 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.73.112.202
In Reply to: "Prop Head is... mostly made up of unusually conservative minds." Hey! Watch your tongue! posted by clarkjohnsen on April 10, 2007 at 11:32:27:
Somehow I think he is referring to the photo in the kitchen freezer effect and not cryo treatment, which seems to be a real and repeatable effect.
Follow Ups:
> > Somehow I think he is referring to the photo in the kitchen freezer effect and not cryo treatment, which seems to be a real and repeatable effect. < <No I'm not, and thank you for asking - it avoids so many unnecessary misunderstandings. Just to make it clear for everyone, when I ask if you don't believe in the freeze effect, I am referring to improving sound by placing things in a domestic FREEZER, and by "things" I mean basically anything you care to freeze for this effect. Audio equipment, for example.
BTW, I'm also betting you're just guessing when you say the photo is not a real and repeatable effect. So what's your assertion based on?
s
"BTW, I'm also betting you're just guessing when you say the photo is not a real and repeatable effect. So what's your assertion based on?
"You can prove to me that it is a real and repeatable effect? From what? Your own personal experience? I saw David Copperfield make an elephant disappear once. I am sure he could do it repeatably (as in every night he had a show),fooling me every time, and everyone who was there for sure thought it was a real disappearance even though they new it was just a show, bias be damned it sure looked like he made it disappear!!
I suspected you meant normal freezing and not cryogenics but it is better to err on the side of caution. In that case then I would say you are simply wrong. Materials behave very differently at cryogenic temperatures than they do at normal merely "cold" temperatures, which to materials such as metals that are already frozen are not that cold at all. At cryogenic temperatures there are fundamental changes to the structure in metals that end up being permanent. Cryogenics is defined by NIST to start at -180°C.
"Disbelieve" is rather ambiguous from a logical point of view. Thus, the dictionaries we tend to find:-have no belief
-refuse belief
-reject beliefThese are not at all the same thing.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
morricab wrote:> > I suspected you meant normal freezing and not cryogenics but it is better to err on the side of caution. < <
Brilliant. Did you surmise that all by yourself from the fact that I wrote, in the message you are responding to: "Just to make it clear for everyone, when I ask if you don't believe in the freeze effect, I am referring to improving sound by placing things in a domestic FREEZER"?
> > You can prove to me that it is a real and repeatable effect? < <
No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect. Keep in mind that I saw David Copperfield once try to turn Lake Erie into blood. And he failed. Repeatedly.
> > In that case then I would say you are simply wrong. Materials behave very differently at cryogenic temperatures than they do at normal merely "cold" temperatures, which to materials such as metals that are already frozen are not that cold at all. At cryogenic temperatures there are fundamental changes to the structure in metals that end up being permanent. Cryogenics is defined by NIST to start at -180°C. < <
Save your strawman for someone else. You must be the 10th guy here now trying to argue with me that cryo is different temps than a domestic freezer, WHEN I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!
"No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". "I never said this.
As PatD has pointed out your the confused one, Son. No need to rehash your lack of understanding about scientific method.
"Save your strawman for someone else."No strawman just trying to get at whether or not you think the "freezer effect" that you seem to think is a real effect is the same as the effects reported from cryogenic treatment. If you think it is the same mechanism of action then I would disagree with you. If you have another proposal for a mechanism then please state it.
No one is arguing that cryo temperature is much lower than the home freezer. That much is obvious to everyone. You have simply constructed a strawman argument.One shouldn't get too hung up on the temperature thing. That is if one is actually serious about getting to the bottom of this thing.
...in question is not so interested.clark
to claim to know what I am interested in and not. Why just tonight I made a big tweak to my system. I added electrostatic subwoofers to my smaller electrostatic panels with an active crossover and a second amp! I love to experiment with audio.
And all this time I thought he was one of the good guys.
x
nt
PR
"YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect."But one cannot prove the null hypothesis and that is what morricab somewhat carelessly stated. The real problem is to prove that freezing pictures improves or even changes the sound. And the burden of proof is on those who do.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
therefore I don't believe you should draw any other conclusions from a general lack of response.
Plus, you're interacting with me, so does that mean you're "peculiar"? Simple fact of life you need to understand: Bad attitudes will get you bad attitudes in return. Plus, I have more people responding to me than I can handle at the moment, thank you for your concern. So you're also wrong about that. And there's something like 30 responses to my thread, asking if anyone disbelieves the freeze effect. So, at the risk of repeating myself, you're wrong again. Having proven that you're wrong, that still leaves the question open as to why my question has gone unanswered, but replies are still pouring in by the hour. My current thinking is people simply don't have the courage to admit they believe or disbelieve the phenomenon, either way. Most seem more comfortable using the thread as a springboard to launch more personal attacks. It's the people of PHP that will decide whether serious audio discussions are possible here or not.
nt
Objective Audiophile 2007
There: you said it.
nt
Ever watch David Copperfield make a large object disappear in front of hundreds? We can trust our senses completely, right? RIGHT!! The funny thing is that with a magician you KNOW its fake but you are still fooled and your sense report what your brain can't accept. That is why that particular profession is so fascinating to so many people.
All I'm saying is that experienced listeners have learned, by definition, to trust their senses more than, say, the man standing under bridge. You are an experienced listener, aren't you?
He's probably not doing as much guessing as you do when you go down to Pimmit Run and grad a bunch of smooth pebbles and stick them in a jar you bought from Ikea! Brilliant.
it would have been funnier if you could type.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
