|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.78.40.200
How many of you read my AWSI all the way to the end? How many of you understood it?
Here's a clue: If you think it's a personal attack, you're missing the point. Willfully perhaps.
It's early days. I'm sure that as it arrives in more and more mailboxes, more people will take the time to figure out what it actually says.
Greetings to all.
Jim
http://www.jazz-etc.com
Follow Ups:
Can't wait for Jims next ( As We See It ) . Is this the longest thread on A.A. It took me a full day to read it all and now I'm thirsty .
I thought your editorial was one of the best pieces on high end audio I have read for many years. It was well written, thoughtful and balanced.
While I didn't agree with everything in the piece, I found it very interesting and thought provoking. I was surprised by the extreme reactions it has received here, but, well, this is the Audio Asylum, and sometimes it doesn't take much to start the inmates howling -- and it is damned near impossible to quiet them down once they get going.
I say the above as an enthusiast for over 40 years who has owned and used a wide variety of audio equipment and software (tube and transistor, analogue and digital), who is not afraid to try out new equipment and media, including tweaks (so long as they are somewhat plausible and aren't too expensive or onerous), and who has also been disappointed by more than one audiophile product that failed to live up to its hype.
For perspective, my current interests extend to mechanical reproducers (e.g., Victors and Victrolas), pre-WWII radios, a system that uses both the latest version of Amarra Mini and a 24 bit Copland DRC 205 digital room correction device to drive Pass XA60.5 amps, a system that uses a triode amp to drive Lowther speakers, and a home theater that uses an Onkyo receiver supplemented by Onkyo amps. I like restored classic equipment, including speakers such as Quad 57s and Bozak Concert Grands, but I have been developing lustful thoughts about Wilson speakers based on Art Dudley's recent reviews. And I just bought a Soundsmith strain gauge cartridge (before Michael Fremer's review in Stereophile came out). And . . . I like to listen to all of this stuff (maybe not the mechanical 78s and Edison cylinders so much). The point is that while I profess to no particular expertise in the technical aspects of audio, I have spent most of my life enjoying a wide variety of music on a lot of different kinds of equipment. So I don't think I have an audio agenda.
John Atkinson, thanks for publishing the piece -- I suspect that most of your actual subscribers will find the piece as interesting and thought provoking as I did.
For those who really didn't like the piece, especially those who are in "the business," I suggest that a well written, thoughtful and balanced response of 500-1000 words would be more effective than the (to put it kindly) intemperate postings below.
If you have the chops, maybe you could get John to edit it and publish it, at least as a letter to the editor.
Regards, James
Excellent post by Telynau. After 50+ years of buying and listening, and after a career partly devoted to teaching English lit., I agree that the editorial by Jim Austin was extraordinarily intelligent and well expressed. If Telynau is lusting after Wilson, he must be sure to listen to the Sophia 3. This is going to be a classic speaker, like the Watt/Puppy 7. (I have owned the whole W/P line from the 3 to the 8.) So far, the Sashas have disappointed me, but the Sophia 3 displaced my wonderful Magico V3s, and I've never been happier.
My view on SP is neither here nor there, basically: my level of interest depends on the type of article/review and (moreso) the writers experience.
Despite this current and rather meaningless debate, what I thought was FARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR more interesting (and perhaps just as meaningless) was within JA Classe amp review - in which he totally ignored the historical happenings behind Classe Class A heritage/designs - although funny enough - this didn't stop him from mentioning both Krell and ML past designs.
I'm certain JA has his reason(s) for such an obvious silly omission, just like I have my own reasons for not subscribing to SP.
TB1
PS. I partially read AWSI.
*
who writes for them occasionally and has for a number of years.
Interesting thread. I read all of it. No kidding, it's been interesting. And I had some time on my hands to do it.
delete delight
Edits: 02/19/11
this brouhahahohum would be down to merely tedious.
Instead you keep adding to it!
Vote? I don't remember that EVER having any affect around here except when prompted by the inn keepers.
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
I do collect Fashion Doll Pictures.. I have thousands of pics in my computer of an unbelievable assortment of fantastic cool fashion doll clothes, fashion dolls, and fashion doll dioramas. I run the slide show of them pretty often..
...
If, not that probably would have been a more appropriate post in, maybe, Central?
"If only i had collected Fashion Dolls and made clothes for them..."
It's never too late too late too late to start a new hobby, but I suppose it IS difficult to break old habits and keep adding/posting
ad nauseum to a thread that you're complaining is out of hand.
Or whatever...
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
nt
So stop feeding the beast!
It's become an exercise in higher pointlessness.
"It's become an exercise in higher pointlessness. "
But it takes a higher state in pointlessness to understand how pointless it was before.
-Kurt
-Kurt
Elizabeth, you are just as much trouble as Steve Eddy. What makes you push people around?
I think I understand Steve, he is an under appreciated 'thinker' who would or could not finish high school, probably because of problems with authority.
I have had friends like this, over the decades, high potential, but impossible to give advice to. They usually self destruct after making fools of themselves, attacking the world, and losing.
I think I understand Steve, he is an under appreciated 'thinker' who would or could not finish high school, probably because of problems with authority.
Why are you so fucking obsessed with high school, John?
Tell me, what exactly did I miss by not going to high school that's so important that you never miss an opportunity to talk about my not having gone to high school?
se
> > Tell me, what exactly did I miss by not going to high school that's so important that you never miss an opportunity to talk about my not having gone to high school? < <
Getting laid, apparently.
> > Tell me, what exactly did I miss by not going to high school that's so important that you never miss an opportunity to talk about my not having gone to high school? < <
Getting laid, apparently.
Well then John needs to get over his jealousy. Not my problem that he chose to sit in stuffy classrooms all day instead of going out and getting laid.
se
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Wait! no. YES!
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
.
Nobody cares about you going on about being right, that no one would get anything out of this thread. The obsession you have is not good. Especially since it's so STUPID!
-Kurt
I mean no.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/17/11 02/17/11 02/17/11 02/17/11 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
-Kurt
-Kurt
1. One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.
2. But you don't decide what to do with the info. Thought runs you. Thought, however, gives false info that you are running it, that you are the one who controls thought. Whereas actually thought is the one which controls each one of us.
3. And thought struggles against the results, trying to avoid those unpleasant results while keeping on with that way of thinking. That is what I call 'sustained incoherence.
4. Suppose we were able to share meanings freely without a compulsive urge to impose our view or conform to those of others and without distortion and self-deception. Would this not constitute a real revolution in culture.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
-Kurt
Edits: 02/17/11 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
No comment.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
See link.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/18/11 02/19/11 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/18/11 02/19/11
-Kurt
.
Edits: 02/19/11 02/19/11
I know what I have been doing wrong. You were correct. You haven't woken up yet from your state of mind. Please do, and come back later.
-Kurt
-Kurt
Edits: 02/17/11 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
-Kurt
.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Good luck. I know nobody ever visits you and I now know why. I do feel sorry now that I thought you might have a thought somewhere in there, but at least I learned not to be like you anymore. It's not a pretty sight at all.Apologies to the group. Seriously, Elizabeth might need some real psychological help. This looks too serious to me. She is living alone like this, and I know a few things about mental illness in myself and others, as in friends and family.
I lost my own objectivity enough not to see I was just fanning her flames.
Again, good luck Elizabeth.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
That's the difference between posts of yesterday and today, your time. Your problems indicate insufficient medication and a hypomanic spell going on for days.
Yes, I really do believe you need to see the shrink. You're increasingly incoherent and combative. Did you ever stop and think? No, because you're ill.
And if this further pisses you off, then I more strongly feel I am right.
-Kurt
.
Edits: 02/19/11
maybe it is that you're like every other woman:
YOU HAVE TO BE RIGHT!!!Either way, I am tired of such excuses for poor behavior. If you really feel like that, and still haven't apologized for your part in the lunacy, then go away. (And see a therapist.)
Have integrity and own your mistakes in behavior. You still have no admissions for your departure from The Middle Path and your lack of equanimity, or whatever bullshit you want to talk about now.
And I am tired of you calling wolf, beat the shit out of weak people's weak ideas that any child could do, and demand mercy on yourself. You put yourself out there, you reel yourself back in.
That's the best way for you to learn.
I have my reputation for complete sanity ruined already and I won't be getting another job in my lifetime, and I am only 50 years old. I will own up to EVERYTHING I put down. I admit my mistakes and I will not tolerate wimps who won't. Even if mentally ill, you have to have integrity. I apologize all the time for my mistakes and misbehaviors.
Plus, I am not taking the bluff. I'm not that stupid like you think.
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11 02/19/11
Kurt, for whatever reason, Elizabeth is 'playing you'. I can't read where you have done anything wrong, in fact, I wanted to comment on it, much earlier, as it brought back to me, WHY I was able to break the strict electronic engineering mode that I had been at, for 5 years previously, and GROW spiritually in order to make SUCCESSFUL audio designs. By the way, my 'breakthrough' was first made in PRO Audio, not consumer audio
My mentor is Ram Dass.
.
-Kurt
See link
-Kurt
-Kurt
Edits: 02/19/11
For the moment lets ignore why a woman would wish to walk around deliberately titillating men with her provocative... titillates... and consider what's happening.... a pair of fake, placebo if you will, nipples has the same effect on men as real ones do and the poor woman doesn't have to ice her jubblies to achieve it.
The effect it has is the same as if they were real but they are not real. Our brains turn perception into reality so is it valid or invalid? How would John Atkinson measure this?
The point is we are not the Borg (yet). We don't use machines and instruments to gauge and interact with our world. (scanning boobs... scanning boobs... 87% latex, 13% pvc... IGNORE...IGNORE...) Do we take a Chewswell model 3000 food tester with us when we go out to eat?
"Darling, it says the steak is wonderful but the risotto needs more salt..."
"So salt it."
"Ummm.... I think it's already too salty...."
"Nonsense." (salts risotto for him)
I have heard systems the owners were enthralled with, yet I could not leave soon enough. The point being from audio, to food, to nipples, life is about sensation and our reactions to those sensations. If we're happy, it can't be wrong, even if the machine says we are. That's because the one thing a machine can't measure is what's happening between our ears.
If the question isn't whether we can be happy being wrong, rather should we allow machines (or someone else) to correct us then we are it's like the salted risotto example. Everyone in the room may think the risotto doesn't have enough salt, except the guy who has to eat it. Why should he be miserable so everyone else is satisfied?
So yes, people may be fooled or even allow themselves to be fooled, but it's their reality, not ours. They'll either wake up to it one day and find hapiness elsewhere, or they won't and they'll remain content living their illusion.
Life is smoke and mirrors anyway. Particle theory indicates that nothing, even us, is really here. We (and the entire universe) are just energy that only coalesces when consciousness views us. We're all fake nipples waiting to be seen....
I'm very busty...um...er.. I mean busy and didn't even have the time to post this, so expect no replies. Just interpret it in your own personal way.
It's all about the music...
Or coconut chests?
.
.
O
SNAFU
If I understand this correctly:
A respected contributor/audio designer posts that he feels a personal slight was done him by a writer in an audio magazine regarding
a tweak that is no longer available. This seems to date back to a story from some 6 years ago.
Said writer prompts discussion by egomanically referring to his current column here that is only available IF YOU BUY the magazine
and which (I suppose) references said tweak which he never used/heard/experienced and which is (still) no longer even available.
So, no one was actually mentioned by name and no tweak was used/experienced and there are close to 400 posts dealing with this (these) topics.
Absolutely fascinating!
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
Curious. So folks buy the mag (I really doubt more than two additional copies of the March issue will be sold over this set of threads.. as one person has just read it right at the store. Ans since it is one page, on page three, very easy to do)
Anyway, I vote that it was all a setup! to bring in something to get excited over so the Parasound Halo JC3 gets a good start
Anyway, I am not concerned with the ongoing catfight, aside from jumping in and having a go at it too.
yeah, but so many audiophiles ran out to read it for free at Borders that, well, you know the rest...
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
led to Richard "Base Nut" Greene's permanent ouster from this venue. Ironic, no? Of course Mr. Greene's persona non grata status has more to do with the quantity rather than the, er, "quality" of his flames. Which leads me to wonder if the sheer impact of JC's initial comments have roused Richard to offer a grudging tip of his cap to the ancient warrior.
Ol' Bassnuts Green.
Problem solved!
(BTW: RBG seems gone due to complete lack of discipline or respect and posting under an assumed name - "Bob" Wire anyone?)
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
(nt)
N/T
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
With almost 300 sadomasochistic postings,there is no apparent limit to the personal animosity to be vented and ideological knives to be unsheathed.
stalin finally offed trotsky with an icepick in his head. fortunately, there is no such quick and immediate literal endgame in the ethers of the audio asylum. someone has to put this thread out of its misery.
John curl reads your article and takes it a personal attack. Yet many folks aske John, "hey were you named?" "How can you assume that it's about you?" "Why would we even think Jim would write such a general article and somehow point it at you personally?" And yet here you are writing a general post without naming John and posting it in a public forum and clearly it is pointed directly at John. You just gave what looked on the surface to possibly be a bit of paranoia a great deal more credibility. Clearly you are capable of and willing to write and publish something that speaaks in very general terms that names no names and is actually pointed at specific people over specific disagreements.
your gun, your foot.
The second sentence of that post was indeed directed at John, in an indirect way. I was trying to make the point that it wasn't about anyone in particular, including him. It was about the ideas, not about people. So, yes, part of that post was about JC. My column in Stereophile was not.
It has just occurred to me that some folks might be trying to MAKE it personal in the hope that if people see it as a personal attack they'll ignore the ideas. I think the ideas are good for the industry/hobby, but clearly some people find them dangerous.
Jim
> > I think the ideas are good for the industry/hobby, but clearly some people find them dangerous. < <
First of all, there weren't any "ideas" in the column. An "idea" is a new thought or a new insight. Not a single "idea" in the column. Let alone a "dangerous" one. LOL!
On the other hand lots of inane tripe.
Want an example? How about this one? Holding up the double-blind listening panels used to determine the audibility of lossy codecs as a way that "science" should be applied to audio.
The result of this "science" (stand on a pedestal and wear your PhD badge when you say that word!) -- MP3.
Great. If that's where your "science" gets us, I'll pass.
nt
N/T
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
nt
nt
issue your public apology to John Curl, could you please also explain about our "supremely unreliable" ears? That statement flies in the face of everyday experience. Our senses, including the ears, are what we use everyday to gain information about our physical world - you know, all kinds of important stuff and not merely whether some wacky tweak makes our stereo sound another iota "better". For example, I can distinguish the voices of my family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and dozens to hundreds of other people over a range of conditions . . . and over a range of crappy transducers. Moreover, I can detect if they are healthy and, even, get an idea of their emotional state. I bet you can, too! That strikes me more as "staggeringly, no, stunningly reliable".So, certainly you must have something very specific in mind when you claim the opposite. Please provide examples and citations, if any.
Edits: 02/16/11
Sure there are plently examples of senses being fooled, Eddy's example being fairly typical.
So what then? ... do such cases imply that we should then suspect our senses to the point where were reject our own subjective impressions?
If we did we would all soon all find ourselves in the "objective" camp where we would be relying on specifications/measurements and concluding, for example, that all reasonable well designed amplifiers, preamps, CD Players, etc., all sound alike.
But they don't! ... and how do we know this? .... our ears tell us so!
And it should be acknowledged that hard evidence is sadly lacking on the question. Even the likes of John Atkinson with his years and years of evaluating gear on the bench cannot provide definitive objective explanations for these differences.
The best advise for audiophiles in light of the sad state of affairs when it comes to judging gear on the existing set of objective measurement is ... Trust your ears! ... and frankly until the state of the art of objective evaluation begins to coorelate findings with what we audiophiles hear one should give them the respect that rightly deserve ... virtually none!
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
I'm wondering, because you (and most other folks) seem not to notice that there's at least as much support in it for the subjectivist position than for the other one. Rigorous, too.
Delete delight
Edits: 02/16/11 02/19/11
...
You are a smarmy lovable guy. Good luck on your next photon emitting artificial atom whatever.
Whatever it takes to hoodwink people, you have MORE than enough.
And please, please tell me that picture of you and Jim, you were on the right? correct? (I would die laughing if you are the guy on the left!)
I Googled bag of hot wind.
:-)
If i ever have nned of an American Indian name for myself, That is one I will seriously consider: "Bag of Hot Wind" sounds so elegant!
Edits: 02/17/11
How about Bag of Adgita?
In it I made it entirely clear that "objective" position in my estimation is sadly lacking and that being the case an audiophile is best advised to stick with the "subjectivist" position.
You follow up by telling me that in your piece "... that there's at least as much support in it for the subjectivist position than for the other one".
Clearly then, based only on what you have just said, you give roughly equal support to both positions, something which I consider to be foolhearty ... such obvious to anyone who had read my post I should think.
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
Because I believe the science points in precisely that direction.
ABX tests *cannot* prove that a difference isn't audible, and there are well-established limits on the ability of practical ABX testing regimes to detect minor differences.
Sighted subjective tests *cannot* prove that a difference is either audible or inaudible. Again, there is a body of research that shows this to be the case.
I'm actually kind of surprised to find that so many people subscribe to one extreme or the other. I would have thought that Jim's article, any personal references aside, would have been fairly non-controversial, consistent as it is with research on the topic, and disagreeing as it does with neither side, except insofar as it urges more objectivity in a particular camp. A less extreme position, BTW, than J. Gordon Holt's:
"As far as the real world is concerned, high-end audio lost its credibility during the 1980s, when it flatly refused to submit to the kind of basic honesty controls (double-blind testing, for example) that had legitimized every other serious scientific endeavor since Pascal. [This refusal] is a source of endless derisive amusement among rational people and of perpetual embarrassment for me, because I am associated by so many people with the mess my disciples made of spreading my gospel."
Sure, our senses are very good at some things. Unfortunately for the state of high-end audio, our species was never saved from extinction by the ability to distinguish subtle effects of [[insert random audio-component delta here]] while being exposed to range of other sensations (sights, smells, thoughts, or whatever). Our ears are acutely sensitive by highly suggestible; they're very good at a few things and not so good at most.
In scientific circles, these statements are completely uncontroversial. In audiophile circles ... as with so many aspects of human nature, some people -- and I'm not saying you necessarily -- prefer denial, just going on believing what they believe. And that's a big part of the problem: You can't take a critical approach to your own perceptions until you recognize their shortcomings. And you can't learn to listen better unless you take a critical approach to your own shortcomings. (Yes, by being aware of the hazards, you can avoid them, sometimes. It is possible to become a better listener.)
Jim
More like the hazards of thinking. Mr. Austin would have us believe that the way to become a better listener is by thinking about listening.
I submit that far better way to become a better listener is to listen. Get your 10,000 hours in and then get back to us.
"How do I get to Carnegie Hall?"
"Practice, practice, practice!"
issue your public apology to John Curl...
What is there to apologize for?
All he said was "Meanwhile, some prominent industry folks have consistently failed, in my opinion, to maintain a sufficiently skeptical posture toward such products," as it relates to such things as the Intelligent Chip among others.
Given that John doesn't appear to have a skeptical bone in his body when it comes to such things, I think that's a more than fair opinion. So what is there to apologize for?
...could you please also explain about our "supremely unreliable" ears?
Here's a fun example.
The McGurk Effect
That statement flies in the face of everyday experience. Our senses, including the ears, are what we use everyday to gain information about our physical world - you know, all kinds of important stuff and not merely whether some wacky tweak makes our stereo sound another iota "better". For example, I can distinguish the voices of my family, friends, co-workers, acquaintances and dozens to hundreds of other people over a range of conditions . . . and over a range of crappy transducers. Moreover, I can detect if they are healthy and, even, get an idea of their emotional state. I bet you can, too!
And in those instances, we are cuing in on differences in tone, inflection, etc. which are quite significant and readily measurable/observable.
What Jim is talking about is the fact that we humans are prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences.
This is trivially easy to demonstrate and has been well established for many many years.
se
> > > What is there to apologize for?
This current debacle didn't happen in a vacuum. Please read the AWSI from 2005 and the archives here at CC.
> > > Here's a fun example.
That WAS fun! And Q'ool. Thanks for the link. But the difference was subtly less obvious when I was staring at my amp instead of my monitor.
> > > Jim is talking about is the fact that we humans are prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences
I see, thanks for the distinction. But it makes me wonder what readily measurable differences you use when designing your cables.
N/T
This current debacle didn't happen in a vacuum. Please read the AWSI from 2005 and the archives here at CC.
I read it back in 2005. And I don't feel there was anything to apologize for then, let alone now.
That WAS fun! And Q'ool. Thanks for the link. But the difference was subtly less obvious when I was staring at my amp instead of my monitor.
Yes. That's because it's an example of how visual input can alter how our brain interprets what's being fed into our ears.
I see, thanks for the distinction. But it makes me wonder what readily measurable differences you use when designing your cables.
Beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance?
None.
Why?
se
> > But it makes me wonder what readily measurable differences you use when designing your cables.
Beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance? None. < <
NONE???
So why the cotton insulation?
So why the ultra-fine, pure copper wire?
to wade thru all of his coy responses and arrive at the post where he finally admits to using a method that is:
". . . prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences."
Who knew?
to wade thru all of his coy responses and arrive at the post where he finally admits to using a method that is:
". . . prone to subjectively perceiving differences even when there are no actual physical differences."
Who knew?
Was there a point you were intending to make here?
If so, could you elaborate? Because I wasn't able to find one.
se
> > But it makes me wonder what readily measurable differences you use when designing your cables.
Beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance? None. < <
NONE???
That's right. None.
Read his question again, Charles:
But it makes me wonder what readily measurable differences you use when designing your cables.
Beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance, what readily measurable differences do you propose that I use when designing my cables, Charles?
Length? Weight? Temperature? What?
Please be specific.
se
If all you have for test equipment is a $99 made in China "Wavetek" LCR analyzer, then I guess all you can measure is inductance, capacitance, and resistance. If a hammer is your only tool, then every problem looks like a nail.
'Cuz after all, "readily measurable" is what the high end is all about.
If all you have for test equipment is a $99 made in China "Wavetek" LCR analyzer, then I guess all you can measure is inductance, capacitance, and resistance.
So tell me, Charles, exactly what measurements should I be making that would tell me anything meaningful?
se
> > So tell me, Charles, exactly what measurements should I be making that would tell me anything meaningful? < <
Gee, Steve, you were the one who insisted on making measurements. But now you say you don't know which ones might help.
Personally I would try listening tests. They are really cool.
Not only is virtually all of the best equipment designed this way but this is certainly the way that all of the equipment is sold.
Do you think your potential customer walks into a store with an LCR meter and selects his cables with that? Of course not. So as a manufacturer, I would expect you to at least be able to hear as well as your customers. Hopefully better.
Have been considering your finely made gear but the way you present yourself in forum. Makes me more than think twice. Sorry just being honest and maybe I'm not the only one who feels this way. You do your company a disservice in my opinion by acting the way you do in forum. Why not take the higher ground? The internet is full of opinions and some of course are wrong. We could spend a lifetime trying to correct what we see as unjust or just wrong.
There is no HIGHER GROUND. Only phonies play the higher ground card, like hi end car dealers.
Gee, Steve, you were the one who insisted on making measurements
Where the fuck did I insist on making any measurements? What measurements did I insist on making? What the hell are you talking about?
But now you say you don't know which ones might help.
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
I was asked "what readily measurable differences" do I use when designing my cables.
I said beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance, none.
You came back implying that there were some other " readily measurable differences I should be measuring.
I asked you what else I should be measuring.
Now you come back with this nonsensical rant about my insisting on making measurements.
Again, what the hell are you talking about?
Personally I would try listening tests. They are really cool.
What have listening tests to do with this? What kind of listening tests are you referring to? Since the context is readily measurable differences, are you referring to controlled, double blind listening tests?
If not, then what have listening tests to do with what readily measurable differences I use when designing my cables?
Do you think your potential customer walks into a store with an LCR meter and selects his cables with that?
Of course not.
But what has that to do with the question I was originally asked that my answer seems to have caused you to become so unhinged?
You're not making any sense at all, Charles.
It seems all you're doing is spewing a bunch of irrelevant bullshit in an attempt turn this into a personal attack.
se
Has anyone ever tried to measure why white cables generally sound better than cables of other colors, even cables of the same type and brand? Just curious.
"Has anyone ever tried to measure why white cables generally sound better than cables of other colors, even cables of the same type and brand?"
Probably the same reason that my network works better when I use a white Ethernet cable from my PC to the router. (Full disclosure: off white purchased from Blackbox.com)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
roll eyes
...WHO is coming unhinged using the "f" word and apparantly jumping up and down?
Heavens!
...WHO is coming unhinged using the "f" word and apparantly jumping up and down?I don't believe in the irrational concept of "bad words." So my use of the word "fuck" isn't any more of a sign of unhingedness than my use of the word "hell."
But while you're here, perhaps you can tell me where I insisted on making measurements.
se
Edits: 02/17/11
When you're crushing someone in debate it costs nothing to remain civil.
When you're crushing someone in debate it costs nothing to remain civil.
Quite so.
However Charles wasn't engaging in a debate. He was engaging in a personal attack, which in my opinion isn't deserving of civility.
se
No Steve, he is just honest. We really, really get tired of your blue collar banter. Get civilized, PLEASE!
We really, really get tired of your blue collar banter.
Gee, elitist much?
And what's with this "we" and "our" shit all the time? Are you part of the Borg collective or something?
We are John of Borg. You are now on our list . Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Is this just some device you use to make your words appear to carry more weight? Like certain animals in the wild that puff themselves up with air to make themselves appear larger than they really are?
Get civilized, PLEASE!
Get civilized? This coming from Mr. Ad Hominem?
That's rich, John.
se
> > > I don't feel there was anything to apologize for then, let alone now
Then, you and I have reached different conclusions from the same evidence. BTW,
> > > John doesn't appear to have a skeptical bone in his body when it comes to such things
is a baseless judgment.
> > > Beyond resistance, inductance and capacitance? None. Why?
Well, I'm no engineer, but I'm aware that a great many people, including inmates at AA, think that audio cables are snake-oil. Where, they ask, is the credible evidence that anything beyond a basic wire is required to transmit a signal? So, I was wondering if all of your, presumably, thoughtful design choices are completely based on empirical measurements. Looking at design, with obvious care to detail, it's difficult to believe that you have measurements that validate all of your choices. And if you do, I would find it even more incredible that you have evidence linking such measurements to sonic superiority.
In other words, I'm amazed that a high-end cable manufacturer did not, at some point, rely on his ears in finalizing the design . . .
Then, you and I have reached different conclusions from the same evidence.
Ah well.
BTW,
> > > John doesn't appear to have a skeptical bone in his body when it comes to such things
is a baseless judgment.
Baseless?
Not at all.
I base it on over 10 years of reading John's posts as well as my own personal interactions with him on this issue.
Well, I'm no engineer, but I'm aware that a great many people, including inmates at AA, think that audio cables are snake-oil.
Yeah?
Well, to those people, I would suggest they try listening to their systems without any cables.
Where, they ask, is the credible evidence that anything beyond a basic wire is required to transmit a signal?
Which is a valid question in my opinion.
So, I was wondering if all of your, presumably, thoughtful design choices are completely based on empirical measurements.
Nope.
In other words, I'm amazed that a high-end cable manufacturer did not, at some point, rely on his ears in finalizing the design . . .
But I do.
However the only thing I rely on them for is to tell me what sounds good to me. Not whether or not there is an actual audible difference between my cables and other cables.
On that issue I really don't care. I only care about my own pleasure and enjoyment, whatever the reasons for it may be.
You see, unlike many of those who would call themselves "subjectivists," I actually am a subjectivist. And to that end, I never attempt to pass my subjective experience off as anything more than that.
se
So, now I can understand why Austin dragging Curl thru the mud bothers you not a whit. But remind me why I might trust your product but not some product with similarly invisible explanations. Perhaps it'll sound good to me as well? Indeed it might, maybe I should try listening to it!
So, now I can understand why Austin dragging Curl thru the mud bothers you not a whit.
That statement presupposes that I feel Curl was dragged through the mud. Which I don't. You may want to Google "non sequitur."
But remind me why I might trust your product but not some product with similarly invisible explanations.
Trust my product to do what exactly?
Perhaps it'll sound good to me as well?
I've no idea. I'm not one to deign to try and tell others what their particular experience may be.
Indeed it might, maybe I should try listening to it!
Maybe you should. That's up to you.
Though I might remind you that we're talking about a cable here. Not some nonsensical, quack tweak marketed with a bunch of equally nonsensical gibberish and double talk from someone's fevered imagination.
se
"Though I might remind you that we're talking about a cable here. Not some nonsensical, quack tweak marketed with a bunch of equally nonsensical gibberish and double talk from someone's fevered imagination."
Nice to see your anti-tweak, anti-audiophile colors in full display. I often see similar sentiments from other violently anti-tweak types, like Mr. Austin for example. Comments like yours are simply the product of too much accumulated angst and suspicion. Fortunately, the real high end of audio, the forefront, moves ahead regardless of all the mossbacks, backsliders and nanny goats with panties. Don't be a hater. Tweaks are for lovers, not for haters.
I am certainly old enough.
Though I am NOT anti tweak. I just had HOPED to help explain why some folks seem to be, And how Jim Austin is NOT anti tweak, just SOME of said tweaks.
(an aside: Don't you think this sort of stubborn arguing over nothing is what goes on in Congress every day?)
Wow, what an image! I was provoked to say something a little more direct, Elizabeth, but I stopped myself in time. I do resent your overreaching my intentions here. My employer would rather that I did NOT annoy the reviewers, and editors, and he said so in an E-mail to me, just last night. Kind of the opposite of what you supposed.
I am here, and I started this debate, because I get tired of 'cheap shots' in print leveled at me, and as well, distant colleagues like the Shakti guy and Geoff Kait. That is the only real reason to start this whole discussion. Sure brought everybody out of the 'woodwork' didn't it?
Sorry I posted anything.
Being let down that such an illustrious fellow like yourself would prefer to be aligned with the like of Geoff, who is a scam artist, A first rate scam artist, but still a scam artist.
If i would have just known that you were just having a brain fart, or whatever you might prefer to call it? hard to know? It seems now it was just a hissy fit
So, you opinion of me has gone down the tubes.. (Actually I know you had no opinion of me prior to this, my being part of the woodwork and all) Too bad my opinion of you has go the way of the all earthy things.. to dust.
You may be a genuis, but you are also a fool.
I am certain lending your support to the sort like Geoff... is in some crazy way better ??? than allowing common sense to have any foothold. What a way to go.. (sigh)
I am certain we will never meet in person. We move in different circles. I, live in the woodwork, You among the shining lights. Sorry to see your light get so tarnished by this bullshit.
Thanks for the compliment. Compliments are hard to come by in this town.
Geoff, I have a problem. It is either you or Elizabeth. I wonder what she has to offer? Pleasant conversation? Good cookies? Intellectual debates? I must ponder this.
I already have a phone buddy, Teresa. Remember her? She was banned from this website, but she is still a music reviewer for an online magazine. Karen, my ex, sent me cookies. I am all 'cookie'd out'. I find pleasant conversation boring. What am I missing? '-)
Edits: 02/17/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
I think the biggest problem is that you 'pre-suppose' or presume a motive of someone, when it isn't warranted. I am constantly told that I do what I do on the internet in order to advertise the audio products that I am associated with, but I rarely even mention them, on purpose. It would be 'bad form' for me to 'pimp my products' so to speak, and I OFTEN get into trouble with my 'bosses' for not doing so, or perfectly well. To them it is marketing, to me it is dishonestly, or at least, disingenuous.
Yet, people, like yourself, can attribute MOTIVES to anything I do.
For example, on another website, just this morning, someone attributed my talking about phono cartridge design as some self-serving promotion by me. However, I have NEVER designed a phono cartridge, and have not worked in a store for the last 40 years that sells them, BUT I am somehow getting extra exposure from taking about basic phono cartridge mechanics that I have learned from books and magazine articles on the subject. Go figure!
It is the same on this website. I wanted to address the issue of harassment without the ability to state MY case, in real time, as a defense, in a major audiophile magazine. That is the heart of it, yet you attributed other motives, perhaps in jest, perhaps not. However, it gets annoying, when my motives are impugned. Well enough of this.
Personally, Elizabeth, in "another reality, you and I could be 'friends" like Captain Kirk and the Centarian, in 'Startrek' as we have so much in common, if what you say about yourself is on the up and up. And so it goes.
Edits: 02/18/11
.
For example, on another website, just this morning, someone attributed my talking about phono cartridge design as some self-serving promotion by me.
I just read Soundminded's post over there.
He didn't do any such thing. He made nothing more than a generalized statement:
Focusing on a single element in a system to the exclusion of the system performance of an entirety is neither physics nor engineering. It does make for good advertising copy and hype though.
It's worth noting that you raised no objection over there whatsoever. You didn't even do so much as bother to say you've never designed a phono cartridge nor have any financial interest in any phono cartridges (which of course you wouldn't have had to say because he--as well as most everyone else on that thread--knows you don't).
Instead, you come over here, mischaracterize what happened over there, and use it in an attempt to garner sympathy form others.
And this is why you doth protest too much about "crosstalk." With "crosstalk," you're not able to get away with shit like this.
se
I MUST be crazy. I wake up in the morning, turn on the computer, and go to the 'Blowtorch' thread that I have attempted to nurture for several years, even under severe moderation and hints that I should go away. A contemporary, Soundminded, who has often recently contributed to this thread, usually in an adversarial role, comes on with another 'putdown' when I am only trying to describe the workings of a phono cartridge. Yet, when I comment about it, I MUST BE SUPPRESSED!
Think about it everybody, SE is not going to waver.
I MUST be crazy. I wake up in the morning, turn on the computer, and go to the 'Blowtorch' thread that I have attempted to nurture for several years, even under severe moderation and hints that I should go away. A contemporary, Soundminded, who has often recently contributed to this thread, usually in an adversarial role, comes on with another 'putdown' when I am only trying to describe the workings of a phono cartridge.
But what he DIDN'T do was attribute your talking about phono cartridge design to some sort of self-serving promotion by you as you claimed he did in your previous post here.
I see you're still using the five rules of dodgeball when it comes to defending the shit you talk about others (dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge).
Yet, when I comment about it, I MUST BE SUPPRESSED!
You didn't simply "comment," John. You misrepresented and mischaracterized. And whenever you do this, you need to be called out on it.
se
Quote from the 'message' that I am directly referring to: After copying my recent message on phono cartridge design, Soundminded says: (about me I presume)
"Focusing on a single element in a system to the exclusion of the system performance of an entirety is neither physics nor engineering. It does make for good advertising copy and hype though."
What does this mean? I think that it is a cheap shot at me, and I endure this daily, on this other website, which is what I get tired of. What do the rest of you think?
.
Sorry, Elizabeth. I usually don't even notice subject lines, my only excuse is that I am half blind and I usually concentrate on getting the message typed right. I will be more careful, in future.
Wouldn't want to annoy you or anything.
Quote from the 'message' that I am directly referring to: After copying my recent message on phono cartridge design, Soundminded says: (about me I presume)
"Focusing on a single element in a system to the exclusion of the system performance of an entirety is neither physics nor engineering. It does make for good advertising copy and hype though."
What does this mean?
It means pretty much just what it says.
In the first part he's implying that you were focusing too much on a single element in a system to the exclusion of the system as a whole.
In the second part, he's simply making a general statement saying that that sort of thing better serves as advertising copy and hype.
If there's any implied slam against you in that statement, then he's saying he thinks you'd make a better copy writer than a physicist or engineer.
NOT that you have some sort of financial interest in phono cartridges and that what you posted was some sort of self-serving promotion as you claimed he meant here.
What do the rest of you think?
Why ask people here what they think? Why not just ask Soundminded what he meant?
Hell, I'll do it for you.
Done.
Keep an eye out for Soundminded's reply to my query.
se
I think the biggest problem is that you 'pre-suppose' or presume a motive of someone, when it isn't warranted.
If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black I don't know what is.
You've made something of a career out of doing exactly that. Pre-judging, mischaracterizing, and sometimes flat out lying about others.
se
I was talking to Elizabeth, Steve.
I was talking to Elizabeth, Steve.
On a public forum, John.
If you want privacy, get a room. Or use EMail.
And here yet again you're the pot calling the kettle black.
Who was JA talking to here ?
Who was I talking to here ?
Who was Elizabeth talking to here ?
Who was Geoff talking to here ?
And so on.
Hint: None of them were talking to you before you replied to their posts.
se
every product ( or idea) in the audio world ( regardless of how seemingly absurd it is ) should be taken as seriously as any other . To be blunt, I hope that you have higher standards than that for your own companies . I mean, do you spend alot of time considering whether silver or black faceplates sound best ( not really any more far out than the tweaks talked about here).The idea of knowledge is that it gives you the confidence to eliminate some ideas that do not seem to advance whatever cause your're involved in. Having no standards does not seem, IMO, to lead to a very productve life.
Edits: 02/15/11
Lancelot,
I think it's a shame that here we are in the year 2011 of the 21st century and we still have so many audiophiles, like yourself, are making the very same types of mistakes objectivists in the 19th century made by being closed-minded and choosing to maintain the status quo in engineering and physics over accepting the possibility that a new idea, might prove an older accepted paradigm to be incorrect. Perhaps the problem with today's skeptical audiophiles is they have never taken the time to learn the history of science itself! Maybe if they had knowledge of that history they wouldn't be so quick to immediately espouse those new audio improvements or tweaks who's workings they cannot comprehend, as immediately having to be either "snake-oil", "pseudo-science" or "quackery"! I'd like to warn these audiophiles beware, because the ice they're skating on is quite thin indeed. If they choose to continue on skating on such thin ice they'll certainly take their place among the ranks of scoffers who, only realised after they fell through the ice, it was indeed thinner than they proclaimed it to be. Even worse than the embarrassment of being pulled from the icy water, might be the added knowledge they too have accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. I say beware again, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have since been bestowed with the gift hindsight. These same advancements were once seen as being obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.
I'll readily admit within the realm of new audio improvements and/or tweaks, "snake-oil", "pseudo-science" or "quackery" exists. I'll also concede sometimes there are claims of revolutionary advancements, whose workings as described, seem to test the very fringes of science! Yet I'll warn again despite these facts, we cannot dismiss them without a prior investigation, as some audiophiles eagerly do in the "name-of-science", at each revelation of a newly discovered audio improvement or tweak! If these audiophiles knew the history of science , as well as the objectivism and skepticism of the science process, I believe they'd be less inclined to quickly espouse; " Science tells us this new audio improvement or tweak cannot possibly work! " for the history of science they so claim to so dearly embrace includes many important discoveries that were either initially met with resistance or else were outright ignored by fellow scientists (Barber, 1961). Why? Because these important discoveries either did not fit the common paradigms, or their implications could not be connected by a series of simple logical steps to the existing scientific knowledge. Hence these discoveries were often rejected for quite some time after their initial introduction (Stent, 1972, 2002). In other words, some theories or discoveries collided with the dominant paradigms in science, and were therefore slow to be accepted. (Campanario & Acedo, 2007).
Even the "peer-review" process these audiophiles always demand as "proof" a new audio improvement or tweak has been scientifically reviewed via peers and confirmed works as described in a scientific journal such as Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, isn't as clean and scientific as they believe it to be. In fact there's some research on the function of the peer review process, including it's psychological and sociological mechanisms. This research has brought into focus problematic tendencies in the peer-review processes and thus the traditional closed process has now come under some pressure. The process is accused of protecting old dogmas and surpressing new ideas when senior researchers serving as reviewers have to evaluate papers, that may threaten their own authority.
Now before I'm labeled a fairy-chaser I'll have you know I embrace science and healthy skepticism. I'm skeptic of every new audio improvement or tweak I cannot understand and I embrace the science that allowed my Mastersound to be built. Any intelligent, logical thinking audiophile knows that skepticism is one of the main tools of science, but as audiophiles we'd be hypocrites if we never directed a skeptical eye towards Scientific Skepticism itself . If we deny this flaws and errors are free to grow unbridled, and scientific skepticism is not immune to this problem. Unbridled gullibility can destroy science, but unbridled disbelief is no less a threat because it brings both a tolerance for bias and ridicule as well as the supression of untested new ideas. Better to take a middle road between total closed-mindedness and total gullibility. Better to be an open-minded skeptic...
Oh yeah FYI, my silver-plate Mazda 6189 tubes sound much better than my grey-plate Mazda 6189 tubes do!
(See Citations below)
Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
===============================================================
--- SETriodes Group --- Central Florida Audio Society --- Space
Coast Audio Society --- Fullrange Drivers --- Front & Back Loaded Horns
Literature:
Biology direct. http://www.biology-direct.com/info/about/
Barber, B. (1961). Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery. Science , 134, 596-602.
Campanario, J. M. (1993). Consolation for the scientist: Sometimes it is hard to publish papers that are later highly-cited. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 342-362.
Campanario, J. M. (1995). Commentary: On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16(3), 304-325.
Campanario, J. M. (1996). Have referees rejected some of the most-cited articles of all times? Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 47(4), 302-310.
Campanario, J. M. (1998a). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 1. Science Communication , 19(3), 181-211.
Campanario, J. M. (1998b). Peer review for journals as it stands today-Part 2. Science Communication , 19(4), 277-306.
Campanario, J. M. (2002). The parallelism between scientists' and students' resistance to new scientific ideas. International Journal of Science Education, 24(10), 1095-1110.
Campanario, J. M. (2007). Rejecting Nobel Class Papers (in revision). Retrieved from http://www.uah.es/otrosweb/jmc
Campanario, J. M. & Acedo, E. (2007). Rejecting highly cited papers: The views of scientists who encounter resistance to their discoveries from other scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology,
Campanario, J. M. & Martin, B. (2003). Rejected but available. European Science Editing , 29(3), 73.
Campanario, J. M. & Martin, B. (2004). Challenging dominant Physics paradigms. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 18(3), 421-438.
Campbell, P. (2006). Nature Peer Review Trial and Debate.
www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/index.html
Chubin, M. & Hackett, E. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer review and US science policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Cole, S., Cole, J. R. & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881-886.
Garfield, E. (1989a). Delayed recognition in scientific discovery: Citation frequency analyses aids the search for case histories. Current Contents, 23, 3-9. http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p154y1989.pdf
Garfield, E. (1989b). More delayed recognition Part 1. Examples from the genetics of color blindness, the entropy of short-term memory, phosphoinositides, and polymer rheology. Current Contents , 38, 3-8. From http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v12p264y1989.pdf
Garfield, E. (1990). More delayed recognition Part 2. From inhibin to scanning electron microscopy. Current Contents , 9, 3-9. From http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v13p068y1990.pdf
Garfunkel, J. M.; Ulshen, M. H.; Hamrick, H. J. & Edward E. Lawson, E. E. (1990). Problems Identified by Secondary Review of Accepted Manuscripts. JAMA [The Journal of the American Medical Association], 263, 1369-1371.
Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). Facts and Myths about Refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 153-163.
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The Philosophical Basis of Peer Review and the
Suppression of Innovation. JAMA [The Journal of the American Medical
Association], 263(10), 1438-1441.
Horrobin, D. F. (1990). The philosophical basis of peer review and the
suppression of innovation, Journal of the American Medical Association,
263(1010), 1438- 1441.
Hook, E. B. (2002). Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On resistance and neglect. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Martin, B. (1998). Strategies for dissenting scientists. Journal of Scientific Exploration , 12(4), 605-616.
Martin, B. (1999a). Suppression of dissent in science. Research in Social Problems and Public Policy , 7, 105-135.
Martin, B. (1999b). Suppressing research data: methods, context, accountability, and responses. Accountability in Research , 6, 333-372.
Nissani, M. (1995). The plight of the obscure innovator in science: A few reflections on Campanario's note. Social Studies of Science , 25(1), 165-183.
Peters, D. P. & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
Rennie, D. (1990). Editorial Peer Review in Biomedical Publication: The First International Congress. JAMA [The Journal of the American Medical Association], 263(10), 1317. (Thematic issue: "Guarding the Guardians" about research in editorial "Peer Review").
Simon, R. J., Bakanic, V.,& McPhail, C.. (1986). Who complains to journal editors and what happens. Sociological Inquiry , 56, 259-271.
Sommer, T.J. (2001). Suppression of scientific research: Bahramdipity and Nulltiple Scientific Discoveries. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(1), 77-104.
Stent, G. S. (1972). Prematurity and uniqueness in scientific discovery.
Scientific American, 227, 84-93.
Stent, G. S. (2002). Prematurity in scientific discovery. In E.B. Hook (Ed.): Prematurity in Scientific Discovery. On resistance and neglect (pp. 22-36). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Weller, A. C. (2001). Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses. Medford, NJ: Information Today. (ASIS&T Monograph Series).
Wilson, J. D. (1978). Peer review and publication. Journal of Clinical
Investigation , 61(6), 1697-1701.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2005). Peer review.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review (This articles provides, among other things, a long list of interesting links).
"I'd like to warn these audiophiles beware, because the ice they're skating on is quite thin indeed."
I assert that thin ice is strong, and thick ice weak.
See my point?
There are paradigm shifts, and then there's just plain dumb. Like putting your CD's in a freezer.
Not to mention that I don't think I can think of any lasting and vetted contribution to audio quality that wasn't firmly grounded in physics and engineering. The phonograph? Electrical recording? Loudspeakers? Stereophony? AC bias? Frequency modulation? The LP?
Where were the engineers who said these new things would never work? And where are the inventions that were ignored?
AC bias in tape recording was an ACCIDENT, caused by an oscillating circuit. IF someone had NOT followed up, what then?
Some modulation engineers working for the military would probably have come up with the idea sooner or later. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Ah, OK, I'd forgotten that. My bad. In fact, as it happens, I had also acknowledged the role of chance discoveries in one of these threads: "That isn't to say that happenstance and fortuitous discovery don't play a role, they do."
http://db.audioasylum.com/mhtml/m.html?forum=critics&n=54640&highlight=wright+brothers&r=&search_url=%2Fcgi%2Fsearch.mpl%3Fforum%3Dpcaudio%26searchtext%3D
The difference here I think being that between observation and measurement, and an intelligent analysis of that observation, and the acceptance of claims that appear to contradict physical law.
WELL SAID!
Go look it up.
...first, IIRC, Hansen is an engineer and Curl has at least a degree in physics.
Both are among the most highly regarded audio designers of this era so I'd say their lives are pretty productive.
As to the issue at hand:
For example, the first time you heard someone say they applied a liquid to the surface of a CD and it made it sound better, would you outright say it was complete nonsense or would you try it and listen before making a judgement.
For Austin to do the former about another product, rather than the latter, regardless of the explanation, or in this case the lack of one about how it works, shows not "scientific scepticism" but someone who shoots from the hip and could be called "closed-minded".
[quote] "As to the issue at hand:
For example, the first time you heard someone say they applied a liquid to the surface of a CD and it made it sound better, would you outright say it was complete nonsense or would you try it and listen before making a judgement." [/quote]
THAT is exactly what Jim Austin did back in 2007 in a reply to one of my questions :-
[quote] "Regarding Nordost's ECO 3 liquid which they claim to improve sound if you apply it to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer insulation of cables (including AC power cables) !!! " [/quote]
Jim's reply was :-
[quote] "Nordost liquid? Never heard of it, never tried it. A static charge on speaker cables could affect the sound in principle, but I doubt it." [/quote]
Regards,
May Belt,
He merely said that he doubted that it worked.
Is there anything wrong with that? I doubt that it works as well.
If someone told you that they'd made a functional airplane out of lead, would you not doubt that too?
"He merely said that he doubted that it worked.
Is there anything wrong with that? I doubt that it works as well.
If someone told you that they'd made a functional airplane out of lead, would you not doubt that too?"Sorry but that's a pretty poor analogy. Obviously there are no lead airplanes to test your suspicions because aluminum is a much better material for a number of reasons. But who know's, if a lead airplane is designed properly - e.g., with huge engines and properly designed wings - it probably would be able to fly. Do you have any idea how much the Space Shuttle weighs? It has hardly any wings at all? Do you also doubt that a lead ship would float?
On the other hand, we have CD fuids and Nordost anti static spray which ahve been extensively reviewed both in the press an on audio forums like this one. So there is quite a lot of evidence that, in fact, CD fluids and Nordst spray actually do work.
You know being skeptical is one thing, being overly suspicious is quite another.
Cheerio
Edits: 02/18/11 02/18/11
it uses them to glide. And it has a very high descent rate, higher than that of an airliner or glider, as well as a higher landing speed. It also weighs much less at reentry than it does at takeoff, since it need no longer carry fuel, boosters, or the external fuel tank. And its weight has been painstakingly optimized -- much more so than in a commercial jetliner. Most of that weight, at takeoff, is fuel: the rocket equation means that putting an object into orbit is no trivial task, indeed, no one has been able to design a workable single stage to orbit rocket, practical rockets have to jettison stages (or boosters and tanks) to reduce weight as they ascend. That's *after* all the weight optimization they can manage.
In any case, none of this has much to do with my point, which is that some propositions are on the face of it ludicrous from the perspective of physics and engineering. And if an audio tweak seems to me ludicrous from those perspectives, it will take more than a subjective review to interest me in it.
Glide, fly, you say tomato, I say tomato. Why do you think actual gliders have such long wings? So they can FLY. The shuttle uses its body + wings for lift, that's why that shape is called a lifting body.
Of course the shuttle weighs less coming back! it's alwasy easier to come back in, you lnow, with gravity on your side. Ha!
It has everything to do with your argujment since a lead plane would be able to fly, contradicting your argument. In fact your argument demonstrates MY point, not yours - that some things that seem preposterous are in fact possible. It's what separates the self proclaimed skeptics from the real skeptics. :-0
Bullshit. It is a straightforward if tedious matter to calculate whether a lead plane could fly or not. That is engineering, not hocus pocus, and pettifogging my example does not change that.
Look, who's the aerospace engineer here, you or me? Weight, Lift, and drag. Easy as pie.I'll ask again, since you avoided the question the first time around: do you also think a lead ship can't float?
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~idh/apod/image/0707/shuttle747_nasa.jpg
Edits: 02/18/11
"Weight, Lift, and drag. Easy as pie. "
Thrust, you're forgetting thrust. Without it flying's a drag...
But a lead plane??? Why that's as silly as a cement freighter!
Rick
Sorry to say, the shuttle's reeentry is essentially unpowered. Why do you think they call it the Flying Brick?I like this game.
Edits: 02/18/11
That baby had plenty of thrust in the take off part of it's cycle, plenty.
Coasting to a landing, well, iffins you got enough momentum to flare all is well. Just don't count on executing a missed approach...
Rick
The hydrazine engines are for path correction only, not for flight. That's the whole point of a lifting body.
Thrust is required during takeoff to overcome the force of gravity,not for flight. The shuttle is obviously not flying during takeoff and might as well be a big lump of lead. It's just another payload.
Yawn.
I'm assuming that means I win. Sounds perfect to me.
But then, you assume a lot of things. See ya.
That's what all the self-styled pseudo-skeptics who won't listen to reason say.
Ta, ta
For the record, and to end (hopefully) some frivolous speculation, this is what happened when I first encountered the chip, and later listened to it.
I was at 'The Show' after closing hours in the small bar having a drink, waiting for the musical entertainment to start. A person, once prominent on this website, noticed me and came over putting down a plastic 'chip' in front of me. He went on to say that this was a quantum device that improved CD reproduction. I said something 'classic' at that point, so 'classic' that it was written up in 'Positive Feedback' later. I can't remember my exact words at the moment, but it was something like: Oh no, not another tweak, or something like that. Anyway I listened to the guy's spiel, and I went on to finish my drink.
The next day, there was a 'free lunch' at The Show and it was very busy. The only person that I could recognize to sit down with, was this same guy with the chip (NOT Geoff Kait), and his colleague, who, I was to learn was a PhD physicist from JPL. (Now with NASA). Of course, the conversation came up again, but this time we had a real physicist at the table, not just two 'mini' physicists with lower degrees in physics. Guess what, this guy had an open mind, and we became fast friends, talking not just about the chip, but NASA's problems, etc. He was surprised that I knew anything about the subject. In any case, we still keep in contact.
After lunch, I returned to our listening room, and somehow, I can't remember who put up the chip, but we tried it, with a $50,000 listening system. I was fairly convinced that I heard a positive difference (expectation bias? Maybe.) but I use my ears to judge potential improvements that might be useful in my work. Making ANY CD sound good, is a near miracle from my point of view. This is also my expectation bias, and I am GLAD when CD really sounds good. We had good CD sound in our listening room.
This was well and good, and on our counter, we had some bottled 'Snake Oil' and other audiophile joke objects, as we like to laugh about 'tweak cures' like everyone else.
When we vacated the premises, Bob Crump, my former business partner, left the 'chip' in a kitchen drawer, by accident, I suppose.
In any case, I got Jack Bybee to try the 'chip'. He could NOT make the chip do anything in his or his friends hi fi systems. That was the end of that, until it was discussed HERE on this website, and the USUAL critics came out of the woodwork, in addition to Jim Austin, PhD physicist, who knows: (just like I did at first sight, that this is 'impossible')
That is what happened, except for what Jim Austin wrote in 'Stereophile', both 5 years ago and again, this month. Any questions, anybody?
Edits: 02/16/11
Thanks
nt
To rocks, chips what ever a improved DAC improved my digital sound. For the cost of tweaks one can buy real items that will offer improved audio quality.
I frequently see comments like yours. Usually they're from audio beginners, if you get my drift
- Tootles
Insults to try and make a point very weak indeed.
For someone who dismisses tweaks so out of hand you sure spend a great deal of effort on this thread. I suppose you're here to save the day and protect gullible audiophiles from unscrupulous tweak manufacturers.
Let me guess, you're an amp manufacturer, right? Am I close?
"As to the issue at hand:
For example, the first time you heard someone say they applied a liquid to the surface of a CD and it made it sound better, would you outright say it was complete nonsense or would you try it and listen before making a judgement."
This is a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only alternatives. As a consumer, I see no reason whatsoever to interest myself a liguid to apply to CDs, except to clean (tap water will do nicely for that).
There is nothing to stop consumers, reviewers, researchers, or anyone who wants to, from researching the matter if they want to. But as a consumer, it isn't my job.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
> Those aren't the only alternatives. As a consumer, I see no reason whatsoever to interest myself a liguid to apply to CDs, except to clean (tap water will do nicely for that). <
There are audio components that, while I don't dismiss them out of hand, I find too unbelievable to bother with. I don't post here that they don't work or that they are fraudulent, however. I simply don't try them until and unless my feelings towards them change.
That seems to me to be what you've been saying all along. Your BS meter is considerably tighter than mine, but I mirror the sentiment, if I'm understanding you correctly.
I see no reason whatsoever to interest myself a liguid to apply to CDs, except to clean (tap water will do nicely for that).
brilliantly! Which is why we completely ignore your non-experiential opinions.
rw
You are at least as illogical as he is.
I am not going to spend my money on a product which has no proven function, and no proof it does anything significant to the sound.
I have no problem with people who want to assess the product. The only real test I know of was done by Randi. What percentage of strange audio tweaks have you tested out?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
nt
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
So, you think Randi's "real test" of the Intelligent Chip was letting some novice backup testee take a stab at some contrived, controlled double blind fiasco on some crap system the Randi droogies rigged up and try to guess correctly 10 out of ten times? Gimme a break.
The real test for the chip - like anything else - is to see how it sounds to *you* on *your* system.
Well, you can whine about Randi's test all you want. You haven't come up with a better one.
I will never pay for the Intelligent Chip unless you or someone else can show there are actually audible benefits.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
What, are you the point man for all Intelligent Chip tests?
Much, much better tests than Randi's have been performed MANY times, in fact I condicted controlled blind tests many times myself. Do you think I was NOT skeptical of such a thing? It's quite likely I was more skeptical than you! You appear to be more of the classic self-styled skeptic -- the type that complains a lot but never really gets down to investigating.... which really is the most important part of being a REAL SKEPTIC.
In fact Randi's test was SO BAD the subject in the test could not reliably identify the chip! In a good system with an experienced subject there would be NO DOUBT. This is precisely why the Randiites got so nervous with Wellfed, who was scheduled to be the REAL SUBJECT in Randi's 1 Million Dollar test of the chip. They became suspicious that the chip might actually be FOR REAL and that Wellfed might actually walk away with Randi's 1 Million smackers.
Many industry insiders have demonstrated Mr. Chip, including Ken Kessler, who demonstrated the chip at the Hi Fi Show in UK to demonstrate to audiences of up to 50 people and Clark Johnsen who demo'd the chip at CES and elsewhere. The Chip was demo'd for the editor and staff of Hi Fi news, a skeptical bunch if there ever was one.
The Intelligent Chip underwent electron microscope examination when one skeptical guy decided to see if there actually were quantum material inside the orange chip. The electron microscope identified a handful of metals but no quantum material. The skeptical dude declared the Intelligent Chip a FRAUD, little realizing the quantum material is actually inside the small metal discs that are located inside the orange wafer. And that there are only several thousan atoms of the quantum material!!
As I said previously, the best and most convincing test is when a customer takes the chip home and goes through familiar recordings with the chip and - over time - learns what the chip is doing to the sound. This is why there were so many repeat customers.
Sorry to hear you missed out on the Intelligent Chip. It really was a fabulous little device, much better IMO than remastering a CD. Only $16 dollars, too.
Cheers
There's one, as opposed to the Intelligent Chip, which may or may not make an audible difference.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 02/17/11
nt
I prefer to spend my money on products with functions known and well established.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You're just like the government, afraid to take chances with new technology. Ultra conservative. I'm the opposite.As far as the chip is concerned I admit I have an advantage over you - I was able to hear it before making up my mind about it's function. At $16 cost is rather irrelevant, wouldn't you say?
Edits: 02/18/11
The cost may be irrelevant to you, but I could buy a couple of CD's with it.
If I chose to study some audio tweak or a strange audio product, the Intelligent Chip wouldn't be it.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I cannot tolerate untreated CDs. I don't see how anyone can.
What "strange audio tweak" would you study? Just curious. I'm surprised you find the Intelligent Chip so uninteresting. Most people find it fascinating. Are you afraid of looking stupid?
I have been mostly pleased with the sound of CDs, though there are some recordings in which the LP version sounds better. That implies I have both iterations.
Of course, I listen mostly to classical music, and many classical CDreissues have been done competently even in the early digital age--or maybe you need a better system. Mine has sounded just fine with lots of CDs through several different changes of equipment.
If treating CDs floats your boat, go right ahead and treat them. You'll get no complaints from me about that or about these, from your system description here.
"DH Cones; Harmonix Speaker ENACOMs; Xtreme AV Liquid Resolution; Shun Mook Cable Jackets & Mpingo Discs; Ultra Tweeters (Deluxe version + standard version); various PWB devices (Red 'X Coordinate Pen, Silver Rainbow Foil, Cream Electret, etc.); Shakti Stone; Herbies Tube Dampers; Herbies dB Neutralizer pads; Walker Talisman degausser; Brilliant Pebbles; The New Intelligent Chip; QuickSilver Gold contact enhancer; Clever Little Clocks (4); Tru-Tone Duplex Covers (4); Codename Turquoise CD Tray Masking System"
I concern myself with speaker and listener placement, though there is the WAF factor. Now there is also the "Infant on Board" factor, since we babysit the youngest granddaughter. I used to use an equalizer, but with more accurate speakers, I have not found this needful, although the Quad Tilt control is handy for some recordings.
If I saw audibility data which indicated a tweak made a difference, or if I saw measurements or even technical data which indicated an audible difference (which depends on audibility data), then I might interest myself in a tweak.
I never said the Intelligent Chip was not interesting, but the interest is from sociological and psychological points of view.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I don't know how you guys do it. I feel comfortable saying untreated CDs are to treated CDs as Ripple is to a fine Merlot.
I guess it's still an underground thing. :-)
Cheers
"I don't know how you guys do it. I feel comfortable saying untreated CDs are to treated CDs as Ripple is to a fine Merlot."
We do it by listening to CDs and enjoying the music.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Once the Genie gets out of the bottle you can't put him back in.
:-)
I used to give credence to purely subjective reviews. Then I learned about audio DBTs. As you say, "Once the Genie gets out of the bottle you can't put him back in."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I was always sure of my hearing so never had to rely on DBTs. But that's just me.
I debated whether to reply for some time, as your reply attempts to take the discussion back to square one.
I can't say what you trust or think you trust. Still, if you really trust your ears, when comparing two components, you should not need to know which one is being tested at any given time.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Thanks for taking the time to mull over your response and for the tip on listening. I'll try to keep it in mind. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic)
GK
Edits: 02/28/11
This has got to be one of your better jobs at obfuscation.
"I have rejected nothing out of hand.
I am not going to spend my money on a product which has no proven function, and no proof it does anything significant to the sound."
Nice job!
rw
Everything in my system has a function.
My CDP plays CDs.
My preamp takes various inputs, various outputs, some sophisticated controls, and so on.
My power amp amplifies the signals.
My interconnects connect various components.
My speaker cables connect my amplifier to my speakers.
Now, what does the CD liquid actually do to affect the sound?
What does the intelligent chip actually do?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
... that your brain is doing?
Because from your posts in this thread, it certainly doesn't appear so.
You know, things like test methods and what sorts of tests you have done, or even whether you think the Intelligent Chip is a worthwhile product for the consumer, you want to talk about me!
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Mrs. D: Pat, how would you like to try this new flavor of Rice-A-Roni?
Pat D: As a consumer, I see no reason whatsoever to interest myself in new flavors.
Mrs. D: Honey, why do you reject Chicken Teriyaki out of hand?
Pat D: I have rejected nothing out of hand. I am not going to spend my money on a product which has no proof it tastes any better than others.
Mrs. D: You really need to let that audio thing go.
Pat D: Still illogical. Everything I eat has a function.
My Rice-A-Roni Beef covers meat
My Rice-A-Roni Broccoli Au Gratin covers vegetables and cheese
My Rice-A-Roni Spanish Rice covers Mexican dishes
Now why would anyone want Chicken Teriyaki?
Mrs. D: I just thought you'd like to try something new. You might like it.
Yes, it's been another interesting grocery shopping experience for the D family. :^)
rw
N/T
Poor diet!
My wife would buy brown rice. Indeed, I'm going to cook some tonight.
What on earth is Rice-A-Roni? I guess I'd better look it up--oh, a product of the Pepsi-Cola company through the Quaker Oats Co., according to Wikipedia.
Moreover, chicken is a food, irrespective of whether it is covered with teriyaki sauce or not.
You little skit is pretty funny, though.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Rice-A-Roni is?
Moreover, chicken is a food, irrespective of whether it is covered with teriyaki sauce or not.
That pretty much sums up the depth of your discernment.
rw
...(as the cable car goes up the hill with the Bay in the background)..."the San Francisco treat!"
No, I don't reject the concept out of hand. Instead, I reject the concept because I don't understand how it could work.
Now, what does the CD liquid actually do to affect the sound?
Essentially the same thing that record cleaning fluid does - provide a pristine surface for optimum transcription.
rw
"No, I don't reject the concept out of hand. Instead, I reject the concept because I don't understand how it could work."
Nope, not what I say at all. I don't reject the concept. As a consumer, I just don't see any reason to buy an unproven product.
"Essentially the same thing that record cleaning fluid does - provide a pristine surface for optimum transcription."
One wonders if you understand what you are saying. CDs are not records. BTW, you've just described a superfluous product. I have so far (25 years) managed to clean dirty CDs with warm tap water on the playing surface (definitely not the label side!) and a soft absorbent cloth with which to pat dry the CD. In difficult cases, a little detergent and a little rubbing may help.
Please tell us what "optimum transcription" is.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
No one could possibly accuse you of possessing any sort of curiosity.
CDs are not records.
Do you have sufficient proof to make such a statement?
I have so far (25 years) managed to clean dirty CDs with warm tap water on the playing surface...
There is no danger whatsoever of your being associated with those who want the highest performance.
Please tell us what "optimum transcription" is.
It's like the difference between listening to a Sony Diskman CD player vs. an EMM Labs player. I realize that it is futile to explain what that means. :)
rw
... you have your God-given right to be justifiably ignored on this forum, since you have neither experience with, nor knowledge about, things you're trying to talk about.
What percentage of strange audio tweaks have you tested out? Have you actually done valid testing of liquids to coat CDs? How about the Intelligent Chip?
You haven't even said what speakers you have.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Is that inferiority complex?
What do my speakers have to do with your inability to distinguish differences in sound quality that are obvious to pretty much everyone else?
Looks like I have.
"What do my speakers have to do with your inability to distinguish differences in sound quality that are obvious to pretty much everyone else?"
Nothing, except that you seem reluctant to tell us what they are now. Am I to take it that your response means you believe the Intelligent Chip and that CD treatment fluid cause "differences in sound quality that are obvious to pretty much everyone else?"
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
... just stop scratching yourself so violently down there.
"For example, the first time you heard someone say they applied a liquid to the surface of a CD and it made it sound better, would you outright say it was complete nonsense or would you try it and listen before making a judgement."
Neither......
I've stayed away from CD enhancing fluids because I'd be concerned that the integrity of the CD material might be compromised over time........ Or in other words, some products might improve the sound at the outset, but there is not enough information regarding the long-term effects. One would have to own multiple copies of the same CD (preferably from the same manufacturing lot), with various treatments (and a control copy without treatment), to find out for sure.
There is nothing wrong with that, of course. But kmulller is stating the correct position of the scientific method.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
While the commentary on my relationship with Jack Bybee is accurate, it is not the whole story.
Jack and I like to talk about physics, as well. At least he believes in progress in physics. Just last night I spoke to him about: 'Compact Superconducting Power Systems for Airborne Applications' 'Defense Tech Briefs' Feb. 2011, among some nanotube info. That, and engineering problems are what we like to talk about. That is when I get to help him.
Most physicists that I have met, just won't help me at all to learn something new. Jack is different, in that way.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
I would like to expand on the discussions between Jack Bybee and me, over the last 15 years.
Jack and I don't just talk about physics and engineering, Detective Maigret comes into our conversation when it is shown on TV, every few weeks, we like fast cars, and I am trying to get him to expand his channel coverage to get BBC-America, especially so that he can watch 'TOP GEAR' as I do. Jack goes often to live concerts, I usually listen at home.
Over the years, we have eaten in some of the finest restaurants in the SF Bay Area, drank some of the best wine, and even shared a shot of one of the finest cognac's available today, at $350/shot.
I dutifully paid my $175 for the experience.
Today, however, Jack's drinking days are over, and his diet is supervised, so our culinary adventures are minimized.
Jack is a world traveler. I used to travel, 35 years go, I was almost unstoppable. I burned out on long distance commuting, and decided to travel the world through large screen TV. Likely as not, when they show someplace in Europe, I say to myself, 'been there, done that'.
On the other hand Jack has been to mainland China several times, Korea (his wife's relatives live there), Japan (his daughter is married to a Japanese), Egypt, the Balkans, and I even have a key chain from Vienna that his wife brought back for me. (been there done that, Vienna that is).
So you see, we are not just nerds in the normal sense, we have other interests, and have been that way, all of our lives.
great show. You can watch reruns on net-flicks.
Dont worry about it! For the first time I wish I had an issue of Stereophile in my hand. What I get from all this is that designers have pretty delicate egos and many do not welcome any form of scientific scrutiny. If you dismissed the Intelligent Chip out of hand I think you were spot on. Stupid thing cant possibly work as they describe. Oh yeah and that reminds me they dont really tell you how it works. When CH and JA get together for their periodic online circle jerk you can expect a spanking.
Increase readership.
.
I am angry because of all the shit that is rising to the top because one industry persons ego got bruised. Instead of calling me out you should direct your frustration at Curl. Do you feel that this is the way a "professional" and an adult should behave on a public forum. Then he even goes so far as to blatantly threaten the publication. JA foolishly gets involved and attempts to pacify the child in the midst of his tantrum.
What's the point?
I have heard this tweek and I have also discussed its finer points with some industry people some of which actually believe that the chip helps. I heard this tweek in several rooms at CES the year it was introduced.
I post wasn't directed at you, but the OP, who had made comments on a product he hadn't heard.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Why would a reviewer comment on something they haven't heard? I don't see the point in it. I can do my own speculating.
Seems like some reviewer with agenda, opening his huge freakin' mouth, to spout off about things he has no experience with, and no clue about.
And, of course, the "rational" (that's a f..ng joke!) followers here, opening their even bigger freakin' mouths, to attest to the same - we haven't tried it, we have no clue why it could - or couldn't - work, we are proud that we're never going to try it, but it's BULLLLLLSHIIIIITTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
.
Edits: 02/19/11
If you'd stop ranting like a crazy person long enough to research the subject you'd discover that the Intelligent Chip has been reviewed and demonstrated all over the world, including the demos by Ken Kessler in UK to audiences of 50 audiophiles, and the editor and staff of Hi Fi News, among others.
At 16 bucks each the Intelligent Chip remains one of the most cost-effective tweaks of all time and is highly prized as a conversation starter.
Geoff,
Haven't tried the chip yet but should users be worried as you are selling them something that puts put enough energy that the photons can penetrate metal. I am not a physicist but from what I remember photons penetrating metal usually involve gamma or x-rays. As for the artificial atoms they are generally radioactive so do I need to worry about that also?
Gofish - Photons cannot penetrate metal so users should not be concerned. The chip operates in a more mysterious way, if you see what I mean. Artifical atoms emit photons when activated by laser light and are not radioactive.
Geoff
Photons can penetrate metal. You are limiting your thinking to light when all forms of EM radiation emit photons.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=photon
My pet rock does just fine for tweaking my stereo. I actually have an original one that was given to me as a present on my 12th birthday. Funny story is that about the time you were selling your magical pebbles someone at my house noticed the rock on one of my speakers. I told them something like "I bought a super sized version of the Magic Pebbles". We tried it in a few places and IIRC some thought it made a difference!!
Do you also think that CD laser photons can penetrate the metal chassis (in order to activate the artifical atoms in the chip)? If so, why aren't you concerned about the energy of the CD laser photons?
Do you glow in the dark?
Geoff,
You insist on believing that the only photons are from light. While I can't help what you believe I did try to educate you in the earlier post. No I do not believe photons from the CD laser will penetrate very far as there isn't enough energy.
What I have a hard time grasping is how your artificial atoms can penetrate the metal and or plastic shell to get to that laser in the first place. My physics is a little rusty but penetrating any surface generally requires energy. How your artificial atoms manage to get tot the laser is the mystery. I also can't understand why the artificial atoms are running out of the chip from the moment of manufacture, although that would explain the shelf life. Also where did the energy come from. I would actually have an easier time understanding if the chip had been hooked up to a massive power supply!
Unfortunately for your argument the photons from the CD laser are the same variety of near-infrared wavelength, coherent photons that the Intelligent Chip emits. Thus, it should be obvious that if the CD laser photons cannot penetrate the chassis of the CD player then neither can the photons emitted by the chip, no?
As I said, the energy produced by the chip is activated by light, especially coherent light, i.e., CD laser. As long as the chip is protected in its light-resistent case when not in use, it will not be affected by sunlight, interior lighting or the light from a CD laser. When the chip is actually put to use the chip is taken out of its protective case and placed on top of the CD player.
Furthermore, if the chip "senses" that a particular CD has already been treated it will not release any additional energy. Hence the name Intelligent.
Now do you see why the Intelligent Chip is even more mysterious than it appears at first glance?
"Furthermore, if the chip "senses" that a particular CD has already been treated it will not release any additional energy. Hence the name Intelligent."From the theory of operation:
"The chip should even be stored in its foil wrapper in a dark room when playing CDs since the laser light that escapes from the player out into the room can inadvertently activate the chip."If a treated disc is playing, why bother with the wrapper? If an untreated disc is playing, let it be treated and let the energy release terminate on it's own. Unless of course there is a distance factor. If there is a distance factor, at what distance does the chip lose it's intelligence and begin releasing energy when a treated disc is playing? And how was that distance determined?
Edits: 02/18/11
The chip should be stored in case/foil as a general rule since it is sensitive to light.
One might also ask: Why doesn't the chip treat not only the CD in the player but any untreated CD that happens to be lying on the floor?
"if the chip "senses" that a particular CD has already been treated it will not release any additional energy"
No mention of the lighting conditions in the room. If it is capable of deactivation through treated disc detection, it should be intelligent enough to only be activated by the photons that it co-mingles with.
What is this, the stump Mr. Wizzard show? The chip is an enigma, what can I tell you? I never said I had all the answers. You're a smart guy, suppose you tell me.
Is ANY of it really an "answer"?
nt
OK I was not aware that the chip and laser photons were the same wavelength. Now you will have to let me know how they interact if neither can penetrate the shell of the player ?
...
"...the Intelligent Chip has been reviewed and demonstrated all over the world, including the demos by Ken Kessler in UK to audiences of 50 audiophiles, and the editor and staff of Hi Fi News, among others.
"At 16 bucks each the Intelligent Chip remains one of the most cost-effective tweaks of all time and is highly prized as a conversation starter."
So if the chip has had enormous exposure to music lovers and is as effective as you claim, then one would expect to see those facts reflected in robust sales figures. If not, then your claims appear suspect. Moreover, how many respected listeners from the following list use the chip on a regular basis?
Charles Hansen, John Curl, John Atkinson, Art Dudley, Messrs. Conrad & Johnson, Richard Vandersteen, Paul Barton, Jim Thiel, Robert Harley, Ken Stevens, Sam Tellig, John Marks, Anthony Cordesman, Alan Sircom, the team at Magico.
Have *any* of these people been so impressed with the product that they feel compelled to utilize it on a consistent basis for critical or even casual listening purposes?
I detect some violently anti-tweak folks in your list. Do you have another list?
Tootles
"I detect some violently anti-tweak folks in your list. Do you have another list?"
Then I'll dispense with lists and attempt to gauge your limits when it comes to pushing the absurdity envelope. Suppose you began to hear anecdotal stories from your tweak friends that posting anti-Semitic remarks on Jewish websites would enhance your ability to appreciate Wagner's music. Would you have to test that hypothesis yourself *before* dismissing it as nonsense?
Perhaps you're not a fan of Wagner. Everyone can appreciate J.S. Bach, right? Suppose word gets out that placing a bust of Bach in your freezer will enhance the musicality of chamber music produced by your stereo. Will common sense rule the day or do you drive to the mall to purchase Bach's likeness?
The chip has been out of production for 5 years. As I told someone in another post today, the Intelligent Chip was only a marketing ploy, a novelty item, a party favor. Comprende?
You want gauge my limits of absurdity? Now, you're being downright silly.
Ta, ta
"The chip has been out of production for 5 years."
I rest my case.
nt
.
Then please explain to me why this great tweek has a limited life before you need to buy another?
The chip operates via quantum mechanical principles, the active ingredient being quantum dots, AKA artificial atoms. These quantum dots have a limited lifetime because the CD laser light, which activates the dots, gradually changes the wavelength of photons the chip emits. Since the wavelength of the emitted photons is critical to how the Intelligent Chip works at some point the chip loses it's effectiveness. The lifetime of the chip is pre-determined by controlling the number of artificial atoms in the chip.
Sorry, we have to agree to disagree
If you're pretending to be dense you're doing an excellent job.
More like smart to see the snake oil you pedal. Why not come out with a real useful product? Why sell scam after scam and expect to be respected.
Have a nice day.
I heard your chip and rocks well should say I heard nothing nothing.
There's one in every crowd.
Have you had your hearing checked?
~ Cheerio
I swear for quit sometime we thought your products where just a joke on audiophiles. Something like they will buy anything even a box oh rocks. But after time I see it was just about parting fools from there money. I live in WI and understand old PT B..
Sorry to hear of your failure with my products. How does it feel to be an outlier?
Actually P.T. Barnum knew what he was doing. Often referred to as the "Prince of Humbugs", Barnum saw nothing wrong in entertainers or vendors using hype (or "humbug", as he termed it) in promotional material, as long as the public was getting value for money. However, he was contemptuous of those who made money through fraudulent deceptions, especially the spiritualist mediums popular in his day, testifying against noted spirit photographer William H. Mumler in his trial for fraud. Prefiguring illusionists Harry Houdini and James Randi, Barnum exposed "the tricks of the trade" used by mediums to cheat the bereaved. In The Humbugs of the World, he offered $500 to any medium who could prove power to communicate with the dead.
Far from it seems to be the general opinion of the IC. And its no longer in production? Correct?
As I replied to another poster earlier, the chip was a marketing ploy, a party favor. The Intelligent Chip was replaced by the Intelligent Box around 5 years ago.
Make a component shield.
Besides the link appears to be busted.
Edits: 02/16/11
a
I recall SQUID from school, my advisor was working on something involving SQUID.
Then again, so do a lot of other audiophile things that do indeed change the sound. In other words, how believable or not something appears to me does not necessarily coincide to fact. That's why I usually wait to comment on the effectiveness of something until I've experienced it myself. It would probably behoove reviewers to take a similar approach.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Do you feel compelled to bend over and breathe deep before you conclude that it stinks?
why waste any time reading the result when you're assured of learning nothing?
rw
In the sense, you know, that it wasn't really necessary to read it, to get an idea where you're coming from, and would be sufficient to just read the old one from 2005, and threads here on AA?
My point was not, why did you not review a certain product, before drawing a conclusion. It was, why even bother remarking on something you haven't heard, in the first place? I mean really, what's the point? Is it to stir up a shit storm, as you're doing, to help increase your readership?
Edits: 02/15/11
I tried it when it came out. Blind test with a friend. The thing is laughable on its face. I said so here. Doesn't matter. Same people saying the same things, over and over. The more things change ..
nt
.
They hypnotized themselves. That's Expectation Bias to you civilians.
You're in a group that expects to hear something. Big whoop. One guy says "Do you hear THAT?" Others, protecting their golden ear rep, can't deny that they heard anything, figure their sinuses must be acting up. Voila! "Yeah, I heard it too."
Expectation bias at work. You nailed it.
It's actually the Negative Expectation Bias, you know, Expectation Bias' ugly sibling, the one that applies when the person is profoundly dead set against the thing. It's a "mentality" thing, you're right about that! What a superstitious bunch! Ha!But I will not raise the ugly spectre of physical hearing ability here.
~ Tootles
Edits: 02/16/11
Hello Geoff,I've tried to explain a couple of simple truths numerous times to the audio nay-sayers here, but they continually choose to ignore the scientific fact that expectation bias works negatively the same way it works postively. Thus everytime one of these naysayers whines; " You heard a difference because you expected to hear a difference! " If they truly embraced science and logic ---{ like they claim they do }--- they'd have to admits it's as equally possible the truth is actually; " They didn't hear a difference because they expected not to hear a difference! "
This is also true of the placebo effect as well. When this placebo effect is working negatively it called nocebo effect. The nocebo effect is when the results achieved were entirely due to the subject's pessimistic belief and expectation. This is as true in audio as it is when taking a pill. A great example of the nocebo effect is a person dying after being bitten by a King snake because they believe they were bitten by a venomus & deadly Coral snake! All because they couldn't remember if the poem was; " Red touches yellow you're a safe fellow when red touches black you're dead Jack or was it; Red touches yellow you're a dead fellow when red touches black you're safe Jack? "
The science the audio nay-sayers "claim" to embrace works as much against they as it works for them, but this group always wants to use science as a shield to defend themselves and a sword with which to attack others opinions. However once these guys ---{ the lunatic fringe objectivists }--- are shown subjectivism can also use science as a shield to defend themselves and as a sword with which to attack the opposition's POV, the audio nay-sayers suddenly stop talking about "expectation bias" and "placebo effects" for awhile...
Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
===============================================================
--- SETriodes Group --- Central Florida Audio Society --- Space
Coast Audio Society --- Fullrange Drivers --- Front & Back Loaded Horns
Edits: 02/21/11
The Nocebo Effect: Placebo's Evil Twin
By Brian Reid
Special to The Washington Post
Tuesday, April 30, 2002; Page HE01
Ten years ago, researchers stumbled onto a striking finding: Women who believed that they were prone to heart disease were nearly four times as likely to die as women with similar risk factors who didn't hold such fatalistic views.
The higher risk of death, in other words, had nothing to with the usual heart disease culprits -- age, blood pressure, cholesterol, weight. Instead, it tracked closely with belief. Think sick, be sick.
That study is a classic in the annals of research on the "nocebo" phenomenon, the evil twin of the placebo effect. While the placebo effect refers to health benefits produced by a treatment that should have no effect, patients experiencing the nocebo effect experience the opposite. They presume the worst, health-wise, and that's just what they get.
"They're convinced that something is going to go wrong, and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Arthur Barsky, a psychiatrist at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital who published an article earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association beseeching his peers to pay closer attention to the nocebo effect. "From a clinical point of view, this is by no means peripheral or irrelevant."
"Nocebos often cause a physical effect, but it's not a physically produced effect," said Irving Kirsch, a psychologist at the University of Connecticut in Storrs who studies the ways that expectations influence what people experience. "What's the cause? In many cases it's an unanswered question."
Someone dying after being bitten by a king snake, I mean?
Josh,
I honestly don't know if it's happened specifically with a King Snake, but the quote " "That the shock that can be caused by the bite of a harmless snake can be serious and even fatal is well authenticated ". is taken from Veterinary Partner under the subject heading; On Instilling Fear of all Snakes into Young Children......(and why you shouldn't do it): as verified at the link below.
http://www.veterinarypartner.com/Content.plx?P=A&A=1406&S=4&SourceID=56.
It's also an example that's often cited when reading about the "Nocebo Effect". For example, if you click on the link below it will take you to Wikipedia. Look for subject heading called Description and the very last line in the part states; " An example of nocebo effect would be someone who dies of fright after being bitten by a non-venomous snake . I chose to use the King Snake/Coral Snake example myself, because I thought it made a strikingly clear example of the point I was trying to make!
Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
===============================================================
--- SETriodes Group --- Central Florida Audio Society --- Space
Coast Audio Society --- Fullrange Drivers --- Front & Back Loaded Horns
I can certainly see people dying of fright, though I'm not sure whether that requires an existing condition to happen (blood clot ready to dislodge, artery about to bust, etc.).
I know too that laboratory animals can be given anaphylaxis by being exposed to a placebo that imitates something that had previously given them anaphylaxis. There's probably more to that than mere suggestion, though -- the nervous system seems in general to be able to trigger allergic responses (per the famous experiments on triggering asthma, etc.).
Another 'urban legend'
.
We weren't "dead set" against it, just skeptical as rational people would approach any tweak they hadn't tried that didn't appear to make a whole lot of sense. Nor were the folks who heard it (or tried to) at my place after the original test. This was in the early days of the Chip, before such things as the "Teleportation Tweak," when the wonderful wacky world of Machina Dynamica wasn't nearly as well known as it is now. Come to think of it, I thought AA rules for manufacturers prohibited anything that smacks of saleshacking. I'll bet Chip sales are up, though, so this thread has likely been a bonanza.
If I were you I wouldn't be passing myself off as some sort of arbiter of sound or reliable evauator of controversial tweaks, you know, with the hearing of an 80 year old. And if your circle of "audiophiles" cannot hear the chip, something's wrong somewhere and I suggest finding another group to hang out with.
The Intelligent Chip has been out of production for 5 years or more. It was actually intended by the manufacurer to be a novelty, a party favor, to introduce people to the company's other, bigger products, like speakers, based on their unusual quantum mechanics technology.
I'm absolutely positive that your ancient receiver and speakers allow you to hear ever so much more than my gear and those of my audiobuddies.
As to your description of the Chip and its original role as a party favor, I couldn't have made that up if I tried :-)
I am terminating this exchange as it can no longer serve any purpose.
Good luck to your gang of "audiophiles" in your quest for mediocrity.
Geoff
Bye now.
When I wake up tomorrow morning I'll be able to hear frequencies above 10K. Unlike yourself.
I can certainly confirm that. But when I tested the thing I was a mere 75 and I didn't hear anything from the Chip over 10 kHz either.
BTW, I thought you left.
No, I'm not saying the chip only affects frequencies under 10K. Your testimony is tossed out on the basis that it's simply an outlier in the data. You can pretend that the hundreds of folks who got good results with the chip are delusional if that will make you feel better.
Oh yeah, I'll be waiting with bated breath to study all those hundreds of data points once you get everything assembled, peer-reviewed and published.
Weren't you going somewhere?
Peer-reviewed? Are you for real? This is a hobby, not a NASA project.
Now, be a good lad and write on the blackboard 100 times, This is only a Hobby.
By the way, it's really too bad you were unsuccessful with the chip. It's fabulous.
Just read something in another forum by Steve Eddy.
"It's laughably easy to get people to subjectively perceive a difference even when there is none."
Isn't it ever? Especially when the difference, all agree, is rather less than jaw-dropping.
Gotta give you credit for being a master at this.
Gotta give you credit for being a master at this.
The real master is Peter Belt . Geoff's his protege.
se
Your ignorance is noted. Again.
Peter Belt, never. And yeah, I have "heard" his foils.
No luck with foils, eh? Well, that certainly figures.
It's always the ones who don't have the hearing skills they think they do or whose system isn't as revealing as they'd like to think who cannot understand that a lot of other folks don't share their predicament.
~ Tootles
I can respect someone's opinion, who's actually listened to a tweak or piece of gear, before drawing a conclusion. But again, my point was, if you haven't heard something, your opinion means spit, to me at least. And a waste of time even speaking or posting about it.
Good luck, then, with those Nigerians.
Oh well.
.
So of course you agree.
Edits: 02/15/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
So keep your trap shut. How's that?
hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah.................................................................
Kind of nasty, isn't he?
Well now that I see how JA is handling this whole silly mess I think I can add you to the circle jerk list.
What except my last sentence is nasty?
Well perhaps, but I am the AGGRIEVED PARTY! Darn right, I was not amused with Jim Austin's thinly veiled attempt to discredit me, especially after years of no contact. That is WHY I started this discussion.
:D
(Totally goofing off.)
"
Edits: 02/15/11 02/19/11
If one needed a study in pure paranoid delusions, he wouldn't need to go much further than your own posting history on AA.
.
I guess that I am just a silly, old man, who wanted some 'action' around here.
and you feel the need to stir the sh!t up a bit more, may I suggest you post something about absolute polarity?
That ALWAYS gets the inmates riled up!
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
If you feel Jim dissed you, fair enough to make a point about it. And wanting to have it out in the open is always agood idea. Thank you for not just ripping into me. And thanks for all the great audio products you have made or helped develop. Hope this whole thing makes you feel better about it all.
Hi Jim,I don't buy print magazines anymore, so I took a trip to the local Chapters so I could read your article for free. All in all, I really liked it. And at the risk of getting flamed by John Curl, I have to agree with one post by JA that no one would know he's implicated unless he brings it up -- which he did. I really liked what you had to say overall.
But I will take exception with one comment you made about the E-zine reviewers. It was a shot at us (I'm one) that implies that so many of us are easily sucked in. It's a statement that I can shoot down in two ways:
1) I've read enough nonsense in print, even today, that I can assure you that the folks who write in print are not necessarily superior because their words end up in paper.
2) If you do happen to see more nonsense in the E-zines than in print, ask yourself this: How many print-based audio magazines are left in the United States right now? Two? I live in Canada where the count is down to zero. In comparison, how many E-zines are there? And how many writers are out there compared to the tiny teams contributing on paper? Print is a fraction of what the online world is so, of course, the amount of nonsense online will likely be higher.
On the other hand, what did I like so much about your article? Mostly, it was the part about verifying if a preference/difference IS actually heard. In my opinion, many people are putting the cart before the horse. They're saying that a difference is heard and then setting out to prove or argue or whatever. I've asked many times, "Are they REALLY hearing that difference in the first place? And if not, then what?"
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
Edits: 02/15/11
Thank you, Mr. Schroeder, for demonstrating the conflicted message of audio writers 'round the world to us, the unwashed audiophile masses, so succinctly.
First you tell us to forget everything else that you've written and listen for ourselves and to "...trust our own ears..." and then you turn right around and tell us to question whether we actually heard "it" in disregard of what listening told us. Pick a story and stick to it!
But the answer is you have to do both. You have to realize that your ears are untrustworthy. And then you have to learn to trust your ears.
.
nt
nt
nt
Hi,
You have me mistaken with someone else. I guess there is a "Doug Schroeder" writing somewhere and posting here from time to time. I'm "Doug Schneider." Easy mixup, and I've looked at some posts with his name and mistaken them.
Thanks,
DS
My bad. May I ask what zine ("e" or otherwise) you review for?
You get three guesses. The first two don't count.
:-)
I guess I lead too sheltered an audiophile life. Didn't know that "Soundstage" was an audio pub.
Geezy, Peezy.... they've only been around, like, forever.
Not quite forever, but going on 16 years. We were actually the first online.
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
Have you always been an ezine? If so, I didn't realize there were any that tenured.
Hi,
We have always been. Official launch date was November 1995.
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
Das -- does that make you Doug Schneider?
Well obviously not all Webzines are created equal, and yours is among -- well, probably the -- best one, IMO. You'll admit I'm sure that there are some others that have a history of prostituting themselves quite cheaply, and apparently loving it.
I should not have blamed it on the Webzines; there were indeed some very notable audio writers in print who heard the effect of the chip (and I do mean "heard" and not "said they heard" or "thought they heard", because that's the way our hearing works; the aural sensations are real, even if the stimulus that causes them is not). And I should not have painted all Webzines with the same brush. So I apologize.
Anyway, thanks for the nice comments. The point you make in your last paragraph -- the attempt to clarify the appropriate role for scientific testing in audio (to verify the existence of an audible effect, not to decide whether something is better or worse) is one of the main things I set out to accomplish in the piece. It's a very important point, and a source of much unnecessary contentiousness.
Best,
Jim
Hi...yes, Doug Schneider (not Schroeder--see previous post).
> > > > You'll admit I'm sure that there are some others that have a history of prostituting themselves quite cheaply, and apparently loving it.
Oh, certainly. But online isn't the only culprit. I'm sure today you can find print magazines doing just that (only fewer of them), and print of the past hardly holds an untarnished reputation when every magazine ever created is taken into account. I've heard the horror stories about print of the past and, well, while not all of them are true I'm sure some are.
Also, times have changed. There are some people who see "print" and "online," but "information delivery" is the way I like to think about. I could get into a whole speech on that but, in a nutshell, both mediums distribute information to the masses and the one that's gaining the most ground at a particular time is usually the superior one.
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
In my other life -- my day job -- I'm the editor of an online magazine. A real, established one with a 16-year history.
Jim
I'll be happy to read it when it appears on line.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think it would be beneficial for everyone here to see what is that place where the legs grow from.
N/T
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
It most have a miultiple of 23 as the total number of letters on the thread.
.
An "NT" post at that! lmao!
(nt)
I initially read your article all the way through and I believe that I understood it adequately although sometimes it's hard to be certain with such a disjointed exposition. In summary I thought it said that DBT's are the answer even though they're unreliable and the question isn't terribly clear. The tenor of the piece seemed odd for one of yours as it felt like something hacked out late at night while drunk and pissed off that didn't get proof-read and edited by morning's light. I read it, decided that it was just noise and went on to the letters to the editor. No big deal.
However this morning after reading your post I dutifully dug the magazine out and read it again by the light of a new day to see what I missed. Sorry to say I still don't see much there overall beyond rambling digressions and frustration. Is a revelation forthcoming?
Rick
Just try again tomorrow -- you'll get it! Don't give up!
I'm waiting for the article to appear free on the web. (I don't spend money on tweaks, either. :-) )
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
J. Edgar Hoover: I don't got all the way.
Shirley Temple: I don't go all the way, either.
:-)
It's not even wrong.
The essay didn't have, that I could tell, any coherent central thesis, much less any compelling arguments in its support. Surprising given that it was authored by a PhD. This essay would have had difficulty getting thru' peer review.
I found the same thing. I sense a 'caged tiger' just hoping to get out, and pouncing on its keepers and their associates.
*
And where do you think it comes from? Or who invented those vacuum tubes of yours, or transistors? Or the electricity that makes those transducers pump in and out and make sound? Even the rubber your TT belt is made from. Your carpet, your low-E windows, even your f*cking glass of scotch would not exist if someone had not sat around and taken a rational, sober look at how things were working and how to make them work better.
Science is your life's mother Norm, the very tit it feeds from.
jca
It looks like according to you, answers to all those questions would be "closed-minded individuals, who outright reject experimentation, and also any notion that something could work, even if not sufficiently explained by science in its current state".
Right?
scientists as a group are the most open-minded I've ever met. They're also skeptical of bullshit, which is how they discover all those nice things that keep you and Norm warm and dry.
Data and replication drive science toward useful findings. Prior judgments, such as you advocate are anathema to science.
You are right that you are not a scientist, nor do you understand the scientific method. But you think you are an authority, without ever earning that right.
Being sceptical of bullshit is fine, too - however, before opening one's mouth to proclaim something "bullshit", REAL scientist would've tried to experiment with the item in question. Not understanding how things work DOES NOT make those things "bullshit".
.
Edits: 02/19/11
I use the IC and found some benefit. I have several remaining and find the benefit too small to be worth the trouble.
Your comments or those by Austin are irrelevant. No one is ever likely to do science on this, so the question will always be unanswered.
and your testing of this, and thoughts on the matter, did not and do not go unappreciated.
Thank you
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
Perhaps you mean my saying I had taught research methods and claimed some authority thereby. There I think that I am entitled to it, but not on any research using data.
.
"I'm not locked in here with you, You're locked in here with ME"
a
since I haven't done "real science" in years. I earn my living in a different way now. But "skeptical of bullshit" is exactly what I am. I haven't lost that.
Jim
a
Didn't you know that, Norm?
a
We wouldn't be doing research...we would have simply stopped at "search".
Scientists don't know everything. Why in the very last sentence of the "editorial", The Scientist admitted that he couldn't hear the difference between the creations of a skilled audio designer and a jar of rocks.
That doesn't sound to me like Mr. (oops! Doctor!) Scientist knows everything.
.
Edits: 02/15/11 02/15/11 02/19/11
> > And that final sentence IS the whole thing in a nutshell. Jim Austin wants a better line between the smoke and mirrors of Tice Clocks, Intellegent Chips, using a carbon fiber wallplate, and stuff like the new parasound phono pre John Curl just has up for sale. < <
Elizabeth, a first-grader will read a primer and take every word literally. By the time you graduate high school, you normally learn to read between the lines. At least a *little, tiny* bit.
So why would he want "more distance"?
Obviously because he either:
a) Cannot hear the difference, or;
b) Does not trust his ears.
In either case, the best solution is to become a better listener. Go back a few issues and read BD's review of the Pass Labs integrated amp. BD quotes Malcolm Gladwell about spending 10,000 hours on something to become good at it. Nelson Pass noted that his products are better now, BECAUSE he has reached that 10,000 hour mark.
He can HEAR better. He doesn't have to do some bullshit double-blind test to know if it sounds better. Jim Austin's argument completely falls apart. If you can hear the difference, buy the one that sounds better to you. If you can't hear the difference, buy the cheapest one that has the reliability you desire.
But Austin is just whining that he can't hear the difference so he wishes that someone would protect him from wasting his money. Ooohh, da poor Jimmy...
As in, not even in the ballpark. Your reading has nothing to do with what I wrote. And I KNOW it ain't my fault.
The problem, I think, is that you got yourself so in a state that you didn't take the time to read carefully. All these wasted photons, pecks, and mouse clicks and you don't even know what I said.
Well at least I'm doing better than you. I got it wrong. As Pauli said, you didn't even get it wrong.
Your list was too small.
Sorry, you are right. It is possible that a broken amplifier would produce sound indistinguishable from a jar of rocks. Even to a PhD scientist.
and all the ultra conservatives in the world cannot put him back in the bag. But you all can still pretend it's the 1980s if you want to.
NT
A lot of people have positive results with those, both quartz and amethyst.
nt
Clerics used to hold that position 400 years ago.
Today, like it or not, scientists are the new clerics.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
nt
Just don't expect me to engage.
On a second thought - he wouldn't be first. HydrogenAudio is chock-full of "scientists" of the same caliber, many of them much more "rigorous" (they love that word, BTW!).
As soon as you see first couple of sentences of a typical rant by Arnie Krueger, for example - you just see, and most importantly, SMELL real scientist.
> As soon as you see first couple of sentences of a typical rant by Arnie Krueger, for example - you just see, and most importantly, SMELL real scientist. <
...learn NOT to take a drink of anything while reading your posts! lmao!
Yeah, I smell *something* - that's for sure! lol
N/T
" Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination." -Michael McClure
As soon as I noticed it was still i my sig, I deleted the sig.
The article in question just made me think about motorcycles, is it spring yet?
Nice thought though.
My drifts are melting everything makes me think motorcycle. And yes I did read the article and never once thought about anything except motorcycles.
If Wisconsin is anything like Maine, those drifts will freeze back up soon enough.
BTW, I'm not sure my article had anything to do with reminding you of motorcycles. I think that's yet another example of our our environment can influence our perceptions. ;-)
When's Groundhog Day?
Jim
Has always worked well for me. I do agree that some are offering products with no factual basis that they contribute anything to the reproduction of music. But I do not think John C. is one. And I feel this offers a disservice to the general audiophile community if we can say we have one. And can make the hobby seem like a bit of a joke to those with any knowledge about electronics etc. This end I get to see since I work with both audiophiles and AES as well as engineers in material design testing. Some things in audio they can see why it would sound great others makes them scratch there heads in wonder that anyone could be so ignorant of basic facts. I design both subjectively and objectively when not fixated on motorcycles.
I read it and don't see a personal attack anywhere in the piece. I have no idea why JC took it so personally. I can only assume there is some history, as viewed by him, that makes him believe he is a target. I have a great deal of respect for John and would never hesitate to audition and, in many cases, buy any product that he helped design.
-Wendell
Edits: 02/15/11
.
Yesterday, after JC's heated remarks, I bet a friend that you would respond before noon EST. ~:)
Your last paragraph is perhaps your best. I hope you devote more time to fleshing out the idea(s) contained therein. Doing so might lend some much needed credibility to this hobby.
And your notion that, "The group average may not permit distinguishing cable A from cable B, but that doesn't mean a particularly golden eared member of the group can't" is also noteworthy. To offer a weak analogy: It's like the guy who made millions in the real estate market with no start-up capital and is now hawking his strategy on a 30 minute infomercial. Yes, the guy is legit. (He did it.) But just because he did it doesn't mean the poor schmucks purchasing his $300 booklet will experience his success. Audiophiles should keep that fact uppermost in mind when dropping thousands of dollars pursuing nuance.
:D
Not.
Unfortunately I don't know anything about it.
Such arguments never play well in public for either side.
No I didn't read your piece and given the supreme arrogance demonstrated in your post, I would sooner spend my money on a Consumer Report review of the latest from Bose.
Are you always a prick or is it something having to do with the phases of the moon?
Sorry. you jump in and bitch (and whine), without knowing ANYTHING about it. And come across as the very thing you call the other guy.
*
Nice that you came around.
sorry, who the hell are you? Never mind, I really don't care.
Model railroaders have nothing on us. We just don't get to wear caps and bib-overalls.None of this, Jim. None of it. Not one little bit of it,..... is real.
But it is fun. Try to keep clear the difference between what is real and what is fun.
"What did the Romans ever do for us?"
Edits: 02/15/11
I hate abreviations I do not know too
!
Music Reviews: http://solidgrooves.wordpress.com/
SMAC website: http://sites.google.com/site/michiganaudioclub/
Jim, I did not read your article.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts
Not to worry; you would not benefit from reading it.
http://www.jazz-etc.com
I wanted to post so you could not delete.
"Sam", you do realize that was Geoff Kait I was answering, yes? Are you suggesting that I should have been more deferential? To Geoff Kate? Why?
If anyone could be a child of P.T.Barnum, it is Geoff.
:-)
Thanks Geoff.
Nothing personal in my post
And.. I am no longer a witch. i am a Buddhist.
I USED to be a witch a LONG time ago...
Nothing personal here, either. Glad to see you went straight.
Bit of a tool isn't he.
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
Anything original in it, anything beyond what was covered in Austin's previous effort (around the time of the Inellignet Chip dust up)?
Dr. Who, A Christmas Carol, "Like I say, Lucky"
NT
http://www.jazz-etc.com
got delete?
Edits: 02/14/11 02/14/11 02/14/11 02/14/11 02/15/11 02/15/11 02/15/11 02/19/11
from a couple of years ago and check the archives here at Critic's, you'll get an idea of why John Curl started the thread below. You'd have to give Jim Austin a very generous reading not to surmise he includes Curl as among the manufacturers who fail to use science to protect Jim Austin from a jar of rocks.
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Nothing like each party having permission to start throwing his name around, gaining attention, etc....
There are no losers in this debate.
> > > No one who is a casual reader of Stereophile would have a clue to any of this subtext
Indeed!
> > > I think Jim Austin has a good point in the essay. that folks should be at least a little skeptical of "i can hear it, so it must really work" as stuff has been shown to be pure placebo IN SOME CASES
Why should Jim Austin get to decide for the rest of us what does or does not "really work" based on his preconceptions? He should just ignore these products that he thinks are quackery, especially if he's not going to even listen to them first. I use the Ayre "Irrational But Efficacious" tone sweep before any serious listening session. I perceive that it makes my system sound more open and clear. But I'm not certain I could tell whether the system had run IBE recently in a double-blind test. Perhaps it is merely placebo. So what? The IBE disc cost me <$20 and it increases my listening enjoyment every time I use it. For me, that's the bottom line of this hobby and it bothers me not a whit whether science can or cannot fully explain the mechanism of audio reproduction or my enjoyment of it.
Utilizing my vast insider connections in the industry and in congress, I'm going to see to it that every piece of high-end audio equipment comes equipped with a snake-oil-tweak sensor. It's not as complicated as it sounds; it's just a set of mutually interacting RFDs (the tweaks will have them too, unless the tweaks are home-made) that, if they don't have the correct Austin-approval code, will render the system inoperable.
This way, no one may listen to any component or tweak that has not received the ASA stamp (the Austin Seal of Approval).
* * *
C'mon guys, this is silly. I made an argument. I expressed a particular point of view that I genuinely hold. I humbly request that you read my argument carefully and take it seriously. If you choose not to do so, that's fine; it is your choice. Once you've read it, you may either accept it completely, reject it completely, accept and reject different parts -- whatever you wish. But by putting forth an argument, I'm putting no constraints on your thinking or your behavior.
As you were.
Jim
.
Edits: 02/19/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Please indicate the word, sentence or paragraph where he makes this contention.
-Wendell
Mr Austin would like for manufacturers to dismiss out of hand any products that are scientifically incredible. Near as I can tell, there is but one (jim)Au(stin)thority for setting that standard.
I suggest you work on your paraphrasing. I don't see him saying that at all. He is calling for skepticism. After 40 years in this hobby I'm convinced there is no industry more in need of our skepticism. Before you respond, I consider myself a subjective listener. I pay little attention to numbers. My standard is simple - if I like what I hear, it's good and if I don't like what I hear, it's bad. Numbers can't tell me if I will enjoy a component. That being said, there is too much voodoo in audio. Room treatments, component isolation, clean power and good wiring have easily detected positive impact, at least to me. I never heard any improvement from the Tice clock, Mpingo discs, the intelligent chip or anything else of similar lineage. If you have, enjoy.
-Wendell
I don't think my paraphrasing was too far from the actual:
"[S]ome prominent industry folks have consistently failed, in my opinion, to maintain a sufficiently skeptical posture toward such products".
My read of that is that Mr Austin would prefer Mr Curl to use the former's judgment, ie, dismiss out of hand - without first listening - "preposterous products". So, who gets to classify the "preposterous"?
OF COURSE WE ARE SKEPTICAL! What do you think we do for a living? Accept each and everything put forth? John A and I both sat in at a 'lecture' at CES a number of years ago, where this guy used 'SNAKES BLOOD' as the cure-all for all distortion and noise. He have quite a lecture, and John A and I were both incredulous! BUT we, at least, LISTENED! We did NOT CONDEMN, BEFORE EXAMINATION! That is the difference between John A and Jim A. And I respect John A for it.
Are there NO claims regarding sonic improvement that can be dismissed out of hand?? If not, then let us all compile a very long list of claims, no matter how absurd, and wait for them to be tested. How could any new equipment be designed if the designer had to run through a near-infinite number of possible 'solutions' for any give design decision?
> > > Are there NO claims regarding sonic improvement that can be dismissed out of hand??
The threshold for dismissing out of hand will vary for each person.
I have no idea of how Mr Curl came to listen to the IC or what he thought of the manufacturers explanation for its function. But, John Curl has trustable ears - after all, he is "merely" one the very best, maybe THE best, audio designers of all time. And just because something is not well explained doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Of course he has trustable ears. But he says that he and John A listened to the snake blood lecture and didn't condemn it before examining it...Certainly that doesn't mean that they got some snake blood themselves and gave it a go--DOES IT??? If so, then JC is consistent, argument over (for me). If not, then is he saying anything more than he and JA are POLITE??
The products were IMPROVED with 'snake blood' we listened to his demonstration and asked a few questions. Then the whole matter was dropped, at least by me. The guy was handing out samples, but I didn't get one. Especially a cassette tape. That WOULD have been interesting to analyze. He gave what he had, to others, so I had nothing to follow up on.
If the 'snake blood' improved the sound (as far as you were concerned), then that is end of story for me. Bottom line, it made a difference with or without a good explanation. Snakes beware! Thanks for the response.
I demonstrated the IC for him and Bob Crump at CES 2005.
~ Cheers
It's ALL YOUR FAULT, Geoff! If only I had listened to 'The Audio Critic'. '-)
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Wait for it! "Brilliant Ashes" will be available on Geoff's website and his Audiogon ads before you know it. You will not only hear god but you will be able to shake his hand.
-Wendell
:D
.
"How many of you understood it?"
One thing I don't understand is the point of this question. Was your objective to be cryptic or obscure? I'm not sure why a professional writer would intentionally write an article that was not clear enough to be understood. I'm not familiar with the apparent dispute that preceded the writing of this article, so perhaps that's my difficulty. In any case, I would never have suspected the article even had anything to do with John Curl unless I read it in John's own comments here.
-Bob
... did not write an article intending for it not to be understood. But I did take on a topic that was challenging. If, in your case, I failed to make my case, I apologize.
My post that started this thread was intended to convey the fact that from what I could tell of the comments so far, nobody had taken the time to finish it. Or maybe they did but just didn't understand it. It was not intended to suggest that my essay was too difficult for most people to read.
Jim
http://www.jazz-etc.com
I think I did understand your article (to the limits of my dim intelligence!), but based on many comments here, I thought I was missing something or that you were trying to convey something "between the lines." Actually, I guess I was missing something because, as I stated, I'm not familiar with whatever transpired prior to this article's publication that resulted in John Curl's reaction. Thanks for the clarification.
-Bob
Yes, it goes back a ways. The relevance to the current article isn't great, but this will explain what others here are in a state about.
Chips for Chumps
Jim
http://www.jazz-etc.com
Thanks, Jim. Now I feel like I at least have a clue! Very interesting article, too. The Enid Lumley tripod brought back some amusing memories. I appreciate your supplying the missing link.
-Bob
.
> > > How many of you read my AWSI all the way to the end?
I scanned it when it came a couple of days ago. Given the history, I read it as a shot across the bows of Curl, Hansen and other designers that "trust their ears".
> > > How many of you understood it?
I read it completely this morning and I would be hard-pressed to describe your thesis. You go from criticizing subjectivists to explaining how a negative cannot be proven. Just now I re-read your final two paragraphs and I wonder: 1) What's your point?; and 2) Why did JA let this get printed?
IIRC, Hansen's complaint with your original AWSI was that you dismissed the IC without listening to it. He agreed with you that the mechanistic explanation was not reasonable but pointed out that a subjective audio magazine is obligated to listen first despite pie-in-the-sky claims. One of Stereophile's best attributes is the objective measurements. But the magazine would suck ass, IMO, without the subjective reviews. There's only so much the measurements can tell you about how a component sounds. And that's where "supremely unreliable" ears come into play.
BTW, JA, I found it quite ironic that this AWSI arrived at the same time the friendly (snark) scientists (double snark) at HA are roasting you.
> JA, I found it quite ironic that this AWSI arrived at the same time the
> friendly (snark) scientists (double snark) at HA are roasting you.
Pure coincidence, I assure you.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
> > but pointed out that a subjective audio magazine is obligated to listen
> > first despite pie-in-the-sky claims.
Just how far should a magazine (or any other person or entity) carry this?
There is simply no end to the possible number of balloons that could be released. There are not enough hours to test every scheme or tweak that people dream up, so doesn't one need a way to decide what is worthy of the effort to check?
It seems, in this hobby, some spend an enormous amount of effort on things that have miniscule impact (if having an effect at all) while often ignoring bigger and well established fundamentals.
Is a magazine truly "obligated" to seriously consider every single conjecture thrown their way?
Of course a subjective magazine is NOT obligated to report on every crazy widget that comes along! It should, however, LISTEN before proclaiming whether or not a widget works as advertised. This was Charles Hansen's point and one that I agree with. If Jim Austin doesn't want to listen to product before criticizing it in the pages of a subjective audio magazine then I suggest that he simply ignore it. And to be clear, I am in no way suggesting I think the IC works or that I subscribe to the manufacturers explanation of its mechanism.Edit: the title should have read "Gee whiz, mea culpa for NOT explicitly writing it"
Edits: 02/15/11
.
Edits: 02/19/11
Unfortuntely your assumptions are all wet. Hey.The evidence that the chip works is borne out by thousands of satisfied customers as well as a multitude of public demonstrations, including controlled blind ones.
The real reason the chip is no longer produced is because the inventor split with original company JSMR and went on the replace the original Intelligent Chip with The Intelligent Box/Intelligent Card - the next generation chip, if you will - a much more powerful device based on the same technology (quantum physics). The Intelligent Box was introduced about 5 years ago and was reviewed very positively by the two PhDs at 6 Moons about three years ago. The same PhDs reviewed the original Intelligent Chip in the article Photon Cannons. The Intelligent Chip was also positively reviewed elsewhere, Positive Feedback Online IIRC.
In addition, the Intelligent Chip was demonstrated with excellent results to a great many audio industry insiders, including but not limited to: Clark Johnsen, John Curl, Bob Crump, the Editor and Staff of Hi Fi News (UK) and Ken Kessler.
See how easy life can be when all the facts are known?
As for the other side of the card, it can often say, "I don't know the facts, but I don't wish to appear stupid in front of other biased individuals."
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica
Advanced Audio Concepts
Edits: 02/18/11 02/18/11 02/18/11
"So.. if the guy who predicted it was crap was right.. doesn't THAT make him a hero? instead of a scapgoat (you guys want to make him into?)"
When one holds an "I told you so" card it is almost impossible to resist the temptation to lay the card down on the table in front of the person who was wrong. The thing to keep in mind about cards is that they all have two sides. The other side of the "I told you so" card says, "I'm an asshole". :-)
In spite of having accumulated this little bit of wisdom over the years, I'm sorry to say that I still find it just about impossible to avoid playing the damn card on those occasions when I hold it. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The IC was crazy controversial here, way before it immortalized via a Stereophile AWSI.
The description of the IC went a few steps beyond what I found remotely
credible. Most difficult was the idea that the IC would wear out when a
new CD was played but would be unaffected when a CD that had already been
treated had been played. Perhaps I misunderstood the claim.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You didn't misunderstand the claim.
Do you think that nobody else besides you had trouble wth the claim? Do you think that noone else reacted so strenuously to the claim that placing a small plastic wafer on top of the CD player affects the disc inside?
You think of yourslef as a skeptic's skeptic, scientific, one who cannot be easily fooled, right?
Cheers
...if all the tweaks in question are free or cheap. What's your cutoff, pricewise?Which is not to say that putting your photo in a freezer* is worth the effort before blasting it as ridiculous, even if it costs $0.
* which, by the way I did, despite feeling all the while like an idiot.
Edits: 02/15/11
From reading your post I can't shake the nagging feeling you don't even know what the "photos in the freezer tweak" is. Nice try anyway....
Tootles
From reading you post I can't shake the nagging feeling that you think the "photos in the freezer tweak" actually works. Nice try anyway ...
Just as I suspected. Thanks for conforming....
Superstitious much, Dave? I bet you're afraid a photo will steal your soul.
:-)
'cuz I can't tell if it's sarcastic or not . . .If reputable people (or many more unknown folks on the 'net) claim that a tweak works, I'll try it provided that I feel it's price is commensurate with the potential sonic improvement and it's not too much work to implement. My TT is sitting on the Jon Risch DIY sandbox isolation tweak (learnt about it right here on AA). Cost me $5 for a bag on sand, some scrap lumber from the garage, and about 45 minutes to put together. Made a very nice improvement to bass definition.
Edits: 02/15/11
But I was looking for some kind of dollar figure. Is it okay to criticize a tweak as an obvious or probable fraud if it looks ridiculous on its face and costs ... what?
Without actually putting out good money for it. Or do we just have to send the money to Nigeria in all cases before we have the "right."
... much ado about nothing.
Apologies to Shakespeare.
N/T
Every tweak out there, before reviewer is going to open his big freakin' mouth about THAT particular tweak, to pronounce it either worthy or unworthy.
Otherwise, what we're gonna have is Jim Austin and his HydrogenAudio-bred clones, disparaging stuff they have no clue about.
I'm not even sure what you could potentially disagree about, here - but something tells me you will.
So your position is that everything gets equal consideration?
If I declare the sound quality of my system improved when my neighbor five houses away installed a new gas stove in their kitchen, Stereophile is to start testing immediately?
Sounds like your playbook contains no chapter for reductio ad absurdum. Guess mine's a different edition.
Please read all and carefully before replying if anyone wishes to reply.
> > So your position is that everything gets equal consideration? < <
For me, personally, only the most likely untested candidates get higher consideration for test. The others should be stated: "I personally feel it does have enough plausibility at this time to spend time with while others have higher plausibility and thus higher priority. It remains on the back burner, perhaps not in my lifetime." This is how a professional engineer or scientist ought to state his prior judgment on it.
> > If I declare the sound quality of my system improved when my neighbor five houses away installed a new gas stove in their kitchen, Stereophile is to start testing immediately? < <
No. That is why it should be stated in a way like above if a cause-effect relationship appears highly unlikely. IOW, same answer as the one above.
> > Sounds like your playbook contains no chapter for reductio ad absurdum. Guess mine's a different edition. < <
What's absurd is that by quantum physics, the theory states that for an instance you could be on the moon and then back here even though you're not a subatomic particle. You have an overstatement with high judgment, not even "just let someone else do it, I am not interested". All you know about it goes straight back in line to the first question answered above.
And I have put a lot of things on the backburner as I am far more interested in establishing some cause-effect relationship for what things I can't avoid feeling I hear something happening, or I have a physical known measured effect and many observed effects with anecdotes that might actually correlate, and it seems too much to just ignore it blindly both right away. Amazingly, as Einstein and Heisenberg showed, the absurd may be true. The flash of genius is in proving something absurd is true. There's no genius in not finding it and especially none in not imagining it. It's just lack of doing effort.
But not looking into the weird claims is certainly not giving up on life. It's just a choice to test it or not. When not choosing to test something in a review, the honest reviewer or editor will clearly make his personal disclaimer in a simple factual statement. We, like H-A, cannot feel the claims for this are plausible in any manner significant and therefore will not be reviewing it. Then the scientist/reviewer with his editor has shown he knows what he is doing, it's a decision he will not test nor review the item by his pre-judgment, plain and simple. That is then all there is to write about it and there should never be words of controversy over it. To be polite, it might be nice to add, "but someone else may want to test it." Otherwise, a sense of arrogance permeates.
There are not enough people on Earth to test every possible hypothesis and gizmo presented every day.
People will say sometimes, "well I don't need to jump out the window of a high-rise to know I won't live to tell about it." And say that is equivalent to a knowing about a highly unlikely claim. Not at all. Deaths from falling is common knowledge just by it happening already to other people. It has been tested already.
The "it's absurd to believe by common sense" argument falls flat as so much already tested absurdities were indeed realities. The unknown is just unknown, and many we will judge a priori as a very unlikely cause-effect possibility. Such is life. We need to do that all the time in real time to increase our odds of survival. But we don't know a stove is too hot to touch and how hot is it, until it gets tested somehow by ourselves or proof by seeing an actual other person's experience that we see for ourselves, or just believe in the "common knowledge education" by statement taken alone.
Summing up, there's different levels of knowing, believing, and not believing, for every individual. The willingness to do what someone else says - "test it for me" needs a real explanation for why or why not it will be done. Guessing no effect is not good enough for publication except to just state it's a bowing out.
-Kurt
-Kurt
"Everything out there" is not REALLY everything - it's "pre-screened" set of tweaks, that were already tried out by some people, and supposedly had positive effect. If neighbor's gas stove is one of those from YOUR perpective - more power to you.
I was right about you finding something to disagree - I just thought you'd make better effort at it.
...that we simply have a different threshold for entertaining test candidates. What some consider "pre-screened" looks pretty silly to others.
It's a big world out there and I've got no problem with others drawing their line in a spot different from the one I've chosen. That's especially true for something as inconsequential as the playback of recordings.
Well done. Subjectivists who entertain any and every claim would make great fodder for the cast of SNL. Do I really need to test the hypothesis that placing a picture of my stereo in my deep freeze will result in better sound? Using such "logic" prompts the question: Would placing a picture of Michael Fremer's system in same result in even better sound? Perhaps Fremer's system and a bust of Mozart?
... and look at more realistic, down-to-earth examle, that I tried to discuss with mls-stl not long ago.
Fuse directionality - would you (or hypotetic reviewer) have to try it, before opening mouth to declare it "nonsense"? Would the fact that you have no idea how it could work play any role in your decision to try - or not try - it?
> > Fuse directionality - would you (or hypotetic reviewer) have to try it,
> > before opening mouth to declare it "nonsense"?
Just to wrap up my end of that, as noted before I've been actively inside audio electronics for 40 years and have had fuses point both directions (and even been completely bypassed in certain situations.)
If there has ever been a difference, it has been so microscopic in my experience that I've got no interest in pursuing it further as a tweak.
As before, you can blame that on my bad hearing, lack of training or mediocre system or just innate neanderthalism. Whatever.
However, it is just as valid to publicly declare my experience as it is for someone to else to state that changing fuse directions has brought new life to their music collection.
Interested bystanders can read each comment, contemplate any surrounding discussion and then proceed to do what they choose. I'm not sure why any level of angst should envelop anyone in such a situation.
I agree, it's OK to declare you did not get results.
:-)
Personally, I would CLEAN THE CONNECTIONS AND THE FUSE CONTACTS FIRST, before reversing. Then I would listen to it in its 'forward' position to get an opinion, the reverse the fuse, get another opinion, then reverse it back to forward. That way we eliminate many potential problems. Just changing something can often be just 'cleaning' or 'scraping' the contacts, often very important.
Edits: 02/15/11
The same for power cords, interconnects etc.
I keep a bottle of Kontak handy.
I would say the same with new cables maybe better sound or different sound due to connection being partly cleaned by removing old and installing new cable. I can not remember a cable review where reviewer mentioned cleaning contacts 1st.
"Fuse directionality"?
Since I know nothing about the subject I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion. But I need not burn my fingers by touching my wood burning stove (which currently holds a roaring fire) in order to confirm the fact that it's hot--however strenuously a subjectivist might protest: "You won't really know until you try it!" Subjectivists, if they are to be taken seriously, need to acknowledge that there are limits to pushing the absurdity envelope. To continue mls-stl's Greek theme, the ancient adage "Nothing to excess/All things in moderation" will serve you well throughout your life.
I've noticed that there is a delusional aspect to hardcore audio subjectivists that carries over to other areas of their lives. Whether this is due to simple stubbornness or is symptomatic of a more serious thought disorder I cannot say. Moreover, this delusional quality more often than not is accompanied by a propensity for mean-spiritedness. One can't simply agree to disagree and remain on good terms with such people; no, that won't do. Instead, one must be demonized. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but I'm speaking in a general context.
And I hasten to add that my observations hold true for hardcore objectivists as well. As with so much in life, I suspect the "truth" lies somewhere in the middle and that neither camp has a monopoly on that commodity. And that's why I refrain from joining either camp.
Too many adherents (from both camps) have a tendency to overreach by making knowledge claims they cannot support. That is what philosophers refer to as a "category mistake," and one that any first year philosophy student is taught to avoid.
but you picked a curious example.'I need not burn my fingers by touching my wood burning stove (which currently holds a roaring fire) in order to confirm the fact that it's hot--however strenuously a subjectivist might protest: "You won't really know until you try it!" '
The way I see it, the subjectivist would have burned her hand once and realized the stove was hot. A second experience is not necessary. The objectivist would have burned his hand once then designed a double-blind test to confirm that his "supremely unreliable" senses didn't merely fool him into thinking the stove was hot. Unfortunately, our objectivist is likely to get burned again . . . but at least he'll be doubly-blind.
Edits: 02/15/11
For others, it's desire to be taken seriously - or, even worse, and much less understandable, obsession with setting standards for OTHERS to be taken seriously.
NT
Hint: it belongs in subject line.
Good of you to make my point for me. ~:)
This whole situation can be resolved in the MMA octagon. Now, let's get it on!
Yes, Jim, I am VERY WILLFUL! And this is just another cheap shot from you.
but based on the ruckus below, I think my comprehension is very poor indeed. I need to read it again.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: