No need to repeat yourself Bill, the plural case of your sewage is still sewage.
I drop anecdotes along the way in order to share knowledge and experience, in order to open minds, to enlighten those prepared to read between the lines and gain understanding that audio systems as practised are not immutable, lighting is not immutable, wines (and Cognacs) are not immutable, water is not immutable, foods are not immutable etc etc....the list is long, probably infinitely long.
I have quoted a few applications and some results of informal testings, most of these with sighted subjects.
I have conducted blind testing with pairs of headsets and also with treated audio files.
In all cases of audio testing 100% of subjects have identified and described differences and 100% of subjects have indicated preference for treated sound.
Wines have also been blind tested with universal preference with the one exception of an accredited wine judge who indicated preference for the non treated wine....go figure.
Bill, at this time you have no real idea of the technique that I am talking about, and yes the results may seem fanciful in the case of not personally having experienced the differences evident.
You keep demanding ABX test results....formal ABX testing will go ahead when I can be bothered and but is not useful or enlightening to me at this time.
Just this afternoon I was out in a friends car and played the two folders contained on my phone that I have mentioned previously via Bluetooth connection to the factory audio system.
Rigorously this was a blind test in that we did not know the folder order.
We both identified sound differences and both preferred what turned out to be the treated set of wav files.
So Bill, as far as I am concerned, the results of my testing are data, and repeatable perfectly valid data at that.
I do not have explanation for the observed differences yet...this would be handy but is not mission critical and does not change the observed facts.
Dan.
As far as YOU are concerned it might be data, but for the rest of us all these stories are audio homeopathy. Repeating them will not convince anyone here.
I have no idea of the technique, why not describe it?
I have no idea of the technique, why not describe it?
Not hard to believe it boils down to the Arrhenius equation. The natural aging process takes time and you can't speed it up (except by heat which causes other things that destroy the wine) so any of these instant methods (if they did anything) would essentially be a simple adulteration of the real thing. An expert would know the difference. Adulterating wine to make it more popular is 1000's of years old.
OK so now you have two folders today right why not post them for us?
Some medical physicists found that radiolosis helped improve cheap wines, but not better ones. To what extent the reactions equated to those of aging was not determined.
I'm sure you know this already, but you are wasting your time. Dan is not going to provide a description of his "experiments" with enough detail to make them repeatable, he is not going to perform measurements, and he is not going to provide evidence that would back up his claims. He is only going to continue to tell us about his deeper understanding, while failing to understand why we don't find that interesting.
More the opposite I should think. Radiolysis can alter, and reverse, redox reactions. As wine ages oxidation occurs in the complex solution of alcohols, acids, esters, flavanols, etc. If the radiolysis could reverse or alter those reactions it might make the wine taste "fresher", which would be a good thing in a poor wine that does not age well.
Some ex-tech guys turned wine importers tried this here in the 80's with no conclusive results.
Not surprising given the complexity and variability of the starting point. Also they didn't have magic crystals.
They only said it tasted better, which to them was improved. Depending on the beam energy they used a lot reactions could have occurred, including a few nuclear. Neutron production in the targets starts going up more rapidly with around 15 -18 MV photons. But, I suspect they wouldn't go above 6MV or so if they were going to drink it.
Yes. The mystical crystal fascination thing is unfortunate. Human nature being what it is, there isn't a much that can be done about it.
Sadly in this day and age, that remains the bottom line on a long and growing list of irrational beliefs.
I'm beginning to think that homeopathy is a good analogy in all this. We the negative thinkers are not into the "vibe" to make every experience better. Expectation bias to the extreme.
But oddly I'm enjoying music more than ever before. No goop, stones, runes, crystals, cable lifters or quantum macguffins required.
As one homeopathic apologist put it: "OK, let's say it's all placebo effect, that people merely think they feel better. Well, isn't that the point, to feel better?"
So with magic audio: if Dan's magic beans make everything sound better, without changing the signal in any way, who cares? I am not interested in the experience but if it works for him and his friends, that's great. I just feel like I have read the same stuff too many times now.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.