does I'll try comparing it against something of equal weight and see if I hear any differences.
Good listening to you Posy, Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
> > I admit your theory sounds plausible. I have not attempted to use just an object of some weight on my amp's transformers. I also don't own any of the previously mentioned devices to compare with a heavy object of given weight. I wonder did your friend hear a difference immediately when he put the Shakti stone on the amps, or did he notice after some time or after removing them? < <He didn't say, I only know that he was evaluating them for possible consideration of including the item in his dealership, and they found it no better than regular weight. I saw the large wooden Shakti candleabras in the showroom, but never listened to them myself. Nor have I listened to any VPI magic bricks. I have in the past however, tested dead weight (like regular stone bricks) on top of my cd player or amp. I didn't like the effect of that, it made the music sound "squashed", just like the visual effect. That is -not- meant as an evaluation of VPI's product or any other, and I did not place mine on the transformer either. I know the VPI product is alleged to have an effect on EMI, which a brick wouldn't, and I don't know if the resonance tuning effect of the weight is even intentional with the magic bricks.
> > Everyone I know personally who has used any of these devices only noticed an effect after some decent amount of time passed or after removing them (IMHO that's the best way. Leave them on for about 20mins and just keep listening. Then while a song is still playing have someone remove the device from the transformer --- BAM! That's when you'll hear what it was doing, after it's gone!) Just like the Joni Mitchell song says, don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you had till it's gone... < <
Yup, she was right. I know the PWB stuff -really- has that kind of effect, more than anything else I've ever tried. That is, removing it can for many, have a more noticeable influence on the sound than the initial change of installing it.
Hello Again Posy,I found your statement about testing dead weight like a regular stone brick on top of an audio component to be quite interesting. I never quite understood how an electronic chassis could be over-damped. One would think that the deader i.e., less resonant an audio component's chassis is, the less it could possible editorlize the music being reproduced.
So it would seem logical that the more weigh added (provided it didn't damage the chassis in any way) the less resonant the audio component would be, and the less it would effect the music. Yet I've heard others say exactly what you did about the music's sound being "squashed", as if the dynamics have been removed and the soundstage collapsed, when adding what I believe must be too much weight to a audio component's chassis. Personally I cannot understand why this would occur and I'd be very interested if anyone could offer any intelligent reasons for why it does.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part." Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
I don't think you're killing resonances here, so much as you're tuning them. The resonances are still there, but of a different frequency. Tuning resonances can change the sound a million different ways. (I can hear the sound change from moving a dime on a loudspeaker by a mm or so, so consider that as one of a million different ways). Point being, "changing" the sound is easy. Changing it so that it's entirely an improvement is much, much harder. Whether it's a brick or a dime, I've not been able to do that with dead weight on top of my gear (unless the device was capable of producing good sound in itself, in which case, I wouldn't be referring to it as "dead weight").
$10,000 says you couldn't hear the effect of moving a coin on top of a speaker unless it was moved to a spot where the coin rattled (from a spot where it had not rattled).I believe this extraordinary self-serving boast about your hearing ability is pure fiction.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
Oh wait, the Audio Asylum already exists. Never mind.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
The Shakti stone made it worse, but I didn'y notice anything at all until I removed it after 3 weeks. Besides, the only "support group" for audio that I'm engaged with is here, and this is growing mighty thin.If you weren't always such a turd in the punchbowl around here, I'd send it to you for your own experiment. But that would imply that I respect your thoughts and that I would value your conclusions. Neither of those positions is likely given your bully-of-the-sandbox behavior.
RY - The Shakti stone made it worse, but I didn'y notice anything at all until I removed it after 3 weeks. Besides, the only "support group" for audio that I'm engaged with is here, and this is growing mighty thin.
If you weren't always such a turd in the punchbowl around here, I'd send it to you for your own experiment. But that would imply that I respect your thoughts and that I would value your conclusions. Neither of those positions is likely given your bully-of-the-sandbox behavior.Thanks but no thanks Robert. Things like the Shakti are geared more towards yourself and thedubeguy. I have absolutely no doubt that it would have a very real effect on you. It's supposed to. I also have no doubt that the folks who fall to the ground writhing from voodoo spells are feeling very real effects. That is precisely how things are supposed to work. Incredibly strong minds that are not propped up by crutches will certainly experience things like this.
Mine is far to weak to support the Shakti or the Magic brick that affected my good friend Tom.
Good luck with your endeavors and payments towards these great causes.
Folks like Kait and Belt need strong minds like yours to form the symbiotic relationship of Audiophilia supply and demand.
Enjoy.cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.
I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse. Noticeable only over time, and when it was removed. You do know that there are "components" inside one, don't you? (This has been discussed on AA ad nauseum.) You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking. MIght have been interesting to see if you could actually do it.
I have no "tweaks" in my system.
In case you hadn't read any of them (or in case you don't have a memory), my posts with Mr. Kait have been less than cordial. It is my opinion that he is a a classic old-school huckster. May Belt doesn't deserve my attention.
Nor do you. Your quips and parries aren't humorous: some are mean-spirited childish attacks, others just fall flat. You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.
RY - Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.I've stepped in dog crap without "noticing things" before, so forgive me.
RY - The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.
I got a voodoo doll once, with the suggestion that putting it near my stereo would affect the sound. But of course, I didn't try it, since my science based education allows me to comprehend stupid rubbish when I see it.
RY - I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse.
I'm not surprised.
RY - Noticeable only over time,
You have absolutely no clue about psycho-acoustics or auditory memory do you? Of course not. Nor should you. Right, carry on.
RY - and when it was removed.
So you did not notice an immediate detrimental effect, until it was removed, then you noticed? Hmmm, doesn't sound like your ears are very well trained or "golden" after all LOL.
RY - You do know that there are "components" inside one, don't you? (This has been discussed on AA ad nauseum.)
No, I was not aware, nor was I aware of what spices, roots and chicken feet make up a voodoo doll, since I really don't care to know. It won't affect my mind either way.
RY - You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking.
What purpose would that have served? Would you like me to debunk 2+2=5 too? I have more entertaining things to do with my dysfunctional pals here, like you and tubey.
RY - MIght have been interesting to see if you could actually do it.
Do what? What is interesting in me throwing out garbage, on trash collection day?
RY - I have no "tweaks" in my system.
You have awareness of what "tweaks" are? You can't even spell the one's in your system? I'll link the spelling for you below LOL. Do you know that weak minded folks *never* consider or assess themselves to be weak minded? Don't think about that too much :-).
RY - In case you hadn't read any of them (or in case you don't have a memory)
No, I generally don't read through *all* the nonsense here, including your posts.
RY - my posts with Mr. Kait have been less than cordial. It is my opinion that he is a a classic old-school huckster. May Belt doesn't deserve my attention.
Well, at least we agree on one thing.
RY - Nor do you. Your quips and parries aren't humorous: some are mean-spirited childish attacks, others just fall flat.
I am deeply concerned with this. No, really. No one is laughing other than me? Damn.
RY - You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.
He tried arguing from a scientific point of view with anti-science loons like yourself, on an audiophile website of all things. An utter waste of time. Where did it get him?
cheers,
AJ
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
"RY - Too bad you didn't more than glance at my post. You might have noticed a few things.I've stepped in dog crap without "noticing things" before, so forgive me."
Very nice, AJ. That's the kind of comment that I'm certain led to your troubles with the neighboring kids "growing up" (I use the term very generally).
"RY - The Shakti wsa a gift from someone who wanted to see how I would respond. I didn't buy it, nor did I want it.I got a voodoo doll once, with the suggestion that putting it near my stereo would affect the sound. But of course, I didn't try it, since my science based education allows me to comprehend stupid rubbish when I see it.
RY - I was surprised because it had an effect. It made it worse.
I'm not surprised."
You have stepped in your own this time, AJ. You acknowledge it had an effect. Why would it if your "science based education" (a claim I have serious doubts about) tells you it must be "stupid rubbish."
"RY - You may also remember that if it hadn't been for your disfunctional persona, I would gladly have sent it to you for a thorough debunking.What purpose would that have served? Would you like me to debunk 2+2=5 too? I have more entertaining things to do with my dysfunctional pals here, like you and tubey."
Dysfunctional? How you got to that conclusion must have something to do with your "science based education" no doubt. You don't have a post at hand that shows me being dysfunctional, do you? Guess that just makes this another in a long line of examples of your borish taunting.
"RY - I have no "tweaks" in my system.
You have awareness of what "tweaks" are? You can't even spell the one's in your system? I'll link the spelling for you below LOL. Do you know that weak minded folks *never* consider or assess themselves to be weak minded? Don't think about that too much :-)."
A couple of things: first, thank you for correcting my spelling. Did I add an extra "t" to Shunyata? I'll correct that as soon as I can. We're fortunate to have someone as helpful as yourself to point out that spelling is more important than content. However, I'm not as caring, so I have no problem pointing out to you that the use of an apostrophe to signify pthe plural condition is entirely incorrect. You have constructed the possesive.
Now to content: I know what tweaks are, but do you? Power cords aren't tweaks, they're just power cords. Surely your "science based education" gave you the tools to understand the link from your wall outlet to your "amp." I would say that "tweak" is necessary, and I'll bet you have a power cord or two as well. I have no Geoff Kait "product," no green pens, no foamcore headshell mounts, no ceramic cable elevators, no shun mook mumbo jumbo. I'm as amazed at auudiophile gullibility as you are, but you have somehow deduced that I'm "dysfunctional" and "anti-science." I think you need to reassess your own procedures for arriving at conclusions. They're faulty. Read your second-to-last sentence in the paragraph referenced above: pay attention.
"RY - You're certainly not as interesting as Soundmind. At least he had ideas worth debating.He tried arguing from a scientific point of view with anti-science loons like yourself, on an audiophile website of all things. An utter waste of time. Where did it get him?"
Sorry AJ. Wrong again. We never argued about content, as I've never taken an "anti-science" position. Soundmind was a pedantic bully. He's not here because he was an ass: too bad, because unlike you, he offered content that is sorely missed.
The last word is yours, AJ. The record of your posts stands as a testament to bad behavior. With all the anger you have coursing through your veins, I'd be surprised if you actually enjoyed this hobby at all. That's a sad thing, as there is a lot of goodness out there to enjoy. Good luck working that out.
Hello Robert,I have a question is possible that you'd allow me to try your Shakti stone? I'd like to do a test of it VS an object of equal weight. I'm curious how much of the effect is due to mass and how much is due to it's effecting the magnetic field around the transformer.
Now remember your advice you gave me about this idiot from Tampax, Fla. POLLYinFLA is an arrogant ass. Look at how often his posts are only taunting others in the name of "joking" & needling" with no real audio content to them. It's obvious he cannot hear squat diddly. Just think about it. He uses some bastardized version of Dr Linkwitz's Orions which WAS carefully designed product before Polly got his hands on it. I guess POLLYinFLA with his extensive scientific high school education believes he can just change what he wants to willy-nilly and it will be an improvement. Now to these god-awful things he calls speakers, he attaches 3 different pro-solid state amps, uses anything available for wires (cheaper the better) and then tops that off with copious amounts of equalization. Yessiree, that's exactly what every other 16 year old has in their basement too!
Unfortunately for all of us here in PHP we have to deal with this sick demented and scared little boy who lives in Polly's body. Safe behind the anonymity his moniker Polly can now get back at everyone who picked on him and beat him up at school. Now at home he's finally able to make everyone pay who disagrees with him. He certainly lives up to his motto: Always negative NOTHING good to say, THAT'S the POLLYinFLA way!
Forget him Robert, he'll only drag you down.
Thetubeguy1954"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
Sometimes it's hard to take one's own advice. ;)
I think you have my e-mail address. Send me your mailing address and I'll send the Shakti to you. I may peel the back of of it to see what's in there. My guess is that it is steel laminations like a transformer...
Robert,Unlike POLLYinFLA I don't require the "safety" of an audio forum's moniker. I'm NOT afraid to admit what my real name is nor am I afraid to admit what my real address is. That's what happens when someone like myself behaves like a grown man should and does. POLLYinFLA on the other hand behaves like a scared, sick, demented little 12 year old boy trapped in a man's body. His constant childish taunts desperately requires the "safety" the anonymity of a moniker provides. Otherwise somewhere, someday, when Polly least expects it, someone might actually want to pay him a visit to discuss just how funny all his "joking" & "needling" really was to them! That way they can laugh about it all together.
But Polly really doesn't want to happen. For some strange reason Polly feels that if someone wants to talk with him face-to-face about his "joking" & "needling" they are threatening him. I cannot imagine why Polly would feel this way if he was honestly "joking" & "needling" as he claims. After all "if" all Polly's taunts were honestly simple "joking" & "needling" like he claims they are, how or why would anyone possibly be offended? Is it possible that in his heart Polly knows he really wasn't "joking" & "needling" and perhaps that is what scares him? Or is it possible that Polly has been told by some of the people that are the brunt of his "joking" & "needling" that it doesn't feel like "joking" & "needling" to them? Is it possible that after being told this, Polly simple said to himself "I don't care how they feel about what I say." and just continued taunting some people anyway knowing they didn't recieve his comments as "joking" & "needling?"
Fortunately for POLLYinFLA I happen consider him to be just like an itch I cannot scratch or like a dog barking late at night when I'm trying to sleep, i.e. he's a certainly a great big pain-in-the-ass but he's also definitely he's not even worthy of my time and effort it would take to actually threaten him. Besides based on how Polly posts I honestly believe he's has the mental capacity of a child and I don't believe anyone should threaten children. Anyone who might want to visit Polly should consider that IMHO Polly would probably behave like a little girl and call the police..."Help me please I'm being threatened, by a great big man!" Hopefully one day HEMORRHOIDinFLA will grow up, act like a man, and actually start discussing different audio POVs as opposed to constantly taunting and insulting everyone whom he disagrees with. Hopefully that will happen, but me? I'm definitely not holding my breath...
My address is:
Tom Scata
1450 Marsh Creek Ln
Orlando, Fla. 32828Email is:
thetubeguy(at)yahoo.com
you two have more in common than differences. Can I suggest forming an alliance against me and May Belt? You could call it, oh, I don't know, something like the Knucklehead Alliance. Yeah, that seems about right.
That was a much funnier read than the description of how some of your "products" work. Or maybe I just don't get the humor.
Perhaps you haven't noticed this yet, but except for those unscrupulous individuals who are just here to make a buck, the participants in these fora are less likely to have problems with each other over that which brought us all here (a love of recorded music) than they are over the personality disorders that become glaringly obvious when filtered over the 'net.There's really no need to ally against you and Mrs. Belt. You two already do a superb job of ridiculing whatever credibility you might ever have had. Reading your posts is a bit like watching a car-wreck: gruesome and sad, but fascinating nonetheless.
I think "Knucklehead Alliance" is already taken, by the way. It's a sub-set of Tweaks, and is specifically identified as the home of tweakers who simply refuse to acknowledge that they were taken.
Cordially back,
Mr. Young
Yaaaawn
Maybe you realized you had me confused with AJ? Really, Geoff: "ninth grade personal attacks and such???" What post were you reading? I guess I'll accept the act of deletion as a de facto apology.
Actually, now that you bring it up, I would not retract the "ninth grade personal attacks" portion of the post I deleted. Generally speaking, I find your posts boring and unoriginal.
I didn't "bring it up, Geoff," you did. And clearly either you don't read my posts, or you have missused "unoriginal." There aren't many people here calling for a curbing of the type of bad behavior AJ participates in. If you had read the thread in question, you'd understand that. But be that as it is, since you find my posts so "boring and unoriginal," why not go pick on someone who has a higher than 9th grade comprehension level? Really being a bit unfair here, ae you?I hope your days are nice, as I'm sure you have a lot of trouble sleeping at night.
You seem to have some compulsion to keep responding on this thread. You will make a good stalker if you work a little harder on it, like adding a little more zip and originality to your posts.You display the same attributes you accuse AJ of in terms of personal attacks without substance, which is why I posted on this thread to begin with.
!
Robert,POLLYinFLA thinks of himself as a hot shit sitting in a champagne glass when the sad reality is he's only lukewarm diarrhea floating in a dixie cup!
Go back and read his posts. He seldom if ever says anything intelligent about audio. If when he isn't being hateful in the guise of "joking" & needling" he talks like some uneducated moron. His comments here: "Nice looking woofers. Wonder who makes?" sounds like something a 6 year old would say instead of an adult.
POLLYinFLA typically prefers to berate & disparage anything & anyone that doesn't line up with his views on audio. This is all done in a "joking & needling" manner, or so he claims. As I said many times before POLLYinFLA acts like a sick child that likes to torment animals. I can see him as a child prodding a pitbull with stick feeling secure in the knowledge that the chain will protect him. Just like he feels safe prodding people here on PHP feeling secure in the knowledge that his moniker anonymity will protect him.
Well one day the chain is going to break or he'll misjudge it's length and the dog will get him. I can see him now running home crying to mommy "I was only petting the dog" just like he says to me "I was only joking & needling you." I don't know how many times this idiot needs to be told, IF the person you are "joking & needling" doesn't recieve it as "joking & needling" it ceases to be so!
Yet in POLLYinFLA's sick, twisted, demented mind he believes those he irritates are the ones who needs therapy. This demented horses ass is the one who gets enjoyment out of provoking people and then telling them they have anger problems. The idiot doesn't even see the difference between anger and being irritated. I see him as an irritating little child. You don't get angry with an irritating child, you discipline them! I'd love to see this sick SOB stand in a crowd of some hate group and shout out something they'd find offensive and then tell them I was only "joking" & needling" you. Of course we all know that would never happen. POLLYinFLA only "jokes" & "needles" when a length of chain or PC anonymity prevents those from telling who's actually doing it.
After I've pointed out his atrocious behavior to him many times, and not seeing any change whatsoever in his postings, I'm not sure there is anything to be gained by any further discourse.Many kids who were playground bullies grew up and moved into civil society. He can't seem to. Or alternatively, he never was a bully growing up: he could have been a victim, who only now has found the opportunity get back at the world, an opportunity granted only by the anonymity of the internet. Either way, I feel sorry for him. He can't seem to come to grips with the concept of why there are basic rules of behavior that form the core of civilized society, nor can he understand that this hobby we're in is supposed to be fun.
If I were you (and believe me, I'll do my best to take my own advice here), I'd refrain from replying to him AT ALL. No more name-calling, no more defense against ridiculous statements. Just let it go. Those people with whom you would probably enjoy listening to music already know were you're coming from: those with whom you would never spend time, like PatD or AJinFLA, well, who cares what they think or post??
It does seem that you finally got to one of them though, as two of your posts wound up in Whiner's, even after generating quite a long thread-count. Someone must have complained...Anyway, Tom, I hope you can ignore these guys: time is better spent listening to music. Me, I'll try to do the same....
Robert,I agree with you 100%. POLLYinFLA besides being obnoxious with his constant taunts in the name of "joking" & "needling" is acting like a demented child. He must have been the victim as child like you suggested, because I gave him my real name and address so he could act like a man and say these comments to my face. How did POLLYinFLA react to that? He immediately whined to everyone that I was threatening him.
I'm going to do my best to follow your advice and try to ignore this pain-in-the-ass. Like I said he doesn't make me angery like he wants so desperately believe he does. POLLYinFLA is just irritating like an itch you cannot reach to scratch. Or dog constantly barking at night when you want to sleep.
It did both. I had a 'brick' once, and it seemed to work OK for me as well. It had a slug of iron inside.
Chips or cables, is there really a difference? Historically, no. Cables were originally laughed at, and even disbarred by audio editors from consideration. People privately worked in the background anyway, and now at least some cable differences are given some credibility by most audio magazines. And so it goes!
I agree.
Wow, Jim. I have just seen your reply to someone calling themselves Posy Rorer.For anyone who knows me, it is absolutely hilarious that I should 'dig someone up to fight my battles for me' !! Too right Jim. I can fight my own battles. As for saving face for me - unbelievable !! As for suggesting that I asked someone to defend me - unbelievable !!
It looks to me as though the person calling themselves Posy Rorer might be someone who has a grasp - an understanding of what goes on in nature.There IS a mechanism Jim. Acting on the 'sound' information travelling through the hearing mechanism - and that is 'stress chemicals' !! Stress chemicals caused by us (human beings) not being able to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe'.
In a quick attempt to bring in some of the anomalies I have just promised you I will use an example of something you, yourself, use.
I understand that you use Real Traps and Mondo Traps sound absorbers. Presumably you use them and believe they work from an acoustic point of view ?
Now, leave these sound absorbers in exactly the same (acoustic) position they are in. With exactly the same type of material but change the COLOUR of the material. Then listen. Each time you change the colour of the material, the sound will change !!! Explain that anomaly. Exactly the same acoustics in the room but different sounds !! If any acoustic measurements had been taken in the room, then any measurements taken using the different colours would be exactly the same, there would be no changes in the acoustic measurements - only changes in the sound. Explain that from within acoustic theory.Ditto with the Furutech Room Diffusers, used by Wes Phillips.
Or, let us look at the Ayre Myrtle Blocks placed under equipment which John Atkinson uses, where John acknowledges that they 'improve the sound' and where John says ""Don't ask me why they have an effect". Presumably they are expected to be (somehow or other) dealing with vibrations - and having an effect on the signal going through the equipment.
Try moving these Ayre Myrtle Blocks from underneath the item of equipment being played and placing them under an identical piece of equipment but which is just sitting, passively, on a shelf - NOT connected to the power supply and NOT connected to the audio system - just sitting there passively. The 'improvement in the sound' will STILL be there !! Explain that anomaly from within electronic theory.Similarly with the Shakti Stone which such as Barry Willis and Wes Phillips use. As I understand it, the makers of the Shakti Stone claim that there is an adverse energy pattern generated by a piece of equipment which, somehow or other, doubles back on itself to interfere with the actual audio signal going through that equipment. That the circuit inside the Shakti Stone, when placed on top of that equipment, is activated by this external (surrounding) energy and then, in turn, neutralises that adverse energy pattern, stopping it interfering with the audio signal, so giving an improvement in the sound.
Now, take the Shakti Stone off the piece of equipment being played and place it on an identical piece of equipment sitting passively on a shelf - NOT connected to the power supply and NOT connected to the audio system - just sitting passively on a shelf. The same improvement in the sound will still be there!! Explain that anomaly from within electronic theory !!
How many more examples do you want Jim, I have 25 years of accumulated ones !! That is why I "know my onions", that is why I can recognise other people's experiences when they describe them and that is why I can recognise when other people have NOT had those same experiences.
Regards,
May Belt.
May,Now to the substance:
> > Acting on the 'sound' information travelling through the hearing mechanism - and that is 'stress chemicals' !! Stress chemicals caused by us (human beings) not being able to 'sign off' the environment as 'safe'. < <
That's not what I mean. You're still missing what I mean by "mechanism."
Several days ago we resolved, I think, that it's not even necessary for us to be AWARE of the stressors in order for them to have an effect. Further, you agreed that the presence of the environmental changes need not be perceived even by the subconscious mind. Did I understand correctly?
And can I safely assume that we--people--are the source of those "stress chemicals"? Like pheromones, sort of?
But before our brains (or sweat glands, or thymus, or whatever the source of these chemicals) can produce those stress chemicals, they must be stimulated. Somehow the "threat" has to act on them. If there is no awareness, how do those sources of stress cause those chemicals to be emitted? There must be a causal link between the presence of a threat and the reaction to threat--in your proposal the creation or emission of these chemicals.
This is basic logic. I'm saying only that in order for their to be a link, there has to be a link. Nothing more. And if you acknowledge this--that something has to tie stimulus to response--you run into all sorts of other logical problems. And if you don't agree that there has to be a causal link, you're in effect saying there's causality without causality.
> > "What mode of influence--what mechanism--would work the same way for an electromagnetic field as it does for floor polish or carpet fibers? This would be unlike anything known to science in its ability to communicate." < <The "influence"., the "mechanism"., would be the pulsing electromagnetic energy and, with regards to the floor polish and carpet fibres - the influence would be the different mixtures of chemicals - present in the environment. You see Jim, you can ruin your sound by using certain floor polishes !!!
But you don't know that, do you ?> > "You're still missing what I mean by "mechanism." < <
Let me resort to a story again.
I know, you know and everyone and his uncle knows we (human beings) are aware of our territory and our boundary - and this is NOT because we can SEE a white picket fence !!But, if I state that concept and that you can 'treat' the water pipe, the gas pipe, the AC power cable, the TV aerial, the drainage pipe, all of which are 'breaking' your territory/boundary, then you Jim will demand "What is the mechanism by which we are aware of our territory/boundary ?"
What you do not seem to realise is that the concept (of being aware of our territory) did not come first and then Peter and I 'thought up' various treatments - it was the other way round. We suddenly did something to the water pipe, to the gas pipe etc and, suddenly, the sound was better !!! So, our immediate reaction was "What the hell is going on ?" (A very technical term, I believe, as I have heard electronic engineers use it often !!) From that point, 25 years ago, we have had to try to find an explanation to the question "What the hell is going on ?" Many other people reach a similar stage although from different experiences - you can see it in the sentences they use !!
This awareness of our territory/boundary must have been there, through millions of years of evolution, long before any 'white picket fence' !! The 'awareness' may have happened accidentally, it does not need a superior being to create it. One creature may have found that it could defend successfully a particularly defined area - was successful in doing so, survived and replicated and other creatures who were not able to do the same thing perished !! Classic Darwin's "Survival of the best fitted for that environment." So, that survival technique was replicated, and replicated and replicated !! As was the ability (with later herds, shoals, groups, flocks) to allow a 'leader' or 'sentinel' to 'be on guard' - to give signals of 'reassurance' - so that the rest of the herd, shoal, group, flock, could relax.
So, to demand now, today, what is the mechanism by which we 'know' our territory/boundary is like asking "What is the mechanism by which we know how to breath ?"
Yes, Jim, you are correct in that I state that you do not need to know that our devices and treatments are in the room for you to hear differences in the sound.
Regarding the previous reference to 'floor polish'. I can (or anyone else can), completely unknown to you, go into your room, treat the floor with the 'wrong' floor polish (chemical !!) and ruin your sound. Alternatively, completely unknown to you I can go into your room and treat the floor with the 'right kind' of chemical and give you a remarkable improvement in the sound. What I would be doing is using some of Nature's tricks - tricks similar to how the leader animal of a herd informs the other members of the herd to "Run like hell" or, alternatively, informs the other members of the herd "It's OK, you can relax."
This was Peter's brilliant lateral leap 25 years ago when he began to realise 'what must be going on'. That Nature must have numerous tricks up her sleeve - there to be found !! And, I might add, not reserved exclusively for Peter to find. Ed Meitner found one of them when in the early 1980s, parallel to what Peter was discovering at around the same time, Ed found that freezing things improved the sound !!! Enid Lumley was also describing some of the effects - what she called "gremlins" in her environment - only Enid struggled to try to fit what she was discovering into the conventional interpretation of "something affecting the audio signal or something affecting the acoustic air pressure waves". Enid only needed to have made the intellectual leap and realise that it was she who was being affected and she would have been there - parallel with Peter - in the early 1980s !!There does not seem any point in suggesting that you go to our home page and try some of the 'free' techniques we describe because, if you tried them and found that they gave you improvements in your sound, you would merely put it down to 'suggestion' because "May had suggested they would"!!
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May,Actually, it's quite obvious that these theories you propose are attempts to explain something you observed. And it follows that I can pick apart your theories all I want to from a scientific standpoint (easy enough to do, but--I've realized--pretty pointless) and it doesn't change what you heard, or thought you heard.
I feel we've gone as far as I think we can go right now together, and I appreciate your patience. Since the "mechanisms" you propose make no physical sense, your suggestions are, to me, equivalent to paranormal claims. Can people see ghosts? Have people been abducted by aliens? Is it possible to transmit information directly via thoughts? Does god exist? There's no way to disprove any of these things, I'm not especially interested in doing so, and many people believe in them because, they say, they have experienced these things. None of them have convinced me--that would require something like proof--but I also don't expect them to care that I'm not convinced.
I've got a friend--a very smart guy, a retired college prof--who describes himself as a born-again Christian. He is not like many others who describe themselves that way. He is politically quite liberal (for what it's worth), despises our president, and is among the more thoughtful people I know. His religious beliefs are based on an experience he had once. I've never had such an experience, don't expect to--but I respect him too much to suggest, or to believe, that his deepest beliefs are wrong. I guess you'd say I'm a sort of agnostic in that narrow context. I defer judgment.
Yet the world is full of kooks, frauds, and charlatans--many out to make a buck from the open-mindedness of others and to exploit them in various ways--and they do not all deserve the same deference I pay to my friend. I guess I need to decide where to put you on that continuum. Or maybe I don't need to decide.
May,My sincere apologies for suggesting you might have put "Posy" up to it.
Even if these claims DID deny people their dignity, that fact would not make them untrue.
...people do not examine it. They just go there looking for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place.One doesn't need to see the contents of our private communications to see some of Kramer's egregious conduct. What does the famous, Kramer waltzing into Randi's office and getting Steven Howard's protocol, unamended, approved by Randi tell you about the guy's MO? Steve Eddy comments on this, and other, JREF misdeeds in the discussions linked to below.
"Did you respond by simply deleting the sticking point and sending in the revised proposal stating this is the new proposal so lets get on with it? If not, why not?"
No, regarding the first proposal's JREF sticking point, I assumed they got the message as it had been repeated to them multiple times. They didn't seem to care was my impression.
In the second instance, I was still investigating the wisdom of applying GSIC treatment in a manner outside of the devices instructions when the shit hit the fan on April 26, 2005 over Kramer's brazen lies.
Hi Wellfed,This comment from another part of this thread says it all "...people do not examine it. They just go there looking for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place."
It's a shame that previous statement is so true. So many of the objectivists here claim they want to have technical discussions & want to discuss what's really happening in audio, when the sad fact is plainly revealed that most of them just want their opinions and voodoo science to be accepted as being the truth even when it's not.
Although I didn't read all of the thread about JREF I read enough to understand they were playing the type of games, the objectivists here play. It's exactly the same thing that happens to me when I attempt to prove I can detect differences in wires. The objectivists want to stack the deck of cards against there being any possibility of my detecting any differences and once I object to their changing the test, they claim I'm chicken and I'm backing out!
In the end it's their loss not yours my friend.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
how do you attempt to demonstrate it? And in what way to these "objectivists" change the rules?It's an honest question. I have no agenda.
Hello Again Jim,You've been very civil in our communications, which I deeply appreciate and I want to thank you for. I'll explain as plainly as I can how I attempted to prove to the objectivists here that I can, without a doubt detect diffferences in wires and how they in turn "changed" the rules.
In order to make my position clear we first have to start with the DBT/ABX issue. As I'm sure you know Jim this is something most, if not all objectivists require or else the test isn't valid in their opinion. At the same time doing a DBT via an ABX box is something that most, if not all subjectivists, including myself vehemently oppose. For me it's the uncertainty of the ABX box itself and how it might alter the sound of the system. Then of course there's also the extra wires required to use an ABX, which from a subjectivist POV only adds an additional unknown component and how it might also alter the sound of the system.
So from my POV doing a DBT via an ABX adds two components that will IMHO affect the sound of the system in a way of which I'm uncertain of. Obviously if I'm going to put my hearing acuity to the test in front of others I don't want there to be any uncertainties about the audio components themselves. After much thought I came up with a way to do blind testing sans any ABX or additional wires.
Here's my method for comparing to different sets of interconnects:
1) Setup the system behind a screen or wall with ONLY the speakers being visable to myself & the witnesses present.
2) Have a person behind the screen with the components who'll be manuelly changing the wires. (This person will not be told the reason why he's chaging the wires)
3) Now when the time comes to change wires this person can either change or not change the ICs as he chooses. Of course he has to record which IC was connected everytime.My contention is as I cannot see or hear this person and he cannot see or hear me, how's that really any different from a box changing the wires? I'll NEVER know which IC is being used! Which is precisely the reason for using an ABX.
My only other stipulation is that I must be intimately familiar with the system being used. So either we use my system or I be allowed to live with the system that's going to be used for 3 months so I can become intimately familiar with this new system. The reason for this stipulation Jim is many of the things I listen for in wires are subtle. So I MUST be intimately familiar with the system in question as it is, so I can recognize when subtle changes occur.
Unfortunately EVERY objectivist I've proposed this test to has outright discarded it as being a bogus test. Then after disparaging my proposed test, they revert to wires don't have a sound so the additional wires when using an ABX is a non-issue, plus in their opinion it's been proven that the ABX box is transparent so that's also a non-issue. Others take a different approach and state it would be a waste of their time to come because they know I'm going to fail anyway. Or before they're willing to waste any of their precious time on a test I'll most likely fail, they want to see documented proof that I've already performed such tests and have passed them. In other words as much as these objectivists claim they'd like to see proof that subjectivists can detect real, not imagined differences in wires, they come up with a myriad of excuses of either a) why the test isn't valid or b) why it would be a waste of their time to come and witness this proposed test. Then they usually end with the reality of the situation is I'm just afraid to take the a "REAL" test and I'm simply making up excuses and chickening out. So they want to change the test into an ABX/DBT or NOTHING!
My rebuttle to this is with wires it most certainly hasn't been proven that wires don't have a sound. In fact that's the very thing I'm attempting to provide proof of for these naysayers, so it's NOT a non-issue. Plus it hasn't been proven to me personally that an ABX is completely transparent, so that too is definitely NOT a non-issue. Just like I believe Wellfed wasn't chickening out neither am I. I simply want a test that's possible to pass, not one that starts with the deck stacked against me. If these naysayers truly believe wires don't have a sound of their own, then even in my proposed test I shouldn't be able to reliably detect differences so what are THEY afraid of?
So that's it Jim. I'm curious what your POV is.
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
> > I'm curious what your POV is. < <Of course I have to keep in mind the possibility that they would present the "facts" differently, but as you present them I'm mostly on your side.
As far as I know, it has never been proven to the world that IC's (Interconnects, not Intelligent Chips) DO affect the sound. That is, as far as I know, no one has ever passed a thoroughly documented, witnessed, rigorous double-blind test. I might be wrong about this; I admit I don't know the history of these things as well as I should.
But assuming I'm right about this, what I conclude isn't that this lack of proof is somehow proof of lack (of an effect)...but, rather, that a totally rigorous test would 1. be hugely important, and 2. something to work up to.
So let's start with something less ambitious--a reasonable, if not perfect, blind test. The kind of test you've described seems fine to me--not perfect, not irrefutable proof, but it's damned convincing evidence anyway. A hell of a start. Have you done this test before, on your own? With a friend, or spouse? How did it go?
I'd come help you out, but I'm on the other end of the east coast. I grew up not far from there, for what it's worth, in Ft. Pierce. I never get down there anymore, however, unfortunately.
What's next? After you've passed the non-rigorous (but still convincing) test...There's a very good chance that ABX box IS transparent. Maybe you could get comfortable with it. And then, later, you could do the truly rigorous test.
Jim, don't get yourself into more trouble. Look at JA's impressions of blind testing in the April issue of 'Stereophile'. Second, what do you know about ABX testboxes? Ever evaluate one? Third, it is the test itself that throws things off, much like May has tried to talk to you about. Fight or flight? You bet! Take the ABX test and see.
Yes, I tried. Been there, done that, worn the Tee shirt which says "I tried to explain to Jim Austin."
Jim replied to you regarding blind trials. He said :-
> > > "Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome" < < <.But I cannot understand how that 'stress' can be overcome if people are not aware of what can CAUSE that 'stress'. People who advocate blind trials obviously firmly believe that they can control every aspect of the trial and just change the one thing they wish to 'test'. Even after 25 years of research even WE do not know everything that could be having an effect !!
What we do know is that if you have a group (or even more than one person) listening in a room and one of those people tells a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room - not just for the one person telling the lie !! If one of those people THINKS a lie, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room !! And the sound will not get back to normal until that person tells or thinks the truth !!
If you have a group of people, listening in a room, then that group will adjust their posture until a state of equilibrium (a state of ease) is reached. They will do this either by crossing their ankles - left over right or right over left. Or by crossing their knees - left over right or right over left. Or by folding their arms - left over right or right over left. Only when a state of equilibrium is reached, will the sound be at it's best. But, if any one person fidgets, then the sound will be worse for everyone in the room and will not get back to the standard it had been until the group readjusts itself back to a state of equilibrium.
Even knowing these things does not really help because you cannot instruct people, involved in a test, not to tell or think a lie and not to fidget !!! Instructions such as those alone would cause enough stress to make the test worthless !!!
People, whether just a few or a larger group, are sensitive to other people's chemical reactions !!
Sound is not just the audio signal travelling through the audio system and is not just the acoustic air pressure waves in the room - sound is what the working memory constructs as a 'sound picture' from the information it eventually receives.I do not believe that I am telling you, John, anything you are not already aware of, nor do I think we are in a tiny minority (although it often appears so). What I think is that so many people are fearful of coming out of their 'comfort zone' - because it can be quite frightening.
Much easier to believe it MUST be "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing" !!!
Regards,
May Belt.
All we're talking about here is detecting the difference between 2 interconnects. Tubeguy thinks he can pass a blind (but not necessarily a rigorously double-bind) test, stress or no stress, as long as it's on his terms. So let's get on with it and go from there.The rest of this is just an attempt to discredit a legitimate testing procedure. It makes me wonder what you guys are hiding.
Jim,I've never actually did the test the way I proposed it be done. That proposition was made by myself as being a viable substitute for using an ABX/DBT. I attempted to do manuelly what an ABX does electronically, for those who ONLY accept an ABX/DBT as valid blind test.
The test I have passed on interconnects was to have a friend pick one of two ICs as he so chose. After he selected the IC a towel was hung in front of the system so I couldn't see which IC was being used. Using my stereo in my home I never got less than 8 out of 10 correct. Sometimes I get 10 out of 10 or 9 out of 10 correct. I don't know why but after 8 times it just gets more difficult for me. I don't know if it's listener fatigue, boredom with testing, stress as some claim or what. Perhaps it's simply I believe it's more difficult after 8 times so gets more difficult after 8 times!
In other people's homes the sucess rate would definitely correlate with how intimately familiar I was with the system in question. At my friend Rick's home the stereo (Counterpoint SA5000 preamp/SA 220 power amp, Meridian 808 CDP & all XLO Reference wires) which I was very familiar with, sometimes 7 out of 10, sometimes 8 out of 10, but never better than that. At other peoples homes whose stereo I didn't know & component quality wasn't as high as Rick and my own, sometimes it was even as low as 5 out of 10 which is like guessing. This is why I insist the test MUST be done on a system I am initmately familiar with. Also I'm assuming the naysayers would insist on my using wires that are only subtly different. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet if the wires sounded substantially different the naysayers would insist one of the two ICs was "improperly designed". That seems to be an objectivist catch-all for when any audio component sounds different. They never believe it's evidence that components sound different, but rather it means one of the components is "improperly designed" or broken. What would be interesting would be which one of the two would be considered "improperly designed"?
As far as using an ABX is concerned. "IF" I was allowed to live with one in my system and "IF" I came to believe it was indeed transparent, I'd consider allowing it's use. However anything I've read or heard about it from sources I trust leads me to believe it's not transparent.
In your own tests, in your own system, as you described them, are you hearing a particular quality to the sound that changes, differences in specific characteristics, or what? Is there a particular point in a particular recording where you can usually hear the difference?To me, this is really important. It's true, as JA (in the April Stereophile) and others contend, that the best way to evaluate the character and quality of a piece of equipment is to listen to it over time. But I think it's important for the credibility of our hobby that we be able to relate those qualitative changes to specific aspects of the sound that we can point to and say "see? that's different. It's the cymbals" or whatever. I'm not talking about relating it to something measured, but to something reliably and repeatably perceived. And, of course, it's important to be able to make a compelling case that we actually hear what we claim to hear--even if it's not lab-certified proof. (There's no such thing as a perfect experiment in science, and even good ones are hard to achieve. A lot of the work that moves science forward is good but imperfect, suggestive but not definitive.)
So--what do you listen for? Also, can you do this for any IC comparison? How many combinations have you tried?
Jim,I believe you're asking this question earnestly and so even though I'll probably be mocked for what I'm about to say, I'm going to answer you honestly. I MAINLY listen for a particular point in a particular recording where I can usually hear the difference. That's "IF" I'm trying prove I can hear differences in components to others. However to really know a component's true characteristics I'd like 30-90 days with it.
My favorite song for hearing differences in audio components is Aja, by Steely Dan. Towards the end of the song when the drummer is banging away he stops and clicks his drumsticks together twice. Once I've listened to an audio component's replication of that event and get familiar with it I can almost always differentiate between what component being used. For the sake of this post I consider wires a component as well, ok?
I also use Mark Johnson's CD entitled Deep Focus and the song I use is I Told You So. There's a part where he blows the sax and the music just resonates from deep within the sax, you can almost hear the air coming out of the horn, it seems difficult for most components as they tend to sound different on this.
I also like to use a CD called Jump In The Water by Jump In The Water. The song I use is It's Not for You. This is a great song for vocals. These guys can harmonize plus they're a a few feet behind the man singer who has a great voice himself. So I hear vocals and soundstaging. If you like stringed instruments you'd love these guys they play everything from lute, to mandolin, to guitar & everything in between. Everyone who's heard it loves it and believe it or not there's many of them used, like new on Amazon for $.01 I honestly don't know how to classify their music.
Of course I use some of my jazz ladies for vocals and piano and to listen to soundstage width, depth and height. I don't remember the song now but I used to own a CD by Dean Peer called Ucross. It was only him on a bass, but in one song he must have been sitting and then stood up while playing because you heard the music shift up about 2ft all at once! It was an incredible experience and proved a soundstage had height as well as depth & width.
I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. So I'm afraid most of my real testing has been done with things I and my friends can afford --- wires and tubes. Hopefully this answers your questions, if not I'll try to expound.
Thetubeguy1954
====================================================================
If Nature Abhors A Vacuum, Why Does Vacuum Tube Equipment Sound So Damn Good?
This is exactly what I was asking for and your description is very clear. I'm going to go try and find that Jump in the Water CD locally.I'm not talking about subjective evaluations--just hearing a change.
My point is that if you know exactly what to look for, and it's real, it's possible to know whether the change occurs or not (if not always easy). You've found a specific, repeatable difference; presumably, that difference is in some way related to the more qualitative things reviewers like to talk about. What exactly is different about the sound of those drumsticks? And how (if at all) does it relate to the subjective differences you notice in long-term listening? See, this is how we close the gap between subjective and objective. You don't have to be in either camp if you can hear repeatable differences of detail and relate them to subjective changes. Exciting stuff.
And by the way, since someone is bound to ask I'll go ahead and answer: I'm not sure I can do what you claim to be able to do (and by phrasing it that way I don't mean to suggest that I don't believe you; I do.) I once had my wife administer a similar test (I even used towels) and was absolutely sure of what I heard. The difference was beyond any question. And I got it exactly wrong. Twice. (I was trying to identify which cable was in the system, not just determine whether they had been switched or not).
> > I've listened to only a few amps and preamps as opposed to a reviewer like yourself. < <
You would probably be surprised.
Thanks again.
Jim,Thanks I appreciate your candor. FYI Jump In The Water is an extremely difficult CD to locate. I've always been happy with my purchases of used CDs on Amazon, so I recommend you buy one of their "like new" copies for $.01. With shipping it will probably be less that $3.00
To be honest with you Jim at one time I didn't even realize there were objectivists & subjectivists. Many years ago when I first started getting serious about audio I believed wires couldn't possibly make a difference. I also believed tubed equipment was an obsolete technology. Yet at the same time I heard differences in amps and preamps etc. I guess I was an objectivist who demanded proof that wires effected the sound or that tubed amps weren't obsolete and easily bettered by solid state amps, but I listened subjectively or however you'd classify one with the beliefs I had at that time. I was quite taken aback when I joined the Asylum and felt animosity expressed by objectivists towards anyone who listened subjectively. Up till then in all my experience I had never met anyone who didn't believe audio components couldn't or shouldn't sound differently but I digress.
Getting back to when I listen for differences between components. When I first detected differences in the sound of the 2 drumsticks struck together I attempted to determine which I believed was the most realistic replication. When I made my choice later that same day I actually went and bought a pair of drumsticks to hit together and compare. IMHO what I selected as being the more accurate replication was indeed just that. What really surprised me is just how dynamically limited most audio systems are! I needed to hit the sticks quite a bit less hard than the drummer on Aja or else it was too damn loud.
Jim you mentioned when you attempted to detect differences in two IC's you were wrong both times. It's my contention that when people test to hear differences they listen to way too much info. Testing one's hearing acuity & listening to music are two completely different functions. Hence they need to be done completely differently. Try doing what I did concentrate on something simple like the drumsticks in the end of Aja being hit together. You want to listen for about 30 secs when testing, it way to easy to overload yourself with too much info. I honestly believe, and I AM NOT trying to toot my own horn, that I can teach ANYONE who doesn't have a hearing disability, and who truly wants to learn, how to differentiate between audio components withing an hour or so.
In any event these days I'm a subjectivist who believes there should be a measureable reason for everything we hear. The main problem I have with objectivists, at least the vocal objectivists here on PHP, is that they believe todays measurements are sufficient and complete within themselves. Then in order to make their religous dogma work they need to come up with statements like this idiotic remark from Peter Aczel "...a "properly designed" amplifier has no sound of its own." Thus following their belief if an amp does indeed sound different that simply means it's not "properly designed"! I often wonder how they'd react if an amp was reviewed by Aczel that sounded completely different from all his previously accepted "properly designed" amps. Being that this new amp sounded different from all Peter's previously accepted "properly designed" amps would mean it couldn't possibly be a "properly designed" amp. But what if this new not "properly designed" amp sounded almost indistinguishable from live music? Would they still reject it as being not being "properly designed"? That would be an interesting dilemma no?
The reality is today's accepted audio measurements do not correlate sufficinetly enough with what we hear! That belief on my part doesn't mean I think all measurements are useless as more than one objectivist here has suggested. Rather it means I realize that scientists and audio manufacturers haven't yet discovered exactly what traits in live music the human ear/brain uses to determine it is live music and not recorded. Once these measurements are discovered and implemented, we'll close the gap between all subjectivists and objectivists who honestly want to know the truth about whats happening in audio. Unfortunately those who simply want to be correct at all costs will find someway to claim these new measurements are bogus or wrong...
Thetubeguy1954
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.” Richard Feynman theoretical physicist, 1918-1988
...as I'm always looking for objective evidence of change.One track I like to use for this is "Symbol In My Driveway" from Jack Johnson's "On and On" title. The first 30 seconds or so of this track is all I usually need to spot resolution and soundstage changes. Sometimes change is subtle and requires repeated listenings to determine if ANYthing worthwhile occurred. Other times, changes can be quite dramatic.
Geoff Kait's Brilliant Pebbles accessory situated on ceramic tile 'tables' in the 'right' locations is an example of dramatic. Thought I'd squeeze in a little advertisement for Geoff here. ;-)
but in a most uncareful way, wellfed. Don't worry you are in no danger of becoming a "scientist" :).
I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status. So I don't do DBT's; whoopdedoo! You quote/unquote scientists can have them, and take your so-called placebo effect with you. ;-)
"I'm quite happy with my mere scientist status"
The scientist is a lover of truth for the very love of truth itself, wherever it may lead. — Luther Burbank (1849-1926), American plant breeder, botanist, naturalist.Not the other kind. ;-)
Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Not the other kind. ;-)"Sorry, Wellfed, there is no other kind of scientist...at least not early in their career. Later with age all people become more conservative but that doesn't mean the new ideas don't get through! Just more likely that the new idea is really something good and hype.
"Note especially the 'wherever it may lead' portion of Burbank's quote. The scientist doesn't control that part if they're looking for truth. It takes a little effort, but it's a fun and rewarding pastime.
"Again, I just don't think you get this really. Whereever it may lead is coming from the fact that often an unexpected result of an experiment is more interesting than if you get an expected result. However; once an anamalous observation is made, every effort is then given to make sure that it wasn't a failure, bias, or artifact in the experiment itself first, then to try to reproduce it (under CONTROLLED conditions). If it is reproducible under one set of conditions then what about other conditions. Determining the boundaries as it were. If it passes these tests then an attempt to determine what it means can be undertaken. This is what "whereever it may lead" means.
So while you have the intent of exploration you are not really approaching it with the skeptical mindset of a true scientist. Of course they too get excited by new results...and then they sober up and find out if the observation was really the result of something new or if it was a flaw in the experiment somehow. Face value is not an accepted aspect of exprimental science.
...while there's an emergency going on.We better turn our attention to the science used in the following post.
Looks like libel to me, but I'm not a lawyer.
I don't follow your conclusion at all.In what way is "Scientific Method losing ground" ?
Hi John. I appreciate your point of view, but for what it's worth, I'm not too worried about getting myself in trouble, whatever you might mean by that (Do you mean with JA? I doubt that's a concern; anyway, I'm not concerned).For what it's worth, I've thought a great deal about blind tests, and I've probably read (and retained) everything JA ever wrote on the subject, and much else. Yet I also know how to think for myself. Your idea that "it's the test itself that throws things off" is, if the subjectivist equivalent of the objectivist insistence on pure, perfect methodology--that is to say, whether it's intentional or not, it's a way of creating a divide that can't be crossed. And I think crossing it isn't only possible; it's the right thing to do.
John, there's absolutely nothing about a proper test--the CONCEPT of a test--that causes fundamental problems. Yes, tests stress people out and makes them perform worse (believe me; I've experienced that). But that can be overcome. Let's face it John; either you hear it or you don't, and if you really do hear it, reliably and consistently, you can learn to hear it under stress. I'm not talking about deciding which is better, or making judgments about audio quality. I'm only talking about learning from practice that something--one thing, anything, on the track of your choice using your choice of equipment--has changed. If you CAN'T pass a test like that, then just how important could these differences possibly be?
If JA has a problem with this opinion--which I seriously doubt--I'm sure he'll let me know.
Give it up Jim, you don't know the first thing about ABX testing, except what you have read. Give it a good honest try!
That's a pretty weak argument John.
We have been trying, debating with the proponents, and actively discussing privately between ourselves, ABX testing, and other double blind testing for almost 30 years. You will find my first input, (after sincerely trying a test box, unlike you) in 'The Audio Amateur' back in 1979 as an LTE directly aimed at Dr. Lipshitz.
If you look at the articles in the 'TAA' in 1979 and 1981, by Rod Rees, you might get further insight in the problems of ABX testing.
You know way, way more than I do about audio, okay? No reasonable person could doubt that, and I certainly don't. You've forgotten things I may never learn.I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations, which, frankly, make the industry and hobby seem tired, tradition-bound, the last refuge (along with cigars, Bordeaux, and other luxury consumer items) of over-privileged old white guys (a description that would fit me pretty well except that I'm only modestly over-privileged and I'm not particularly old, though I'm not young either.)
John, you're royalty in this world; I bow down before you. But that doesn't make you right. And that's what makes it fun.
> > "I bring some things to the table though, like some writing ability, extensive technical training (much of it forgotten, admittedly, and a lot of it not directly relevant anyway), and a fresh perspective--by which I mean my refusal to accept these status-quo explanations," < <I would go along with and be quite OK with your description of a "fresh perspective" and "a refusal to accept these status-quo explanations" if I did not see you being HIGHLY SELECTIVE in this "refusal to accept these status-quo explanations".
You see Jim, I do not see you challenging John Atkinson's use of the Myrtle Wood Blocks. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "vibrations" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Wes Phillips use of the Shakti Stone. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "electromagnetic field" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Michael Fremer's use of the Furutech or Acoustic Revive de-magnetisers on vinyl records. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "magnetism" - a word you have heard of before in science ?
I do not see you challenging Nordost and their liquid which they suggest people apply to the LABEL side of a CD and to the outer insulation of all cables. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "static" - a word you have heard of before in science ?"
I do not see you challenging Sonus Faber and their 'special lacquer' which they apply to their speaker cabinets and which they describe as 'friendly to audio'. Is it because somewhere there was suggested the word "resonance" - a word you have heard of before in science ?I do not see you asking John Atkinson "By what mechanism are the Myrtle Wood Blocks altering the audio signal ?" "Why do the Myrtle Wood Blocks have to be used in threes and why do they have to be the shape of the Golden-section ratio 'magic' dimensions ?"
I do not see you asking Wes Phillips "By what mechanism is the Shakti Stone having an effect ?"
I do not see you asking Michael Fremer "By what mechanism is the de-magnetiser altering the information stored on the vinyl record ?"
I do not see you asking Nordost "By what mechanism is your liquid affecting the sound ?"
I do not see you asking Sonus Faber "By what mechanism is your 'special lacquer' affecting the sound ?"I, personally, can accept that all these things affect the 'sound' because we (Peter and I) have been there, done similar things, heard the effect !!
In an earlier reply you stated that you thought that Richard Feynman would yes, probably, have been curious enough to have tried many of the things referred to as 'changing the sound' in audio, might have heard an improvement in the sound but then, eventually,
"would have concluded, after further investigation, that this was still more evidence for the power of suggestion and the fallibility of human perceptions. And he would have found it fascinating. He might even have tried the photo-in-the-freezer thing...but it would have been, for him, an experiment in the freakiness of human perceptions and the power of suggestion. And he would have found that no less interesting than if the effect had been real."
My understanding of Richard Feynman would suggest otherwise. That he would have gnawed at it like a dog with a bone, then, still not able to come up with an explanation would have placed the problem 'on a shelf', but would have returned to it again at some later time, taking it down from the shelf, dusting it off, looking at it again, because it would have niggled him !!!
It would have niggled him that he did not have an explanation - because this is what good scientists feel !!My reading of Richard Feynman is that he would not have so readily dismissed so many diverse people's observations as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing." I see him as too great a scientist as that and too great a teacher of science as that.
Regards,
May Belt.
Hi May. There's a lot here to reply to. I probably won't have time to deal with all of it, but I'll give it a try.Please understand that when I say I have a fresh perspective, that's not some schtick I have adopted. Not unlike your theories, it's an after-the-fact observation, a tentative, interim assessment.
Your list is a curious mixture of things that make no sense--for which no mechanism is conceivable--and things that are fairly reasonable from a mechanistic perspective--which is to say that a lot of scientists wouldn't believe it would be audible, but most would acknowledge that there's a chance because potential mechanisms DO exist. So what you dismiss with a sneer as "my having heard the word once in science" (which if I were more sensitive I would find offensive, having spent many years struggling to understand the theories--by Feynman and many others--that you have encountered, if at all, only rendered into prose accessible by people who haven't paid their technical dues. But I digress) is in fact an awareness that, though it would require further study to determine whether the effect is real, there are cases in which it is at least POSSIBLE that it's real, and then there are the utter absurdities, like the chip and photos in the freezer and generalized, ethical "threat fields" that work the same way for chemicals as they do for e/m fields.)
If you think I'm intentionally avoiding offending anyone, I'l dispense with that right now.
myrtle wood blocks: may high-end manufacturers incorporate anti-mechanical-resonance technology in their designs, most often a big chunk of metal. A lot of attention is paid (by more skilled designers) to where their circuit boards are supported (i.e, whre you put the screws). Why? Because (as is well established and not the least bit controversial) mechanical vibrations do affect the performance of electronic circuits. I think people would find that those designs that pay the most attention to vibration control are improved the least by wood blocks (myrtle or otherwise). Supporting a component on wood blocks is a vibrational band-aid, and a reasonable ones. Does the type of wood matter? That seems a lot goofier, but I defer judgment on that out of respect for the accomplishments of Charles Hansen. "Golden ratio" dimensions? I don't believe this makes any difference at all. Marketing. And yes, I know about the Cardas connection, and their cables. (BTW, I bought some Jenga blocks a few weeks ago and tried them out. My son loves to play with them, but I haven't heard any effect in my system.)
* Shakti stones. Having played with these literally for years (along with the onlines) I'm a bit less charitable about these--but, again, theres a clear and obvious mechanism. They're a poor value, but they DO work. They don't do anything that (eg) a big glass of water wouldn't do, but who wants to put a big glass of water on top of their expensive preamp? (probably there are other materials that work just as well) Again, it's a band-aid. Well designed equipment is, well, probably not completely immune to RFI, but mostly immune. Do they work? I've never concluded that they affect the sound in my system--and I've listened to A LOT of different stuff, but they certainly reduce RFI, if only by a very small amount. Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio.
Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong.
A special lacquer on a speaker cabinet shouldn't make any difference except for speakers (like, I think, those Bosendorfer thingies--are they still around?) where the cabinets are SUPPOSED to vibrate as part of the characteristic sound. I've not listened to Sonus Faber speakers to any significant extent, but my impression is that their cabinets are very solid and non-resonant. If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference. I suspect this is a marketing claim, intended to exploit an implied connection to the fine Italian string instruments some of their speakers are named after. Notice that "friendly to audio" is pretty vague. An empty claim.
Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it. A static charge on speaker cables could affect the sound in principle, but I doubt it.
As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. I'm pretty sure, though, that he would not have shared your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason. You seem not to understand--even after I (and no doubt others) have explained it repeatedly, that it's uncontroversial and (in human terms) universal. Feyman would, I'm sure, have had far less trouble than you accepting this. If you could only get past this, you would see that the mystical explanations you dream up are unnecessary. Feynman would have seen that right off.
> > As for your Feynman interpretations, he's dead, so we'll never know what he would have thought. < <Actually Jim, we have a pretty good idea...
"If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part."
- Richard Feynman
A very quick reply Jim.
With reference to what you call my snide remarks. I USUALLY try to cover my tracks to avoid any misrepresentation of my comments by saying "I am exaggerating here merely to make a point". I apologise for forgetting to do this.
Re Shakti Stones:-
> > "Could be the power of suggestion--yes, my Stereophile colleagues are also susceptible, as I am--but it's also possible that they do something. Wes is a great writer and I trust his insights on audio." < <I made the point of stating that I accepted and believed that all the people I mentioned HAD heard what they said they had heard. I have no doubts about that - so I do not challenge their descriptions.
> > "Vinyl demagnetizers make no sense to me, but I haven't given it a lot of thought. Is MF wrong about those? Could be? Or there could be something else going on besides "demagnetizing." And I could be wrong." < <I don't think Michael IS wrong about what he heard. I just don't think that the demagnetising is altering the information on the vinyl record. I think there IS something else going on. I believe that the improvement in the sound (the additional information Michael heard) was already in the room - that demagnetising the vinyl record changed the environment which allowed Michael to 'hear' (resolve) that information better !!! You say you haven't given it a lot of thought. Why not ? It is to do with audio and sound - the very subject you write about !! Aren't you the teenyist, weenyist bit curious ? I disagree with you about Feynman. HE was the most curious scientist I know - about anything and everything !!!
Regarding the 'special lacquer'. > > "If so, I would be stunned if a special lacquer made any difference." < <
THAT is IT - That is the crucial sentence. And, if you WERE 'stunned' when you discovered that a special lacquer DID make a difference to the sound - what would you do ? Ignore it ? Dismiss it as 'suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing or effective marketing' ? Or, would you carry out some experiments ? Would you try to find out why ? Would you look for an explanation ? If you could not find an explanation from within the conventional electronic or acoustic theory text books would you look elsewhere for an explanation or would you give up ? If you found that you could apply this 'special lacquer' to the central heating radiator in the listening room, to the wall lights, to the piano, to the perspex lid of the turntable - to this, and to that, and gain improvements in the sound each time - and be even FURTHER 'stunned' to the state of being devastated by what was happening - what would you do then ? After spending 30 years of your life making state of the art speakers and headphones, working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories - what would YOU do ? Keep absolutely silent for fear of being ridiculed or would you tell other people involved in the world of audio ? To see what they made of it all ?
> > > "Regarding your irrational aversion to explanations that invoke the fallibility of human perception. This seems to be a blind spot for you--you reject it too easily and with too little reason." < < <
No, Jim, I don't think it is me who has the blind spot. Nor do I believe that what we have discovered is akin to a religious belief or conversion.
I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do - so if you do not reject it, then neither do I. I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. How I wish that 'suggestion etc and effective marketing' were that powerful.
Regards,
May Belt.
> > I know the fallibility of human perception equally as well as you do...I just know that it is not the answer to everything that is difficult or what appears strange at first. < <On this at least we can agree. The difference, I think, is that I believe, from experience, that the exceptions are very rare, and you believe, from experience, that they are very common. I think you credit people's experiences too much, and you think I credit them too little. That's an interesting difference.
Who is demanding the status quo? I am up to learning new things, not being told that I don't know what I am doing or hearing by someone who hasn't even tried yet to try the same things that I have tried.
That's it, Tubeguy! Happens to me as well.
v
> The thing is......people do not examine it. They just go there looking
> for what they want to see, overlook what they don't, and then make
> idiotic pronouncements as to what they think took place.I cannot speak for others but I read the summary thread. Read a few hundred posts in the raw threads for confirmation and concluded what I had extracted from the summary thread was looking reasonable. The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled listening test of cables and then backing out.
I would be surprised if people read all the relevant posts which run well into the thousands. At a guess, most will read the summary thread or part of it and form their opinions based on that.
Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going on based on the threads.
Steve Eddy's point might be true although the way it was expressed would tend to make people check rather than take his word for it. However, what most people are going to see is the overall behaviour and this does not rest on individual details being true or false.
Some aspects of Kramer's performance probably deserve criticism but set against the overall process this is again a detail. Most of the apparent issues occurred towards the end when the prospect of a test occurring was effectively over.
If you want to lay this to rest after all this time my guess is that you will need to get somebody you really trust like a member of your family to explain to you how and why you were at fault during the first half of the process. Even though I suspect you cannot see it yourself others can.
...is that the whole thing became increasingly convoluted and acrimonious as time progressed.The summary thread you refer to is actually Kramer's own private little playground. He, and he alone, comes up with this 'summary' view. What you see there is what Kramer wants you to see. He doesn't leave a lot out, but what he does is certainly crafty.
"The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled listening test of cables and then backing out."
Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd like to see you try and support the notion.
"Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going on based on the threads."
This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.
"Some aspects of Kramer's performance probably deserve criticism but set against the overall process this is again a detail. Most of the apparent issues occurred towards the end when the prospect of a test occurring was effectively over."
Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to fruition. He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of outright lies. What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF Challenge?
"If you want to lay this to rest after all this time my guess is that you will need to get somebody you really trust like a member of your family to explain to you how and why you were at fault during the first half of the process. Even though I suspect you cannot see it yourself others can."
First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being. Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here. Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't. The aggravating thing for me is it's like you guys don't want the truth. And seriously more aggravating yet, it seems that Kramer was banking on just that. It's downright disgusting IME.
> > "The reason I continued reading was that your behaviour was a bit different to that
> > I had seen before of a few audiophiles preparing in public for a controlled
> > listening test of cables and then backing out."
>
> Is there an inference here that I somehow backed out of being tested? If it is I'd
> like to see you try and support the notion.That is not what the sentence says.
> > "Your answer to my question has only confirmed my view of what was probably going
> > on based on the threads."
>
> This point is worthy of further elaboration on your part.Only if you ask for it since I am not pushing this along.
Your behaviour when defining the test was irrational. My interpretation of the probable cause is that your responses looked more to be those of someone who was confused and uncertain rather than someone who had come to realise the situation (i.e. the test was going to be failed) and is trying to delay and back out. Clifff using the same information would appear to interpret things differently.
> Kramer's performance is the chief detail as to why this testing never came to
> fruition.The test did not happen because you did not send in a protocol that was agreed by both parties.
> He took great pains to make it look like something else, including the use of
> outright lies.I can see no evidence of him taking great pains. Once it became fairly clear what was happening he let his frustration show rather than working at being professional.
> What does that tell YOU about the guy? What does that tell YOU about the
> 'negotiation' process? What does that tell YOU about the integrity of the JREF
> Challenge?I can see nothing in your application that questions the integrity of the challenge. All you had to do was submit a protocol, modify the points of contention while leaving the agreed points alone and after one or two exchanges it is done. The JREF side was trying to do this almost upto the end but you were not. Exactly what you were doing is debatable.
What I did view as a bit odd was not corresponding in a neutral manner but I guess there is a significant element of show business in what they do.
> First half, last half...I don't claim perfection, but I assure you, between JREF and
> myself, I was the only party honestly working toward seeing a test come into being.
> Why you, and others like you, can not see that is the real issue here.The postings are on JREF to give an idea of what happened. I can see little to suggest dishonesty one either side. But your irrational behaviour cannot be disputed.
> Kramer's betrayal of his fellow sceptics pains me more than his treatment of myself
> because I know the truth. As yet, you guys don't.Kramer has betrayed nobody that I can see. He let himself down a bit by not behaving in more professional manner but that would appear to be about the limit of it.
> The aggravating thing for me is
> it's like you guys don't want the truth.The truth about your paranormal abilities concerning the chip or your interaction with the JREF?
I think you should probably accept the fact that neither is of importance to anybody but yourself except as a topic to chat about in a group like this. The former is because nobody believes you have paranoraml abilities and the second is because they are reasonably content with what they have seen on JREF with the odd exception like Steve Eddy.
BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
If you have anything to add please post it here - or start another thread. I will read it carefully.I am not going to get involved in 'phone calls to the UK (where I am) and am curious as to why you are so apparently desperate to convince a sceptic.
I'm offering this service, free of charge, for YOUR benefit? Remember, I already know the truth. My assumption is that you'd want to know it as well.I'll post some details, in component parts, working backward from April 26, 2005. In the meantime, I'd appreciate your commentary on the events of that day which have been previously documented here at PHP.
BTW, I don't incur any long-distance charges calling the UK, hence my offer.
Are you planning to "save" me or something?I don't go for that.
Why do you want to 'phone me? (no cost for me either, but I do have a life. I think)
The only 'saving' I had in mind is for you to see the truth about JREF.A phone conversation is simply more efficient than all the typing necessary to unravel a highly convoluted mess, but let's just skip the phone call talk and get back to business.
Go back to the 17/18/19th and your pissing around trying to challenge and change things, then put it off until July/October must have caused them to totally lose patience.Most of the candidates wriggle out of taking even a preliminary test. If you wanted to do it you have to be squeaky clean.
You cannot seem to grasp that it was YOU making the challenge, YOU who wanted to take their $1M, YOU who were confident that you could hear the ENOORMOUS differences. And YOU who blew it.
Don't you think that with all those enormous egos (like KRAMER) at JREF totally convinced that the GSIC was a fraud they would have LOVED you to test scientifically and fail?
No more.
I dislike being impolite, but i think you are very misguided.
Hopefully we can continue to converse on other subjects here without any difficulty. Best wishes to you as always.
d
> Would you care to join clifff and myself in examining the facts?.No thank you. I replied because you posted twice on the thread that disappeared off the right hand side. I am content to let clifff represent "us guys".
> BTW, I have never claimed that I have any paranormal abilities.
In which case, if you do not think the chip operates in a paranormal manner how do you think it operates in a non-paranormal manner?
In the grand scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.One last thing before I bid you adieu.
Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum April 26th, 2005
"Originally posted by KRAMER
That's a good one, and an entirely different paranormal claim. You'll have to send in a new application...especially since I haven't heard a peep from you since last week when you promised a new protocol within hours.A most curious, deafening silence.
Oh, and by the way, Piano Teacher is who he claims to be.
Did anyone here really accuse him of being something else?
If so, I must have missed it."
When he received and responded to the following correspondence from the previous day (flow of correspondence moves from bottom to top)
"My protocol is better than the Howard protocol in that it allows for the GSIC to be applied in a manner closer to the instructions of the manufacturer. I will research the matter however.-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer[edit]randi.org]
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 3:34 PM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: dummy chipUse the HOWARD protocol.
-Kramer, JREF
====================
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'KRAMER'
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:31 AM
Subject: dummy chip
Kramer,
Neither Gr8wight, or myself, have figured out a way to keep the test double blind without using a dummy GSIC. Any suggestions?
Michael
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 4/19/2005"His intent with this April 26 posting obviously was not intended to deceive me as I had both the memory of, and the correspondence on file, to know the truth of the matter in no uncertain terms. So tell me, who was he trying to deceive, and more importantly, why was he trying to deceive anybody at all? I'll get into the other details with Cliff.
> I seldom pause to consider how the chip functions...In the grand
> scheme of things, I'm just a satisfied consumer.So it might operate in a paranormal manner if this science thing cannot explain how it works?
> Why do you think Kramer would post the following on the JREF Forum
> April 26th, 2005You are asking me to guess? OK I will guess.
You have been messing Kramer around for ages with your irrational behaviour and he is pretty p*ssed off. All he wants is for you to agree a procedure for the experiment which is straightforward but you will not do it. You are telling him all sorts of irrelevancies (he used a different word which I cannot recall) which he is ignoring while repeatedly asking you to supply a bl**dy procedure. You finally send him one but then switch to messing him around with dates you have already agreed to. He threatens not to send the procedure in an effort to stop you p*ssing about with the dates.
During this period you change the procedure you want to perform in discussion with other people in one of the threads. The procedure written on a piece of paper in front of Kramer is different (correct me if I am wrong? - I know I should not have asked that). You are posting all these details at him but he is quite reasonably letting them wash over him because they are irrelevant to him.
He has loads of other applications to look after at the same time? When he next gives your application some attention he decides to send the procedure he has got in front of him off to be agreed instead of trying to use it as a stick to try stop you p*ssing him around with the dates.
Your complaint is that he sent off the wrong procedure even though it was the only one he had (did he have the correct procedure on a piece of paper in front of him?) and that this is some sort of deliberate plot against you. The basis for this is that he should have paid attention to whatever you were banging on about in your emails which one quite reasonably would have expected him to ignore because it is not his concern. I think the worst one can claim is a mistake and if my guessing above is close to the mark possibly not even that.
Was this a good guess?
By the way he has done something wrong. He has made a positive suggestion to you to use the Howard protocol. OK I am sure he meant it in the form of stop p*ssing around and lets go with what we have got but it can be read as a positive suggestion. So when you failed the test you could then say I was not sure (lots of evidence for this!) but you persuaded me to use the Howard protocol and this is why I failed.
I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves and requires.I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it before tomorrow evening at the earliest.
I would like to comment briefly on the notion that I waffled on test dates. This simply is not true. I was firm with JREF all along that Aug. 1 - Aug. 15, 2005 were the dates that worked for me. Kramer stated on March 31st, 2005 that JREF wished to see the testing take place in June. I provisionally agreed, with reluctance, if the June dates were vital to JREF for some reason, by days end they stated that June testing was not vital and it appeared that the matter was settled.
There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle" where I have posted all of my correspondence with JREF up to the date of the "My Struggle" thread creation date. If you wish to investigate my take on the matter, go to this thread and view the correspondence from March 31st, 2005. This thread is not opening for me at the moment or I would have provided a direct link. If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the emails from my own archives.
> I'm too busy right now to give your post the attention it deserves
> and requires.It does not deserve or require much attention - this is a chat page on a nutty audiophile site.
In addition, I wrote it from memory without checking a single piece of correspondence (how much attention does that deserve?) because I was trying to get you to look at the wood rather than the trees.
> I've started composing a response, but haven't the time to finish it
> before tomorrow evening at the earliest.OK but I would appreciate a response at the level of my posting and not more trees. Or, if it has to be trees, can I have just the trees of relevance to Kramer and not all the other ones.
> There is a thread at JREF Forums entitled "My Struggle"
The threads either side load but this one doesn't. Is it huge? Has it been removed and, if so, do you know why? If you have posted other peoples private emails to you there could be quite reasonable reasons for removing it.
> If the link proves problematic for you as well I will provide the
> emails from my own archives.Thanks for the offer but I really am only chatting on a website to find out about audiophiles.
Perhaps I should add that even if Kramer made a whole bunch of mistakes processing your application and is now covering up (for which I have seen no evidence) it doesn't change anything that is worth bothering about. You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you.
I am content. You would be more content if you made an effort to bring this thing to a close by hearing some uncomfortable truths from somebody you trusted. Posting here is not going to help. I am sure you will dismiss the likes of clifff and myself and symphathetic responses from other audiophiles will only prolong the matter.
Just let me know if they are of any interest to you.BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you presented, was it not?
"You would have failed the JREF test as you have either found out by now or could easily find out by getting someone to test you."
Pretty much a given, right? I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't pass. 'Science' just marches on. ;-)
> Facts be damned then?...I am not damning facts. I am telling you that I am not particularly interested in a lot of emails on a topic I have looked at and have relatively little residual curiosity about.
> BTW, the issue of supposed date waffling was one of the levels you
> presented, was it not?Yes if it is about why you were waffling and why you did not send revised procedures in a timely manner (apart from the first obviously). No emails please, just what motivated you to do what you did.
> Pretty much a given, right?
Yes.
> I suppose JREF did me a favor then by portraying me as they
> themselves are. Spared me the trouble of failing a test I couldn't
> pass.It is very difficult to see any similarities between you and JREF. People reading the thread will see you failing to get on with the challenge and JREF not handling that particularly smoothly. But I do not think JREF did you any favours if the matter is not largely closed for you after all this time.
'Science' just marches on. ;-)
Science? You presumably wanted the money as I would if I could see a way to beat their challenge. JREF presumably wants the show business. Science would seem to have a very minor role.
My motivation initiated with one of the persistent calls here to take the Randi Challenge if, in this case, the GSIC really worked. The million dollars was appealing too.JREF did me no favors. I was being sarcastic.
I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are wrong.
Some of the stuff with Kramer ended in a Mexican standoff. I was frustrated with the lack of progress on top of all the deceitful stuff he pulled. My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known on the matter. This 'waffling' over dates matter is another of many JREF deceits. It would take a person about 2 minutes to come to the conclusion that I didn't waffle on the matter if they were to view the pertinent portion of the record. Yet the notion persists. I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to deceit.
> I you wish to comment without factual backing, who am I to do anything
> but counter your assessments if they are wrong? Most of them are
> wrong.I commented based on the threads in JREF which would seem to be reasonably factual. If you want to point errors may I suggest simply quoting the statement which is wrong and stating why it is wrong underneath it in a self contained manner. A general claim without anything concrete is not persuasive.
> My issue is not with JREF any longer, although their actions still
> disgust me, it is with those blinded to their shenanigans. I'm not
> at war with 'you guys', I simply want the relevant facts to be known
> on the matter.Well then the remedy would seem to be straightforward. Create a summary thread just like Kramers, inserting the bits you consider are missing and pointing out where in his summary thread things are not quite right. That is, you put in the work and not ask your readers to do it.
> I'm sure you would agree that there is a sickening element to
> deceit.It depends on the case and your viewpoint. Is it sickening that the manufacturers of this chip are deceiving you about its action?
While JREF misdeeds were many, the most irritating proved to be their nasty habit of painting a picture that wasn’t warranted by the negotiations or discussion. Prior to the March 31st phone calls with Kramer I had suggested a couple of proposals that would allow me to take advantage of a family vacation to Florida we were considering in the month of June ’05.These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc, treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.
In the meantime Steven Howard came up with a protocol proposal on the JREF Forums that I considered to hold a lot of promise. I stated as much on the Forum and in my conversation with Kramer on March 31. He was well aware that I had to review the proposal a bit further myself and that I already had some amendments I considered important in mind. He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum for himself, but what the hay, no problem.
In the same conversation we discussed test dates. I told him of my desire to be tested between the dates of August 1 and August 15. I had given the test date matter much consideration and these were the dates that worked around my schedule and concerns. His response was something to the tune of “that’s 6 months from now.” Reviewing the record I notice too that I had also told him that it was my desire to be tested August 1, or later, way back on March 15, a few day after our initial contact with one another if memory serves me. March 15 was the very FIRST day of any email correspondence between ourselves.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: RE: headphones
Kramer,
One other note, my 30th high-school reunion is coming up this summer. I haven’t heard dates yet, but I would definitely like to avoid any notoriety at least until after this event. I would like to avoid all notoriety completely if possible. What kind of time frame is typical to iron out the protocol, do the preliminary testing, and assuming I pass, do the final testing? I would like to see the final testing take place Aug. 1, 2005 or later.- Michael]I emphasize this because of Kramer’s insinuation on the Forum March 31 07:29 PM as follows
[More Wasted of Time
Yup. That's my opinion, and I'm perfectly entitled to it.Yes, I spoke with Mr. Anda this morning. It was a very nice chat. He informed me that June would be fine, and asked if we could resume protocol negotiations now. I said YES, and we exhanged some emails. Go to his thread in CHALLENGE APPLICATIONS to see where it all wound up.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?
__________________
KRAMER,
JREF Paranormal Claims Dept.]
He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.[-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 9:46 AM
To: Michael
Cc: [privacy edit]
Subject: kramer here
Hello Michael,
It was VERY good to talk with you this morning. Let's work hard toward making a test happen in June, if all parties can corrdinate their schedules accordingly. We understand that July is out, and early August is also a possibility for you.
[privacy edit] is definitely the man to help with this claim. Here's his contact data:
[privacy edit]
Let's get it rolling.
-Kramer, JREF]Early August was more than “a possibility for” me, it was my clearly stated preference, not too mention expectation, unless JREF could provide a strong case for June testing being vital to the matter. My dates were within the JREF Challenge guidelines and Kramer told me in our March 31 AM phone conversation that he would see what he could do to get Randi to approve those dates. He came across as ‘I will go to bat for you on this one’ and see if I can get Randi to approve of your preference.
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:05 AM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Thanks Kramer,
Just to be clear I have a fairly strong aversion to doing this in June. I just feel a little rushed with everything else on my plate. I do feel the need to settle into audiophile mode without any other distractions for a period of time to get my comfort level back to where it needs to be. Aug. 1 thru Aug. 15 would be a great time for me and would give me great peace of mind which I feel is essential to my success with this Challenge.---Michael][-----Original Message-----
From: Kramer [mailto:kramer@randi.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 10:28 AM
To: Michael
Subject: Re: kramer here
Michael, you JUST told me on the telephone that June would be "fine". This is exactly the kind of stuff I was talking about. What's to prevent you from changing your mind AGAIN once August rolls around? All this "peace of mind" stuff is really just more of what we hear ALL THE TIME from folks who never submit their claim to the test.
Let me be clear about this: if we determine a test date, and you agree to it, and then you back out, we will have no further dealings with you. I cannot tell you how many applicants put us through weeks or months of negotiations, only to back out when it came time for the test. We will NOT tolerate such vanities, and we absolutely refuse to drag our investigators through such muddy waters. They offer their expertise as volunteers, and we need our vaolunteers badly. We'd have few to chose from if we didn't exhibit some form of discretion regarding such waffling. If you keep saying one thing and then reversing your position, we'll simply won't ever be able to trust your sincerity.
Please understand that we will close your file if you cancel any agreed-upon test date.
-Kramer, JREF]
[----- Original Message -----
From: Michael
To: 'Kramer'
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: RE: kramer here
Kramer,
I thought I was pretty clear about being reticent about June. If I recall correctly, I stated that June would be fine if that is what it was going to take to get this thing to happen. If you want to fine tune the protocol details over the next week or two and select a date on, or shortly after, Aug. 1 I would be overjoyed to submit unequivocably to being tested on that date with no further ado. If there is a reason that a June date is vital I would be willing to make due with a certain amount of reluctance. If we can avoid all reluctance, wouldn’t you consider that to be a good thing? I really don’t want this to be a sticking point. Aug. 1 is 4 months from tomorrow. If we can agree on Aug. 1, or thereabouts, as the date, I will enter into this test without ANY trepidation. I REALLY don’t want to have ANY trepidation. OTOH, I don’t want you to have any reservations either, so please let me know why a June date is considered important to JREF.---Michael Anda][Kramer’s response Sent: Thu 3/31/2005 2:06 PM
OK, now you're playing semantics games with me.
We don't want you to have any trepidation, either, but you will.
A June date isn't "vital", but it IS what got me interested in re-starting the protocol negotiations. Whatever. We certainly wouldn't want you to say you failed the test because you were nervous. You'll say that anyway, but it won't be because we pressured you into being tested in June, or whenever. You just let us know and we'll bend over backwards to accomodate you. You call the shots, Michael. By all means. Each and every comfort you require is yours for the asking.
I'll give Randi the test protocol in a couple of months, when we get closer to a time in which you think your level of trepidation is at an absolute minimum. I'm will NOT bother him with a protocol until then. It's utterly pointless.
And I'm NOT getting into this again until then. You've worn me out.
-Kramer, JREF]The widely held notion that I waffled on test dates was one of the many aggravations I was forced to endure in my dealings with the JREF Forum mob. If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.
If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment. Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer ‘facilitation’.
Let me know if you'd like any further information or commentary on the date waffling question. There is some detail I've left out in order to keep this from becoming even more overwhelming than what's presented here.
> Well Andy, here goes...I have told you repeatedly I am not interested in emails and suggested you write up a complete record like Kramers and post it somewhere to help get it out of your system. You have done exactly the opposite. Your irrational behaviour is exactly the same chatting to me as it was when dealing with JREF. I can only repeat my suggestion that you talk to someone you trust in your family to help with your confusion.
I had intended to read the top and tail and skip the emails but I read them. They seem to indicate the opposite to what you want to believe and again I can only suggest talking with someone you trust.
> These proposals involved me, and others, supervising the treatment of discs
> down JREF way and me returning home to identify the condition of each disc,
> treated or untreated. These proposals never garnered anything but criticism
> from Kramer so I stopped pursuing the matter.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal, fix the one or two points where they think you may be able to cheat and then to sit the test in a few weeks time. Everything else is a big red flag indicating that it is not going to happen. They have no interest in you as a person and no interest in getting involved with your magic rituals.
> He asked me to email him a copy of the Steven Howard proposal and I agreed. I
> thought it funny at the time that he didn’t just go retrieve it from the Forum
> for himself, but what the hay, no problem.Do you inhabit the same planet as the rest of mankind? JREF requires you to submit a proposal. Nobody can submit one for you. You have now, at last, responded to their request for a revised proposal addressing their issues with the first. This is tangible progress. Only a lunatic would not agree with their own submitted proposal.
> He posted this KNOWING full well that June testing was not “fine” with me as
> witnessed by this correspondence earlier the SAME day.There is nothing you posted to suggest this. JREFs actions suggest the opposite: an exchange where you said things that moved the test from being off as far JREF were concerned to being on. You put forward dates in June and August. They started working to the June dates and then you started to say no not the dates in June I gave but the ones in August. There can be only one way to read this. I repeat again: get someone you trust to talk to you about it.
> If this was ‘entertainment’ for JREF, what does it tell you about the integrity of the
> Randi Challenge? I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic
> expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions.For the people of JREF (Kramer and Randi) you were an annoying waste of time. What they wanted was for you to take the test and, hopefully, agree afterwards that it was fair. Your entertainment value was almost certainly zero.
For the posters on the JREFs threads there was a significant element of entertainment just as chatting here involves a significant element of entertainment. In addition, you drew interest because your behaviour was not typical of audiophiles/dowsers/flat-earthers/... that hold incorrect beliefs about matters in the scientific domain. Most are self confident and ignorant like the overwhelming majority of 'subjectivists' you see posting on this site. Most ordinary people find it hard to have much sympathy for such individuals and much as I would like to think parts of my recent exchanges with the likes of Morricab, Kerr and E-stat was just winding them up the truth is probably a bit more uncomfortable and I will soon stop posting because of it.
> If you are still interested in reviewing the facts, I will address Kramer’s next move, the
> submission of the Steven Howard protocol to James Randi for approval without amendment.
> Let me know if you have any interest in hearing the details regarding this gem of a Kramer
> ‘facilitation’.My interest is the same as it has always been in this thread, what I have repeatedly told you it is and what you have repeatedly ignored. You have a problem. Do something positive about it like talking to someone you trust or writing up the whole thing. Complaining about it in posts here is going to get you nowhere whether you get a sympathetic or an unsympathetic response.
I will answer any questions you have on the contents of this post if you have any but after that I would like to draw this thread to a close.
You're about as attentive as Kramer. And about as intellectually honest to boot. Not good in either case.First off, the proposal involving June dates was dismissed out of hand by JREF. It involved protocol elements completely different from my original and final proposals and the June element was simply the time proposed for preparation of discs while I would happen to be in Florida where JREF is located. It was NOT a proposed test date.
Also note, this option was submitted AFTER I had requested that my testing occur on, or after, August 1, 2005 and was never officially submitted. It was simply offered as an alternative and was NEVER taken seriously by JREF. Also, JREF NEVER even hinted that they thought a June test date was my desire because of this alternative proposal offer.
"There can be only one way to read this."
What a joke of a response.
Consider our discussion closed. If you'd ever like to review the matter in an objective, attentive, and honest manner, just let me know.
I read a lot of this brouhaha over the GSIC test on the JREF forum. It was educational to see just what an applicant has to put up with. What this has proven is that the JREF is a SCAM and a JOKE. It's a group of agenda-pushing zealots who insist on believing the world is flat. But they'll dangle a million dollar carrot and say "if you claim otherwise, prove it by walking the circumference of the earth, and then coming around behind.""Of course, before you do that, you gotta come up with a protocol we approve of. Good luck with that! 'Cos if we decide we simply don't like the **tone of your voice** during this process, out you go! And if you're foolish enough to accept the protocols that we approve of which puts the entire process in our favour? No problem, we'll mess you up when we get to the testing part!"
The JREF crew threw out more BS excuses to dismiss Wellfed's application (ie. "oh, now yer waffling!") than I could have ever possibly imagined. There's a reason why no one is able to come close to going through the extremely convoluted process of having a protocol accepted by Kramer and the JREF crew, and meeting the final test requirements. The reason is the JREF scammers have no intention of ever letting you do that. Why if they did, God forbid, you might actually win their "million dollar carrot". Assuming it even exists.
So negotiating in bad faith with applicants is how they protect their organization from going bust, both financially and ideologically. While they "pretend" to be accomodating to your application, just so they can make it all "look good" to the world, when they have no intention of ever allowing you to come close to their golden carrot. The whole "million dollar JREF" affair is no more than a carnival sideshow. There's no mistake that James Randi knows a lot about frauds and fakers. And that he's learned from them how to be one.
I've never seen anyone in our hobby more reasonable, pacific and appeasing than Wellfed, from all I've read. Even after the fact, after seeing and knowing that they dealt with him dishonestly and in bad faith, he's still writing things like "I grant you that much of the confusion seems to stem from sceptic expectations being conditioned by previous claimant’s behavior and actions". Yet they BANNED him from their forums anyway! You can't even criticize the JREF zealots on their forums, and point out what deceitful fraudsters they are, because they'll ban you and delete your messages. It's like trying to criticize Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly on their own shows. In fact there's a stronger connection to that, because they are the scientific community's "right wing extremist blowhards" One can see from every message on their forums (that are not from applicants), that this is an organization of intellectually dishonest pathological disbelievers who seriously need to get lives and do something productive for society. They do far more harm to science and progress than the good they think they are doing.
Having conversed with Wellfed over a period of days it became clear that he was irrational, no actual communication was taking place despite my prodding and the thread was stopped from my end. You will notice exactly the same thing happened in thread above with clifff. It also happened on JREF but over a longer period. I would suggest you are not doing him any favours by encouraging his problem.JREF is not a scam. The rules are clear but Wellfed did not to address them and instead wandered off with irrelevant concerns of his own.
JREF is not science. It is show business with a scientific flavour. If you do not like the show then turn over and watch the other side.
The Randi Challenge is baloney, plain and simple. If it wasn't, why would Kramer lie about not having contact with an applicant since the previous week when he had, in fact, responded to contact from that applicant the previous day? A most curious bunch of deception Andy. More curious yet, you guys can't see it, or it doesn't seem to bother you. What's the dealio? Talk about irrational, Kramer offers up deception after deception and you can neither see it OR care?Can't converse with me? Let's see how you and Posey fare on this topic. Now THAT would be entertainment.
BTW, you're the guy with the problem, and a serious one at that, believing a sick puppy like Kramer is NOT a healthy proposition. Don't believe me? Take on Posey. I fully expect you will stick your head between your legs and waddle off.
Only you were honest, only you know the truth. It is ALL his fault. Kramer has become a hate figure for you. WE have to believe you else WE don't want to know the truth.Gentle Jesus.
It won't wash, Wellfed!
I read everything at the time and it was obvious to me that you were full of BS and ducking a weaving like a spoilt brat.
And no, I am not going to try and dig out chapter and verse. It is your job to do that if you want to prove something.
It is all very sad, but until you can accept that you blew it big time I doubt whether it will let you rest.
This is all I would ever expect from anyone that cares to comment on the subject.
They are the foundation for both our opinions. This is why it is important to examine them and have them straight. Would you like to do this through private communications, or through the forums? The forums can be be a zoo, but I'm willing if you are. My preference however would be via private communications as there would be less distraction. The telephone would be a very useful tool as well.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: