There are certain Illegal Smokable Substances when used, provokes Hallucinations and strong Psycho Acoustic Sensitivity
Maybe certain phenomena is only noticeable, including the effects of directional cables, and then only noticeable after a few drinks and a couple of "Joints"
I know from experience, Barmaids get more attractive after 5 or 6 drinks
Maybe the smokable stuff has the same effect on percieved audio
Maybe certain phenomena is only noticeable, including the effects of directional cables, and then only noticeable after a few drinks and a couple of "Joints"
I know from experience, Barmaids get more attractive after 5 or 6 drinks
Maybe the smokable stuff has the same effect on percieved audio
Re: Another SE BS Story ?...............
Sure. It was in response to a question put forth, "Do cables wear out?"
Here you go:
The constant collisions between the free electrons and the crystal lattice of the metal conductors (which occurs even when the cables aren't being used due to ambient thermal energy) breaks down the lattice producing what amounts to powder as the conductor material is gradually eroded into its elemental, atomic form.
The problem with this is that once it's in its elemental form, the electrical currents in the cable will carry it out of the conductor and into other components which the cable is connecting causing all manner of problems.
At less than ideal connector interfaces, the elemental conductor material can become lodged and eventually start to accumulate though the accumulation is somewhat limited because subsequent particles can collide with lodged particles, preventing a complete logjam.
Capacitors are a particular problem because the material cannot cross the dielectric and ALL of it accumulates on the capacitor's plates. It's worse for smaller value capacitors since the plate areas are much smaller compared to larger value capacitors and a given amount of accumulation produces a commensurately worse effect.
Vacuum tubes are similarly effected due to the coating of thorium on their cathodes though the high thermal energy due to the heater (or the cathode itself in directly heated cathode types) helps amoeliorate this a bit.
Bipolar transistors have their own problems, due to the difficulty in driving the elemental conductor material past the energy band gap at PN junctions. This is especially problematic at low bias currents, particularly in line level circuits. Output devices operating at high bias currents amoeliorate the effect in bipolar transistors much as the high thermal energy in vacuum tubes does. Though bipolars do suffer buildup problems at their bases.
FETs, are largely immune however. Their singular conductive channel between the source and drain have no discontinuities to them and the elemental material can pass on through. The gate however is basically a capacitor, and a very samll value at that which would otherwise make things really bad, but because the input impedance of the FET is so high, there's virtually no current flowing in the gate so there's virtually no buildup of elemental material.
MOSFETs are also saved somewhat due to their exceedingly high input impedances, but the problem with MOSFETs is that there is an effective PN junction between their source and drain which results in buildup problems similar to that of bipolars between their emitters and collectors.
This quantum level "erosion/silting" effect is what's behind the whole break-in phenomenon. When we listen to a new cable or component, we're listening to it in its pristine condition. Unfortunately this pristine condition tends to sound a bit hard and harsh to many even though technically it is the most accurate.
Use over time results in more and more silting until the maximum accumulation is reached at which point the component reaches equilibrium and this is defined as the break-in time. Unfortunately for capacitors, they never truly reach equilibrium, but because their plate sizes are physically much larger than the other elements in the system where silting builds up, it takes considerably longer before they finally reach the point that they start actually sounding bad.
The various break-in accessories available simply speed up the "erosion/silting" process by typically driving the cables at current levels higher than under normal listening conditions. However these accessories themselves also break themselves in and over time take longer periods of time to do their job.
It should be noted that while the silting effect may reach an equilibrium point, the erosion itself is a constant process though its effect in and of itself is very subtle and not nearly as noticeable. But it is, in fact, an actual break-DOWN phenomenon. The elemental material will never recombine with the lattice under normal circumstances. The material must be melted and recrystalized before that can happen.
Enjoy.
se
mrfeedback said:
Sure. It was in response to a question put forth, "Do cables wear out?"
Here you go:
The constant collisions between the free electrons and the crystal lattice of the metal conductors (which occurs even when the cables aren't being used due to ambient thermal energy) breaks down the lattice producing what amounts to powder as the conductor material is gradually eroded into its elemental, atomic form.
The problem with this is that once it's in its elemental form, the electrical currents in the cable will carry it out of the conductor and into other components which the cable is connecting causing all manner of problems.
At less than ideal connector interfaces, the elemental conductor material can become lodged and eventually start to accumulate though the accumulation is somewhat limited because subsequent particles can collide with lodged particles, preventing a complete logjam.
Capacitors are a particular problem because the material cannot cross the dielectric and ALL of it accumulates on the capacitor's plates. It's worse for smaller value capacitors since the plate areas are much smaller compared to larger value capacitors and a given amount of accumulation produces a commensurately worse effect.
Vacuum tubes are similarly effected due to the coating of thorium on their cathodes though the high thermal energy due to the heater (or the cathode itself in directly heated cathode types) helps amoeliorate this a bit.
Bipolar transistors have their own problems, due to the difficulty in driving the elemental conductor material past the energy band gap at PN junctions. This is especially problematic at low bias currents, particularly in line level circuits. Output devices operating at high bias currents amoeliorate the effect in bipolar transistors much as the high thermal energy in vacuum tubes does. Though bipolars do suffer buildup problems at their bases.
FETs, are largely immune however. Their singular conductive channel between the source and drain have no discontinuities to them and the elemental material can pass on through. The gate however is basically a capacitor, and a very samll value at that which would otherwise make things really bad, but because the input impedance of the FET is so high, there's virtually no current flowing in the gate so there's virtually no buildup of elemental material.
MOSFETs are also saved somewhat due to their exceedingly high input impedances, but the problem with MOSFETs is that there is an effective PN junction between their source and drain which results in buildup problems similar to that of bipolars between their emitters and collectors.
This quantum level "erosion/silting" effect is what's behind the whole break-in phenomenon. When we listen to a new cable or component, we're listening to it in its pristine condition. Unfortunately this pristine condition tends to sound a bit hard and harsh to many even though technically it is the most accurate.
Use over time results in more and more silting until the maximum accumulation is reached at which point the component reaches equilibrium and this is defined as the break-in time. Unfortunately for capacitors, they never truly reach equilibrium, but because their plate sizes are physically much larger than the other elements in the system where silting builds up, it takes considerably longer before they finally reach the point that they start actually sounding bad.
The various break-in accessories available simply speed up the "erosion/silting" process by typically driving the cables at current levels higher than under normal listening conditions. However these accessories themselves also break themselves in and over time take longer periods of time to do their job.
It should be noted that while the silting effect may reach an equilibrium point, the erosion itself is a constant process though its effect in and of itself is very subtle and not nearly as noticeable. But it is, in fact, an actual break-DOWN phenomenon. The elemental material will never recombine with the lattice under normal circumstances. The material must be melted and recrystalized before that can happen.
Enjoy.
se
Christer said:
You said:
Ah, now people will probably not understand what I said just because I posted this.
In other words, now that you went and said that, it will probably come true. Whereas if you hadn't said it, it probably wouldn't have come true.
Remember Oddball (Donald Sutherland) from Kelly's Heroes"? "Always with the negative waves Moriarity. Always with the negative waves." 🙂
se
I would say SOME barmaids get more attractive....
Sure, any kind of drug in appropriate moderation will alter perceptions, most alter sensitivity, but not accuracy of perceptions.
Hallucinogens by definition however do alter accuracy of perceptions.
I suspect some such halucinogenic event to be the source of the above "quantum silting theory", and good reason that these remain illegal.
Eric.
poulkirk said:
Sure, any kind of drug in appropriate moderation will alter perceptions, most alter sensitivity, but not accuracy of perceptions.
Hallucinogens by definition however do alter accuracy of perceptions.
I suspect some such halucinogenic event to be the source of the above "quantum silting theory", and good reason that these remain illegal.
Eric.
Polite Questions........
To which you replied - "Yes, I saw those. But since you've made it quite clear that you've no interest whatsoever in establishing that there's an actual audible difference in the first place, I didn't see much point in answering them.
Steve, I think you might be putting the cart before the horse here.
I am seeking to establish the physics reasons that could cause cable and wire directionality effects under the right conditions.
I did an interesting experiment more than 10 years ago that deleted any beliefs that I might have had that wires and cables cannot be directional.
In this case I removed the DAC output stage components from a cheap CDP, and rebuilt them to the original electrical circuit, but in 3-dimensional P-P wired form factor.
I used a 6cm x 4cm x 1.5mm sheet of copper as the ground and substrate, and 3mm tubes were used as the (literally) power rails.
All the original components were used, and the only additions to the circuit were extra power decoupling caps.
I was able to construct this DAC/Output/Filter stage that ALL connections were component to compoment, and no jumper wires EXCEPT for two 12mm long signal wires.
This thing worked first go and sounded wildly different to and stunningly sonically better than the original form.
This where the real fun starts.
I experimented with different wire types for those two short jumpers, and I also experimented with direction.
I used standard resistor component lead, enamelled wire, litz wire, telephone wire, and a strand out of an expensive audiophile interconnect cable (Apogee).
I had two friends in company whilst we performed rigorous listening tests on all the permutations of those wire types.
We all decided that we preferred the audiophile wire, and we all agreed on a particular direction.
We also all heard the sideways image shifting when one or other of these wires was reversed.
Ever since HAVING HEARD these changes according to wire type or direction, I do not take these for granted.
So John Curl is saying clearly that he has heard directionality, I am saying that I and my friends have heard it also, and many others are saying that they have heard it too.
This of course begs the question "Why is it so ?"
Steve, my above questions are an attempt to flesh out some relevant physics facts if you have them.
Eric.
To which you replied - "Yes, I saw those. But since you've made it quite clear that you've no interest whatsoever in establishing that there's an actual audible difference in the first place, I didn't see much point in answering them.
Steve, I think you might be putting the cart before the horse here.
I am seeking to establish the physics reasons that could cause cable and wire directionality effects under the right conditions.
I did an interesting experiment more than 10 years ago that deleted any beliefs that I might have had that wires and cables cannot be directional.
In this case I removed the DAC output stage components from a cheap CDP, and rebuilt them to the original electrical circuit, but in 3-dimensional P-P wired form factor.
I used a 6cm x 4cm x 1.5mm sheet of copper as the ground and substrate, and 3mm tubes were used as the (literally) power rails.
All the original components were used, and the only additions to the circuit were extra power decoupling caps.
I was able to construct this DAC/Output/Filter stage that ALL connections were component to compoment, and no jumper wires EXCEPT for two 12mm long signal wires.
This thing worked first go and sounded wildly different to and stunningly sonically better than the original form.
This where the real fun starts.
I experimented with different wire types for those two short jumpers, and I also experimented with direction.
I used standard resistor component lead, enamelled wire, litz wire, telephone wire, and a strand out of an expensive audiophile interconnect cable (Apogee).
I had two friends in company whilst we performed rigorous listening tests on all the permutations of those wire types.
We all decided that we preferred the audiophile wire, and we all agreed on a particular direction.
We also all heard the sideways image shifting when one or other of these wires was reversed.
Ever since HAVING HEARD these changes according to wire type or direction, I do not take these for granted.
So John Curl is saying clearly that he has heard directionality, I am saying that I and my friends have heard it also, and many others are saying that they have heard it too.
This of course begs the question "Why is it so ?"
Steve, my above questions are an attempt to flesh out some relevant physics facts if you have them.
Eric.
just for referance, what form of anti-psychology was used to prevent the listener from knowing the state of the equipment. to be valid the listener should not know there is a difference in the equipment at all -- only that there is a difference in sound. if you know there is a difference in equipment you may know there is a differnce in sound, and there is always the chance that this will color your attitude. a similar test could be conducted with red insulation vs. blue vs yellow and could produce the same results if the group prefered a specific color. i would wager the red and yellow wires would sound warmer, while the blue and greens would sound more mellow. grey, white, and black may sound cold or accurate depending on word association.
also, how do you plug in a wire backwards? and how do you know? i mean isn't a wire just a condutive strand?
You have to ask if crystel annealing and quantum effects can affect the sound as much as the chemical and related electical impulses/interferance that occurs when a person listens to music while thinking of the word "backwards".
also, how do you plug in a wire backwards? and how do you know? i mean isn't a wire just a condutive strand?
You have to ask if crystel annealing and quantum effects can affect the sound as much as the chemical and related electical impulses/interferance that occurs when a person listens to music while thinking of the word "backwards".
Re: Polite Questions........
I don't believe so.
Yes, but the point is, you're NOT seeking to establish whether any of this is actually due to any audible differences. Which is why I opted to discontinue the discussion.
Sighted listening tests are hardly "rigorous" as they do nothing to control for possible psychological aspects.
I don't doubt that you PERCEIVED those changes. However I don't know that you actually HEARD any changes. Sighted listening tests and anecdotes simply don't make for convincing evidence.
So what? A number of people claim to clearly hear the effects of putting photographs in freezers. It's not at all surprising that a lot of people purport hearing various differences even for such things as frozen photographs seeing as we are all human beings and as such all subject to the same human weaknesses.
You've made it clear that you don't REALLY want to know "Why is it so?" And because you dismiss the psychological aspect, which is WELL WITHIN the realm of possibility, you can never truly KNOW what the answer is. Any answer you care to come up with will always be acommpanied by the ambiguity of your refusal to consider the psychological aspect.
But no matter how many times your questions are answered, they can't possibly flesh out any facts as it relates to this particular issue.
If you TRULY want to know what's REALLY going on, here's what you do:
First you establish unambiguously that there is in fact an actual audible aspect to this. You don't do it by way of sighted listening tests, anecdotes and opinion polls.
Once you've established actual audibility, then you can start theorizing on possible causes and from there you can start putting those theories to the test.
If you're lucky, you'll eventually hit upon the answer. And then you'll REALLY KNOW SOMETHING and not just speculating.
I previously offered to assist in getting over the first hurdle, but you refused, indicating that you didn't really wish to get at the truth. And if you don't really wish to get at the truth, why should I waste time trying to answer questions which even if answered get us no closer to the truth than if they were not answered at all?
So, do you REALLY want to make an attempt to get at the truth or not?
se
mrfeedback said:
I don't believe so.
Yes, but the point is, you're NOT seeking to establish whether any of this is actually due to any audible differences. Which is why I opted to discontinue the discussion.
Sighted listening tests are hardly "rigorous" as they do nothing to control for possible psychological aspects.
I don't doubt that you PERCEIVED those changes. However I don't know that you actually HEARD any changes. Sighted listening tests and anecdotes simply don't make for convincing evidence.
So what? A number of people claim to clearly hear the effects of putting photographs in freezers. It's not at all surprising that a lot of people purport hearing various differences even for such things as frozen photographs seeing as we are all human beings and as such all subject to the same human weaknesses.
You've made it clear that you don't REALLY want to know "Why is it so?" And because you dismiss the psychological aspect, which is WELL WITHIN the realm of possibility, you can never truly KNOW what the answer is. Any answer you care to come up with will always be acommpanied by the ambiguity of your refusal to consider the psychological aspect.
But no matter how many times your questions are answered, they can't possibly flesh out any facts as it relates to this particular issue.
If you TRULY want to know what's REALLY going on, here's what you do:
First you establish unambiguously that there is in fact an actual audible aspect to this. You don't do it by way of sighted listening tests, anecdotes and opinion polls.
Once you've established actual audibility, then you can start theorizing on possible causes and from there you can start putting those theories to the test.
If you're lucky, you'll eventually hit upon the answer. And then you'll REALLY KNOW SOMETHING and not just speculating.
I previously offered to assist in getting over the first hurdle, but you refused, indicating that you didn't really wish to get at the truth. And if you don't really wish to get at the truth, why should I waste time trying to answer questions which even if answered get us no closer to the truth than if they were not answered at all?
So, do you REALLY want to make an attempt to get at the truth or not?
se
Switching the direction of the wire in one channel caused a sideways image shift that cannot be corrected with the balance control.theChris said:
All participants clearly heard this difference, and were able to correctly identify when one channel wire was reversed wrt the other.
I am saying that I have heard directional differences, that these are NOT psychology caused, and that I am curious about the physics causes.
Eric.
mrfeedback said:
Well you didn't answer theChris' question but you certainly answered mine. You've no interest whatsoever at getting at the truth of this matter.
You're free to run in circles chasing your own tail, but don't expect me to waste my time doing the same.
se
Still Asking For Answers................
Steve, No, very much on the contrary, and you are reading me completely wrong here.
I fully recognise psychological effects as much as heard ones and I always have.
I also recognise that there are audible effects that are not explained by simple physics theory.
I have developed a device with numerous aplications that universally subjectively improves audio recording and reproduction, and has also 100% passed the most perfect blind listening tests that could be devised.
Vague theories/speculations, correlated observations and sighted listening tests have indeed led me through a long series of experiments to this outcome.
A particular few listeners who have absolutely no prior knowlege have made comment on both the presence or absence of these devices in several systems.
IOW, there is no opportunity for any kind of psychological bias whatsoever in these examples.
I asked the previous phonon related questions in light of the above facts, and I would appreciate if you could answer them.
Steve,
I have done more than enough real time testing involving swapping, adding or deleting components on the fly to learn to distinguish very fine sonic changes.
I have also since very long ago learned to exclude any psychological expectation factors when performing this kind of very fine testing.
I also see that there are at least several other members around here who are experienced enough to have gained similar levels of equipment listening skills - the list is quite long.
These kinds of skills are a bit like learning to ride a bike - learning to ride a bike requires being shown how to, and then self practice, and once learned is never forgotten.
Audio is similar in some respects.
Some fine sonic characteristics may go un-noticed until pointed out and demonstrated.
Once heard, these certain characteristics then go into the mind library of things to listen out for in future, when finely assessing subjective sonics.
With experience this library can build, and fine listening skills can be enhanced.
And this can be the downfall of blind listening statistical results.
The outcome of blind listening testing is very much dependant on the equipment listening skills of the individual subjects.
Gross changes would be expected to be noted by all subjects, but fine changes would not be expected to be heard by all subjects in a particular experiment.
This can produce erroneous null resultants, period.
It is because of this that 'psychology' arguements are not solid proofs, and that both observations are valid, but not mutually exclusive.
I ask you please to understand that null results does not automatically mean that 'psychology' is the only possible reason.
Eric.
Steve, No, very much on the contrary, and you are reading me completely wrong here.
I fully recognise psychological effects as much as heard ones and I always have.
I also recognise that there are audible effects that are not explained by simple physics theory.
Yes I actually have done all of that.
I have developed a device with numerous aplications that universally subjectively improves audio recording and reproduction, and has also 100% passed the most perfect blind listening tests that could be devised.
Vague theories/speculations, correlated observations and sighted listening tests have indeed led me through a long series of experiments to this outcome.
A particular few listeners who have absolutely no prior knowlege have made comment on both the presence or absence of these devices in several systems.
IOW, there is no opportunity for any kind of psychological bias whatsoever in these examples.
I asked the previous phonon related questions in light of the above facts, and I would appreciate if you could answer them.
Steve,
I have done more than enough real time testing involving swapping, adding or deleting components on the fly to learn to distinguish very fine sonic changes.
I have also since very long ago learned to exclude any psychological expectation factors when performing this kind of very fine testing.
I also see that there are at least several other members around here who are experienced enough to have gained similar levels of equipment listening skills - the list is quite long.
These kinds of skills are a bit like learning to ride a bike - learning to ride a bike requires being shown how to, and then self practice, and once learned is never forgotten.
Audio is similar in some respects.
Some fine sonic characteristics may go un-noticed until pointed out and demonstrated.
Once heard, these certain characteristics then go into the mind library of things to listen out for in future, when finely assessing subjective sonics.
With experience this library can build, and fine listening skills can be enhanced.
And this can be the downfall of blind listening statistical results.
The outcome of blind listening testing is very much dependant on the equipment listening skills of the individual subjects.
Gross changes would be expected to be noted by all subjects, but fine changes would not be expected to be heard by all subjects in a particular experiment.
This can produce erroneous null resultants, period.
It is because of this that 'psychology' arguements are not solid proofs, and that both observations are valid, but not mutually exclusive.
I ask you please to understand that null results does not automatically mean that 'psychology' is the only possible reason.
Eric.
Eric,
while I mostly try to interpret people benevolently and would
like to believe you actually do posses those refined listening
skills and that ability to avoid psychological bias, you do often
undermine your own in credibility by making claims that baffles
me. You are always very quick to complain about people not
accepting your view, and pointing out how stupid you think
their arguments are. At the same time, you don't seem to have
any problem with equally stupid arguments from yourself. I have
usually not bothered to point them out to you, however, much
they have surprised me. Let me just give two examples.
From this thread: (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=254176#post254176)
"Regarding frozen photos, I believe (because I have not personally tried it) that this has a purely psychological basis,..."
Do you believe everything you haven't tried yourself to be
a pshycological effect? I don't really know if there is any
more reasonable way to interpret it. Ironically, it seems to
go quite contrary to the following equally baffling statement:
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=129178#post129178)
"I am curious to hear the sonic effect of this stuff too, though I am reasonably confident that I can hear it already."
This was about a product claimed to improve sonics. Some
believed it might, perhaps, work, one or two had tried it and
claimed so, most were very sceptical. Nobody knew exactly
what this product was or how it was supposed to work, yet
you seemed to have no problem to believe it works, despite not
even having tested it yourself. (This was obviously not
psychological, although you hadn't tried it!)
I don't mean get personal and jump on you, which is why I have
so fat not commented on these and other similarly surprising
statements. However, when you say things like this, how are
we to know if there is any more credibility to the other claims
you make?
while I mostly try to interpret people benevolently and would
like to believe you actually do posses those refined listening
skills and that ability to avoid psychological bias, you do often
undermine your own in credibility by making claims that baffles
me. You are always very quick to complain about people not
accepting your view, and pointing out how stupid you think
their arguments are. At the same time, you don't seem to have
any problem with equally stupid arguments from yourself. I have
usually not bothered to point them out to you, however, much
they have surprised me. Let me just give two examples.
From this thread: (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=254176#post254176)
"Regarding frozen photos, I believe (because I have not personally tried it) that this has a purely psychological basis,..."
Do you believe everything you haven't tried yourself to be
a pshycological effect? I don't really know if there is any
more reasonable way to interpret it. Ironically, it seems to
go quite contrary to the following equally baffling statement:
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=129178#post129178)
"I am curious to hear the sonic effect of this stuff too, though I am reasonably confident that I can hear it already."
This was about a product claimed to improve sonics. Some
believed it might, perhaps, work, one or two had tried it and
claimed so, most were very sceptical. Nobody knew exactly
what this product was or how it was supposed to work, yet
you seemed to have no problem to believe it works, despite not
even having tested it yourself. (This was obviously not
psychological, although you hadn't tried it!)
I don't mean get personal and jump on you, which is why I have
so fat not commented on these and other similarly surprising
statements. However, when you say things like this, how are
we to know if there is any more credibility to the other claims
you make?
Sonics Guinea Pigs...............
Christer, this is not a stupid statement and I stand by it.
I very deliberately added "I believe (because I have not personally tried it)" as a qualifier that speaks for itself.
I am open to physics suggestions about how a photo in the freezer could affect system sonics, but at present I do not see any likely physical explanation.
Placing a photo of one's self in the freezer, to me looks on the surface of it to be of purely psychological basis.
I will very happily accept a proper physics explanation for this effect.
I listen to other members findings and observations about things that I have not tried, but I do not automatically ascribe these to psycological effects, and I never have.
If there is an error in an argument, yes I will point it out, and as I see it, SE's adherence to psycological explanations is based on blind testing results.
I am merely pointing out that blind tests are not, and have never been infallible.
"I am curious to hear the sonic effect of this stuff too, though I am reasonably confident that I can hear it already."
"Sticking just about anything on top a chip will change sonics ime, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, sometimes a nice change, and usually not."
"Looks to me like carbon powder in (even C37 ?) some kind of laquer.
I expect that as the stuff dries and contracts, the carbon particles form a conductive layer - this may explain the 20 day change period."
Christer, you see that based on my past experience and experimentation I would expect physical effects that would have an audible effect, and that I have some idea of the nature of the audible effect based on previous experimentation, and that is what I said.
Your statement reads as though you mean that BOTH listeners who have tried the product and say that it works are deluding themselves.
I am not insulting you when saying this - this used to be out of my comprehension too.
These sonics effects are confirmed by a quite large sample of listeners.
Interestingly, a number of these listeners did not know about it and still do not know about it, but have commented on acoustics changes.
Eric.
Christer said:
Christer, this is not a stupid statement and I stand by it.
I very deliberately added "I believe (because I have not personally tried it)" as a qualifier that speaks for itself.
I am open to physics suggestions about how a photo in the freezer could affect system sonics, but at present I do not see any likely physical explanation.
Placing a photo of one's self in the freezer, to me looks on the surface of it to be of purely psychological basis.
I will very happily accept a proper physics explanation for this effect.
I listen to other members findings and observations about things that I have not tried, but I do not automatically ascribe these to psycological effects, and I never have.
If there is an error in an argument, yes I will point it out, and as I see it, SE's adherence to psycological explanations is based on blind testing results.
I am merely pointing out that blind tests are not, and have never been infallible.
Ok, so let's present full quotes from my post like -
"I am curious to hear the sonic effect of this stuff too, though I am reasonably confident that I can hear it already."
"Sticking just about anything on top a chip will change sonics ime, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, sometimes a nice change, and usually not."
"Looks to me like carbon powder in (even C37 ?) some kind of laquer.
I expect that as the stuff dries and contracts, the carbon particles form a conductive layer - this may explain the 20 day change period."
Christer, you see that based on my past experience and experimentation I would expect physical effects that would have an audible effect, and that I have some idea of the nature of the audible effect based on previous experimentation, and that is what I said.
Your statement reads as though you mean that BOTH listeners who have tried the product and say that it works are deluding themselves.
Christer, the product and sonic effects thereof that I speak of, are way out of your audio experience and comprehension at present, but you can trust me that they are perfectly real and reproducable.
I am not insulting you when saying this - this used to be out of my comprehension too.
These sonics effects are confirmed by a quite large sample of listeners.
Interestingly, a number of these listeners did not know about it and still do not know about it, but have commented on acoustics changes.
Eric.
Re: Sonics Guinea Pigs...............
I really don't want you to believe in the photos in the freezer.
I do, however, think that qualifier backfired, unless I am the
only one interpreting it in the way I did. I did, however, suspect
that you did not actually mean quite that, but since you often
complain about and do not understand perfectly clear questions
and arguments from certain other persons not sharing your
views, you ought to be more careful with such statements.
As I actually did say in a previous post in this thread, I am
prepared to accept that current agreed-on scientific evaluation
processes, such as blind testing, may perhaps have flaws
for evaluating certain things, in this case audio. However,
just by believing there are such flaws does not make it valid
to suddenly start using arbitrary proof methods. Rather, one
must then try to find out if and why the methods are not
applicable, and try to find and agree on a better evaluation
method. As for having a strong personal belief in a sonic
effect or the absence thereof, that is another thing, but
belief is not proof and if belief is the only argument one has,
then one must accept that others may not agree and
that one may in fact oneself be wrong.
I agree the other quote I made was a bit short and taken
out of context. However, I still think it is not up the standards
you require of arguments from those holding a view opposed
to yours.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do however mean that
it is a very real possibility that they both were deluding
themselves.
I have no problem agreeing with that. However, similarly I
would say that my understanding of what constitutes a
valid proof or not and of the validity of a logical argument
is way above your current understanding.
That is the problem. However much I would like to trust you
I have only your own words for your claims. I have no problem
with you yourself being fully convinced about these things.
I do have a problem with you not accepting that others are
not convinced just because you are.
Don't worry, I did not take it as an insult or even unfriendly.
I hope you don't with my comments either.
Without further documentation to judge the results and validity
of these tests, it is still not proof of anything. However, I do
not dismiss what you say. I do wish to think you have taken
at least some care in doing these listening tests in a proper
way, and I am personally prepared to believe that this
at least makes the results somewhat more probable than
if you had only listened yourself.
mrfeedback said:
I really don't want you to believe in the photos in the freezer.
I do, however, think that qualifier backfired, unless I am the
only one interpreting it in the way I did. I did, however, suspect
that you did not actually mean quite that, but since you often
complain about and do not understand perfectly clear questions
and arguments from certain other persons not sharing your
views, you ought to be more careful with such statements.
As I actually did say in a previous post in this thread, I am
prepared to accept that current agreed-on scientific evaluation
processes, such as blind testing, may perhaps have flaws
for evaluating certain things, in this case audio. However,
just by believing there are such flaws does not make it valid
to suddenly start using arbitrary proof methods. Rather, one
must then try to find out if and why the methods are not
applicable, and try to find and agree on a better evaluation
method. As for having a strong personal belief in a sonic
effect or the absence thereof, that is another thing, but
belief is not proof and if belief is the only argument one has,
then one must accept that others may not agree and
that one may in fact oneself be wrong.
I agree the other quote I made was a bit short and taken
out of context. However, I still think it is not up the standards
you require of arguments from those holding a view opposed
to yours.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do however mean that
it is a very real possibility that they both were deluding
themselves.
I have no problem agreeing with that. However, similarly I
would say that my understanding of what constitutes a
valid proof or not and of the validity of a logical argument
is way above your current understanding.
That is the problem. However much I would like to trust you
I have only your own words for your claims. I have no problem
with you yourself being fully convinced about these things.
I do have a problem with you not accepting that others are
not convinced just because you are.
Don't worry, I did not take it as an insult or even unfriendly.
I hope you don't with my comments either.
Without further documentation to judge the results and validity
of these tests, it is still not proof of anything. However, I do
not dismiss what you say. I do wish to think you have taken
at least some care in doing these listening tests in a proper
way, and I am personally prepared to believe that this
at least makes the results somewhat more probable than
if you had only listened yourself.
Christer said:
that has been to me a constant problem with "high-end audio". Sometimes, it is more like religion. I have no problem with people hearing things, but I have a huge problems with representing those "things" as a statement of facts.
I believe in the existence of golden ears. But I don't believe in the apparent popularity of golden ears, 🙂
Yes, I can claim to hear the impact of lawmowers two towns over, or electric grid in Japan, etc. (btw, they all make a difference to my system, probably as much as a Vishay resistor over Radio Shack resistors). it is easy to make those outragious claims. But it takes a lot more to prove them out scientifically.
And it is the rigor that we need badly in audio, high-end or not.
Maybe you plugged it into the wrong socket. FWIW, I repeated your test and didn't get the same result. There's nothing wrong with the directionality of my hearing, I can always tell you which room Red Chief is in when he lets out one of his trademarked Blood Curdling Yells™.
Re: quantum silting theory, this may actually relate to my theory of darkons, i.e., that photons don't exist, light is the absence of darkons.
i feel like i am reading
an issue of The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
i remember reading a paper on darktons in The JIRR. Actually i thought that they were quanta of dark...kinda like radiating cold...another interesting concept.
rt
an issue of The Journal of Irreproducible Results.
i remember reading a paper on darktons in The JIRR. Actually i thought that they were quanta of dark...kinda like radiating cold...another interesting concept.
rt
millwood said:
Actually, despite what I've said, I am almost prepared to
claim that cables make a difference. I have tried both
with and without cables. While there is much less noise
and distorsion without cables, I do strongly believe it
sounds more musical with cables. 😀
(Please note folks, this was just a joke I couldn't resist. I am
not opposed to the idea that cables may sound different and
have experienced such effects. If they were real of imagined,
I dare not say, though. Incindentially my old DIY CD
interconnect is made from directed cables. Can't remember
hearing any difference when trying it the wrong way last time
I tried it, though. I didn't choose that cable for its directedness,
but just bought a few different cables and tried them. I found,
at that time, that I possibly preferred this cable to the others
which is why I use it.
I was able to construct this DAC/Output/Filter stage that ALL connections were component to component, and no jumper wires EXCEPT for two 12mm long signal wires.......SY said:
...........Switching the direction of the wire in one channel caused a sideways image shift that cannot be corrected with the balance control.
Sonics were changed according to the type of wire used and direction as a pair, and the stereo image shifted sideways if ONE of these wires was reversed.
It surprised me too that such a short piece of wire in the audio chain was audible, but it was.
I have experienced this with interconnects also.
Eric.
I'm Bored..................
Originally posted by Christer
I really don't want you to believe in the photos in the freezer.
I do, however, think that qualifier backfired, unless I am the
only one interpreting it in the way I did. I did, however, suspect
that you did not actually mean quite that, but since you often
complain about and do not understand perfectly clear questions
and arguments from certain other persons not sharing your
views, you ought to be more careful with such statements.
The qualifier means that I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE I HAVE NOT TRIED IT (PUTTING PHOTOGRAPHS IN ANY FREEZER) FOR MYSELF.
The photograph is not directly part of the audio system, so for me this idea is a really long stretch of credibility, without having actually tried this proposition.
Yes, therefore I am speculating, but in this case without solid physical proofs or even physical theories, logically any effect of putting photographs in freezers must be ascribed to psychological mechanisms.
If I did try it and was to discover an effect or difference, I would be curious about the cause, physical or psychological, and perform appropriate testing so as to dicern the causative mechanism.
As I actually did say in a previous post in this thread, I am
prepared to accept that current agreed-on scientific evaluation
processes, such as blind testing, may perhaps have flaws
for evaluating certain things, in this case audio. However,
just by believing there are such flaws does not make it valid
to suddenly start using arbitrary proof methods. Rather, one
must then try to find out if and why the methods are not
applicable, and try to find and agree on a better evaluation
method. As for having a strong personal belief in a sonic
effect or the absence thereof, that is another thing, but
belief is not proof and if belief is the only argument one has,
then one must accept that others may not agree and
that one may in fact oneself be wrong.
Sure, exposing faults in blind testing does not automatically validate "arbitrary proof methods", and that is not my direction.
My "arbitrary proof methods" are however solid in this case.
I agree the other quote I made was a bit short and taken
out of context. However, I still think it is not up the standards
you require of arguments from those holding a view opposed
to yours.
I am not opposing anybody's beliefs - I am just reporting what I have found, and so far you just keep insisting that these are psychological effects.
This is getting extremely tedious.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do however mean that
it is a very real possibility that they both were deluding
themselves.
And what if they ARE perfectly correct - remember the two who are saying that they hear this treatment are the only ones who have actually tried it.
I have no problem agreeing with that. However, similarly I
would say that my understanding of what constitutes a
valid proof or not and of the validity of a logical argument
is way above your current understanding.
I have perfect understanding of proofs and logic.
That is the problem. However much I would like to trust you
I have only your own words for your claims. I have no problem
with you yourself being fully convinced about these things.
I do have a problem with you not accepting that others are
not convinced just because you are.
When demonstrated, 100% of subjects report hearing differences, and 100% indicate preference, and most indicate strong preference.
Don't worry, I did not take it as an insult or even unfriendly.
I hope you don't with my comments either.
I am just plain bored with your general line here Christer.
Without further documentation to judge the results and validity
of these tests, it is still not proof of anything. However, I do
not dismiss what you say. I do wish to think you have taken
at least some care in doing these listening tests in a proper
way, and I am personally prepared to believe that this
at least makes the results somewhat more probable than
if you had only listened yourself.
I do not believe blind listening tests as usually conducted are fully proper tests, and therefore null results do not always constitute solid proofs of non-audibility.
Sure, I have no formal blind test results yet, but I do have a magazine publishable review.
I do also have verbal testimonies from long term users, and the conclusion is the same by all these users.
I do not have objective measurements yet, but this is due to inadequate test equipment resoloution.
This product has also been secretly trialled publically, and has been noted when used, and also noted when not used - the pro user who delivered this information has absoloutely no reason to falsify, and in fact every reason to keep this strictly secret (for now).
Eric / - sick to death with auto naysayers.
Originally posted by Christer
I really don't want you to believe in the photos in the freezer.
I do, however, think that qualifier backfired, unless I am the
only one interpreting it in the way I did. I did, however, suspect
that you did not actually mean quite that, but since you often
complain about and do not understand perfectly clear questions
and arguments from certain other persons not sharing your
views, you ought to be more careful with such statements.
The qualifier means that I DO NOT KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE I HAVE NOT TRIED IT (PUTTING PHOTOGRAPHS IN ANY FREEZER) FOR MYSELF.
The photograph is not directly part of the audio system, so for me this idea is a really long stretch of credibility, without having actually tried this proposition.
Yes, therefore I am speculating, but in this case without solid physical proofs or even physical theories, logically any effect of putting photographs in freezers must be ascribed to psychological mechanisms.
If I did try it and was to discover an effect or difference, I would be curious about the cause, physical or psychological, and perform appropriate testing so as to dicern the causative mechanism.
As I actually did say in a previous post in this thread, I am
prepared to accept that current agreed-on scientific evaluation
processes, such as blind testing, may perhaps have flaws
for evaluating certain things, in this case audio. However,
just by believing there are such flaws does not make it valid
to suddenly start using arbitrary proof methods. Rather, one
must then try to find out if and why the methods are not
applicable, and try to find and agree on a better evaluation
method. As for having a strong personal belief in a sonic
effect or the absence thereof, that is another thing, but
belief is not proof and if belief is the only argument one has,
then one must accept that others may not agree and
that one may in fact oneself be wrong.
Sure, exposing faults in blind testing does not automatically validate "arbitrary proof methods", and that is not my direction.
My "arbitrary proof methods" are however solid in this case.
I agree the other quote I made was a bit short and taken
out of context. However, I still think it is not up the standards
you require of arguments from those holding a view opposed
to yours.
I am not opposing anybody's beliefs - I am just reporting what I have found, and so far you just keep insisting that these are psychological effects.
This is getting extremely tedious.
I am sorry if I gave that impression. I do however mean that
it is a very real possibility that they both were deluding
themselves.
And what if they ARE perfectly correct - remember the two who are saying that they hear this treatment are the only ones who have actually tried it.
I have no problem agreeing with that. However, similarly I
would say that my understanding of what constitutes a
valid proof or not and of the validity of a logical argument
is way above your current understanding.
I have perfect understanding of proofs and logic.
That is the problem. However much I would like to trust you
I have only your own words for your claims. I have no problem
with you yourself being fully convinced about these things.
I do have a problem with you not accepting that others are
not convinced just because you are.
When demonstrated, 100% of subjects report hearing differences, and 100% indicate preference, and most indicate strong preference.
Don't worry, I did not take it as an insult or even unfriendly.
I hope you don't with my comments either.
I am just plain bored with your general line here Christer.
Without further documentation to judge the results and validity
of these tests, it is still not proof of anything. However, I do
not dismiss what you say. I do wish to think you have taken
at least some care in doing these listening tests in a proper
way, and I am personally prepared to believe that this
at least makes the results somewhat more probable than
if you had only listened yourself.
I do not believe blind listening tests as usually conducted are fully proper tests, and therefore null results do not always constitute solid proofs of non-audibility.
Sure, I have no formal blind test results yet, but I do have a magazine publishable review.
I do also have verbal testimonies from long term users, and the conclusion is the same by all these users.
I do not have objective measurements yet, but this is due to inadequate test equipment resoloution.
This product has also been secretly trialled publically, and has been noted when used, and also noted when not used - the pro user who delivered this information has absoloutely no reason to falsify, and in fact every reason to keep this strictly secret (for now).
Eric / - sick to death with auto naysayers.
IOW, you have exactly the same level of evidence as the advocates for psychokinesis, remote viewing, and crystal healing.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.