|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
72.75.33.105
This post is a continuation of the discussion of PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) of last week. The following is an Abstract plus 1st section of an article by Robert Jahn, former Dean of the School of Engineering, Princeton University, and head of the PEAR Laboratory. The article can be read in its entirety at:http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/R&P.pdf
20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections
ROBERT G. JAHN
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) Laboratory
Princeton University
Princeton, NJABSTRACT–Twentieth century natural science opened onto a bewildering array of empirical anomalies and bemusing heuristic theories that testified to grossly inadequate comprehension of atomic-scale structures and processes. Subsequent decades saw remarkable advances in the acquisition of more definitive data, the formulation of functional models, and the postulation of profound philosophical interpretations of these curious quantum mechanical
phenomena. Later periods featured the prodigious applications of t his arsenal of new understanding in such diverse domains as nuclear weaponry, energy, technology, health care, communications and information processing, and space exploration and utilization. All of this mighty implementation
notwithstanding, at the close of this era, much as in the preceding classical science period of the 19th century, fundamental ontological understanding of the natural processes of our cosmos again began to appear inadequate to encompass
newly emerging bodies of anomalous empirical evidence, in this
case primarily related to the role of consciousness in the establishment of physical experience.begin 1st section of article:
"As we enter the 21st century, science seems poised to execute a similar evolutionary cycle of advancement of their comprehension and relevance. We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological, and psychological anomalies, many of which have been featured in the meetings and journals of this society, and most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations.
Meanwhile, our theorists are laboring along progressively more tortuous trails of non-linear dynamics, complex and chaotic systems, entanglement theories, zero-point vacuum fluctuations, string and super-string theories, microtubules and neuronal networks, in convoluted attempts to accommodate the phenomena without conceding their intrinsic subjectivity, perhaps reminiscent of similar earlier struggles to preserve geocentric celestial mechanics by epicycloidal orbit theories or to accommodate Rydberg’s spectra within classical radiation models.
While these esoteric efforts may provide some ad hoc utility in representing and cataloguing specific anomalous phenomena, they lack the capacity, individually or collectively, to compound to a totally comprehensive representation. That can only be approached when consciousness, in all of its subjective and objective ramifications, is accepted from the outset into scientific conceptualization as an essential, central, and proactive factor in the establishment of physical reality.
This major concession must also bring with it the redefinition of other sacred scientific tenets, such as the rigid replicability and objectivity requirements, and the admission of such foreign concepts as transdisciplinary metaphor, intersubjective resonance, and teleological causality as both enabling factors and analytical tools. Specific conceptual schema for comprehensive formulation of such an expansion of scientific methodology are at present rare and primitive, but two examples can be sketched to illustrate the requisite complementarity of physical and psychological factors.
On the threshold of the 20th century, the physical science profession was sitting rather smugly on its academic duff, quite content with the elegance of its theoretical concepts and formalisms, and with the burgeoning practical applications
thereof. Newtonian mechanics had been firmly established by many empirical demonstrations in astronomical and terrestrial venues; the heuristic concepts of the thermal sciences were enabling rapid proliferation of the prime movers that had initiated the industrial revolution; and the completion of Maxwell’s electromagnetic relations had generated a radiation theory that
was revolutionizing public communication.A naïve consensus abounded that most of the hard work of natural science had been done; that only mop-up tasks remained. As their towering patriarch Lord Kelvin (Thomson, circa 1884) proclaimed:
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement," a sentiment echoed by their contemporary hero, A. A. Michelson (1894):
"The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote. … Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
But over only the next few years, this same community of scholars was suddenly deluged by a blizzard of atomic-scale anomalies that severely challenged much of their comfortably nestled classical science. The frequency distribution of blackbody radiation departed drastically from the classical
electromagnetic expectations; newly accumulated data on atomic and molecular spectra and atomic-scale collisions were totally inexplicable on the basis of the prevailing atomic and molecular models; the photoelectric effect, the Compton effect, the Franck-Hertz, and Davisson-Germer experiments, and
the specific heat of solids all showed little agreement between empirical observations and the established concepts; and the growing theoretical and pragmatic interest in gaseous plasmas as a fourth state of matter was poorly supported by any viable theoretical formulations that could be mustered."~ End of first section
Follow Ups:
I suppose this fits in this thread...Steven Hawking said: "We can’t even solve exactly the motion of three bodies in a theory as simple as Newton’s theory of gravity, and the difficulty increases with the number of bodies and the complexity of the theory."
Add to that statement what Richard Feynman the theoretical physicist said: "If you thought that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.”
And we can see how the objectivists must have it right about science adequently defining everything we need to know about audio and how the human ear/brain interprets what is and isn't live unamplified music ---- NOT!
.
PEAR has simply shifted its based of operations (after 30 years, I should point out) from Princeton to ICRL:The following is taken from the PEAR web site:
FuturePEAR has now concluded its experimental operations at Princeton University. After nearly three decades of systematic empirical study of consciousness related physical phenomena, it is our sense that many of the salient correlates of these intriguing anomalies have now been identified.
There are many important questions still to be addressed, but these will require an even broader interdisciplinary approach to the topic. Therefore, we will be shifting our base of operations to the International Consciousness Research Laboratories (ICRL), a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, whose three-fold mission focuses on: 1)quality research, 2) educational initiatives, and 3) practical applications.
I liked the article though. So they just took the P out of the PEAR?Robert Jahn is often referenced by some of the less significant or credible UFO people in an attempt to gain credibility. He was recently referenced by the editor of the "chicken soup" books on a cable news show. The man said that our thoughts are a physical email sent out to everyone around the world and has a range of 25k miles. I always thought those books looked a bit lightweight. I'd imagine the magnitude of the brainwaves are rather small at 25,000 miles out.
assuming that "brainwaves" act like radio waves. :-)
How does this have any relevance to audio?
Also known as the International Consciousness Research Laboratories.
nope
Analog Scott wrote:> > How does this have any relevance to audio? < <
It's really not that difficult....
"We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological, and psychological anomalies, many of which have been featured in the meetings and journals of this society, and most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations" = advanced audio products (aka "controversial tweaks" as they are known around these parts)
"We are opening with a steadily growing backlog of demonstrable physical, biological, and psychological anomalies, many of which have been featured in the meetings and journals of this society, and most of which seem incontrovertibly correlated with properties and processes of the human mind, in ways for which our preceding 20th century scientific paradigm has no rational explanations" = advanced audio products (aka "controversial tweaks" as they are known around these parts)I don't like saying this, but I really think until they either fix or undo digitization in consumer audio, such undertaking will be futile, if not useless.
Looks like Michael Fremer has got some explaining to do. That's Michael Fremer, uh, you know, the analog fanatic. He wrote in Stereophile that of the 5 best systems he heard at CES, 4 were digital. (Count 'em - 4 out of 5.)And that was five years ago.
I've heard some nice digital systems too. I just think with the problem of digitized audio playback, in regard to how the mind reacts to music, even with the best digital, the compromise is far greater than any tweak could counter.A couple weeks ago, I played a locally-sold LP of Dohnanyi/Cleveland doing the finale of the Schumann 2. I've have a different performance of the same work with the same performers on CD. And even with the inner groove distortion, there is something going on which is the essence of what music is all about- Artistic excellence creating a complex tonal nuance triggering an emotional response that almost cannot be described in words. With the CD, I hear a fine performance, but nothing beyond that. The LP is a Concannon cabernet sauvignon, CD is merely red wine. With all the tweaks for CD playback, it hasn't made a dent in reducing this disparity, which I think has baffled audiophiles and engineers alike.
A great digital recording can close the gap somewhat, but again, it's impossible to restore what's lost. (The problem is for every recording that make me forget vinyl, there are about 30 that make me want to play vinyl.) There's just too much lost. With the best recordings, what's lost is minimized, but it's still substantial.
Off the shelf digital is generally not satisfactory at all. The more we learn about why that is so, the better the medium will be, in terms of detail retrieval and all the rest. However, I am not willing to wait until the fixes are implemented by the manufacturers... ;-)
Are you still Stalking Chan Marshall?:-)
Jim wrote:> > Are you still Stalking Chan Marshall? :-) < <
That's the -second- time you've taken the time to do background research on me. Maybe I should ask if you're still stalking me?!
Well that was a long time ago Jim, but if you must know, I was never "stalking" Chan to begin with. Those people on the Matador forums are hysterical. And I don't mean "haha" hysterical. Also, very immature, I might add. The motive behind the request came from the fact that I'd been writing to Jolie Holland (a really talented musician out of Texas), and something I wrote to her was misconstrued, and gave her the impression that Chan had told me that she's heard of her and liked her music. Jolie was very flattered, because she was a fan of Ms. Marshall, and her bandmate even more so. Of course I was a little embarrassed about the misconstruction and didn't know how to explain that it wasn't necessarily so.
So.... I had Matador forward an email of mine to Chan, asking her to listen to Jolie's new album, and maybe if she likes it, send along a few words of encouragement that might help inspire Jolie during the process of her second album, which she was in the middle of completing (and which, I must say, is every bit as good as the first). I thought that if Chan did, the problem would "fix it itself". Of course, you made quite a different assumption about all this, didn't you? That's okay. I know how fond you are of "understanding by assumption", and would never ask you to do otherwise. ;-)
And as we can see by the unanimous majority opinion of the Matador forumers, "common sense" proves that I was stalking Chan, Occam's Razor supports the majority opinion of "stalking", and my vote doesn't count for squat since I can't prove the majority opinion wrong by way of scientific peer-review.... So even though it means we're going to have to completely redefine the term "stalking", I guess according to your rules to live by, I -was- stalking Chan Marshall. But don't worry, I know where she lives. I'm going to wait in the bushes outside her front door and wait for her to come in, so I can apologize for the stalking. (Or if I see she's already in, I'll just tap on her back window until she opens up, so I can apologize for the stalking).
FWIW, in future there's no need to write more than a line or two if your goal is to reply to me personally. I never manage to read much farther than that before my eyes glaze over anyway. There's something peculiarly disorienting about your posts, like a drug or something.
> > FWIW, in future there's no need to write more than a line or two if your goal is to reply to me personally. I never manage to read much farther than that before my eyes glaze over anyway. < <Wow. You can't read beyond a line or two before your mind starts wandering? That would go far to explaining why you have such trouble following what people are trying to explain to you. Thanks for clarifying that for me, I was really having difficulty figuring that one out. I'm actually unusually impressed by that Jim, because it must have been terribly challenging acquiring a Phd. One or two lines at a time. However, I'm unlikely to shorten my posts for you, or anyone for that matter, because I write for myself first and foremost, anyway. Feel free to read the first 1 or 2 lines. :)
> > There's something peculiarly disorienting about your posts, like a drug or something. < <
It's the subliminal stuff I put in between my lines that does that. Or possibly the mushrooms you took in the sixties that may have fried half your brain cells? Who knows! ;-)
Regards,
Posy
"Tennessee Williams...
Let your inspiration flow
Let it be round
when we hear the sound
of the springtime rivers flow..."
x
You can't begin to apply the article until science has investigated the phenomenon. I see no connection.
Until academe approves, which it won't until the imbedded resistance to any new idea has died off -- literally.Remember what Lord Kelvin (he of the Royal Society) said: X-rays are a hoax!
Remember the concerted resistance to "continental drift".
Remember the early fate of anaesthesia.
Resistance was not overcome by investigation, because academe doesn't care to have its precious theories challenged. Resistance was overcome by a gathering body of evidence from those goddam independent outsiders.
And so it must be in audio. Look not to the JAES for articles on advances in sound.
...in his modern classic, *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*, now in its Third Edition.His exploration of the role of worldview and paradigm in the history of scientific discovery is *sine qua non* for anyone engaging in a discussion like this one.
It's easily (and inexpensively) available at sites like amazon.com.
FWIW, and for those who have eyes and ears....
All the best,
z
academe doesn't care to have its precious theories challenged. Resistance was overcome by a gathering body of evidence from those goddam independent outsiders.I do not see anyone gethering evidence. Hence, no "academe". ?
...you would know what I mean. As a "Lifetime Member" I'm well versed in their world, a world which includes for the last thirty years not one mention about *sound*. Any paper that deals with such will be summarily rejected.Moreover, the longer a paper's mathematical derivation and the more pages of integral equations present, the greater the likelihood of publication. It's all so useless, but makes the often-university-connected directors think they run a *respectable* outfit, at least in the eyes of others.
The evidence gathering happens day by day by every skilled user; ignore it at your peril. Meanwhile academe has done nothing to give you better sound. NOTHING.
> > > "Please find below the Middle Section of the Article by Robert Jahn published in Journal of Scientific Exploration:Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed.
And for this intellectual crusade we have very little science in hand: very little vocabulary, a scant concept base, and few mechanics, assessment criteria, or experimental facilities. Another major intellectual break-out, of a scale, vision, and courage comparable to that of the quantum era, is required to start science rolling forward again.
What should be the character of this break-out? First to be emphasized is that we do not need any destructive revolution that discards sound scientific methodology or threatens systematic scientific logic. Rather, we require an evolutionary broadening and deepening of the scientific venue and perspective,
But to extend such provincially circumscribed correlations into more universal theoretical formulations representative of the global interplay of mind and matter will require far more expansive and courageous scholarly creativity. " < < < <
****************
I think the relevant quotes above, researched courtesy of Geoff Kait, give a very succinct example of the kind of attitude you and John Curl have described, of such an organisation as the AES and even of so many members of the audio industry.
As I have pointed out before, one of the key sentences is "anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed." If such as the AES (and certain members of the audio industry) cannot even acknowledge or allow to be discussed so called 'tweaks or mods' then they will never know what problems are lurking - waiting in the undergrowth - to undermine the very foundation of their knowledge Just at the moment they are feeling secure - clutching their scientific security blanket.
If these people will not take notice of what others' observations and experiences are (should be) telling them, then the majority of people wanting to gain so much pleasure from listening to music will just be floundering in the dark Numerous people, all over the world, with all manner of different audio equipment are describing such improvements in their sound as to appear unbelievable. When is the world of audio going to sit up and take notice and investigate ? What is unbelievable is not what people are reporting but the phenomena that is happening, that is affecting the 'sound' and that people are deliberately IGNORING !!!
If the majority of audio engineers believe that ALL problems stem from what such as capacitance, resistance, inductance, the dielectric effect, microphony, static, RF interference etc etc are doing to the audio signal and that they - the engineers - (technically) have these problems covered then, obviously, the problems which 'tweaks and mods' are uncovering are regarded as just a divergence that NON engineers are introducing and 'muddying the waters with' !!!! What they are not realising is that the 'tweaks and mods' are exposing anomalies - and if there are anomalies, then that means that ALL IS NOT KNOWN and ALL IS NOT UNDERSTOOD. I cannot make it plainer than that !!!
When someone does something unusual and finds that it gives an improvement in the sound, when no improvement was expected, then that means that prior to doing whatever it was, there MUST HAVE BEEN a problem which has just been exposed !!!! A problem now highlighted because it had been removed to some extent. But, if the AES and other audio engineers WILL NOT investigate these reported happenings, then they will never know that there is a problem (correction - many problems) to investigate !!!
To give some examples. If you can 'de-magnetize' a CD or a vinyl record, or a cable and gain an improvement in the sound i.e. (if you can hear an improvement in the sound, then this means that you are now hearing additional information which allows the working memory to create a better sound picture) then this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified, which had not been known about, which had not been recognised - UNTIL !!! This is the anomaly issue I keep referring to. Something which happens which goes against known beliefs, which goes against contemporary knowledge and against expectations. Which, to any good scientist, should ring sirens !!! Sirens which say "We should investigate." And, even more particularly, should ring sirens in the minds of people who profess to be involved with SOUND !!!
If you can apply a chemical to the label side of a CD, to the labels of vinyl records, to the outer insulation of cables and gain an improvement in the sound, then this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified, which had not been known about, which had not been recognised - UNTIL !!! Again, another anomaly. Again, something which should ring sirens !!! Sirens in the minds of people who profess to be involved with SOUND !!!
These are just two of numerous other anomalies !!Read about peoples' observations and their descriptions of the improvements they have heard when doing some of the most unusual things. They cannot ALL be dismissed as "suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, audio faith healing, effective marketing".
It is too easy for people to dismiss others' observations that they heard improvement in the sound. If people only describe their experience as "the sound was better", then yes, it COULD easily be dismissed as imagination etc but when they give detailed descriptions of greater spread of the music, greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of musical instruments, then those descriptions cannot be achieved solely with IMAGINATION. Would that it could !!!
The people who have experienced all these improvements by doing something extremely unusual know that they have entered what the scientist Michio Kaku refers to as the "land of three dimensions" which the Flatlanders (the people who only know the experience of living in a two dimensional world) just cannot understand what the others are describing !! Once you have experienced the three dimensional world, then you can no longer use the sentences which belong in the land of two dimensions. Obviously, as the members of the AES have been described, they do not seem to have any understanding of what happens in the land of three dimensions, do not seem to even know that there is such a world and, it would also appear, neither do the engineers who hang onto their every word and believe that they must be an all knowing, all seeing special tribe of people !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Snake oil salesmen often claimed "the establishment" was trying to cover up miraculous products whose effect may defy conventional scientific explanations.You and Mr. Belt sell audio tweaks that many people would call miraculous audio products whose effects may defy conventional scientific explanations.
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
...to the labels of vinyl records, to the outer insulation of cables and gain an improvement in the sound, then this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified..."That statement is all about perception, which is neither quantifiable nor measurable.
Wow, so it's perception !! Now, why didn't WE think of that ? To think we have been struggling, all these years, to try to find out what the heck is going on, when it should have been 'staring us in the face' all this time - the explanation is perception !!! Mind you, we have been offered many explanations to choose from.
"Perception" from BS64,
"Suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, mood changes, effective marketing - and recently Virgin piss" from Jim Austin,
"Audio faith healing" from 4 seasons
"Using specially blessed pens" from Scooter123.
To name but a few !!Or, BS64, were you merely saying that if it cannot be measured, it cannot be investigated ? Oh dear me. That means that (to name just one) Lister's concept of 'the germs are in the air' would never have been investigated - under the rules you apply !!!
Now, where were we ? Oh yes, I forgot, back to struggling to find out what the heck is going on !!!!
Regards,
May Belt
"this means that there was a problem there previously which had not been identified...""No it doesn't. It means that the listener heard a difference. I
understand your point - WHY did the listener hear a difference? No one will probably ever know. But it does NOT mean that there was a problem that was rendered non-problematic after the "treatment". It only means that there was a perceived improvement in the playback.
"WHY did the listener hear a difference ?"You have hit the nail on the head. That is exactly it !!!! THAT is exactly why so many people are struggling to find out why !!
It does not matter whether the difference heard was an improvement in the sound or a worsening. If it should not have happened, then it should not have happened !! And, if it happened, and if you are seriously involved in the audio industry, then you have to find out WHY !!! If you are a manufacturer of audio products, then the sound of your equipment is under the control of what people do with the chemical under discussion (or any other chemical - or any of the numerous other 'tweaks') !!
If the sound of the $5,000 CD player, the $5,000 amplifier, the $10,000 speaker system can be altered by what chemical people apply to the label of the CD or to the outer insulation material of the cables, then this means that the $5,000 CD player, the $5,000 amplifier or the $10,000 speaker system can be made to sound worse or better at the whim of a chemical !!! IRRESPECTIVE of which manufacturer made the actual audio equipment or how much it cost !!! IRRESPECTIVE of it's measurements and how much technical skill is involved in it's design !!!
THAT, BS64, is why so many people are struggling to find out why !!!
If you are a manufacturer of audio equipment and you realise that there are certain things which can affect the 'sound' then you have to investigate - correction - if you are a 'professional in audio' then you SHOULD BE investigating !! Otherwise the sound of your equipment is left completely to 'chance' - to the whims of whatever the people demonstrating it are doing.
This is exactly what Ivor Teifenbrum realised over 25 years ago when he discovered that passive speakers, in a retailers demonstration room, had an adverse effect on the sound of the speakers which were being demonstrated ! He also demonstrated to various journalists the adverse effect of a telephone in the room where people were trying to listen to music. He could have those journalists smiling at the sound of his Linn turntable arm and cartridge, Naim amplifiers and Linn speakers or he could have them cringing at the sound of the SAME equipment - depending on what he did to the telephone !!!It was during our own investigations, attempting to confirm what Ivor had been claiming (that passive speakers and a telephone, in the room, had an adverse effect on the sound) that we went on to discover how batteries, and magnets, and eventually chemicals were also a problem - IN THE ROOM !!!
The numerous and various "Tweaks" which people are reporting - which are giving them surprising improvements in their sound - are telling the audio industry something and they cannot (should not) be dismissed with the simplistic "Oh, people have just heard differences etc." "It's all in the mind."
Please give people credit for having the intelligence to know whether they heard just a 'difference' in the sound or whether they heard an improvement or a worsening !!
Just imagine you are listening to some music and you then position a few room diffusers around the room and you listen again. This time you hear greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation of instruments and you say "That is an improvement. There must have been some acoustic problems I had not been aware of before."
No hesitation on your part. You know what you have heard. You have heard an improvement in the sound and you realise that there must have been an acoustic problem previously. But, this interpretation and realisation that there must have been a problem previously is because you have an understanding of acoustics.
Now. On a different occasion. You have exactly the same experience - - you hear greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation of instruments but this time all you have done is to apply a chemical to the labels of the vinyl record you are using. Surely, you will have exactly the same interpretation of what you have experienced ? What is different ? Surely the only difference is that you know you cannot have altered the acoustics, you cannot have altered the signal so you have no understanding as to what has happened ? It is the understanding (or lack of understanding) which is different - not the experience or the interpretation of the experience !!Now, let me turn it round 180 degrees. You apply antistatic chemical A to the grooves of a vinyl record and you gain an improvement in the sound !! You apply antistatic chemical B to the grooves of a vinyl record and the sound is worse !! Both chemicals A and B have dealt with the static problem perfectly OK but chemical A gives an improvement and chemical B makes the sound worse ! It does not make sense !!
But, if you manufacture audio equipment you HAVE to investigate - you HAVE to gain an understanding. Otherwise the sound of your equipment will be completely at the mercy of which antistatic chemical the retailer uses - the very retailer whom you are relying on to demonstrate your equipment !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Studies have consistently shown that merely telling an audiophile that you have two components (A and B) for a comparison, when in fact there is only one component in use, will lead to audiophiles saying they prefer either A or B between 50% and 75% of the time, when in fact they are listening to the same component playing at the same volume meaning THERE IS NO POSSIBLE AUDIBLE DIFFERENCE!If you trust the reliability of a Golden Ear audiophile who reads a positive review and then auditions a new audio product or tweak with a salesmen like you telling him what to hear, then you have learned absolutely nothing of value as an audiophile.
Perhaps this 'I know what I hear and could not be wrong' belief puts money in your pocket ... "I know what I hear" is more audiophile ego than fact.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
No you don't!! There are hundreds of aftermarket tweak products available, along with a household full of free stuff that any idiot could slap on a cd, lp or cable, or on/under a component. And whether or not it makes a difference in the sound (good, bad or otherwise) is up to the applicator/listener.How is a manufacturer supposed to design around an infinite number of possible tweaks or combinations thereof? They can't. It only makes sense that gear be designed using above average ic's and stranded cables. Let the end-user decide which aftermarket ic's, cables and tweaks provide the presentation he/she is listening for.
Yes, some gear is "voiced" using wires, amps or speakers from a particular high-end manufacturer. But buying a combo of such products is not a guarantee that the presentation will be to the end-user's liking. That's why there are so many different design philosophies from the manufacturers.
IMO, one must start the process of building a system with the stuff that is IN the signal path. Not near it. If you believe that arbitrary, inanimate objects in the room might be affecting the sound you are hearing, you will never know where to begin or when to stop.
Buy good gear, set it up properly, then sit back and listen. Don't sweat the small stuff (the bottle of aerosol air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room). You will drive yourself insane...
What I read in your reply is the words and attitudes of a "pre-Belter". Because once you latch on to the products/ideas, all of that changes. Of course there are many "tweak" products available, and many things someone could slap on a cd/cable, or under a component, and -of course- whether it makes a difference is up to the listener. But the yardstick you're using is a wildly varying one. The accessory products vary in their strengths, and just slapping any product or item you have around the house on a cd/lp/cable is unlikely to produce good results. It's not that easy to find ideas that work.How is a manufacturer supposed to design around an infinite number of possible tweaks or combinations thereof? Very simple. They DON'T. I don't know what your experience with the manufacturing trade is, but they don't take every possible combination or effect that could change the sound. And that's presuming they know what they all are, which no manufacturer does. The correct answer to your (rhetorical) question is that manufacturers -focus- on whatever aspect of sound reproduction interests them. One might argue there's a near infinite number of possibilities for cable geometry/design, amplifier design, cd player design, etc. And every little part that a manufacturer uses in an electronic component may have many alternates. You're not expected to try them all, you're only expected to produce something that sounds good to you.
One might also argue -against- your statement that "it only makes sense that gear be designed using above average ic's and stranded cables". Many claim that science is on their side when they say "above average ic's and stranded cables are a myth", RIC is all that matters. So you should recognize that what make sense to -you-, only makes sense to -you-. Which is why I agree again that we should let the end-user decide which aftermarket ic's, cables and tweaks provide the presentation they are after. Where the problem lies, is where many won't ever try products that challenge their orthodox views, and for which they can't or won't understand how they work. So they cut themselves off to a great deal of products that may provide the presentation they are after.
"If you believe that arbitrary, inanimate objects in the room might be affecting the sound you are hearing, you will never know where to begin or when to stop. "
It's not a "belief". Arbitrary inanimate objects actually do affect the sound you are hearing. "Knowing where to begin" is easy. Knowing when to stop is no different than with conventional audio products. If you start building an audio system when you're 12, does that mean you're addicted to improving your audio for life? For some it is, and they don't mind that at all, since they have perpetually better sound and better enjoyment from that. And for them, the great thing about audio is, you can always improve your sound. For others they say "this is the end of the line for me". This doesn't change because of the audio products you choose to buy, you know.
> > Yes, some gear is "voiced" using wires, amps or speakers from a particular high-end manufacturer. But buying a combo of such products is not a guarantee that the presentation will be to the end-user's liking. That's why there are so many different design philosophies from the manufacturers. < <
I agree. However, I must say for some 20+ years there's been an exception to that rule, which is that buying any combo of products from PWB -is- a guarantee the presentation will be to the end-user's liking (if previous products have been). That's because they are unique, being the only line of audio related products that don't really rely on a "design philosophy" from the manufacturer. I've never tried a product of theirs that wasn't to my liking, and I've never heard another customer say anything like "I didn't like the sound of this one. It didn't synergize with my cd player". Primarily because conventional products change -components- of the sound. So what they change shouldn't exaggerate the sound you already have, otherwise you'll have a conflict, which is called "bad synergy". The PWB products, while they each have their own qualities, change the sound in a -global sense-.
> > IMO, one must start the process of building a system with the stuff that is IN the signal path. Not near it. < <
That's obviously an opinion only based on your experiences with the stuff that is IN the signal path. So it can only and will always be a one-sided opinion, that does not see all of what is true, or all of what is possible. The biggest influence on your sound is what is outside of the signal path (ie. your mind), not in it. I do agree however, that one must start the process by focusing on what is in the signal path. Even these esoteric audio products do require a working hifi system!
But your view is that once you've got a working hifi system, you should just "set it up properly, then sit back and listen". That won't resolve the problems you're not aware of, that create a barrier to what you can acheive with that working hifi system. That may be okay for someone who just wants a radio in their bathroom that's "showerproof". It is not the basis for an audiophile system. If you are a music lover who wants the best sound at the best value, then you do need to "sweat the small stuff"; the stuff so "small" you don't see it or think about it. But its not difficult to do, and you don't have to be obsessive about it. So no, I don't think you need to "worry about the bottle of air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room" as you say, that's just plain silly. Unless of course it has a barcode on the bottle.
"So no, I don't think you need to "worry about the bottle of air freshener sitting on the shelf in the same room" as you say, that's just plain silly."If you believe so highly in Belt's products, you would know that it is recommended on their web site to treat, with their products, all aerosol products within the home of which your listening area resides. Here's a direct quote:
"The human senses are capable of being adversely influenced within a listening room by any aerosol which is present within any of the rooms of the home. All aerosols should be treated with either the P.W.B. Red ‘x’ pen or, at least, with a strip of the standard Rainbow Foil."
I suggest you get your checkbook and start writing before you dim the lights and begin listening. You obviously haven't treated everything in your environment...
> > It is too easy for people to dismiss others' observations that they heard improvement in the sound. If people only describe their experience as "the sound was better", then yes, it COULD easily be dismissed as imagination etc but when they give detailed descriptions of greater spread of the music, greater height, greater depth, greater width, better separation of musical instruments, then those descriptions cannot be achieved solely with IMAGINATION. Would that it could ! < <It goes even further than that. Belt-ist procedures (whether PWB products or techniques) all produce a signature sound. It is quite unique to these type of products. It's not a sound that non-Beltists are familiar with, because conventional products that effect the audio signal, the electrical current or room acoustics, all produce different sonic signatures, none of which match the ones created by any Beltist procedure in my experience. So when I gave some skeptics on the net (whom I hadn't met) some free techniques to try out, and they reported back to me, they seemed surprised not just that the "silly tweaks" actually worked, but at the type of changes produced. And they described in precise detail, what sort of changes they were hearing. It wasn't just the usual "wider soundstage", "better bass" and that sort of thing you might usually find. Instead, they were describing to me the very unique nature of the changes that are brought about by Beltist procedures.
It reminded me of the idea of one those after-life experts, who's giving you an account of your sister who passed away last year. Except you're a hardened skeptic and he's -really-, really good at this. And he's describing to you everything you knew about your sister, but you know you've never met him before. You know he doesn't know anyone you know, you know you didn't fill out any information card beforehand, and didn't tell him anything about yourself. You're a card-carrying member of the JREF foundation, and you know all about cold-readers. You're trying to rationalize how he can describe every precise detail about how your sister kept her room, the peculiar things she might say to you, or the specific names of the people she would one day wish to emulate.
I recognized in their words that they had indeed heard what the techniques could produce, because I -knew- those words. They were words very much a part of the 'language of Beltism' you might say, and very much a part of the things that I experience when I institute a Beltist change in my system. That's no placebo, no delusion. It's only when you experience these audible changes yourself that you can really begin to try to understand it in something other than an intellectual sense.
No point in trying to debate.
nt
John Dunlavy used to write online posts about how he'd tell Dunlavy speaker listening panel members he was going to change speaker cables and then sent his assistant behind the speakers.After that the listeners would hear some sonic difference(s).
But in fact Dunlavy wrote that his assistants never changed any wires!
You think ABX tests are a "simple religious experience"?
"I know what I hear" subjectivity offers the opportunity for unlimited audio fantasies!
Like in your world where moving a dime on top of a speaker by 1mm makes an audio difference to your "Plantimum Ears"
Ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahaha.
ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS!
.
.
.
.
> > John Dunlavy used to write online posts about how he'd tell Dunlavy speaker listening panel members he was going to change speaker cables and then sent his assistant behind the speakers. After that the listeners would hear some sonic difference(s).
But in fact Dunlavy wrote that his assistants never changed any wires! < <Yeah, fool, so? What's your point? That you're a fool? We know that already. Tell me something I don't know.
> > You think ABX tests are a "simple religious experience"? < <Does it help you understand what someone says if you repeat it? Do you want me to write more slowly?
> > "I know what I hear" subjectivity offers the opportunity for unlimited audio fantasies! < <And unlimited possibilities of high fidelity. You're the loud-mouthed fool who bills yourself as "The Subjective Audiophile 2007", so I'd say the fantasies are yours.
> > Like in your world where moving a dime on top of a speaker by 1mm makes an audio difference to your "Plantimum Ears" < <So you're not just a fool, you're a -deaf- fool. What else is new. Sounds like you're jealous of anyone with a working pair of ears, to me. Or a working brain that can think for itself, for that matter. Admit it, you really identified with the scarecrow in Oz, didn't you?
> > Ha ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahaha.
ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS! < <How would you know that, fool? Oh, because you're a fool. I almost forgot. Fools always pretend to be experts on things they know absolutely nothing about, with no real evidence to back up their foolish half-arsed opinions. Good music reproduction, or even knowing what that is, is only ever going to be in YOUR dreams. Now tee off, you hysterical fool.
(nt) = not thinking
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
> > (nt) = not thinking
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007 < <In your last troll, you admitted you were a fool, and in this one you admit that you're "not thinking". Maybe I was hasty in calling you an "incorrigible fool"? Ever since you posted your nasty, defamatory character attacks, the worst I have ever seen on AA, which I had the mods delete, you seem to have gone on a crusade to prove that you are the biggest ignorant fool going on these boards. So I'm not calling any bets. I'm sure in your next trolling attempt, you're going to remove all doubt! Then, when you stop receiving any further attention from me, and find no one else paying attention to a fool such as you, like all grown-up children, you'll give up and find some other outlet for all the anger that drives you to behave this way. If I might make a suggestion toward that, why don't you try -not- holding the pickles when the order comes in and asks you to? Who are "they" to tell you what to do anyway, right?
c
nt
;-)
You tell 'em, May! I'll be hiding right behind you. ;-)
"The Big Nurse gets real put out if anything keeps her outfit from running smooth." - Chief Broom in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"
Of course, people are gathering evidence, but not through the AES. They usually make things that work better than other things of the same nature.
"Until academe approves, which it won't until the imbedded resistance to any new idea has died off -- literally."Academe? What are you talking about? my point was very simple, you can't talk about the science of something until there is some science to talk about.
"Remember what Lord Kelvin (he of the Royal Society) said: X-rays are a hoax!"And when scientific investigation gave us worth while data what happened?
"Remember the concerted resistance to "continental drift"."
I can't say I remember it firt hand but I do know where scientific investigation has lead us on the subject.
"Remember the early fate of anaesthesia."No.
"Resistance was not overcome by investigation,"
You lost me here. Are you saying that the scientific method properly applied has lead scientists to believe X rays were a hoax and continental drift is urban legend? Seems to me that science was the enlightening force and drew the right conclusions.
" because academe doesn't care to have its precious theories challenged."
What are you talking about? The very essence of science is to challenge the status quo.
"Resistance was overcome by a gathering body of evidence from those goddam independent outsiders."Huh? This strikes me as revisionist history at best. No that isn't the case Clark. The most radical of ideas like reletivity and quantum physics had to endure the scrutiny of the scientific method as applied by the established community of scientific researchers. MY POINT is that in the case of audio nothing that audiophiles like to debate has been looked at by real scientific researchers.
"And so it must be in audio. Look not to the JAES for articles on advances in sound."
I have looked at numerous articles from the JAES and I have yet to find one scientific investigation into the validity of tweaks or the other topics so often debated in audiophilia.
The *effect* of "science" is A) to promote its practioners' pet theories by B) getting foundation grants, government funds and industry support. Precisely through this process the entrenched practitioners form the status quo against which all upstarts must battle.Audio affords us an excellent paradigm of this process. Three words: Perfect Sound Forever. Try fighting *that*! It was, and is, the Gospel of the AES.
in the age old debates of audio to see clearly. How can "audio" (by audio I think we are both talking about that which is and has been hotly debated by "objectivists" and "subjectivists" over the years) be a paradigm of science when it hasn't even been touched by science?
That is where the debate needs to go. the question subjectivists need to be raising isn't what is wrong with science but where is the science? That is the dirty little secret. there ain't none. Objectivists have conned subjectivists into believing that their ideas and beliefs really are coming from genuine scientific investigation. Don't blame the scientific community for the misrepresentations of "objectivists" about science. Just hold the "objectivists" to the same standards they try to hold subjectivists to and watch them run around like chickens with their heads cut off. Lets not throw the bay out with the bathwater. Real science is a good thing.Please note that when I refer to "objectivists" I am refering to the nutty ones like Tom Nousaine and Howard Fesrtler. I know there are actually rational open minded objectivists out there. I'm not talking about them.
Tweaks and mods are not allowed in the 'JAES' as well as much more.
