----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sullivan wrote:

Let me know when Middius signs on to the new enlightenment...it can't be long
now.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"You *do* realize that finally, after 10 years, this newsgroup isn't
all about bashing Arny
anymore, but there's actually a discussion about audio? "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet. insert recorded sobs and cries of now dead people.
Got other planets to conquer, in search for signs of intelligent life
in the universe. insert Star Trek theme here

Thank you for all the mockery, derision, ridicule and scorn you heaped
upon me. The lies you wrote about me, the internet resarch you made to
dig up dirt about me, the harassing emails you sent to the doctor you
stupidly thought I was...(or at least that Robert Morein stupidly
thought I was). I had a lot of fun watching the many frenzied attempts
you all made to attack my anonymous character and discredit my
valueless reputation on RAO. It was very time involving for me, but
very entertaining and even educational, and so, I don't regret it. I
just want you all to know that I'm not angry with anyone, and I leave
without holding any grudges against anyone. No, not even you Middius,
or Dave Weil, or crazy Robert Morein (although you went hairballs on me
at the end, at least you finally loosened up), or Westface, or Mirabel
Ludovic, or Art Sackman, or Steven Sullivan, or ScottW, or Powell, or
Elmira, or Fella, or Arny Krueger, or Nyob, or Signal, or Goofball...
well anyway. I wish everyone well, and happy mockery and malice to you
all, for the years to come on RAO.

Here's the final sco

Out of dozens of RAO members and who knows how many lurkers, two (2)
people tried my tweaks. (Thank you for not mocking and ridiculing those
two as much as you did with me. Most people are not as secure with
themselves as I am, and can't take that crap. I should also like to
point out however, it still makes you hypocrites for not mocking them
as you did me....). Ironically, they waited until AFTER I called
everyone "ignorant pigs" and declared that no one was open minded
enough to try them, to try them. The result was that both audiophiles
heard exactly what I did. Mass delusional placebo? Not possible. They
described in their own words, the exact influence that a 5-pinhole
paper device had on their perception of sound, as I knew it to be.
That's no coincidence. That fact in itself immediately kills any
arguments for autosuggestion or about the theories. Of course, these
facts don't prove everyone will hear differences: that all depends on
your listening sensitivity and maybe if you have enough resistance to
create "negative expectation effects".

What they have only taken baby steps in the effort to discover, is the
fact that your audio systems are right now putting out far more
information in the room than you are all capable of hearing. It's
estimated by us (Secret Society Of Advanced Audiophiles) that your
systems are only working at about 15% capacity, wrt perception of
sound. Meaning that whatever quality of sound you are listening to
right now, you are not able to hear about 85% of it. You all can't
conceive of what that means, because you don't "miss" what you
don't know (or hear), do you. But once you hear it, as Sander
discovered, you miss it dearly when it's gone. That's another
mysterious effect (solved) called "working memory". Another mysterious
effect I keep observing that hasn't quite yet been solved (but I have
my theories), is the fact that sometimes when I'm testing a change
produced from an alternative audio concept, and the change has produced
a significant positive difference, I can "feel" that a positive change
has taken place, -before- that I hit "play" on the CD player. (This is
what I mean by "advanced audiophile" stuff, and I don't expect anyone
here to understand that (you will insantly snap into a "placebo"
knee-jerk reaction, because that is what your conditioning has taught
you to do). A placebo isn't what I'm talking about, but even though
no one will believe it, I thought I'd put that out there anyway. ;-)
)

Think of what happens when you change an IC in your system for one of a
better quality, say between your preamp and your amp. The interconnect
upgrade allows you to hear more information, and you are a happier
person. But what about all the ICs that you didn't change in the
system? If you follow the signal path from source to speaker, the
signal will travel along all kinds of wiring that was never upgraded,
beyond the IC that was, and then beyond that to other wires that were
never upgraded; which will nevertheless carry the signal out into the
room and allow more information through.

"My" tweaks don't change the signal of course, since they don't go
anywhere near the signal path. But they change the listener's
-perception of sound-. Not by way of so-called "placebo" or
"expectation effect" or any nonsense like that. If another human being
comes into the room, and you've changed the perception of sound
sufficiently to render them conscious of that fact, they can also
observe the fact that the sound has changed, despite not being
conscious of the fact that you did something to change the sound (or
for that matter, what you did to change the sound). This confirms not
only that there is no autosuggestion at play here, but that the sound
has changed for **all who perceive the musical reproduction**. This is
possible because you have succeeded at doing things that change energy
patterns that surround objects in our environment and even link objects
to another. The belief is that the primordial senses which we retain
from our very earliest origins (long before we took "human form") are
always sensing objects in our environment and maintaining a certain
kind of communication with our environment; which tells us to varying
degrees if an object is "safe" or "harmful" to us. Reduce the adverse
effects of this energy and the object becomes "safer"; increase the
adverse effects and we sense it as "dangerous", which keeps us under
tension and limits or reduces our senses due to this type of stress.

My tweaks are an intelligent attempt to decrease the adverse effects of
our environment. But they can easily be increased as well, without you
having to be conscious of this. All you have to do is introduce a new
object into the listening environment that has detrimental energy
patterns. It can be a magnet or a clock or a can of beans with a bar
code, a metal box, a plastic or wooden object... what have you. It can
be the simple act of spraying your furniture with chemical cleaner,
particularly your audio equipment. Whatever is unnatural to our
primordial senses and causes them to go under tension. For this reason,
in many subtle ways, the quality of our perception of sound is changing
all the time, as our environment changes. But change the environment in
ways that reduce these types of stresses (my tweaks are a few small
ways to do this) and you've done several things. First, you've
increased perception of sound for everyone who listens, but as well,
you've increased perception of sight for everyone who sees (that is a
sense as well). This is why people who dabble in alternative audio
concepts report better video image as well. Furthermore, you've
decreased a type of stress in the environment, which means that you and
everyone in that environment, is reacting to the objects in it with
less stress. (Whatever other types of stress you had will still be
there, but the overall level of stress is reduced by the amount of
stress you managed to reduce in the environment). This means that not
only does your picture and video image sound better, but you might also
find yourself feeling better in general in your listening environment,
as many Beltists who make great changes to their environments to reduce
these types of stresses, do.

Now does any of this pan out when the rigorous standards of science is
applied to it? Well, as with everything in science, that often depends
on who's applying the rigorous standards and what "agenda" and biases
they have against the phenomena in question. For example, with
morphogenetic fields, the underlying science that explains much of the
above phenomena I just described (which has been studied for some 80
years now), many top scientists believe that our known laws of physics
aren't enough to explain the existence of morphic fields. Does this
mean morphic fields is a phenomena invented by researchers as a lark,
because they got bored on their lunch break once? A fantasy dreamt up
by crazy scientists? Obviously not. But it stretches our knowledge of
knowledge; as do many things in science. This might make it more
vulernable to being dismissed by the more rigid thinkers in the
scientific field (who never do anything to progress our knowledge of
knowledge; say Robert Morein or Steven Sullivan to give examples on
this group). But it doesn't invalidate the science.

Nor does any arguments that anyone posits here against the tweaks I
posted invalidate their merits. They can still be valid even if there
was no known science behind them at all, just like many things in this
world. Anything science can be argued. Someone could even argue that
science can't really explain why wire of one material (ie silver)
should sound better than copper. The significant thing is, the tweaks
on average can be validated by anyone in about 30 seconds. Much less
time than it takes the naysayers to tell you that they can't possibly
work, pretending that they understand the principles that make them
work. I've not talked all that much about the principles myself
because of this very reason. That it complicates things unnecessarily,
creates even more prejudices in people, and takes the focus away from
the fact that you need to experiment in audio if you are to find out
what is and isn't valid. Whether we're talking about cables and
wires or aspirin with pinholed paper and funny looking animals.

Once that people do try the tweaks and are able to ascertain effects,
only then can the scientific principles driving them be looked at.
Until then, it's all just pompous theory, folks. It don't mean a
thing. Just as the self-professed "objectivists" on this group (aka
religious polemicists of audio), who try to tell us that everything
sounds the same in audio because their theory says it is so (when we
know otherwise because we've heard otherwise), don't mean a thing.
The way I feel, and I've said this before in many different ways, if
you're not willing to listen to things for yourself in audio and find
out what is and isn't valid, then you really have no business calling
yourself an audiophile or even being on an audio discussion group.
Especially if you're going to post your opinions on an audio
discussion group whilst you sit on your can and criticize everything
and everyone in audio on this newsgroup that tries to improve their
sound, in nearly every way that they try to do so. While at the same
time maintaining the position that your system is perfectly fine for
you and you have no need or desire to ever improve upon it's quality
of sound.

From my calculations of the 2 people who did try the tweaks, it appears
that about 95% of this groups membership are rigid thinkers, who do not
ever wish to change their beliefs, or even risk doing so. Even if they
think it might improve their quality of sound or life. It's an
interesting statistic I find, but when you try to interpret what it
means, it's also a sad statement on our society. How far we've come
and how far we can go, with the kind of thinking that we have allowed
to be conditioned into ourselves. (Of course when I say "we" I don't
mean MYSELF! No, I mean the YOU form of "we". But that goes without
saying). I've observed this phenomenon far beyond the reaches of
audio of course. Most people go through life with blinkers on, thinking
they're open minded, never daring to take them off and see what
exactly is around the periphery of their vision. My experiences here
have only served to confirm what I always knew "out there". Still,
there are those 2 anomalies.... and that gives me more hope that even
though non-blinkered thinkers are a very small minority, at least you
can occasionally find them.

Make no mistake, had you been more receptive and friendly toward me, I
would have shared a LOT more of my ideas (some of my better ones,
even). Some might even have made sense to you, and they could have put
your sound into a higher stratosphere, all for less than $5 worth of
materials. But because this group was so hostile, fearful and paranoid
toward me, even though all I did was post free tweaks for those
interested, I did not feel to do that. As the expression goes, "you can
not put pearls before the swine of RAO". Fella complained that I should
have been more gracious with those who attacked, mocked and ridiculed
me over my tweaks. Then maybe they would have been more receptive. Why
stop there? Maybe I should also have paid people to try my free tweaks,
like they do for pharmaceutical experiments. Given them the chance to
enter their names in a raffle to win a free vacation in the Bahamas for
every tweak tried, perhaps. Not bloody likely! I've said this before,
but my attitude is, if you have to be coaxed, cajoled or convinced to
experiment with the ideas, then GTH (figure out what that means....).
You're definitely not worthy of them and I'm not giving them to
you. Given what I've seen, I'm glad there were only two people that
eventually tried them. And I only think one of those two merits them.

In the interest of credit where credit is due, there's been some
controversy (thanks in large part to Westface) about me calling the
tweaks "my tweaks". Well I do, but I've also said many times they are
NOT "my" tweaks. Most were developed by one of audio's true geniuses,
an engineer named Peter Belt. For a quarter of a century, through PWB,
he's been selling novel audio products that work on the listener's
perception of sound, and not the audio system itself.
http://www.belt.demon.co.uk His products are as bizarre as anything
that I've mentioned and they more or less attempt to do what my
tweaks do, except they do it in far, far more effective ways than say,
taping animal pictures to your speakers can. They range in cost from
the equivalent of a cheap pair of interconnects (ie. rainbow foils) to
a full blown component upgrade (ie. quantum clip). I (and others) have
found that pound for pound, they have more benefits at their given cost
level than the benefits I receive from investing the same amount of
money into conventional tweaks. For this reason, I haven't upgraded
my components in years the conventional way, but instead, used the
products to ameliorate what I already had (and I've never regretted
using this route to audio nirvana). Although it's an alternative
approach to improving sound, both the alternative and conventional
approaches are valid to me. And when you have BOTH approaches at your
disposal, you have at least twice the means with which to hustle your
way down that path toward nirvana.

- Shippy


"Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught
falsehoods in school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is
called at once a lunatic and a fool." -- Plato.


One of my favourite Twilight Zone episodes is "All Quiet On Maple St.".
It's about lights and cars that mysteriously keep going off in a
residential neighbourhood. The neighbours start to get fearful and
upset, and blame each other for the cause. A little boy (I think his
name was Robert, if I recall. Robert Moran) introduces the idea that
there's an alien in their midst. Then everyone gets angry, defensive,
offensive, points fingers at who they think is the outsider and the
perpetrator for the shenanigans. And it ends with.... uh.... everyone
kills each other, and it becomes "all quiet on Maple St.".

