Kuei Yang Wang said:
Well, I'm not an audio nazi (at least I don't consider myself that way, YMMV, that's your prerogative of course), but I think that I am open enough to accept that those stones change the sound reproduction, if there was a blind test that looked reasonably competent and that did show so. The explanation given by John that they absorb RF or microwaves COULD theoretically have an effect.
So, why do those people keep on moaning, 'oh, they don't understand us' etc? You cannot expect everybody to immediately exhaustively test anything that comes on the market, and the stones effect doesn't at first sight look valid, so it gets to the bottom of the heap. So guys stop complaining and show us!
And John C, sorry, but so far the only supporting evidence you gave was that (1) you know the designer, (2) he's a big shot at NASA or something, and (3) you phone each other within the hour. That, I'm afraid, isn't what I would consider a reasonable competent blind test.
Jan Didden
Just read the BP whitepaper at http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina17.htm . I must say that the explanation sounds quite reasonable. Mechanical absorbtion is of course the conversion of mechanical vibrations into heat. We do that all the time with speaker cabinet damping. I cannot relate to those pebbles absorbing RF/microwave, but that is my limited knowledge in this area. But sure, why not.
So, I put a jar on top of my speaker, as suggested. What does that do? Damp the vibrations of the speaker top, where it can transmit its vibrations to the jar? How does the jar then transmit the vibrations to the pebbles? What about the vibrations of the speaker sides, which is orders of magnitude bigger than that top?
Questions, questions.
Now, KYW, do these questions make me an audio pelican? I hope not. These are IMHO all reasonable, engineering related questions which I would ask of ANY new wizardry that claimed such an effect. And, if the effect is there, it would be childs work for those hi-strung designers to explain it, put in a few numbers, maybe a graph. Like show vibration vs frequency before and after. Accelerometers are cheap these days. IOW make just a tiny effort towards credibility.
Why don't they do that? Why do they ramble on about standard physical observations as if these are specifically the realm of BP (which they are not), and then go on to list how to use them.
I really get angry you know. They do (f) ****** all to come up with a couple of measurement, blind tests, anything that shows some serious results. But they have their mouth full of 'oh, they don't understand us', implying that I (and others) am stupid, prejudiced, fanatical, what have you. I don't merit that. They want me to do a serious effort to understand and accept their product. Why don't THEY do a serious effort? How come I end up defending myself for not buying their stuff?
John C, you remember the times you developed the JC-2 and JC-3? When you methodically researched things, measuring, proving to yourself at any step what was going on? Do you realise what you wrote these few last posts? What happened between then and now, John?
Jan Didden
So, I put a jar on top of my speaker, as suggested. What does that do? Damp the vibrations of the speaker top, where it can transmit its vibrations to the jar? How does the jar then transmit the vibrations to the pebbles? What about the vibrations of the speaker sides, which is orders of magnitude bigger than that top?
Questions, questions.
Now, KYW, do these questions make me an audio pelican? I hope not. These are IMHO all reasonable, engineering related questions which I would ask of ANY new wizardry that claimed such an effect. And, if the effect is there, it would be childs work for those hi-strung designers to explain it, put in a few numbers, maybe a graph. Like show vibration vs frequency before and after. Accelerometers are cheap these days. IOW make just a tiny effort towards credibility.
Why don't they do that? Why do they ramble on about standard physical observations as if these are specifically the realm of BP (which they are not), and then go on to list how to use them.
I really get angry you know. They do (f) ****** all to come up with a couple of measurement, blind tests, anything that shows some serious results. But they have their mouth full of 'oh, they don't understand us', implying that I (and others) am stupid, prejudiced, fanatical, what have you. I don't merit that. They want me to do a serious effort to understand and accept their product. Why don't THEY do a serious effort? How come I end up defending myself for not buying their stuff?
John C, you remember the times you developed the JC-2 and JC-3? When you methodically researched things, measuring, proving to yourself at any step what was going on? Do you realise what you wrote these few last posts? What happened between then and now, John?
Jan Didden
Jan, it is a sad moment, to have you misunderstand my position so greatly.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past.
john curl said:
John,
thank you for your kind reply.
I think that because you know and personally talk to the nice guy you can give us first hand information.
john curl said:
Google - due the low signal to noise ratio of Internet - is a poor primer so I hope you can steer us pointing out the documents that worth reading
Thanx
Jan, it is a sad moment, to have you misunderstand my position so greatly.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past.
I am an audio design consultant, have been for more than 30 years, and I design several new or improved products every year. I KNOW HOW to develop the topology and get the basic performance from audio circuits. However, this is NOT enough, IF I want to make something other than a mid-fi product. I have proven this to myself by allowing others, in the past, to make the 'minor decisions' such as connectors, layout, wiring, etc and have paid the price of poor sales, and a diminishment of my design reputation. I could NOT MEASURE any problems, with previous decisions, just lost sales and less enthusiastic reviews.
IF I had to prove every design technique that I use by a blind test first, I would never make any progress, and my competitors would evolve past me by trying different things, without regard to the 'scientific method' or somesuch, as they have, often enough before.
When I bring up the background of some designer, it is not just that they are qualified, and educated, but that they actually can teach me a few things when I do communicate with them. What have I learned from you? That I am not the same person that I was 30 years ago, when I developed the JC-1 ,2, and 3? Of course I am, except that I use my physics background more these days, compared with the past.
Konnichiwa,
Here goes.....
"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.
The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications.
Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment."
From Robert Anthony Wilson / Hagbard Celine "Never Whistle While Your ****ing"
http://www.rawilson.com/whistle****.html
Sayonara
fdegrove said:
Here goes.....
"I once overheard two botanists arguing over a Damned Thing that had blasphemously sprouted in a college yard. One claimed that the Damned Thing was a tree and the other claimed that it was a shrub. They each had good scholary arguments, and they were still debating when I left them.
The world is forever spawning Damned Things- things that are neither tree nor shrub, fish nor fowl, black nor white- and the categorical thinker can only regard the spiky and buzzing world of sensory fact as a profound insult to his card-index system of classifications.
Worst of all are the facts which violate "common sense", that dreary bog of sullen prejudice and muddy inertia. The whole history of science is the odyssey of a pixilated card- indexer perpetually sailing between such Damned Things and desperately juggling his classifications to fit them in, just as the history of politics is the futile epic of a long series of attempts to line up the Damned Things and cajole them to march in regiment."
From Robert Anthony Wilson / Hagbard Celine "Never Whistle While Your ****ing"
http://www.rawilson.com/whistle****.html
Sayonara
Kuei, much of the 'mental position' represented here on this thread is shown in books by Robert Alton Wilson. I get much insight from them.
For the record, for everyone, and back to the Shakti Stones and the Randi challenge: The 'challenge' does not hold legal water with regard to the Shakti Stones, because the device uses measurable qualities, ie reduction of RFI and microwave energy, rather than any extraordinary source to work. This is in the 'fine print' of the 'challenge'. This has been explored by legal people from Shakti. Heck, 1 Million dollars? Worth a shot. ;-)
Another misunderstanding: Shakti Stones and Brilliant Pebbles are just cute names for 2 very different products. The Brilliant Pebbles are designed to absorb mechanical vibration. The Shakti Stones are designed to reduce RFI from about 1Meg Hz into microwave frequencies. This is also why they did NOT work for my application of reducing low RFI from 5KHz to 50KHz. Aluminum foil did work, however, in that range, very well. Thanks, SY.
I hope that many of you have come to see that you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence.
For the record, for everyone, and back to the Shakti Stones and the Randi challenge: The 'challenge' does not hold legal water with regard to the Shakti Stones, because the device uses measurable qualities, ie reduction of RFI and microwave energy, rather than any extraordinary source to work. This is in the 'fine print' of the 'challenge'. This has been explored by legal people from Shakti. Heck, 1 Million dollars? Worth a shot. ;-)
Another misunderstanding: Shakti Stones and Brilliant Pebbles are just cute names for 2 very different products. The Brilliant Pebbles are designed to absorb mechanical vibration. The Shakti Stones are designed to reduce RFI from about 1Meg Hz into microwave frequencies. This is also why they did NOT work for my application of reducing low RFI from 5KHz to 50KHz. Aluminum foil did work, however, in that range, very well. Thanks, SY.
I hope that many of you have come to see that you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence.
john curl said:
Maybe many have, but not me, unfortunately (not that that needs to bother you, of course, but just for the record).
Also for the record: I was not criticising specific tweaks and/or the representative individuals as such. I and several others just asked for SOME real evidence that the gadgets do as advertised. Nobody seems to bother with that, not you, not their inventor, for whom it would be childs play to present that 'real evidence'. We can only guess at your collective reasons to abstain, and apparently being content with lamenting ' they don't understand us', 'they are prejudiced' etc, or words to that effect. I honestly regret that, being left up in the air.
BTW, Your last scentence sums it up nicely, although you may not have meant it that way: "..you were criticizing specific tweaks, and the individuals who represent them, without any real evidence". Exactly.
Jan Didden
Jan, you did NOT follow my advice that I gave Diy to Google search 'Shakti audio' in order to find real, independent measurements on one of the websites on this subject. NOW, will it work for YOU? Who knows, BUT I might try one on my new DVD player on the main processing chip. I also might put one or two in my cars, as they appear to have a measurable improvement in getting more HP out out the engine. In any case, this is a REAL device that does something that can be measured in different ways.
As far as the 'Brilliant Pebbles' are concerned. I know that Geoff Kait, the 'bottler' of 'Brilliant Pebbles' has been in the vibration damping business for years. It may be, or may not be, difficult to get measured info on what they do, just because of the test set-up necessary. For example, I would have a difficult time, myself, even though do I own an accelerometer.
Personally, I just don't have to have 'proof' in order to be satisfied with a tweak or a mod, or just leave it alone.
As far as the 'Brilliant Pebbles' are concerned. I know that Geoff Kait, the 'bottler' of 'Brilliant Pebbles' has been in the vibration damping business for years. It may be, or may not be, difficult to get measured info on what they do, just because of the test set-up necessary. For example, I would have a difficult time, myself, even though do I own an accelerometer.
Personally, I just don't have to have 'proof' in order to be satisfied with a tweak or a mod, or just leave it alone.
John, if you put four Shakti stones and six Brilliant Pebbles in your trunk, you'll find a measurable improvement in traction. Remember that the next time there's a snowstorm down in Berkeley. You'll thank me!
BTW, when I drove down to Berkeley Bowl with my mother (in town for a visit), she spotted some signs declaring Berkeley to be a "Nuclear-Free Zone." She asked me how the hell that could be, they needed to have the same atoms and molecules as anybody else.
BTW, when I drove down to Berkeley Bowl with my mother (in town for a visit), she spotted some signs declaring Berkeley to be a "Nuclear-Free Zone." She asked me how the hell that could be, they needed to have the same atoms and molecules as anybody else.
john curl said:
You're right, I didn't. I looked at the white paper for the BPs though. That was enough for one day, I'm only human you know, can stand only so much!
. A friend of mine remarked that cigars also absorb vibration (I mean, what doesn't) but smell better than BPs (allow me this little humor, OK?).I'll look into the Shakti stuff tomorrow, seriously.
Jan Didden
OK - I read the Shakti pages and I must say that they are not convincing. If You followed any car forum and dyno threads, there is as much complexity and ways to make errors as in any business. These 2,7 hp difference in a 300 hp emgine is just plain silly and surely within the error margin with respect to handling and preparation of the test object. I don't doubt the accuracy of the test equipment.
What bothers me the most is in which frequency band that these items is supposed to operate in. Yes , I used the term "supposed" because I'm sure of that if You replaced the shakti stone with Your hand, it would give at least the same effect. I work with RF and know that when birds or snow end up on GSM antennas, it affects the performance of the system. So the scam lies in the wanted dollars for this stone. It is a rip-off, it's is a clever way of making money.
I feel sorry for the people spending money on these things, not because of their lack of experienced improvement, placebo fixes that, but for their lack of putting things into perspective and spending money on things that matter.
Also the way the stone seems to "suck" in RF from any direction is just plain silly and has none what soever foundation in any known physics.
Verdict: Claimed function satisfies Randis challenge !
/
What bothers me the most is in which frequency band that these items is supposed to operate in. Yes , I used the term "supposed" because I'm sure of that if You replaced the shakti stone with Your hand, it would give at least the same effect. I work with RF and know that when birds or snow end up on GSM antennas, it affects the performance of the system. So the scam lies in the wanted dollars for this stone. It is a rip-off, it's is a clever way of making money.
I feel sorry for the people spending money on these things, not because of their lack of experienced improvement, placebo fixes that, but for their lack of putting things into perspective and spending money on things that matter.
Also the way the stone seems to "suck" in RF from any direction is just plain silly and has none what soever foundation in any known physics.
Verdict: Claimed function satisfies Randis challenge !
/
john curl said:
John, I think you're losing a losing battle arguing these points in this forum. Actually, your battle is lost perhaps mostly, and most consistently, with those who apparently remain unaware about the means by which knowledge progresses on this planet. Progress in knowledge necessarily involves experimentation---in the doomed-to-fail and statistically less probable successful varieties---and open-mindedness. It takes a great deal of mental discipline to develop these traits and to step out of the currently-known to question what might be the shape of the next-to-be-known. It perhaps goes without saying that the required mental discipline is not well regarded or developed in the mentally risk averse in which category is found not a small number of scientists. These latter seem almost exclusively to prefer the currently known, perhaps because the currently known lends a certain repeatable predictability to life and what. But don't expect from them a discussion about subtleties of things that might provide some or another key to what could or might come next, for you will be seen not to follow "the rule" (ABX, whatever and ever). But the exception always proves the rule, and ironically, scientists who helped put in place the regime of the currently known, that thing so favoured by the risk averse, were of the experimental mindset I mention, and were persons who could understand the message of the exception as it then presented itself to them. I think it was Sir James Jeans who in the late 19th century told an incoming class of physics students that physics had pretty much sewn things up except for two little clouds on the horizon, and that the discipline had accordingly been reduced to an unglamorous fine tuning to the next decimal place. Those "two clouds" led directly to the discoveries of quantum physics and relativity. I personally don't think the "Great" Randi has much in common with such as Einstein who can't be bothered, if I might so guess, pecking pebbles in some chicken coup the residents of which call The Universe.
Do some research, TNT. Condemnation without examination is prejudice.
It just so happens that the guy from Shakti told me that several of the measurements were made with extremely advanced dynamometers, both here and in Japan. Some were VERY accurate. In autos, as well as audio, it is the small changes that can accumulate to extra-ordinary performance.
Sere... I agree with you.
Just last night I saw a repeat TV program on NOVA that related the story of a clockmaker in the 18th century who made a VERY ACCURATE clock. In fact, it was so accurate, that no one from the educated class or nobility wanted to believe it was possible, even though they put it through YEARS of trials. After 40 years, finally, King George of England heard the story and awarded the clockmaker his due reward.
It is the same here. SY, by suggesting that Shatki stones are worthless, except as rocks, and others by demanding 'proof' without even believing, researching, or independently testing the proof put forth.
It just so happens that the guy from Shakti told me that several of the measurements were made with extremely advanced dynamometers, both here and in Japan. Some were VERY accurate. In autos, as well as audio, it is the small changes that can accumulate to extra-ordinary performance.
Sere... I agree with you.
Just last night I saw a repeat TV program on NOVA that related the story of a clockmaker in the 18th century who made a VERY ACCURATE clock. In fact, it was so accurate, that no one from the educated class or nobility wanted to believe it was possible, even though they put it through YEARS of trials. After 40 years, finally, King George of England heard the story and awarded the clockmaker his due reward.
It is the same here. SY, by suggesting that Shatki stones are worthless, except as rocks, and others by demanding 'proof' without even believing, researching, or independently testing the proof put forth.
john curl said:
Assume for a moment a person having some, even small presumptive authority in discerning audible differences between devices or components says, "this Thing improves the sound because of factor X." It seems to me a scientist assessing such statement might be heard to say, "the Thing very well could change the sound as stated as the person behind the statement has experience noting such changes (or has a business selling such changes, hoaxes being difficult to sell), the change could be an improvement and perhaps probably is, and the improvement might or might not result solely or at all from factor X." Far cry from what is heard from The Naysayers.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.