But I have yet to read any *research* published in the JAES that tests any of the contrveries in audio. So how can we discuss whether or not any reports of certain contrversial experiences even apply to the original post? Has the JAES ever rejected any "studies" of the audibility of tweaks, wires, amps etc other than the one Tom Nousaine allegedly submitted? And if that rumor is true it implies a lot about his group of "objectivists" and the "science" behind their beliefs. You'd think the JAES would be very sympathetic. So how bad could it have been to not pass peer review? That is if it is true that he submitted a study and it was rejected.
The AES goes out of its way to NOT be controversial. You get stopped at the gate.
Analog Scott wrote:> > You can't begin to apply the article until science has investigated the phenomenon. < <
Great, so investigate the phenomenon.
> > I see no connection. < <
Read harder? That doesn't even make sense.
Posy wrote:> > > Read harder. < < <
Analog Scott wrote:
> > Read harder? That doesn't even make sense. < <
Sorry! I'll elaborate on that....
"Read harder. ;-) "
Better? Reading your exchange with Clark on this issue, it seems to me he explained it very well to you, but your only reason for making the query appears to be to take up a contrary position just to argue your POV, from which you have no intention of budging from. You totally overlooked the very valid points he had raised. As to whether you need to be a scientist to investigate these things, read my response to PatD, since he has attempted to respond to our exchange on your behalf.
Give it a shot. So far it seems you have completely missed all of my points.
(nt)
PR
"advanced audio products (aka "controversial tweaks" as they are known around these parts)"Well, controversial tweaks such as the Intelligent Chip certainly exist. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence the IC works beyond affecting perception through the biases inherent in knowing they are being used. Where's the proof they make the sound any different? What do they actually do besides cost money and just sit there?
PR
"Great, so investigate the phenomenon."Why should he, unless he's selling them or claiming they affect audio signal in a significant way? As a sensible consumer, I simply don't want to spend money or time on unproven tweaks. All my equipment has known functions and performs them quite well. My CDP plays CDs, my amplifier amplifies the line level signals input, my speakers transduce the amplifier signal into sound waves. What does the Intelligent Chip do?
This raises the question of just what phenomenon there is to be investigated. Each case must be taken individually, of course, but the same considerations apply.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
PatD wrote:> > > PR
"advanced audio products (aka "controversial tweaks" as they are known around these parts)" < < <> > Well, controversial tweaks such as the Intelligent Chip certainly exist. But there doesn't seem to be any evidence the IC works beyond affecting perception through the biases inherent in knowing they are being used. < <
Where are you getting this from? Do your research. There is no shortage of empirical evidence the IC works, including from one of the biggest, fattest anti-tweak blowhards the conservative audio establishment ever coughed up. (I don't wanna name names, but his initials are "KK").
This article explains how a dozen listeners could consistently hear the effects of the chip without having been told what it was they were listening to:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/605stph.html
> > Where's the proof they make the sound any different? What do they actually do besides cost money and just sit there? < <Don't ask me how the IC works, I'm sure I don't know more than you. I'm a little rusty on my "artifical atoms" theories. I believe Geoff has a white paper on his site which would go a lot further to answering your question. But the question you should ask is, "Can it work?". And there's only one real way to answer that for yourself.
> > > PR
"Great, so investigate the phenomenon." < < <> > Why should he, unless he's selling them or claiming they affect audio signal in a significant way? < <
Sorry, I thought it was -obvious-. I'm starting to get the impression that nothing here is. Since he asked about the phenomenon, I presumed it meant he was interested in understanding more about it. And since it hasn't been scrutinized by a peer-reviewed panel, as far as I know, the only real way to learn more about it is to investigate yourself.
> > As a sensible consumer, I simply don't want to spend money or time on unproven tweaks. < <
I take it you bought your system on special at Circuit City then? Because that's the mindset of every mass consumer of electronics, who purchases their little "stereos" at places like Best Buy and Radio Shack. Which is why you won't find such products in such stores. If that's the case with you and you will not take the time to investigate good audio, then as an audiophile, I'm sorry I can not explain what all the fuss over advanced audio products is about on a web page. Reviews in science journals is not going to explain it either.
> > All my equipment has known functions and performs them quite well. My CDP plays CDs, my amplifier amplifies the line level signals input, my speakers transduce the amplifier signal into sound waves. < <
At one time, ALL of your audio equipment was unproven science. What do you want to do, wait until its approved by Peter Aczel before ever considering moving in that direction, as an audiophile? Because trust me, you will be -dead- by then, many times over. Avante-garde technology as conceptualized in the GSIC is some of the most exciting things happening in audio today. But, it's not for the spineless, that I will admit.
> > What does the Intelligent Chip do? < <
Elaphino. You might do better asking Wellfed, or someone who has experience with it, because I've never tried the IC. I'm a Beltist, and the GSIC, well, it's just a little too conventional for my tastes. Just the fact that it actually has a white paper explaining it in technical detail is a mark against it, for me. Takes the whole fun out of audio, when you have even a suggestion as to how it might work.
> > This raises the question of just what phenomenon there is to be investigated. Each case must be taken individually, of course, but the same considerations apply. < <
That's a good question. Here's how I would answer that. If one person I didn't know from Adam said "Try puking on your loudspeakers, it'll really firm up the bass", I would probably be safe to ignore that. But if one person I trust says "I tried puking on my loudspeakers, it DID firm up the bass!", well I would probably ignore that too. Not because two confirmed believers isn't enough to pass my "do I test it? threshold" but because, quite frankly, I don't want puke on my loudspeakers. I don't care how good that makes it sound.
However, if Ken Kessler, one of the world's biggest anti-tweak blowhards (see above), reluctantly admits that he heard the effects of the IC and so did several of his colleagues, repeatedly at that, that would be enough to indicate the IC is worth checking out. The GSIC-10 is not even that expensive a device, as I understand it. But as with any audio product, I would want some means of testing it out without gambling away the cost. That means either a dealer dem, or a refund if not satisfied. Responsive enough for you?
...the beautiful mystery of discovery in audio is akin to that of music. Does one listen to a new symphony, say, because some panel has decided for it? Or rather because, your buddy was enthused? Well that's how audio works too! From that point one needs only to satisfy oneself, whether in music or in audio.
Some people find knowing technical stuff gets in the way of their enjoyment, some don't. I knew a very nice girl who said that knowing what the rocks and trees were, and the geology and evolution, would spoil the experience of nature and the outdoors for her. Not everyone is like that.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
z
> > Some people find knowing technical stuff gets in the way of their enjoyment, some don't. I knew a very nice girl who said that knowing what the rocks and trees were, and the geology and evolution, would spoil the experience of nature and the outdoors for her. Not everyone is like that. < <True. And I'm sure she's very happy in nature, with nothing to concentrate her attention on except its beauty. The gearheads who oppose any audio they can't understand or measure, have the -opposite- problem. Not knowing the technical stuff gets in the way of their enjoyment. I suppose I'm more of a moderate mix of these two extremes. I don't mind knowing how something works, but I won't allow anything to get in my way of its enjoyment.
I have asked whether IC works! I haven't asked how it works. I am not interested in speculations as to how it works until it has been established that it does work. As far as I know, that has not been done.PR
"There is no shortage of empirical evidence the IC works, . . . "You would have to tell me what you mean by "empirical evidence," because as far as I know, all we have are anecdotes from users, which are totally unreliable except for showing that some people perceive it works. I don't consider Ken Kessler much of an authority: I see no evidence that he used a reliable methodology. Auditory perception overdetects, as jj put it.
There has been a controlled DBT, though, but it achieved a null result. Hardly surprising.
PR
"At one time, ALL of your audio equipment was unproven science."Complete nonsense. I'm quite sure my components reflect a lot of applied science.
The point about the components in my system having basic and easily demonstrable audio functions was simply to compare with the IC (or that silly little clock), among others, which apparently don't. Whether the equipment comes from Circuit City or Singers is irrelevant to the point being made. I suppose if I stuck the IC on the inside of the speaker grilles in front of the tweeters it would have an audible effect . . .
Your remarks implying my system is of poor quality are an argumentem ad hominem, and a failed one at that. My system components are listed in Inmate Systems on this site.
For the price of an Intelligent Chip, I could buy a CD or two--which would have an audible effect!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> > I have asked whether IC works! I haven't asked how it works. < <PatD wrote to PR: "My CDP plays CDs, my amplifier amplifies the line level signals input, my speakers transduce the amplifier signal into sound waves. What does the Intelligent Chip do?"
In every English-speaking country I've been in, that would normally qualify as "How does it work?" So how exactly are you interpreting that as meaning "Does it work or doesn't it?"?
> > I am not interested in speculations as to how it works until it has been established that it does work. < <Same here.
> > As far as I know, that has not been done. < <I haven't even been reading this forum that long, and I've already read at least a half dozen names here who've claimed the IC chip works.
> > You would have to tell me what you mean by "empirical evidence," because as far as I know, all we have are anecdotes from users, which are totally unreliable except for showing that some people perceive it works. I don't consider Ken Kessler much of an authority: I see no evidence that he used a reliable methodology. Auditory perception overdetects, as jj put it. < <If by chance that's some oblique reference to jj the curmudgeon, the at&t guy, you would probably be able to build a better sounding hifi system on the advice of a ficus tree. But what I don't get is, why do you even speak of "authorities" that you need to listen to, to tell you whether something produces improved sound or not? Do you not trust your own ears that you have to trust the ears of an authority figure?
> > There has been a controlled DBT, though, but it achieved a null result. Hardly surprising. < <But of course. Audio DBTs being a worthless waste of time, they will always come up with worthless results.
> > > PR
"At one time, ALL of your audio equipment was unproven science." < < <> > Complete nonsense. I'm quite sure my components reflect a lot of applied science. < <
Yes, go on, I'm listening.
> > The point about the components in my system having basic and easily demonstrable audio functions was simply to compare with the IC (or that silly little clock), among others, which apparently don't. < <How do you know that if you didn't test it?
> > Whether the equipment comes from Circuit City or Singers is irrelevant to the point being made. I suppose if I stuck the IC on the inside of the speaker grilles in front of the tweeters it would have an audible effect . . . < <Think -outside- the box you're confining yourself to for a change. You might eventually come to learn that today there are audible effects in audio that are induced by means other than the signal path or acoustic sound waves. If you really want to understand something, don't start off making presumptions about it.
> > Your remarks implying my system is of poor quality are an argumentem ad hominem, and a failed one at that. My system components are listed in Inmate Systems on this site. < <I'm sorry, but you missed my point. I was trying to tell you, what's the difference between you and the Circuit City consumer to whom an audio system is just an appliance, like a microwave oven? I find both of your approaches to audio impossible to differentiate. So are you an audiophile or not? I'm assuming you are, if you're on this forum. If you are, are you interested in improving your sound or do you think you have attained perfection? Again, I'm assuming you are, if you're on this forum. But yet despite all the evidence I've given you that the IC appears to be worthy of investigation, including evidence of blind tests conducted by a well known and highly skeptical journalist, despite the fact that it costs next to nothing and takes little time or effort to investigate, you still don't seem to think it or anything like it is worthy of investigation. Which once again conflicts with the spirit of audiophilism, as compared to garden-variety mass-market consumerism.
> > For the price of an Intelligent Chip, I could buy a CD or two--which would have an audible effect! < <
You'd better go back and study English again. What my amplifier does is amplify a line level signal so as to drive my speakers. Amplifiers do that. It is possible that a defective amplifier would not do it.Ordinarily, to describe how an amplifier works would either describe its design principles (I'm not an EE) or describe how well it works, which could be answered by anything from a casual evaluation to a detailed technical account, depending on the context.
I neither affirm nor deny that the IC works. I just see no reason to suppose it does and I have better things to do than spend time on products no one seems to be able to prove does anything to audio. As I say, I know that my CDP plays CDs, I know that my amplifier amplifies, and I know that my speakers transduce, I know that my interconnects and speaker cables conduct signals. To suppose that I don't know this is simply silly.
You're the one who brought up Ken Kessler, not me. You're the one using him as an authority.
jj is retired from AT & T. Last I heard, he worked for Microsoft.
If you want to talk about perception, that can be influenced by simply knowing what one is listening to, by mood, physical condition, and so on.
PR
"But of course. Audio DBTs being a worthless waste of time, they will always come up with worthless results."You're funny.
Thinking outside the box can be a good thing, but it isn't proof.
PR
"I haven't even been reading this forum that long, and I've already read at least a half dozen names here who've claimed the IC chip works."Anybody can make claims. Proving them is another matter. What methodology did Ken Kessler use?
PR
"So are you an audiophile or not?"Why on earth would I want to be an audiophile? I readily admit to being a musical performer, a music lover, and an audio enthusiast.
PR
"what's the difference between you and the Circuit City consumer to whom an audio system is just an appliance, like a microwave oven? I find both of your approaches to audio impossible to differentiate."That's your problem, not mine.
Are you seriously suggesting that I don't know whether a CD works? This CD stores a recording of some music by Mozart, that one music by Beethoven. Certainly that makes an audible difference.
RP
"You might eventually come to learn that today there are audible effects in audio that are induced by means other than the signal path or acoustic sound waves."Totally unproved speculation. When you come up with some evidence for it, get back to me.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
> > You'd better go back and study English again. < <Qué?
> > What my amplifier does is amplify a line level signal so as to drive my speakers. Amplifiers do that. It is possible that a defective amplifier would not do it. < <
...Which is also the answer to the question: "How does an amplifier work?". If you're going to change the rules on English, then at least you should tell me what new rules you've established, so I can play along. Otherwise, no fair, you've got a player's advantage if you're the only one who knows what the rules are.
> > I just see no reason to suppose it does and I have better things to do than spend time on products no one seems to be able to prove does anything to audio. < <
You keep saying that, and I keep telling you that's not true, that there are enough people all around here that have proven for themselves that it works, and you keep ignoring this fact. How badly do you not want the IC to work?
> > As I say, I know that my CDP plays CDs, I know that my amplifier amplifies, and I know that my speakers transduce, I know that my interconnects and speaker cables conduct signals. To suppose that I don't know this is simply silly. < <
That's twice now you seem to be skirting around the issue. I didn't suggest you don't know how your system works. I said at one point, your entire system was unproven science, to which you replied "Complete nonsense. I'm quite sure my components reflect a lot of applied science.". But you didn't bother to elaborate, so I asked you to, and now you're just avoiding the issue entirely. That's not very responsive is it?
> > You're the one who brought up Ken Kessler, not me. You're the one using him as an authority. < <Hardly! And if you knew how much I've trashed Kessler recently, you wouldn't be saying that. I don't believe in "audio authorities", you do. I used him as an example of a skeptic who ran tests on the IC using 12 different skilled listeners, and most of them, him included, heard differences. You say you don't deny the IC works, yet you seem to be quite biased towards the idea that it doesn't.
> > jj is retired from AT & T. Last I heard, he worked for Microsoft. < <Then we're talking about the same guy. I know him from a long ways back and trust me, he's only good news for people that like bad sound. Unfortunately, I see a lot of his influence (or similarity) in your belief systems.
> > If you want to talk about perception, that can be influenced by simply knowing what one is listening to, by mood, physical condition, and so on. < <
Yes, and I think that's the whole point of listening to a stereo actually. You will NEVER be able to completely remove those sweet, ever-lovin' variables. Not during your regular listening sessions at home, and not during a DBT test. You're fooling yourself if you think you can, and that's very unscientific.
> > > PR
"But of course. Audio DBTs being a worthless waste of time, they will always come up with worthless results." < < <> > You're funny. < <
No, your timing's a little off, that was the serious part. Audio dbt's are like wearing virtual reality goggles that may show a pleasant scene in front of you, but don't allow you to see what's really there. The sooner you drop the religion of the audio DBT, the sooner you can finally come to find out what is and isn't in audio. And you will no longer have to rely on the word of authority figures (ie. jj curmudgeon, all around grouch and deaf marmot), or the ears of other listeners. It's a liberating experience.
> > Thinking outside the box can be a good thing, but it isn't proof. < <
So? You clearly have some interest in whether the GSIC works, so what's stopping you from proving it to yourself, exactly? You can't afford to risk $15? What if I bought one for you to try, and took the monetary risk myself? Would you try it then, or just throw up more excuses about why you don't want to experiment for yourself, and continue to have an opinion on whether it works regardless? And don't tell me "it's a waste of time!" or any other claptrap like that, because you've wasted a lot more time talking about the GSIC on these boards then it would have taken you to try it.
> > Anybody can make claims. Proving them is another matter. < <Trust me, you're going down the wrong road, friend. -Away- from the good sound direction. You may find intellectual comfort taking that route, but your musical enjoyment will suffer.
> > What methodology did Ken Kessler use? < <
Didn't I already talk about that and give you a link to his article in Stereophile? Anyway, what does it matter what methodology he used? No matter the methodology, someone else's test doesn't prove anything about anything.
> > > PR
"So are you an audiophile or not?" < < <> > Why on earth would I want to be an audiophile? < <
See, that's why I asked. I presumed you were interested in improving your sound. If you're not, the question of whether the GSIC does so is irrelevant here.
> I readily admit to being a musical performer, a music lover, and an audio enthusiast.
Wait, hold on a sec.... "audio enthusiast" -is- an "audiophile". Did you know that?
> > > PR
"what's the difference between you and the Circuit City consumer to whom an audio system is just an appliance, like a microwave oven? I find both of your approaches to audio impossible to differentiate." < < <> > That's your problem, not mine. < <
Actually, it's your problem. If there is no difference between you and the mass market electronics consumer, then the quality of your audio will be just as impaired by the judgments made. That's not something I have to live with, my sound improves all the time, because I don't live in a box. So I'm not relegated to trying to improve it with just expensive component upgrades, or shuffling the speakers around.
> > Are you seriously suggesting that I don't know whether a CD works? This CD stores a recording of some music by Mozart, that one music by Beethoven. Certainly that makes an audible difference. < <
No, you misunderstood. You implied in your statement the IC doesn't have an audible effect. I asked, how do you know if you didn't listen to it (the IC). I asked that twice btw, you've yet to respond.
> > > RP
"You might eventually come to learn that today there are audible effects in audio that are induced by means other than the signal path or acoustic sound waves." < < <> > Totally unproved speculation. When you come up with some evidence for it, get back to me. < <
When you're ready to prove it for yourself, get back to me.
You seem awfully concerned with speculating about my attitudes and opinions, short on proof.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
You tell me that I'm not responsive? I responded to all of your arguments at length, including the one about proof and trying unpoven tasks. You ignored all of it and went back to blindly parroting your own self, repeating your "show me the proof!" mantra, as if I hadn't said anything. So it appears that you have no interest whatsoever in learning new things about audio, or in improving your sound. Only in defending your system of beliefs at all cost, in an on-line debate. So as an audio enthusiast, you will progress no further than where you are now.I don't know how far back that is, so why don't you try proving to me that everything you have now in your system has been thoroughly "proven"?
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
You really do need to follow your own advice and read "harder"
Read harder? That -still- doesn't make any sense.
you still aren't making any sense. I guess anything works when you have no real answers.
Analog Scott:> > you still aren't making any sense. I guess anything works when you have no real answers < <
Didn't you read it "hard" enough the first time you responded to it?
> > Didn't you read it "hard" enough the first time you responded to it? < <Didn't you? I would have to say "not", since you told me "read harder" didn't make any sense. Now you're using it on me like you invented the phrase. So if you were able to figure that out, I'm sure you can eventually work out the rest of what I wrote, and provide a reasonably thoughtful response to it.
Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on AA? Don't you know when you are being mocked? Will I always have to be this blunt? is this blunt enough? Do you ever have anything substantial to say or is "read harder" the best it ever gets with you?
> > Are you really an idiot or do you just play one on AA? < <No, I just emulate idiots I see on AA, which as you can see, keeps me busy. Sorry, I thought you would be flattered by the attention.
> > Don't you know when you are being mocked? < <
I think you need to ask yourself that question, since you obviously missed the fact that I was mocking you. As you're not very good at it, and you're not going to get anywhere doing that anyhow, how about you simply don't mock people? Let's put it this way: if you expect to receive any respect from me and/or have a serious conversation about audio, which I'm perfectly willing to do, then you'd better just stop. Mockery is trite rubbish to me, it doesn't impress me in the least, and in serious conversation, is a sure sign of an unevolved mind. I'm not in the habit of having serious conversations with twelve year old boys, or those who act like it.
> > Will I always have to be this blunt? is this blunt enough? < <
Not quite. I'm still a little fuzzy on what you're getting at. Once it matches your perception, it'll be perfect.
> > Do you ever have anything substantial to say or is "read harder" the best it ever gets with you? < <
I was just about to ask you the same thing. You who couldn't even understand what 'read harder' meant, until I had to use smiley faces to explain it to you. And then showing that remarkable wit and imagination you think you posess, you used it against me, with nothing more substantial to say. Yet nevertheless, you're banging your head, wondering why I'm not being more responsive to you.
After I explained what "read harder" meant to you, I went on to say that Clark answered some of your points, which at the time you ignored, and that I answered the rest of your points with PatD, because he decided to speak for you, since you have had little to say in our conversation. He also must have been wondering why you couldn't respond to me yourself. Anyway, you completely ignored my response, and simply wrote: "Give it a shot. So far it seems you have completely missed all of my points."
That pretty much put an end to proceedings, and I've just been playing games with you since. Which I thought you'd adore as you insist on acting like a 12 year old boy. If you want to continue this audio discussion, go back to my response to PatD and --lose the attitude completely--. You've been -rude-, insulting and adversarial from the get go. If I find your response substantial, interesting and courteous, then I will respond in kind. Otherwise.... I'm just gonna tell you to "read harder". ;-)
NT
--
The threshold for disproving something is higher than the threshold for saying it, which is a recipe for the accumulation of bullshit - Softky
NT
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: