|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: What group of people would you lable the "academe" in high end audio? posted by jensw on April 3, 2007 at 16:18:11:
...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.
Follow Ups:
> > > "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"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: