 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.236.226.217
In Reply to: RE: Sorry posted by unclestu on February 09, 2013 at 12:29:20
If you can't hear the Photos in the Freezer Tweak either you can't hear as well as you think you can or there's something dreadfully wrong with your system OR you don't know how to do the Photos in the Freezer Tweak properly. There's always All of the Above.This morning I attached a Reef Knot Device to most of the electrical cords and other cords in the living room and kitchen, which contain NO audio equipment. I attached a reef knot to the microwave oven cord, the refrigerator cord, some floor lamp cords and various cables for the TV and digital box. I just this minute listened to a CD that I had listened to the other day. The dynamic range of the CD is about double, and the sound much more intricate, after putting Reef Knots in the living room and kitchen. Sorry to hear you struck out with the photos/freezer thing and the reef knot thing. C'est la vie. :-)
To answer your question regarding the photos in the freezer tweak, and random photos in random locations, it would be extremely beneficial to know what the photos in the freezer tweak actually entails before making any assumptions about garages, lockers, snowstorms, etc., no?
My mojo is working, your Backfire Effect is in full bloom.
Edits: 02/09/13 02/09/13 02/09/13Follow Ups:
you can offer no explanation. In fact, prior you had mentioned that NASA should send photos up into space in a refrigerator. No explanation was forthcoming when it was pointed out that the average temperature in space outside the suns rays was a few dsegrees above absolute zero. IIRC you claimed the enclosure was important: but then you didn't specify the zipock bag or the non air tight refrigerator door.
I bguess we all have to wander and guess at the actual means necessary sionce you never define the necessary needs for the tweak. Sure gives you a means to bag out when trials are contradictory to your perceptions.
Keep on running and dodging... All the readers have already caught on to your modus operandi.
"you can offer no explanation."Do you mean no explanation of the Reef Knot? If so, that's true, I offer no explanation. Get over it.
"In fact, prior you had mentioned that NASA should send photos up into space in a refrigerator. No explanation was forthcoming when it was pointed out that the average temperature in space outside the suns rays was a few dsegrees above absolute zero."
What good would it do to explain the freezer in space? I have already explained it to you many times, and each time you don't get it. If you're trying to convince me that you are dense you're doing an excellent job. There comes a time to fish or cut bait. Five years is long enough. :-)
"IIRC you claimed the enclosure was important: but then you didn't specify the zipock bag or the non air tight refrigerator door."
In your particular case, you should never start a sentence with IIRC. :-) This is an excellent example of "can't see the forest for the trees." The reason why I suggested NASA take some photos out in space was that it would be an easy way to measure the speed of the effect. It's a thought experiment. Now do you get it?
"I bguess we all have to wander and guess at the actual means necessary sionce you never define the necessary needs for the tweak. Sure gives you a means to bag out when trials are contradictory to your perceptions."
The details of the photos in the freezer tweak have been provided many times over on Iso. Must be one of those IIRC things.
Edits: 02/10/13 02/10/13
"The dynamic range of the CD is about double"
That would be easy to measure.
Show me the measurements.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I can hear 3 dB of dynamic range. Can't you?
"If you can't hear the Photos in the Freezer Tweak either you can't hear as well as you think..."
Not to be too picky about words, but I don't believe this tweak is a matter of "hearing". If you were to substitute "perception" then I would be good to go.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
> > > "Not to be too picky about words, but I don't believe this tweak is a matter of "hearing". If you were to substitute "perception" then I would be good to go." < < <
Can I introduce an all encompassing descriptive sentence instead ?:-
"The experience of resolving more of the musical information".
Because this is what most people are describing after trying various different and unusual 'tweaks'.
The word 'hearing' implies hearing the ACTUAL musical information changing whereas the word 'perception' (in some people) implies a 'feeling', an 'impression' that the music has changed.
I am of the opinion that with most people's experiences with the majority of the 'tweaks' they try, it IS the actual musical information which is being better resolved.
On Propeller Head Plaza section I posed the following question to awe-d-o-file:-
> > > "Would the people who describe hearing an improvement in their sound after fitting such as the ground loops describe the improvement as "resolving more of the musical information" ?" < < <
To which awe-d-o-file replied.
> > > "The last sentence you wrote in your post "covers" what many might say word for word or in other ways regarding the implementation of that particular tweak or other tweaks that make an improvement." < < <
That reply seems to confirm that the expression "resolving more of the musical information" might encompass most people's listening experiences after trying different 'tweaks'. As soon as the descriptive word 'perception' is used, people are wont to come in immediately with the retort "Oh, it's auto-suggestion at work, or the placebo effect, or bias, or imagination, or audio faithhealing, or effective marketing etc."
Regards,
May Belt,
Manufacturer.
While I appreciate the terminology "resolving musical information" this is also a highly ambiguous phrase. My late wife was a musician and to her all she cared about was forming an impression in her mind of what the musicians were thinking while they were performing, plus of course the notes. She could memorize a classical piece from hearing a recording once or twice, but normally obtained this musical information from reading and memorizing Braille music. She was pretty useless at commenting on quality of stereo playback, so after a frustrating afternoon auditioning amplifiers I never asked her to do this again. Other people consider hearing various subtle details of the musical performance, such as two guitars doubling a part, to be "resolving musical information".
The problem with all of these definitions is that information (and indeed all knowledge of this mundane world) is relative. After hearing some piece of information, such as that doubled guitar part, on a good system then it may be obvious on a cheap boom box. This is one of the problems with some blind testing protocols, and helps account for "everything sounding the same" once the testing begins. Other aspects involve much more subtle operation of the mind, e.g. how perception may not reach the level of conscious perception, but is still present and can be observed by certain unconscious behavior or by PET brain scans.
It is also very easy for a system to "resolve" non-musical information and fool people into believing that there has been a positive change for the better. (The classic example is boosting the treble and revealing things going on in the recording, but at the expense of early listening fatigue. This effect is common on systems set up by people who don't listen to acoustic recordings and who don't have any idea of what acoustic instruments sound like in real concert venues.)
I'm not sure there can be good, consistent understanding of definitions of these terms, for these and other reasons.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I dunno, kind of a silly semantics argument. The words Hearing and Perception are interchangeable in my book. Unless you're suggesting that "it's all in your mind," - in which case I certainly understand your hesitancy. Lol
"I just this minute listened to a CD that I had listened to the other day. The dynamic range of the CD is about double, and the sound much more intricate, after putting Reef Knots in the living room and kitchen."
I'm now feeling even more queasy.
That is a jaw-dropping extraordinary claim which in no manner can be validated as a universal experience, even by extraordinary anecdotal evidence shared by credible reporters.
Eccentric audiophiles with esoteric ideas is one thing (I am amongst them), but it's quite another level to advocate extra-terrestrial reports with such a straight face. Face to face in the 3D world might be a daunting task.
Cheers, Duster
Hell, I was being conservative. The sound is more coherent, more open, more realistic, with better rhythm, better pitch, faster sounding and has more information and impact in the bass and upper bass. The midrange and treble are rich but immaculate.
Edits: 02/09/13 02/09/13
nt
Nt
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