Turns out there were these aliens that were thinking of taking over the
earth, and they just set off people's lights and car horns, sat back
and watched as they went ahead and killed each other.

wrote in message
oups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sullivan wrote:

Let me know when Middius signs on to the new enlightenment...it can't be
long
now.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"You *do* realize that finally, after 10 years, this newsgroup isn't
all about bashing Arny
anymore, but there's actually a discussion about audio? "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet.

Don't let the door hit 'ya where the Lord split ya.

wrote:


Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww).

Well, for me at least, this is bad news indeed. Now we're back to the
same old "sounds the same" "no it don't arniii" dialouge with these
borgs (the most recent is the bit about orpheus headphones as opposed to
something with a 600 in its name. ). How significant. Yes.


Ironically, they waited until AFTER I called
everyone "ignorant pigs" and declared that no one was open minded
enough to try them, to try them.


Mine was almost purely an accident. I was reasonably sure who you were
(I though you were Richard Graham at the time, but as it turns out, it
was not true) and I wanted to be "un"reasonably sure that your tweaks
were bull****. To find that out I owed it to myself to "hear" them. When
the thought first crossed my mind I laughed. So when I saw that my
toddler had torn off a picture of a giraffe from his animals book, quite
neatly at that, I said "why not?". I felt really silly and stupid when
preparing the paper contraption...

And yes, I rewarded the little guy with a second bicycle for having
helped me "open a door" ... in the words of our resident prophet.

Now I have "hidden" your tweak underneath the preamp (and one more
underneath the CD player). The amount of difference is heard from other
rooms in the house. My wife's recent words were "why does your stereo
sound so bold these days?". She forgot all about the papers on the amp
so no probs, I have no need to explain any off the wall tweaks to her
anymore. I know, yes, freaked out audio reviewers generally say
things like "even my wife heard it.." etc, but there is a good reason
for it I guess. I'd be suspicious if they'd say "even my dentist heard
it"..

Mass delusional placebo?

Even if it is so, who cares? Or rather, I don't care. All I know is I am
getting much more joy out of my system for no extra cost at all.

And I knew from the get-go that I have a stereo system and I listen to
*music* because I *like* to to do so. NOT because I need to "test" this
and "prove" that.

which keeps us under
tension and limits or reduces our senses due to this type of stress.

This would imply that the betterment your tweaks do should not be
limited to audio perception. Time will tell.

Good bye, good luck, and thank you indeed, again.

On 12 Apr 2006 23:21:42 -0700, wrote:

I
just want you all to know that I'm not angry with anyone, and I leave
without holding any grudges against anyone. No, not even you Middius,
or Dave Weil,

No, you're just obsessed with me.

But that's cool, I guess.

wrote:
Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to
travel
back to my planet.
(Less important lines deleted)
Just make sure that plastic bag is tight enough around your neck.
Wouldn't want you to miss your ride.
It's been a pleasure knocking your lies.obfuscations
and drivel out of the cricket field.
BTW it was a Super Soaker, not a projectile weapon.
Tweaked with dual 5 Imp.Gal. magazines, high volume pump,
and reduction nozzle to increase range.

said:

Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet. insert recorded sobs and cries of now dead people.
Got other planets to conquer, in search for signs of intelligent life
in the universe. insert Star Trek theme here

snip

Have a safe journey, I enjoyed your short stay here.

Thanks for showing me a different way to look (and listen!) at things!

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:46:34 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

said:

Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet. insert recorded sobs and cries of now dead people.
Got other planets to conquer, in search for signs of intelligent life
in the universe. insert Star Trek theme here

snip

Have a safe journey, I enjoyed your short stay here.

Thanks for showing me a different way to look (and listen!) at things!


Is that a tear running down your cheek, Sander? Please wipe it away
immediately.

Fella wrote:

wrote:


Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww).


I'm back! (yaaaaaay!!!!!!!!) For the moment. (awwwwwwwwww).


Well, for me at least, this is bad news indeed. Now we're back to the
same old "sounds the same" "no it don't arniii" dialouge with these
borgs (the most recent is the bit about orpheus headphones as opposed to
something with a 600 in its name. ). How significant. Yes.


Besides his tattered old copy of the debating tricks bible, Arny
appears to be fond of Mohammed Ali's old "rope a dope" technique.
Which he uses to wear the other debater out by sheer exhaustion or
frustration. This allows him to defend his crazy banter, and contradict
any reasonable response. Then after the other debater gets tired of
Arny's faulty and circular logic, Arny then declares himself the
winner. Or if the other debater has more stamina than Arny anticipates,
Arny declares his opponent fraudulent, or calls him on some made-up
technicality that isn't at all true, and then tries to find some
wriggle room to slink out of the debate. If I were to stay long enough
to wear him out over the Sennheiser Orpheus debate between us, this is
exactly what we'd see.

I don't even think Arny is in the least bit sincere about anything he
says. He's just a crazy troll that likes getting people's goat.
Yesterday, because someone preferred a (much) more expensive "high end"
product from the manufacturer of Arny's favorite sound techie
headphones (Sennheiser 580's), he said that Sennheiser Orpheus (a
$20,000 dollar pair of headphones....) was the same as the 580, but
with external parts of wood. The next day, when I called him a fat
idiot for saying as much, he suddenly remembered he suffers from
Alzheimer's, and denied having ever said that. Only Arny can deny
that he's standing in a pool of his own crap, while everyone around
him is witnesses to that. To wit:

Lyin' Arny Krueger wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So are HD580s and 600s.

The Sennheiser Oprheus headphones are more of a pleasure
to listen to than any $20,000+ pair of speakers I have
heard from JM Lab, Wilson Audio, Sonus Faber, etc.

Begs the question, what do you do to a pair of $200 headphones to make
people want to pay $15,000 (quickly dropped to $5,000) a pair for them?


In the wacky world of high end audio the answer seems obvious:

(1) change some plastic external parts to wood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In retrieving this quote, I found an old post I wrote to Arny 4 years
ago about, ironically, high end Sennheiser headphones (the Orpheus,
what else?). It sprang from some delusion Arny had about me or perhaps
Jonathan Scull being given high end bribes for writing about things
about Arny on usenet. It was written around the same time that I had
contacted Michigan authorities to notify them that a fat Grosse Point
German man had declared on usenet he has a hard drive full of illegal
child pornography. Ahhh.... sweet, sweet memories.... wipes away a
tear....

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en


Ironically, they waited until AFTER I called
everyone "ignorant pigs" and declared that no one was open minded
enough to try them, to try them.


Mine was almost purely an accident. I was reasonably sure who you were
(I though you were Richard Graham at the time, but as it turns out, it
was not true)


Apparently, I still am Richard Graham. According to Robert Morein and
his evil twin, "Shovels" (The "real Shovels", George Middius).


and I wanted to be "un"reasonably sure that your tweaks
were bull****. To find that out I owed it to myself to "hear" them.

Besides Sander, I find it interesting that no one else is worried about
not finding out whether they can be "reasonably sure" the tweaks are
BS. The prevailing wisdom on audio groups like these is "If it sounds
like BS, it's BS". And if the science behind an audio phenomenon can
be refuted in any way, then that's another way things that confuse
people get dismissed as BS. Of course, -any- thing can be refuted on
theoretical / technical grounds, which is what Arny does every day of
his life. That's because you simply have to sound like you're
refuting it. This is what Powell and especially Robert Morein did when
he went on a crusade against me, droning on about his "morphic green
cream" for pages and pages, talking about "axiomatic systems" and other
"scientific sounding" nonsense. He shows how you can talk about a
product you've never tried or researched before, who's operating
principles you don't even know about, but so long as you guess at how
it works from what you "think" was said about it, then you can then
bring in irrelevant arguments that makes it sound like the product's
scientific grounding is being "debunked". When no such thing ever
happened.

I've always said the best way for people to find out how or if these
things work, is to try them. Never have I seen so many words and time
wasted trying to knock the tweaks down, when those condemning the ideas
find no shame in the fact that they haven't even taken 30 seconds to
test what they find condemnable. The excuses for not trying the tweaks
out are some of the craziest I've ever heard. ie. "How do I know
I'm not wasting time? I don't have time to try out every crazy idea
someone comes along with!" (Seem to have plenty of time to mock and
ridicule the tweaks though, no problem there). "Even if I do try your
tweaks and hear a difference, it don't matter, because I won't know
if that difference was due to a real change or whether it was due to me
becoming temporarily insane by way of placebo effect". (This excuse was
seen by Steven Sullivan and others, and he seems oblivious to the fact
that no one forbade him from testing via DBT or ABX). Robert Morein
probably had the most unique excuse of all, and one I've never heard
before. He explained to me in email that he could not test my tweaks
out because his hearing skill is constantly fluctuating at random, due
to his various psychological afflictions (neuroses, too many to get
into here). So therefore, even if he heard changes, they couldn't be
properly ascribed to the tweak itself, so no audio device could be
tested. How he chose his present audio system suffering from this
unique "random listening fluctuation condition", I'll never know.


When
the thought first crossed my mind I laughed.

That's pretty much a "normal" reaction. I too laughed when I first
experimented with some of Belt's zanier ideas. I laughed, and I
laughed and I laughed. Until I started listening.... And then I lauged
even harder, but for different reasons.


Now I have "hidden" your tweak underneath the preamp (and one more
underneath the CD player). The amount of difference is heard from other
rooms in the house. My wife's recent words were "why does your stereo
sound so bold these days?". She forgot all about the papers on the amp
so no probs, I have no need to explain any off the wall tweaks to her
anymore. I know, yes, freaked out audio reviewers generally say
things like "even my wife heard it.." etc, but there is a good reason
for it I guess.

There IS a good reason, but naysayers always want to dismiss the "my
wife heard it" anecdote, even though they're not at all credible to
do so. Because if someone else knows your system well and notices
changes without your prompting, then you can be reasonably sure those
changes are real.

My wife had the same reaction after I transformed her stereo system,
and the change was as obvious as anything. But... my wife is the only
person I know who's even crazier than I am. So earlier on, one of the
reasons I decided to return to on my old stomping grounds and put up
some of the techniques I had been playing with, was to see if I could
get a random audiophile to try one, and if they had similar
experiences, it would help validate it for me. It had to be someone who
didn't know me, to eliminate the bias of "sympathy" responses. And if
it was someone like you, who not only didn't like me but even hated
me, all the better! Then I could be sure you weren't saying you heard
a change just to make me feel better!


Mass delusional placebo?

Even if it is so, who cares?

Exactly. It's what the gearheads (and George Middius) will never
understand: It doesn't even matter if something in audio works by
autosuggestion (although the tweaks don't work that way).

which keeps us under
tension and limits or reduces our senses due to this type of stress.

This would imply that the betterment your tweaks do should not be
limited to audio perception. Time will tell.

In some ways, time has told. These ideas have been around for 25 years.
Many PWB customers report feeling better in their tweaked environments.
That to me suggests the tweaks do have effects that go beyond
perception of sound, and even video or possibly sight in general.
That's more than any conventional audio concepts or products can do.
But of course, I do believe they have applications well beyond audio.
Whether they catch on or not, that's what time will tell. As I've
written about, I estimate most people on this group are 25-40 years
behind. Because most people are rigid of mind, change is always slow to
come about.

Good bye, good luck, and thank you indeed, again.

Welcome.

soundhaspriority, aka Robert Morein off his medication, wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sullivan wrote:

Let me know when Middius signs on to the new enlightenment...it can't be
long
now.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"You *do* realize that finally, after 10 years, this newsgroup isn't
all about bashing Arny
anymore, but there's actually a discussion about audio? "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet.

Don't let the door hit 'ya where the Lord split ya.

Awwwww.... now what happened to all that "brotherly love" crap you were
spewing all over the place, Robert? You're claiming to be my "good
twin" and you've stolen my name. But you don't appear related to me at
all. You're obviously Shovels twin, and I'd say that as nasty a liar
and all that he is, you muset be the "evil twin".

Even Shovels had the sense to avoid harassing and threatening Dr.
Graham, and calling up his wife and his colleagues at 3 am, to harass
and threaten. You know, they say you are what you become. And I think
that after years of obsessing over Brian McCarty, you've become Brian
McCarty. You even have the same forger MO, and use many of the same
trolling tricks. And you don't have to upload viruses to the group,
because you ARE the virus, here. You simply upload yourself.

Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet. insert recorded sobs and cries of now dead people.
Got other planets to conquer, in search for signs of intelligent life
in the universe. insert Star Trek theme here

snip

Have a safe journey, I enjoyed your short stay here.

Thanks for showing me a different way to look (and listen!) at things!

You're welcome. Thanks for giving me some encouragement to carry the
torch. The next time you order a pizza and it comes with one of those
tripod thingies, you'll remember me...

wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:
said:

Bad news, boys. I'm afraid I'm gonna have to stop playing with you
now. (awwwww). Sorry, the mothership has called me and I have to travel
back to my planet. insert recorded sobs and cries of now dead people.
Got other planets to conquer, in search for signs of intelligent life
in the universe. insert Star Trek theme here

snip

Have a safe journey, I enjoyed your short stay here.

Thanks for showing me a different way to look (and listen!) at things!

You're welcome. Thanks for giving me some encouragement to carry the
torch. The next time you order a pizza and it comes with one of those
tripod thingies, you'll remember me...

Red-faced disclosu I tried what you're pleased to call a
tweak.
Redfaced because it shames me that I bothered. after spending my
professional life giving wide berth to medical and nonmedical quackery
("functional hypoglycemia", "kissing disease", "fibrositis", "chronic
fatigue"
and such) I decided to try a quack remedy from another area.
I got it all: five pinholes, picture of my beloved dead Siamese,
aspirin tablet
(actually ASA- I think Bayer made enough money out of it already).
Since all my speakers are dipoles (no boxes) I had to compromise
and
put the lock, stock and barrel under the wires from the interface to
the ELS
panels. To take no chances I put the third tweak next to the
inputs/outputs
on the Xover box.
Result: no difference
I got my wife. I told her to report any difference and told
her nothing
else. After a
few minutes I put the tweaks in. She listened again.: not much
difference,
maybe a little worse, she said.
Should I buy box-speakers?
Another disclosu huge negative bias. As you say my mind
is
not ready. Not for your tweak, not for astrology, not for 89,9% of
codings in the psychiatric compendium of diagnoses, not for telepathy,
not for a host of other things.
I sincerely admire your incredible energy, your verbal
talents
and I think you write well, amusingly and inventively. Are you a pro?
You could easily be. Many worse writers fill the newspapers.
I regret that you managed to pervert a supposedly audio
forum
although you're not the only one abusing the rec. audio. name.
Have a good journey to Venus. Something tells me you'll
be back.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
oups.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Sullivan wrote:

Let me know when Middius signs on to the new
enlightenment...it can't be long now.

Sander deWaal wrote:

"You *do* realize that finally, after 10 years, this
newsgroup isn't all about bashing Arny
anymore,

Thanks Sander for admitting that RAO is all about bashing me.

...but there's actually a discussion about audio? "


If you call putting pinholes in a piece of paper bearing a picture of a
4-legged animal "audio".

I guess it isn't a big logical jump from obsessing over tubes to *this* sort
of silliness. :-(

wrote:
I'm back!
Couldn't get even get something simple like the bag right, huh.
I knew you'ld never be able to stay gone.
You're just addicted to seeing your own philosophical drivel.
Your first post as Skippy was philosophy in a Math forum.
Now your here and just making false statement after false statement
in the guise of better audio adjustment.
Reality it's just more nulls, no documentable changes, even from those
that
actually have the skills to do measurements.
Still waiting for the tweak #3 video, Sparky, make sure to show
there's
actually power going to the amp, and the speakers actually moving.
I'll bet you a usenet dollar you'll let the magic smoke out of the
amp.
You know, the magic smoke that all amplifiers have inside that makes
the air move.

wrote:

wrote:

I'm back!

couldnt git even git sum-m sum-m simple like tha bag right, huh.
i kizzy yould neva be able ta stay gone.
yoe J-to-tha-izzust addicted ta see'n yo own philosophizzle drivel.
yo fizzirst post as skippy was philosophy in a math forum.
now yo here n J-to-tha-izzust mak'n false statement afta false statement
in tha guise of betta audio adjustment.
reality its just more nulls, no documentable changes, even from those
that
actually have tha skills ta do measizzles still frontin' fo` tha tweak #3 video, sparky, makes sure ta show
theres
actually killa going ta tha amp, n tha speaka actually mov'n.
ill bet you a usenet dollar youll let tha magic smoke out the
amp.
you knizzay tha magic smoke that all amplifia have inside tizzy makes
tha air mizzle . Yippie yo, you can't see my flow.


Huh? Who are you supposed to be, Snoop Froggy Frog?

wrote:
wrote:

Red-faced disclosu I tried what you're pleased to call a
tweak.

You're wrong, I'm not pleased to call them "tweaks". I feel it is
undignified for the importance of these techniques. I prefer to call
them "treatments". I only call them "tweaks" because it is what you
people understand. And as you've just shown me, some of you even have
trouble with that term.

Redfaced because it shames me that I bothered.

Very interesting. It's always the same reaction. When they can't
discern differences, then people feel ashamed, and they would never
give the -- **treatments** another chance if their life depended on
it. Ruling out any further chances that they can detect changes by
improving their initial experiment (e.g. it may not have been done
right) or trying different ones.

I applaud you anyway, because at least you took a chance, however
small, at expanding your mind and fighting a lifetime of conditioning
through education in conventional laws of science. By me, you just
didn't fight hard enough.

after spending my
professional life giving wide berth to medical and nonmedical quackery
("functional hypoglycemia", "kissing disease", "fibrositis", "chronic
fatigue"
and such) I decided to try a quack remedy from another area.

You're not the only quack... I mean "doctor", to have done so. One of
Belt's best customers is a doctor (ever heard of Dr. Graham?).

Also, it might interest you to know that the concepts these tweaks are
based on have been blind tested by the medical community, and have been
proven to help tinnititus sufferers. Here's part of the story on that.
The Belt's have a daughter who requires a hearing aid. She always
complained that voices sounded unnatural and annoying (imagine having
to filter everything you hear through the sound of a hearing aid).
After treating the -battery- in the hearing aid, the problems
disappeared. Staff at a local medical facility got wind of this, but
being doctors like you, were -extremely skeptical-, to say the least.

Nevertheless, they actually granted a DBT study of the effects of the
battery treatment to hearing aid patients, who reported, like the
Belt's daughter, that the hearing aids after treatment were much more
pleasing and natural to listen to. It is the only official DBT study of
a Belt treatment that I know of. Nevertheless, continued resistance to
the ideas by doctors in the medical community, just like you, prevents
hearing aid wearers from ever improving their situation. That's only
one of the many ways in which our society is being "cheated" of
progress by the politics of science. (So unfortunately, it isn't just
audiophiles that are cheating themselves out of a revolution in audio,
due to social politics).

I got it all: five pinholes, picture of my beloved dead Siamese,
aspirin tablet
(actually ASA- I think Bayer made enough money out of it already).

Oh no! You didn't try the original BAYER Aspirin! No kidding!

(Actually, yes, kidding).


Since all my speakers are dipoles (no boxes) I had to compromise
and
put the lock, stock and barrel under the wires from the interface to
the ELS
panels.

Maybe I'm not picturing this right, but it sounds like you have not
enough flat surface area on your speakers to lay the 5-pinhole device
on it, and if you placed it on the floor underneath the wires, that
would not be good. If you'd have told me this, I would have responded
that although wood speakers are probably the best object to use this
device with, you're better off simply taping it as described, to the
top or back of your cd player, near the output jacks. And the same for
the amp as well (providing you don't have a Class A amp like I do, that
gets mighty hot and might burn the paper).

Besides being properly installed, it's also important to be sure the
device is properly set up. It's a plain white paper rectangle with 4
pinholes in each corner, one in the center along the diagonals of the
corners, -underneath that- goes the animal picture with 4 legs and a
tail, and the aspirin goes over the middle hole in the center of the
pinholed paper. Then to attach it, a single piece of scotch tape going
over the aspirin in the center, to hold it all together. It's all
described in this article here, in case you didn't read it:

http://www.musicweb-international.co...ep05/Snark.htm

To take no chances I put the third tweak next to the
inputs/outputs
on the Xover box.
Result: no difference
I got my wife. I told her to report any difference and told
her nothing
else. After a
few minutes I put the tweaks in. She listened again.: not much
difference,
maybe a little worse, she said.

So although she interpreted it as a negative change, she did detect a
change? Don't you find that interesting, since according to your
theory, no change should be possible since this device does not affect
the signal path?

Should I buy box-speakers?

Yes. Just get a cheap pair of entry-level Boston Acoustics, and then
you can apply the tweak, and they'll sound better than your
electrostats. (Note to: Robert Morein. This was a "joke". You know, "ha
ha"? Tongue-in-cheek? Farcical? Not serious? Kidding only? Nevermind).

Assuming you put it together correctly and installed it correctly, what
you should probably do is try something else. Frankly, I was suprised
the 5-pinhole tweak worked as well as it did for the other two.
Although I had no problem discerning its effect, when I tested it on my
wife, she couldn't reliably do so. This is why I came out with v.2 of
the L-shape printout most recently ("L-Shape Tweak For Dummies!"). What
you should have done is printed out the L-shape as instructed, and
taped one of these babies to the back of your CD player, next to the
jacks (and maybe a few more elsewhere). Whether you like the sound or
not, I feel its far more likely to produce audible differences than the
5-pinhole paper. I spent yesterday afternoon taping L-shape printouts
all over the seats and interior of my car (among other things), and
vastly improved the car's audio system.

Another disclosu huge negative bias. As you say my mind
is not ready. Not for your tweak, not for astrology, not for 89,9% of
codings in the psychiatric compendium of diagnoses, not for telepathy,
not for a host of other things.

Stop lumping in pseudo-sciences, paranormal and other things you don't
believe in, with the tweaks. That shows again, an extreme bias on your
part. That's not any way to practice science. You're supposed to try to
remain "objective", remember?

YES, the "huge negative bias" is going to be a problem, because it
colours your perception of sound. This means your brain most certainly
heard the differences made by the tweak. (Hundreds of people, including
3 on this forum, have heard the changes brought about by such devices).
But your thought processes coloured the interpretation. Maybe you
didn't even know what to look for, and were expecting the kind of
changes you normally get from audio products based on conventional
audio theory. Maybe you were expecting a "night and day change" (I
don't think the 5-pinhole device provides that, as I've said before).
When that doesn't show up, you might not be listening carefully enough
to the sound before and after, and overlooking the changes that you are
able to perceive.

That said, at least one of the other two fellows who heard the effects
of the 5-pinhole device did have a negative bias going in (though
probably not as HUGE as I'd expect yours to be, given how determined
you were in your attacks against me and my tweaks). He heard changes
anyhow.

I sincerely admire your incredible energy, your verbal
talents and I think you write well, amusingly and inventively.

Thank you. I do my best. Like all of us, I'm sure...

Are you a pro?

Hifi reviewer? No, I never really tried to go for that. Whatever I
managed to get into audio magazines was strictly non-paid. Now that you
mention it, I recall I was offered a reviewer position once, but the
deal fell through after the magazine folded.

You could easily be. Many worse writers fill the newspapers.

I think you're right, after a pro reviewer thought I'd be a good audio
writer, I thought so too... (but never pursued it). After I saw
Ferstler here (and RAHE), I thought "Well gee... it really doesn't take
much to write about audio professionally, does it?". In that way, I
suppose Ferstler's an inspiration for anyone to try to get into the
business. Didn't pass high school? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a
professional audio journalist! Did your last IQ score turn out to be
lower than your shoe size? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a professional
audio journalist! Do you hate audio and audiophiles with a passion?
Really??How about this: would you rather smash your fingers with a ball
peen hammer than upgrade your audio system? Hey, no problem! Howard
Ferstler's a professional audio journalist! You could be one too!

I regret that you managed to pervert a supposedly audio
forum although you're not the only one abusing the rec. audio. name.

I regret that you feel that way. Others have said the exact opposite,
that I managed to bring the theme of RAO back on to the subject of
audio, after 10 years of it being centered around what a dogmatic
trolling ******* that Arny is. And quite frankly, given all the
attention that you and everyone else here was lavishing on me every
single day, all day long, you'd have a tough time convincing me that
people would rather not have me here. I wish more people would have
taken Dizzy's lead to killfile me or at least ignore me a lot more,
because even though I only responded to perhaps a quarter of the posts
addressed to me, it's a very time consuming practice, nevertheless.
Even if its only to "fashizzle" someone's post.

But perhaps you've been here so long and never taken your blinkers off,
that you don't realize that your delusions are not shared by the Usenet
community. I was here before you ever head of the place, and I know
rec.audio.opinion has always been the "backwoods trailer trash cousin"
of the rec.audio hierarchy. Thanks in large part to Arny and the
contention he attracts, it is now undisputably regarded as a flame
group. Long before I came on with my little tweak posts, the vast
majority of the content on this group was an attack of some sort
against someone. Attacks based on audio and not character were rare,
until me (I admit most of the post SHP attacks were on my character,
but at least some were on my audio beliefs).


Have a good journey to Venus.
Ludovic Mirabel

Venus? Never been there. Although, I hear the weather's nice and I was
thinking of taking the shazbots there on vacation.

Something tells me you'll be back.

Well, I doubt that, but they say never say never. Something tells me if
I do, you'll know about it.

"Arny Krueger" said:


"You *do* realize that finally, after 10 years, this
newsgroup isn't all about bashing Arny
anymore,


Thanks Sander for admitting that RAO is all about bashing me.


Carly Simon wrote a song about you ;-)


...but there's actually a discussion about audio? "


If you call putting pinholes in a piece of paper bearing a picture of a
4-legged animal "audio".


You are right, it goes beyond audio.
Thanks for correcting me! ;-)


I guess it isn't a big logical jump from obsessing over tubes to *this* sort
of silliness. :-(


The only one "obsessing over tubes" seems to be you, I just enjoy them
in some of my amplifiers, some of the time.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

(paul packer) said:


Is that a tear running down your cheek, Sander? Please wipe it away
immediately.


I played "Theme from Start Trek" twice today, in honour of mr. SHP.
Yesterday, I started a new project: a new turntable, partly based on
Morphic Resonance principles (as far as I understand them).

I am happy to realize that I am able to create things from scratch,
instead of just buying the latest hype in high end.

--

- Never argue with idiots, they drag you down their level and beat you with experience. -

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Red-faced disclosu I tried what you're pleased to call a
tweak.

You're wrong, I'm not pleased to call them "tweaks". I feel it is
undignified for the importance of these techniques. I prefer to call
them "treatments". I only call them "tweaks" because it is what you
people understand. And as you've just shown me, some of you even have
trouble with that term.

Redfaced because it shames me that I bothered.

Very interesting. It's always the same reaction. When they can't
discern differences, then people feel ashamed, and they would never
give the -- **treatments** another chance if their life depended on
it. Ruling out any further chances that they can detect changes by
improving their initial experiment (e.g. it may not have been done
right) or trying different ones.

I applaud you anyway, because at least you took a chance, however
small, at expanding your mind and fighting a lifetime of conditioning
through education in conventional laws of science. By me, you just
didn't fight hard enough.

after spending my
professional life giving wide berth to medical and nonmedical quackery
("functional hypoglycemia", "kissing disease", "fibrositis", "chronic
fatigue"
and such) I decided to try a quack remedy from another area.

You're not the only quack... I mean "doctor", to have done so. One of
Belt's best customers is a doctor (ever heard of Dr. Graham?).

Also, it might interest you to know that the concepts these tweaks are
based on have been blind tested by the medical community, and have been
proven to help tinnititus sufferers. Here's part of the story on that.
The Belt's have a daughter who requires a hearing aid. She always
complained that voices sounded unnatural and annoying (imagine having
to filter everything you hear through the sound of a hearing aid).
After treating the -battery- in the hearing aid, the problems
disappeared. Staff at a local medical facility got wind of this, but
being doctors like you, were -extremely skeptical-, to say the least.

Nevertheless, they actually granted a DBT study of the effects of the
battery treatment to hearing aid patients, who reported, like the
Belt's daughter, that the hearing aids after treatment were much more
pleasing and natural to listen to. It is the only official DBT study of
a Belt treatment that I know of. Nevertheless, continued resistance to
the ideas by doctors in the medical community, just like you, prevents
hearing aid wearers from ever improving their situation. That's only
one of the many ways in which our society is being "cheated" of
progress by the politics of science. (So unfortunately, it isn't just
audiophiles that are cheating themselves out of a revolution in audio,
due to social politics).

I got it all: five pinholes, picture of my beloved dead Siamese,
aspirin tablet
(actually ASA- I think Bayer made enough money out of it already).

Oh no! You didn't try the original BAYER Aspirin! No kidding!

(Actually, yes, kidding).


Since all my speakers are dipoles (no boxes) I had to compromise
and
put the lock, stock and barrel under the wires from the interface to
the ELS
panels.

Maybe I'm not picturing this right, but it sounds like you have not
enough flat surface area on your speakers to lay the 5-pinhole device
on it, and if you placed it on the floor underneath the wires, that
would not be good. If you'd have told me this, I would have responded
that although wood speakers are probably the best object to use this
device with, you're better off simply taping it as described, to the
top or back of your cd player, near the output jacks. And the same for
the amp as well (providing you don't have a Class A amp like I do, that
gets mighty hot and might burn the paper).

Besides being properly installed, it's also important to be sure the
device is properly set up. It's a plain white paper rectangle with 4
pinholes in each corner, one in the center along the diagonals of the
corners, -underneath that- goes the animal picture with 4 legs and a
tail, and the aspirin goes over the middle hole in the center of the
pinholed paper. Then to attach it, a single piece of scotch tape going
over the aspirin in the center, to hold it all together. It's all
described in this article here, in case you didn't read it:

http://www.musicweb-international.co...ep05/Snark.htm

To take no chances I put the third tweak next to the
inputs/outputs
on the Xover box.
Result: no difference
I got my wife. I told her to report any difference and told
her nothing
else. After a
few minutes I put the tweaks in. She listened again.: not much
difference,
maybe a little worse, she said.

So although she interpreted it as a negative change, she did detect a
change? Don't you find that interesting, since according to your
theory, no change should be possible since this device does not affect
the signal path?

Should I buy box-speakers?

Yes. Just get a cheap pair of entry-level Boston Acoustics, and then
you can apply the tweak, and they'll sound better than your
electrostats. (Note to: Robert Morein. This was a "joke". You know, "ha
ha"? Tongue-in-cheek? Farcical? Not serious? Kidding only? Nevermind).

Assuming you put it together correctly and installed it correctly, what
you should probably do is try something else. Frankly, I was suprised
the 5-pinhole tweak worked as well as it did for the other two.
Although I had no problem discerning its effect, when I tested it on my
wife, she couldn't reliably do so. This is why I came out with v.2 of
the L-shape printout most recently ("L-Shape Tweak For Dummies!"). What
you should have done is printed out the L-shape as instructed, and
taped one of these babies to the back of your CD player, next to the
jacks (and maybe a few more elsewhere). Whether you like the sound or
not, I feel its far more likely to produce audible differences than the
5-pinhole paper. I spent yesterday afternoon taping L-shape printouts
all over the seats and interior of my car (among other things), and
vastly improved the car's audio system.

Another disclosu huge negative bias. As you say my mind
is not ready. Not for your tweak, not for astrology, not for 89,9% of
codings in the psychiatric compendium of diagnoses, not for telepathy,
not for a host of other things.

Stop lumping in pseudo-sciences, paranormal and other things you don't
believe in, with the tweaks. That shows again, an extreme bias on your
part. That's not any way to practice science. You're supposed to try to
remain "objective", remember?

YES, the "huge negative bias" is going to be a problem, because it
colours your perception of sound. This means your brain most certainly
heard the differences made by the tweak. (Hundreds of people, including
3 on this forum, have heard the changes brought about by such devices).
But your thought processes coloured the interpretation. Maybe you
didn't even know what to look for, and were expecting the kind of
changes you normally get from audio products based on conventional
audio theory. Maybe you were expecting a "night and day change" (I
don't think the 5-pinhole device provides that, as I've said before).
When that doesn't show up, you might not be listening carefully enough
to the sound before and after, and overlooking the changes that you are
able to perceive.

That said, at least one of the other two fellows who heard the effects
of the 5-pinhole device did have a negative bias going in (though
probably not as HUGE as I'd expect yours to be, given how determined
you were in your attacks against me and my tweaks). He heard changes
anyhow.

I sincerely admire your incredible energy, your verbal
talents and I think you write well, amusingly and inventively.

Thank you. I do my best. Like all of us, I'm sure...

Are you a pro?

Hifi reviewer? No, I never really tried to go for that. Whatever I
managed to get into audio magazines was strictly non-paid. Now that you
mention it, I recall I was offered a reviewer position once, but the
deal fell through after the magazine folded.

You could easily be. Many worse writers fill the newspapers.

I think you're right, after a pro reviewer thought I'd be a good audio
writer, I thought so too... (but never pursued it). After I saw
Ferstler here (and RAHE), I thought "Well gee... it really doesn't take
much to write about audio professionally, does it?". In that way, I
suppose Ferstler's an inspiration for anyone to try to get into the
business. Didn't pass high school? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a
professional audio journalist! Did your last IQ score turn out to be
lower than your shoe size? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a professional
audio journalist! Do you hate audio and audiophiles with a passion?
Really??How about this: would you rather smash your fingers with a ball
peen hammer than upgrade your audio system? Hey, no problem! Howard
Ferstler's a professional audio journalist! You could be one too!

I regret that you managed to pervert a supposedly audio
forum although you're not the only one abusing the rec. audio. name.

I regret that you feel that way. Others have said the exact opposite,
that I managed to bring the theme of RAO back on to the subject of
audio, after 10 years of it being centered around what a dogmatic
trolling ******* that Arny is. And quite frankly, given all the
attention that you and everyone else here was lavishing on me every
single day, all day long, you'd have a tough time convincing me that
people would rather not have me here. I wish more people would have
taken Dizzy's lead to killfile me or at least ignore me a lot more,
because even though I only responded to perhaps a quarter of the posts
addressed to me, it's a very time consuming practice, nevertheless.
Even if its only to "fashizzle" someone's post.

But perhaps you've been here so long and never taken your blinkers off,
that you don't realize that your delusions are not shared by the Usenet
community. I was here before you ever head of the place, and I know
rec.audio.opinion has always been the "backwoods trailer trash cousin"
of the rec.audio hierarchy. Thanks in large part to Arny and the
contention he attracts, it is now undisputably regarded as a flame
group. Long before I came on with my little tweak posts, the vast
majority of the content on this group was an attack of some sort
against someone. Attacks based on audio and not character were rare,
until me (I admit most of the post SHP attacks were on my character,
but at least some were on my audio beliefs).


Have a good journey to Venus.
Ludovic Mirabel

Venus? Never been there. Although, I hear the weather's nice and I was
thinking of taking the shazbots there on vacation.

Something tells me you'll be back.

Well, I doubt that, but they say never say never. Something tells me if
I do, you'll know about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------

First things first. My fundamental objection to your tweaks: Exactly
the same as my objection to ABX. I know of no validation of either by a
controlled experiment. And controlled experiment support is the only
basis on which I'll grant consent to a procedure, drug, treatment.
That a theory appears to someone or to millions to be
sound or unsound is of no interest to me. The hell of science is paved
with millions of sound theories that came and died. A scientist called
Pettenkoffer (lovely name for a mad scientist-no?) had such faith in
"bad miasmas" as the source of epidemics that he swallowed a culture of
cholera bugs to disprove Pasteur. And lo and behold- he sailed through
it.
He performed an uncontrolled experiment that confirmed that most people
survive any epidemic. Inborn resistance etc. The conversion on the road
to Damascus of Fella and De Wal is an uncontrolled experiment. Results
are valid for Fella and De Wal and long may they enjoy them. Long may
Sullivan enjoy ABXing. If he ever does it in his real life for his real
choices. Not just on one of the RAO email pages.
In fact I can think of no way that one could devise
a controlled experiment for the infinite variety of human response to
aesthetic stimuli. Even if one enrolled tens of thousands all one would
get would be the responses of these subjects to these test samples. So
you're free to enjoy your tweaks and publicise them to others who may
have similar response. It "proves" nothing either way. The contention
begins when you claim universal validity.
And since it is an argument about nothing very
much it may never end. Just like the ABX argument.
A few unimportant clarifications. I did not put
the tweak assembly on the floor. I put it on the bottom of the frame
of my Acoustats under the wiring.
I chose the Xover for the third tweak because
that is where all four inputs and outputs meet conveniently.
I did not measure exact distances for the
pinpricks.
What conrolled experiment? A simple one would
not constitute true "scientific " validation but go a long way towards
real life:
At random keep changing tweak /no tweak. The subjects don't know which
is which. Give them a paper with 30 like/ don't like squares to fill
for a series of 15 "tests". In fact Fella and De Wal could do it at
home with any assistant. I'd trust them to be truthful. Ten correct "I
like" choices and you're home.
And then please let's get back towards
exchange of "subjective" views about equipment, recordings etc. One
soon learns to recognise those whose opinions one'd consider seriously
to agree with or not.. Most of the professional reviewers? No.
Ferstler, Sullivan, NYOB, ScottW? No. J.G. Holt, Atkinson, Jenn, Scott
something in RAHE? Yes.
This is a personal, idiosyncratic listing
valid for this writer only/
No I did not think you were a professional
audio reviewers. Most are interminable bores, stretching minuscule
material to fill the pages. I thought you might be a better kind of eg.
columnist.
I meant it as an unsolicited compliment.
Where do you get the stamina to fill the
pages the way you do is a true mystery. I already exceeded my ratio.

Ludovic Mirabel

On 14 Apr 2006 08:56:56 -0700, wrote:

The Belt's have a daughter who requires a hearing aid.

Well, THAT'S not very encouraging.

First things first. My fundamental objection to your tweaks: Exactly
the same as my objection to ABX. I know of no validation of either by a
controlled experiment. And controlled experiment support is the only
basis on which I'll grant consent to a procedure, drug, treatment.
That a theory appears to someone or to millions to be
sound or unsound is of no interest to me. The hell of science is paved
with millions of sound theories that came and died. A scientist called
Pettenkoffer (lovely name for a mad scientist-no?) had such faith in
"bad miasmas" as the source of epidemics that he swallowed a culture of
cholera bugs to disprove Pasteur. And lo and behold- he sailed through
it.
He performed an uncontrolled experiment that confirmed that most people
survive any epidemic. Inborn resistance etc. The conversion on the road
to Damascus of Fella and De Wal is an uncontrolled experiment. Results
are valid for Fella and De Wal and long may they enjoy them. Long may
Sullivan enjoy ABXing. If he ever does it in his real life for his real
choices. Not just on one of the RAO email pages.
In fact I can think of no way that one could devise
a controlled experiment for the infinite variety of human response to
aesthetic stimuli. Even if one enrolled tens of thousands all one would
get would be the responses of these subjects to these test samples. So
you're free to enjoy your tweaks and publicise them to others who may
have similar response. It "proves" nothing either way. The contention
begins when you claim universal validity.
And since it is an argument about nothing very
much it may never end. Just like the ABX argument.
A few unimportant clarifications. I did not put
the tweak assembly on the floor. I put it on the bottom of the frame
of my Acoustats under the wiring.
I chose the Xover for the third tweak because
that is where all four inputs and outputs meet conveniently.
I did not measure exact distances for the
pinpricks.
What conrolled experiment? A simple one would
not constitute true "scientific " validation but go a long way towards
real life:
At random keep changing tweak /no tweak. The subjects don't know which
is which. Give them a paper with 30 like/ don't like squares to fill
for a series of 15 "tests". In fact Fella and De Wal could do it at
home with any assistant. I'd trust them to be truthful. Ten correct "I
like" choices and you're home.
And then please let's get back towards
exchange of "subjective" views about equipment, recordings etc. One
soon learns to recognise those whose opinions one'd consider seriously
to agree with or not.. Most of the professional reviewers? No.
Ferstler, Sullivan, NYOB, ScottW? No. J.G. Holt, Atkinson, Jenn, Scott
something in RAHE? Yes.
This is a personal, idiosyncratic listing
valid for this writer only/
No I did not think you were a professional
audio reviewers. Most are interminable bores, stretching minuscule
material to fill the pages. I thought you might be a better kind of eg.
columnist.
I meant it as an unsolicited compliment.
Where do you get the stamina to fill the
pages the way you do is a true mystery. I already exceeded my ratio.

Ludovic Mirabel
-----------------------------------------------------
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

Red-faced disclosu I tried what you're pleased to call a
tweak.

You're wrong, I'm not pleased to call them "tweaks". I feel it is
undignified for the importance of these techniques. I prefer to call
them "treatments". I only call them "tweaks" because it is what you
people understand. And as you've just shown me, some of you even have
trouble with that term.

Redfaced because it shames me that I bothered.

Very interesting. It's always the same reaction. When they can't
discern differences, then people feel ashamed, and they would never
give the -- **treatments** another chance if their life depended on
it. Ruling out any further chances that they can detect changes by
improving their initial experiment (e.g. it may not have been done
right) or trying different ones.

I applaud you anyway, because at least you took a chance, however
small, at expanding your mind and fighting a lifetime of conditioning
through education in conventional laws of science. By me, you just
didn't fight hard enough.

after spending my
professional life giving wide berth to medical and nonmedical quackery
("functional hypoglycemia", "kissing disease", "fibrositis", "chronic
fatigue"
and such) I decided to try a quack remedy from another area.

You're not the only quack... I mean "doctor", to have done so. One of
Belt's best customers is a doctor (ever heard of Dr. Graham?).

Also, it might interest you to know that the concepts these tweaks are
based on have been blind tested by the medical community, and have been
proven to help tinnititus sufferers. Here's part of the story on that.
The Belt's have a daughter who requires a hearing aid. She always
complained that voices sounded unnatural and annoying (imagine having
to filter everything you hear through the sound of a hearing aid).
After treating the -battery- in the hearing aid, the problems
disappeared. Staff at a local medical facility got wind of this, but
being doctors like you, were -extremely skeptical-, to say the least.

Nevertheless, they actually granted a DBT study of the effects of the
battery treatment to hearing aid patients, who reported, like the
Belt's daughter, that the hearing aids after treatment were much more
pleasing and natural to listen to. It is the only official DBT study of
a Belt treatment that I know of. Nevertheless, continued resistance to
the ideas by doctors in the medical community, just like you, prevents
hearing aid wearers from ever improving their situation. That's only
one of the many ways in which our society is being "cheated" of
progress by the politics of science. (So unfortunately, it isn't just
audiophiles that are cheating themselves out of a revolution in audio,
due to social politics).

I got it all: five pinholes, picture of my beloved dead Siamese,
aspirin tablet
(actually ASA- I think Bayer made enough money out of it already).

Oh no! You didn't try the original BAYER Aspirin! No kidding!

(Actually, yes, kidding).


Since all my speakers are dipoles (no boxes) I had to compromise
and
put the lock, stock and barrel under the wires from the interface to
the ELS
panels.

Maybe I'm not picturing this right, but it sounds like you have not
enough flat surface area on your speakers to lay the 5-pinhole device
on it, and if you placed it on the floor underneath the wires, that
would not be good. If you'd have told me this, I would have responded
that although wood speakers are probably the best object to use this
device with, you're better off simply taping it as described, to the
top or back of your cd player, near the output jacks. And the same for
the amp as well (providing you don't have a Class A amp like I do, that
gets mighty hot and might burn the paper).

Besides being properly installed, it's also important to be sure the
device is properly set up. It's a plain white paper rectangle with 4
pinholes in each corner, one in the center along the diagonals of the
corners, -underneath that- goes the animal picture with 4 legs and a
tail, and the aspirin goes over the middle hole in the center of the
pinholed paper. Then to attach it, a single piece of scotch tape going
over the aspirin in the center, to hold it all together. It's all
described in this article here, in case you didn't read it:

http://www.musicweb-international.co...ep05/Snark.htm

To take no chances I put the third tweak next to the
inputs/outputs
on the Xover box.
Result: no difference
I got my wife. I told her to report any difference and told
her nothing
else. After a
few minutes I put the tweaks in. She listened again.: not much
difference,
maybe a little worse, she said.

So although she interpreted it as a negative change, she did detect a
change? Don't you find that interesting, since according to your
theory, no change should be possible since this device does not affect
the signal path?

Should I buy box-speakers?

Yes. Just get a cheap pair of entry-level Boston Acoustics, and then
you can apply the tweak, and they'll sound better than your
electrostats. (Note to: Robert Morein. This was a "joke". You know, "ha
ha"? Tongue-in-cheek? Farcical? Not serious? Kidding only? Nevermind).

Assuming you put it together correctly and installed it correctly, what
you should probably do is try something else. Frankly, I was suprised
the 5-pinhole tweak worked as well as it did for the other two.
Although I had no problem discerning its effect, when I tested it on my
wife, she couldn't reliably do so. This is why I came out with v.2 of
the L-shape printout most recently ("L-Shape Tweak For Dummies!"). What
you should have done is printed out the L-shape as instructed, and
taped one of these babies to the back of your CD player, next to the
jacks (and maybe a few more elsewhere). Whether you like the sound or
not, I feel its far more likely to produce audible differences than the
5-pinhole paper. I spent yesterday afternoon taping L-shape printouts
all over the seats and interior of my car (among other things), and
vastly improved the car's audio system.

Another disclosu huge negative bias. As you say my mind
is not ready. Not for your tweak, not for astrology, not for 89,9% of
codings in the psychiatric compendium of diagnoses, not for telepathy,
not for a host of other things.

Stop lumping in pseudo-sciences, paranormal and other things you don't
believe in, with the tweaks. That shows again, an extreme bias on your
part. That's not any way to practice science. You're supposed to try to
remain "objective", remember?

YES, the "huge negative bias" is going to be a problem, because it
colours your perception of sound. This means your brain most certainly
heard the differences made by the tweak. (Hundreds of people, including
3 on this forum, have heard the changes brought about by such devices).
But your thought processes coloured the interpretation. Maybe you
didn't even know what to look for, and were expecting the kind of
changes you normally get from audio products based on conventional
audio theory. Maybe you were expecting a "night and day change" (I
don't think the 5-pinhole device provides that, as I've said before).
When that doesn't show up, you might not be listening carefully enough
to the sound before and after, and overlooking the changes that you are
able to perceive.

That said, at least one of the other two fellows who heard the effects
of the 5-pinhole device did have a negative bias going in (though
probably not as HUGE as I'd expect yours to be, given how determined
you were in your attacks against me and my tweaks). He heard changes
anyhow.

I sincerely admire your incredible energy, your verbal
talents and I think you write well, amusingly and inventively.

Thank you. I do my best. Like all of us, I'm sure...

Are you a pro?

Hifi reviewer? No, I never really tried to go for that. Whatever I
managed to get into audio magazines was strictly non-paid. Now that you
mention it, I recall I was offered a reviewer position once, but the
deal fell through after the magazine folded.

You could easily be. Many worse writers fill the newspapers.

I think you're right, after a pro reviewer thought I'd be a good audio
writer, I thought so too... (but never pursued it). After I saw
Ferstler here (and RAHE), I thought "Well gee... it really doesn't take
much to write about audio professionally, does it?". In that way, I
suppose Ferstler's an inspiration for anyone to try to get into the
business. Didn't pass high school? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a
professional audio journalist! Did your last IQ score turn out to be
lower than your shoe size? No problem! Howard Ferstler's a professional
audio journalist! Do you hate audio and audiophiles with a passion?
Really??How about this: would you rather smash your fingers with a ball
peen hammer than upgrade your audio system? Hey, no problem! Howard
Ferstler's a professional audio journalist! You could be one too!

I regret that you managed to pervert a supposedly audio
forum although you're not the only one abusing the rec. audio. name.

I regret that you feel that way. Others have said the exact opposite,
that I managed to bring the theme of RAO back on to the subject of
audio, after 10 years of it being centered around what a dogmatic
trolling ******* that Arny is. And quite frankly, given all the
attention that you and everyone else here was lavishing on me every
single day, all day long, you'd have a tough time convincing me that
people would rather not have me here. I wish more people would have
taken Dizzy's lead to killfile me or at least ignore me a lot more,
because even though I only responded to perhaps a quarter of the posts
addressed to me, it's a very time consuming practice, nevertheless.
Even if its only to "fashizzle" someone's post.

But perhaps you've been here so long and never taken your blinkers off,
that you don't realize that your delusions are not shared by the Usenet
community. I was here before you ever head of the place, and I know
rec.audio.opinion has always been the "backwoods trailer trash cousin"
of the rec.audio hierarchy. Thanks in large part to Arny and the
contention he attracts, it is now undisputably regarded as a flame
group. Long before I came on with my little tweak posts, the vast
majority of the content on this group was an attack of some sort
against someone. Attacks based on audio and not character were rare,
until me (I admit most of the post SHP attacks were on my character,
but at least some were on my audio beliefs).


Have a good journey to Venus.
Ludovic Mirabel

Venus? Never been there. Although, I hear the weather's nice and I was
thinking of taking the shazbots there on vacation.

Something tells me you'll be back.

Well, I doubt that, but they say never say never. Something tells me if
I do, you'll know about it.

wrote:



First things first. My fundamental objection to your tweaks: Exactly
the same as my objection to ABX. I know of no validation of either by a
controlled experiment. And controlled experiment support is the only
basis on which I'll grant consent to a procedure, drug, treatment.


You wouldn't have needed any "validation" to the "tweak" if it had
worked for you Ludowic, or perhaps if it had worked in your environment.
The way hifi sound becomes so natural and relaxed just takes all the
need for validation and testing out, leaves just intimate enjoyment of
music behind. You just don't need to ask "is this true" anymore...

But my "validation" came in the form of a friend visiting and commenting
on the "remarkable" sound of the system just yesterday, I quote "was
this thing always this good?". He of course had no idea whatsoever about
any "tweak". And while the thing itself is actually hidden underneath
the preamp so nothing is visible, I am not going to disclose anything to
anybody again what with the first attempt resulting with the horses ass
jokes and all. I know selfish, yes, but also wise.


He performed an uncontrolled experiment that confirmed that most people
survive any epidemic.

Yes with things like medicine, demanding strict scientific (at times
even in that field risking things might be called for though) validation
is a must, ok. But this is just audio; music; relaxation, so relax.

Results
are valid for Fella and De Wal and long may they enjoy them.


Well thank you. That's an enlightened POW and I wouldn't have expected
anything less from you.

There are dumberthendumborgs around ridiculing me with the same type of
words I *myself* used on SHP in my time, how dumb is that? Been there,
done that, times are'a changin, etc...


In fact Fella and De Wal could do it at
home

The thing is ... (here's me being honest again, watch the dumborg do the
malfunctioning robot breakdance and clank and clink and jangle with
_*insignificant*_ insults now) : I am very much so *afraid* of losing
that "magic" for the lack of a better word. I just had to hide the thing
underneath the preamp before I can find a way to explain it to the wife,
and it's "effect" somewhat lessened. But going on some blinding
testing rampage with it is too much of a risk. I really do not want to
risk losing the whatever magic it is that made my system sound like
something I have *never* experienced before. And beleive me I have
listened to a bunch of extremely high end pricey systems in my time.
None of them had the same relaxed and natural and "justified" sounds as
compared to what I am listening to in the privacy of my home these days.
I accept that some of the tension, the feeling, the romance in some of
the music is also stripped away with this wierd tweak, but the insight
and clarity it brings surpasses it all.

Shame it didn't work out for you though.


And then please let's get back towards
exchange of "subjective" views about equipment, recordings etc.

When was this place ever a forum for that with arnii and his zombie
dumborgs clanking and screeching around?

wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

I'm back!

couldnt git even git sum-m sum-m simple like tha bag right, huh.
i kizzy yould neva be able ta stay gone.
yoe J-to-tha-izzust addicted ta see'n yo own philosophizzle drivel.
yo fizzirst post as skippy was philosophy in a math forum.
now yo here n J-to-tha-izzust mak'n false statement afta false statement
in tha guise of betta audio adjustment.
reality its just more nulls, no documentable changes, even from those
that
actually have tha skills ta do measizzles still frontin' fo` tha tweak #3 video, sparky, makes sure ta show
theres
actually killa going ta tha amp, n tha speaka actually mov'n.
ill bet you a usenet dollar youll let tha magic smoke out the
amp.
you knizzay tha magic smoke that all amplifia have inside tizzy makes
tha air mizzle . Yippie yo, you can't see my flow.


Huh? Who are you supposed to be, Snoop Froggy Frog?

Really showing the superior intellect Skippy.
Keep antagonizing an entire planet, eventually Karma
will catch up with you.
I'd laugh but it's just plain pathetic.

gets on with his bad self:

wrote:
wrote:

wrote:

I'm back!

couldnt git even git sum-m sum-m simple like tha bag right, huh.
i kizzy yould neva be able ta stay gone.
yoe J-to-tha-izzust addicted ta see'n yo own philosophizzle drivel.
yo fizzirst post as skippy was philosophy in a math forum.
now yo here n J-to-tha-izzust mak'n false statement afta false statement
in tha guise of betta audio adjustment.
reality its just more nulls, no documentable changes, even from those
that
actually have tha skills ta do measizzles still frontin' fo` tha tweak #3 video, sparky, makes sure ta show
theres
actually killa going ta tha amp, n tha speaka actually mov'n.
ill bet you a usenet dollar youll let tha magic smoke out the
amp.
you knizzay tha magic smoke that all amplifia have inside tizzy makes
tha air mizzle . Yippie yo, you can't see my flow.


Huh? Who are you supposed to be, Snoop Froggy Frog?

Really show'n tha superior intellect Skippy.
Keep antagoniz'n an entire planet, eventually Karma
will cizzatch up wit you.
Id laugh but its jizzy plain pathetic so show some love niggaz.

Yo, hold the phone! What did you just call me?!

Fella wrote:

You wouldn't have needed any "validation" to the "tweak" if it had
worked for you Ludowic, or perhaps if it had worked in your environment.
The way hifi sound becomes so natural and relaxed just takes all the
need for validation and testing out, leaves just intimate enjoyment of
music behind. You just don't need to ask "is this true" anymore...

If you have any idea of the tweaking I do, then imagine my system,
which is almost entirely tweaked using these alternative audio
concepts. The thing has completely been transformed by my tweaks. And
yet I have to endure foolish comments from people completely ignorant
of all of this (like Elimra and co.), who are back at the kindergarten
stage, telling me I didn't hear what I and others I know know I heard,
and I gotta do "DBT's" and crap, in order to be sure that my entire
system's sound has been totally night and day transformed. And people
wonder why I have so little patience with them!

But my "validation" came in the form of a friend visiting and commenting
on the "remarkable" sound of the system just yesterday, I quote "was
this thing always this good?".

My validation came in the form of my wife's kids, who had heard and
played the stereo that I tweaked, for many years. They came over once,
turned it on and played some cd's. No one told them I had changed
anything, and they are not audiophiles by any stretch. And yet they all
were astounded by the quality of sound coming out of the system they
thought they knew well.

Of course, that quality of sound was always already there in the room
when they were listening to it. Just that they could not perceive that
degree of quality, because of adverse effects they had no control of.

He of course had no idea whatsoever about
any "tweak". And while the thing itself is actually hidden underneath
the preamp so nothing is visible,

You realize of course, you are "tweaking" the furniture here, not the
preamp. Furniture works too, but I find best results are to be had on
the equipment itself. If you move the device to the top of the preamp,
near any inputs or outputs, you'll probably find an improvement in the
quality.


I am not going to disclose anything to
anybody again what with the first attempt resulting with the horses ass
jokes and all. I know selfish, yes, but also wise.


Not so wise, by me. Consider the fact that if I gave a rat's ass about
ignorant fools and their ignorant jokes, calling me a horse's ass or
whatever, you'd have never heard about any such tweaks.

It was true when you were 4 years old, it's still true now: so long as
you believe in yourself, no one can hurt you.

("Run, Free Willy! Run!....")


He performed an uncontrolled experiment that confirmed that most people
survive any epidemic.

Too bad the ebola virus hadn't been around yet. That would have been
fun to watch him swallow a batch of "ebola", and swell up like a
blowfish.

Yes with things like medicine, demanding strict scientific (at times
even in that field risking things might be called for though) validation
is a must, ok. But this is just audio; music; relaxation, so relax.

Moreoever, blind tests for audio are not in keeping with the design
parameters of an audio system, which is meant to listen under natural,
relaxed, sighted conditions, not artificial blind, stressful
conditions.

The thing is ... (here's me being honest again, watch the dumborg do the
malfunctioning robot breakdance and clank and clink and jangle with
_*insignificant*_ insults now) : I am very much so *afraid* of losing
that "magic" for the lack of a better word. I just had to hide the thing
underneath the preamp before I can find a way to explain it to the wife,
and it's "effect" somewhat lessened. But going on some blinding
testing rampage with it is too much of a risk. I really do not want to
risk losing the whatever magic it is that made my system sound like
something I have *never* experienced before.

Then don't move the device under the preamp at all. I can guarantee you
that moving it will change the sound, and I can NOT guarantee you that
replacing it back in the same spot will return the sound to its -exact-
state. Simply removing the tape and taping the same piece back makes it
slightly worse, simply because the tape doesn't adhere perfectly flat
in one corner.

However, that doesn't stop you from adding and trying other things, if
you have the time or inclination. For example, the l-shape printout is
something that is easily removable after you attach it to something,
and removing it will return your original sound.

nd beleive me I have
listened to a bunch of extremely high end pricey systems in my time.
None of them had the same relaxed and natural and "justified" sounds as
compared to what I am listening to in the privacy of my home these days.
I accept that some of the tension, the feeling, the romance in some of
the music is also stripped away with this wierd tweak, but the insight
and clarity it brings surpasses it all.

When you consider the fact that you can not acheive quite the same
results with ANY audio product at ANY cost, then you realize how
important that alternative audio concepts are, and how sad it is, that
so many people are so afraid of change and anything new, that they
fight these ideas like it was the biggest threat to them in their
lives.

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


First things first. My fundamental objection to your tweaks:
Exactly
the same as my objection to ABX. I know of no validation of either by a
controlled experiment. And controlled experiment support is the only
basis on which I'll grant consent to a procedure, drug, treatment.

So then run a controlled experiment if that's what floats your boat.

That a theory appears to someone or to millions to be
sound or unsound is of no interest to me.

Why do you think that is of interest to me?

The hell of science is paved
with millions of sound theories that came and died. A scientist called
Pettenkoffer (lovely name for a mad scientist-no?) had such faith in
"bad miasmas" as the source of epidemics that he swallowed a culture of
cholera bugs to disprove Pasteur. And lo and behold- he sailed through
it.

Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before
an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.

They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that.

Died.

(As in "not living any longer").


The conversion on the road
to Damascus of Fella and De Wal is an uncontrolled experiment.

I've got some sad news for you, Elmira. ALL audio observations are
"uncontrolled experiments". You're simply kidding yourself if you think
you can control all factors during a test. You do so, because you are
frighteningly ignorant of all the factors that can change human
perception of sound, during a test. Controlling some variables whilst
pretending you're controlling all does not an objective test make.

Fella and deWaal conducted exactly the appropriate test that an audio
system was designed for. They did not attempt to conduct a test with
parameters not in keeping with the purpose of an audio system.

Speaking for myself, if I had to conduct a DBT or ABX test every single
time that I needed to determine differences for two given conditions,
well.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I would be dead of old age long before I
finished performing DBT and ABX tests on these things.

For example... I was working on setting up and tweaking my Rega Planar
tt today, and one of the things I was testing happened to be the
5-pinhole paper tweak that you tried (except I did not endeavour to add
the animal picture or aspirin). I had to test many locations on and
around the tt before I found one that I felt contributed a positive
change to the sound (needless to say, there was no question in my mind
that the 5-pinhole paper did effect a change... I'm far beyond that
issue). I need to determine differences in SECONDS. I don't have time
to conduct any of your "statistically significant" DBT or ABX tests for
each location of the paper, in order to be "certain" that I am hearing
a change.
You don't get anywhere in audio doing ridiculous things like that.

If you have to conduct such blind tests, then you're not an "advanced"
audiophile, you're an "insecure" audiophile.Which implies that your
knowledge of audio will be severely limited by your misguided belief
that you are being "smart", "rational" and "objective", because of all
the time you're wasting on such tests, and because you are unlikely to
hear all but the largest differences possible (ie. speaker vs.
speaker), due to the inherent stresses these tests produce. That said,
I'm stating my choice and the reasons why, but if people want to be
foolish and feel good about themselves but running DBTs that will only
hinder the process, I'm not going to stop them. That's your choice.


Results
are valid for Fella and De Wal and long may they enjoy them. Long may
Sullivan enjoy ABXing. If he ever does it in his real life for his real
choices. Not just on one of the RAO email pages.

Sullivan, like Krueger, is not an audiophile, and doesn't even enjoy
audio. What they both enjoy is arguing about their favorite religion;
irrelevant, pseudo-scientific test methodologies for audio.

In fact I can think of no way that one could devise
a controlled experiment for the infinite variety of human response to
aesthetic stimuli. Even if one enrolled tens of thousands all one would
get would be the responses of these subjects to these test samples.

Of course, that's one of the many drawbacks of believing in the
religion of ABX/DBT tests for audio. If you didn't take the test
yourself, then it isn't meaningful. But I could take that further and
say that if you don't test the way that you listen to your stereo, then
it isn't meaningful either. And I can take that one even further by
saying that if you do test as you would normally listen to your stereo,
then it does not matter a whit if you think you hear changes due to
expectation effect. Because sound perceived is sound heard.


So
you're free to enjoy your tweaks and publicise them to others who may
have similar response.

Great. Now that I have your permission to do that, I can finally begin!

It "proves" nothing either way.

Again, you miss the point... I'm not here to "prove" anything to
anyone. I've said this about 3,000 times now. Life is too short for me
to bother doing that. Everyone here is free to believe what they want
to believe. If they choose to believe that I don't believe in the
tweaks, the tweaks are jokes, I'm a troll, and they don't need to try
them for all those reasons and more, then people are free to believe in
their own lies that they make up as well. But if you want anything to
be "proven", then as I have always encouraged people, you need to prove
it to yourself, and not be intellectually lazy and demand that others
do your thinking for you.

The contention
begins when you claim universal validity.

I don't recall having ever claimed that. On the contrary, I often said
that the validity for ANYTHING in audio is up to the beholder of the
audio device. And because everyone has different levels of listening
skill, -no one- can claim that (almost) -anything- in audio is 100%
audible.


And since it is an argument about nothing very
much it may never end. Just like the ABX argument.

There is no comparison. My tweaks are part of a new revolution in both
audio and science, that changes the fundamental presumptions about
audio, and perception of sound.
ABX is a joke from a bygone era. It's sole purpose, whether it (and its
supporters) are conscious of it or not, is to prevent audio from ever
progressing too rapidly (to keep the status quo, which is what
conservatives like Arny and Steven like to do). Just as you would do,
given the chance. Alternative audio concepts is the exact opposite of
ABX; it's bleeding edge, it's avante garde, it's in fact, the future of
audio and science. People like you have a long ways before your
thinking catches up (perhaps 40-50 years) . Had the tweak worked for
you the first time out, as you seem to have expected it to, that wait
might have been 40-50 minutes, for you, instead of 40-50 years.

A few unimportant clarifications. I did not put
the tweak assembly on the floor. I put it on the bottom of the frame
of my Acoustats under the wiring.
I chose the Xover for the third tweak because
that is where all four inputs and outputs meet conveniently.
I did not measure exact distances for the
pinpricks.

Exact distances is not necessary, so long at the center hole is on the
same diagonal as the 4 others. How you listen when you do audio tests,
is more important than how you measure pinholes.

I will clarify again that you said your wife did feel she detected
differences but they were negative. Well again, I'm not surprised here,
after spending all afternoon experimenting with the location of
pinholed paper on my Rega. Because as I say, there were definitely
places that I perceived as a negative change. For example, I didn't
like it right next to the Rega's output cable, but it was better near
the electrical cable. Best of all though, only came when I placed it on
the top of the plinth, in front of the tonearm base.

IOW, these are things that require experiment. Trying something one way
and declaring the entire revolution null and avoid is not much less
rigid than those who would dismiss all such alternative ideas without
ever trying them at all. I've talked about many different tweaks, all
are valid, by me. None are any more difficult to try than the 5-pinhole
that you tried, and as I said, the L-shape for Dummies printout is even
easier and more noticeable than the 5-pinhole paper tweak. Although
experimentation is greater for alternative audio concepts, so are the
rewards when you get it right.


What conrolled experiment? A simple one would
not constitute true "scientific " validation but go a long way towards
real life:
At random keep changing tweak /no tweak. The subjects don't know which
is which. Give them a paper with 30 like/ don't like squares to fill
for a series of 15 "tests". In fact Fella and De Wal could do it at
home with any assistant. I'd trust them to be truthful. Ten correct "I
like" choices and you're home.

Fella and deWaal already proved this experiment for themselves, and you
know that. So why on earth are YOU suggesting test protocols for
someone else, and not yourself? Are you made that insecure by the fact
that there are 3 people presently on this group who have heard
differences brought about by the 5-pinhole tweak that you failed to
validate, with your admitted "enourmous biases" and all? Are you that
sure of your listening skill and that you executed the tests properly,
that you can now just assume everyone else is kidding themselves about
the tweak? Because for your sake, I sure hope not.

BTW, as I already mentioned here, I already did DBTs on the 5-pinhole
paper tweak and passed. That wasn't done to prove anything to anybody,
either.

And then please let's get back towards
exchange of "subjective" views about equipment, recordings etc.

You just finished handing out supposedly "objective" test protocols for
other people to go by (other than yourself, of course), and now you're
telling everyone to "go back to subjective views" of audio??


One
soon learns to recognise those whose opinions one'd consider seriously
to agree with or not..

I take this to mean that you only favour the opinions of those that you
know think like you and by and large, agree with what you agree with.
So basically, this way you don't get any scary "challenges" to your
modes of thinking thrown at you, you don't have to ever learn anything
new, that you didn't already know before. Makes you feel "stupid" and
"out of control" to be in a position of learning something from someone
that you didn't at all know, doesn't it?

No I did not think you were a professional
audio reviewers. Most are interminable bores, stretching minuscule
material to fill the pages. I thought you might be a better kind of eg.
columnist.

I quite agree. That's always been my perception of Stereophile, quite
honestly. I haven't read it in many years so I don't know if its any
different today, but it always had the most "interminable bores"
writing interminably boring reviews, that never much made me take
interest in the equipment (unless I already was), let alone the
reviewer. It's like the audio equivalent of the American Journal of
Medicine, or the minutes at an AES meeting. Very dry, very uninspiring.
The tiny little print didn't help the interest factor either, it made
it seem even more like articles on equipment were being churned out by
a computer program. I never could tell the difference between
reviewers, as they all seemed cut from the same cloth to me, in the way
they approached a review. They often would start out the review in a
self-gratuitous fashion, droning on and on about themselves and
completely irrelevant things, like their favourite wine, things that
have only the flimsiest connection to the audio review. I often found
myself shouting at the magazine "Get to the point, already!". Not a
good sign. Next would come the excessive, plodding details about what
the product looks, feels or smells like, then the excessively boring
listening notes, and finally the technical tests, which I always
completely skipped over, as they have no relevance for me. Basically, I
think I could write 4 reviews in the space of a single Stereophile
review, and say more of relevance about the 4 audio products, than a
single full length SR review does.

I just found an old issue, opened to a typical review, and here's what
I'm talking about:

....."Over time, i became aware of a slight 'electronic' haze in the
treble and upper midrange, but it was low enough in magnitude that only
a curmudgeon would complain about it. (But then, this is Stereophile,
otherwise known as Curmudgeons 'R' Us). [Ha.Ha. I'm laughing like crazy
at this oh-so funny joke. :-| -SHP].

[Wait, there's more hilarity to follow...]

...."In the initial listening sessions -ie. BDL (Before Dedicated
Lines)-- there seemed to be a degree of blandness in the presentation,
so that something like the "Battle Music" on Bernstein's new recording
of Candide (DG 429-734-2, disc 1 track 9), which is almost scary in its
impact when heard through the C-J PV11, came across as just a bit
subdued with the Coda in the system (Levels were matched for this
comparison). ADL (After Dedicated Lines), however, it was a different
story: most of what seemed like blandness in the Coda was gone,
replaced by a chameleon-like (or Zelig-like) variablility as a function
of the recording itself. "

End quote.


Yup, all that was supposed to be only two lines of text. Between the
minute details given on what track the reviewer was listening to (I'm
surprised he left out the Library of Congress classification number for
the song), the obscure references to his other equipment, the esoteric
references to boring Woody Allen movies, the stilted descriptions ("a
chameleon like variability as a function of the recording itself", the
constant parenthetical asides, the detours the reader gets taken to
unnecessary made-up acronyms AND their definitions, and the really lame
stabs at something that's supposed to resemble humour, I completely
forget about what the hell the component was that the reviewr was
supposed to be reviewing for me, and why I was reading this review in
the first place.

At the end of these short novels that they call product reviews, you
never do end up learning much about audio or even everything you want
or need to know about the product under review. You do however get to
learn a lot about the reviewers opinions of themselves... kind of like
that bore at a party that never stops talking about himself, and always
believes that his interest in his stories are everyone's interest.

I meant it as an unsolicited compliment.
Where do you get the stamina to fill the
pages the way you do is a true mystery. I already exceeded my ratio.
Ludovic Mirabel


I like writing and it comes naturally. Not everybody has that.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Fella wrote:

You wouldn't have needed any "validation" to the "tweak" if it had
worked for you Ludowic, or perhaps if it had worked in your environment.
The way hifi sound becomes so natural and relaxed just takes all the
need for validation and testing out, leaves just intimate enjoyment of
music behind. You just don't need to ask "is this true" anymore...

If you have any idea of the tweaking I do, then imagine my system,
which is almost entirely tweaked using these alternative audio
concepts. The thing has completely been transformed by my tweaks. And
yet I have to endure foolish comments from people completely ignorant
of all of this (like Elimra and co.), who are back at the kindergarten
stage, telling me I didn't hear what I and others I know know I heard,
and I gotta do "DBT's" and crap, in order to be sure that my entire
system's sound has been totally night and day transformed. And people
wonder why I have so little patience with them!

That is not the issue here, Dr. Richard Graham. In my opinion,
1. You are a shill for PWB Electronics.
2. You lack ethics.

Robert Morein said:

That is not the issue here, Dr. Richard Graham. In my opinion,
1. You are a shill for PWB Electronics.
2. You lack ethics.

On the plus side, Shovels has, by his own actions, demonstrated a plan of
action that might benefit Arnii Krooger -- i.e., getting treatment for
mental illness.






--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

Mr. SHP says:
"Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before

an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.

They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't have said it better myself. Doctors, witch doctors and
quacks were killing people for millenia. They were applying spider webs
to open wounds, cauterised and bled the sick wholesale.
Why? Because like Semmelweis contemporaries
they relied on gorgeous theories like noxious miasmas, stars in a bad
configuration, devils
in the flesh, morphic resonances and hymns to quantum rather than
looking for a little thing called evidence.
If women were still dying wholesale of puerperal
feverin 1952 Dr. Semmelweis would be writing a paper for "The Lancet"
demonstrating a dramatic fall in mortality rates in women treated by
doctors with clean hands.
The trick is not to invent more
loony-bin ideas like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of
animals- fourlegged, no chicken, pigeons or centipedes- but to show
that they WORK for believers and nonbelievers alike..
Granted that would be quite difficult
in the world of subjective perceptions. So if it works for you or
Mssrs, Fella
and De Wal well and good. All kinds of things work for all kinds of
people in the world of likes and dislikes.
If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I to argue? It is
only when he wants to start a movement and begins to sell amulets that
one recalls the messianic movements ending in mass-suicide.

Ludovic Mirabel





wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
wrote:


First things first. My fundamental objection to your tweaks:
Exactly
the same as my objection to ABX. I know of no validation of either by a
controlled experiment. And controlled experiment support is the only
basis on which I'll grant consent to a procedure, drug, treatment.

So then run a controlled experiment if that's what floats your boat.

That a theory appears to someone or to millions to be
sound or unsound is of no interest to me.

Why do you think that is of interest to me?

The hell of science is paved
with millions of sound theories that came and died. A scientist called
Pettenkoffer (lovely name for a mad scientist-no?) had such faith in
"bad miasmas" as the source of epidemics that he swallowed a culture of
cholera bugs to disprove Pasteur. And lo and behold- he sailed through
it.

Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before
an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.

They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that.

Died.

(As in "not living any longer").


The conversion on the road
to Damascus of Fella and De Wal is an uncontrolled experiment.

I've got some sad news for you, Elmira. ALL audio observations are
"uncontrolled experiments". You're simply kidding yourself if you think
you can control all factors during a test. You do so, because you are
frighteningly ignorant of all the factors that can change human
perception of sound, during a test. Controlling some variables whilst
pretending you're controlling all does not an objective test make.

Fella and deWaal conducted exactly the appropriate test that an audio
system was designed for. They did not attempt to conduct a test with
parameters not in keeping with the purpose of an audio system.

Speaking for myself, if I had to conduct a DBT or ABX test every single
time that I needed to determine differences for two given conditions,
well.... ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I would be dead of old age long before I
finished performing DBT and ABX tests on these things.

For example... I was working on setting up and tweaking my Rega Planar
tt today, and one of the things I was testing happened to be the
5-pinhole paper tweak that you tried (except I did not endeavour to add
the animal picture or aspirin). I had to test many locations on and
around the tt before I found one that I felt contributed a positive
change to the sound (needless to say, there was no question in my mind
that the 5-pinhole paper did effect a change... I'm far beyond that
issue). I need to determine differences in SECONDS. I don't have time
to conduct any of your "statistically significant" DBT or ABX tests for
each location of the paper, in order to be "certain" that I am hearing
a change.
You don't get anywhere in audio doing ridiculous things like that.

If you have to conduct such blind tests, then you're not an "advanced"
audiophile, you're an "insecure" audiophile.Which implies that your
knowledge of audio will be severely limited by your misguided belief
that you are being "smart", "rational" and "objective", because of all
the time you're wasting on such tests, and because you are unlikely to
hear all but the largest differences possible (ie. speaker vs.
speaker), due to the inherent stresses these tests produce. That said,
I'm stating my choice and the reasons why, but if people want to be
foolish and feel good about themselves but running DBTs that will only
hinder the process, I'm not going to stop them. That's your choice.


Results
are valid for Fella and De Wal and long may they enjoy them. Long may
Sullivan enjoy ABXing. If he ever does it in his real life for his real
choices. Not just on one of the RAO email pages.

Sullivan, like Krueger, is not an audiophile, and doesn't even enjoy
audio. What they both enjoy is arguing about their favorite religion;
irrelevant, pseudo-scientific test methodologies for audio.

In fact I can think of no way that one could devise
a controlled experiment for the infinite variety of human response to
aesthetic stimuli. Even if one enrolled tens of thousands all one would
get would be the responses of these subjects to these test samples.

Of course, that's one of the many drawbacks of believing in the
religion of ABX/DBT tests for audio. If you didn't take the test
yourself, then it isn't meaningful. But I could take that further and
say that if you don't test the way that you listen to your stereo, then
it isn't meaningful either. And I can take that one even further by
saying that if you do test as you would normally listen to your stereo,
then it does not matter a whit if you think you hear changes due to
expectation effect. Because sound perceived is sound heard.


So
you're free to enjoy your tweaks and publicise them to others who may
have similar response.

Great. Now that I have your permission to do that, I can finally begin!

It "proves" nothing either way.

Again, you miss the point... I'm not here to "prove" anything to
anyone. I've said this about 3,000 times now. Life is too short for me
to bother doing that. Everyone here is free to believe what they want
to believe. If they choose to believe that I don't believe in the
tweaks, the tweaks are jokes, I'm a troll, and they don't need to try
them for all those reasons and more, then people are free to believe in
their own lies that they make up as well. But if you want anything to
be "proven", then as I have always encouraged people, you need to prove
it to yourself, and not be intellectually lazy and demand that others
do your thinking for you.

The contention
begins when you claim universal validity.

I don't recall having ever claimed that. On the contrary, I often said
that the validity for ANYTHING in audio is up to the beholder of the
audio device. And because everyone has different levels of listening
skill, -no one- can claim that (almost) -anything- in audio is 100%
audible.


And since it is an argument about nothing very
much it may never end. Just like the ABX argument.

There is no comparison. My tweaks are part of a new revolution in both
audio and science, that changes the fundamental presumptions about
audio, and perception of sound.
ABX is a joke from a bygone era. It's sole purpose, whether it (and its
supporters) are conscious of it or not, is to prevent audio from ever
progressing too rapidly (to keep the status quo, which is what
conservatives like Arny and Steven like to do). Just as you would do,
given the chance. Alternative audio concepts is the exact opposite of
ABX; it's bleeding edge, it's avante garde, it's in fact, the future of
audio and science. People like you have a long ways before your
thinking catches up (perhaps 40-50 years) . Had the tweak worked for
you the first time out, as you seem to have expected it to, that wait
might have been 40-50 minutes, for you, instead of 40-50 years.

A few unimportant clarifications. I did not put
the tweak assembly on the floor. I put it on the bottom of the frame
of my Acoustats under the wiring.
I chose the Xover for the third tweak because
that is where all four inputs and outputs meet conveniently.
I did not measure exact distances for the
pinpricks.

Exact distances is not necessary, so long at the center hole is on the
same diagonal as the 4 others. How you listen when you do audio tests,
is more important than how you measure pinholes.

I will clarify again that you said your wife did feel she detected
differences but they were negative. Well again, I'm not surprised here,
after spending all afternoon experimenting with the location of
pinholed paper on my Rega. Because as I say, there were definitely
places that I perceived as a negative change. For example, I didn't
like it right next to the Rega's output cable, but it was better near
the electrical cable. Best of all though, only came when I placed it on
the top of the plinth, in front of the tonearm base.

IOW, these are things that require experiment. Trying something one way
and declaring the entire revolution null and avoid is not much less
rigid than those who would dismiss all such alternative ideas without
ever trying them at all. I've talked about many different tweaks, all
are valid, by me. None are any more difficult to try than the 5-pinhole
that you tried, and as I said, the L-shape for Dummies printout is even
easier and more noticeable than the 5-pinhole paper tweak. Although
experimentation is greater for alternative audio concepts, so are the
rewards when you get it right.


What conrolled experiment? A simple one would
not constitute true "scientific " validation but go a long way towards
real life:
At random keep changing tweak /no tweak. The subjects don't know which
is which. Give them a paper with 30 like/ don't like squares to fill
for a series of 15 "tests". In fact Fella and De Wal could do it at
home with any assistant. I'd trust them to be truthful. Ten correct "I
like" choices and you're home.

Fella and deWaal already proved this experiment for themselves, and you
know that. So why on earth are YOU suggesting test protocols for
someone else, and not yourself? Are you made that insecure by the fact
that there are 3 people presently on this group who have heard
differences brought about by the 5-pinhole tweak that you failed to
validate, with your admitted "enourmous biases" and all? Are you that
sure of your listening skill and that you executed the tests properly,
that you can now just assume everyone else is kidding themselves about
the tweak? Because for your sake, I sure hope not.

BTW, as I already mentioned here, I already did DBTs on the 5-pinhole
paper tweak and passed. That wasn't done to prove anything to anybody,
either.

And then please let's get back towards
exchange of "subjective" views about equipment, recordings etc.

You just finished handing out supposedly "objective" test protocols for
other people to go by (other than yourself, of course), and now you're
telling everyone to "go back to subjective views" of audio??


One
soon learns to recognise those whose opinions one'd consider seriously
to agree with or not..

I take this to mean that you only favour the opinions of those that you
know think like you and by and large, agree with what you agree with.
So basically, this way you don't get any scary "challenges" to your
modes of thinking thrown at you, you don't have to ever learn anything
new, that you didn't already know before. Makes you feel "stupid" and
"out of control" to be in a position of learning something from someone
that you didn't at all know, doesn't it?

No I did not think you were a professional
audio reviewers. Most are interminable bores, stretching minuscule
material to fill the pages. I thought you might be a better kind of eg.
columnist.

I quite agree. That's always been my perception of Stereophile, quite
honestly. I haven't read it in many years so I don't know if its any
different today, but it always had the most "interminable bores"
writing interminably boring reviews, that never much made me take
interest in the equipment (unless I already was), let alone the
reviewer. It's like the audio equivalent of the American Journal of
Medicine, or the minutes at an AES meeting. Very dry, very uninspiring.
The tiny little print didn't help the interest factor either, it made
it seem even more like articles on equipment were being churned out by
a computer program. I never could tell the difference between
reviewers, as they all seemed cut from the same cloth to me, in the way
they approached a review. They often would start out the review in a
self-gratuitous fashion, droning on and on about themselves and
completely irrelevant things, like their favourite wine, things that
have only the flimsiest connection to the audio review. I often found
myself shouting at the magazine "Get to the point, already!". Not a
good sign. Next would come the excessive, plodding details about what
the product looks, feels or smells like, then the excessively boring
listening notes, and finally the technical tests, which I always
completely skipped over, as they have no relevance for me. Basically, I
think I could write 4 reviews in the space of a single Stereophile
review, and say more of relevance about the 4 audio products, than a
single full length SR review does.

I just found an old issue, opened to a typical review, and here's what
I'm talking about:

...."Over time, i became aware of a slight 'electronic' haze in the
treble and upper midrange, but it was low enough in magnitude that only
a curmudgeon would complain about it. (But then, this is Stereophile,
otherwise known as Curmudgeons 'R' Us). [Ha.Ha. I'm laughing like crazy
at this oh-so funny joke. :-| -SHP].

[Wait, there's more hilarity to follow...]

..."In the initial listening sessions -ie. BDL (Before Dedicated
Lines)-- there seemed to be a degree of blandness in the presentation,
so that something like the "Battle Music" on Bernstein's new recording
of Candide (DG 429-734-2, disc 1 track 9), which is almost scary in its
impact when heard through the C-J PV11, came across as just a bit
subdued with the Coda in the system (Levels were matched for this
comparison). ADL (After Dedicated Lines), however, it was a different
story: most of what seemed like blandness in the Coda was gone,
replaced by a chameleon-like (or Zelig-like) variablility as a function
of the recording itself. "

End quote.


Yup, all that was supposed to be only two lines of text. Between the
minute details given on what track the reviewer was listening to (I'm
surprised he left out the Library of Congress classification number for
the song), the obscure references to his other equipment, the esoteric
references to boring Woody Allen movies, the stilted descriptions ("a
chameleon like variability as a function of the recording itself", the
constant parenthetical asides, the detours the reader gets taken to
unnecessary made-up acronyms AND their definitions, and the really lame
stabs at something that's supposed to resemble humour, I completely
forget about what the hell the component was that the reviewr was
supposed to be reviewing for me, and why I was reading this review in
the first place.

At the end of these short novels that they call product reviews, you
never do end up learning much about audio or even everything you want
or need to know about the product under review. You do however get to
learn a lot about the reviewers opinions of themselves... kind of like
that bore at a party that never stops talking about himself, and always
believes that his interest in his stories are everyone's interest.

I meant it as an unsolicited compliment.
Where do you get the stamina to fill the
pages the way you do is a true mystery. I already exceeded my ratio.
Ludovic Mirabel


I like writing and it comes naturally. Not everybody has that.

wrote:
Mr. SHP says:
"Speaking of bugs, doctors had such faith in the prevailing wisdom of
the day, that they ridiculed a 19th century Hungarian surgeon named
Ignaz Semmelweiss. Who argued that doctors could pass on potentially
life threatening diseases, if they did not disinfect their hands before

an operation. Despite evidence that deaths on his ward were reduced,
Semmelweiss' findings were ignored by the conservatives that were
prevalent in the medical/scientific industry. People DIED because of
people like you, Elmir. Don't forget that.

They ***DIED***, in case you didn't get that."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Yes, but that's true of everything I say.

The trick is not to invent more
loony-bin ideas like pinpricks in a sheet of paper with photos of
animals- fourlegged, no chicken, pigeons or centipedes- but to show
that they WORK for believers and nonbelievers alike..

You missed the point, but you always do. Semmelweiss was not able to
convince his colleagues, eternally skeptical "non believers", that his
findings were correct. Maybe he didn't have the means to do so to their
satisfaction. If he had my foolish friend, all those people on the
wards would not have DIED.

You know.... as in "DEAD"??

Are you starting to get the point, or do I have to draw a map for you
in crayon?

Instead of listening to reason, they decided "What the hell. We'll play
with people's lives, sure, who cares! Better to scoff and ridicule one
of our colleaguges than play it safe and take a chance he might be
correct and save lives! After all, potentially looking foolish is a
hell of a lot more important than SAVING LIVES!!".

By the same token, you and your friends are being equally imprudent and
irrational, by dismissing 30 second tweaks that take a fraction of the
energy to install as you put out to trying to refute them. And think of
the energy you are wasting in mustering up so much hositility towards
ideas that play with your many insecurities.

It isn't "pinpricks on a sheet of paper" that kill people (although it
certainly seems to have killed you. With embarassment, I mean). And no
silly, "centipedes, chickens and pigeons" are a stupid idea. They won't
work, they don't have a tail. No kidding you never got the tweak to
work, jeez! You probably used a picture of a porcupine to set up the
device! You're so incompetent, it's not even funny! Geez!

And so on.

Granted that would be quite difficult
in the world of subjective perceptions. So if it works for you or
Mssrs, Fella
and De Wal well and good. All kinds of things work for all kinds of
people in the world of likes and dislikes.


If someone believes that he had wonderful
intercourse with a beautiful extraterrestrial who am I to argue?

And if someone wants to believe that everything in audio sounds the
same and that principles of audio that were developed hundreds of years
ago are all we will ever understand of audio, then who am I to argue?

Oh who am I kidding, I LOVE arguing with you bigots!


It is
only when he wants to start a movement and begins to sell amulets that
one recalls the messianic movements ending in mass-suicide.

You're ridiculous. I don't recall anyone dying from wanting to BUY
PRODUCTS FROM PWB AT WWW.BELT.DEMON.CO.UK.

......At least, not that I know of.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..



If you call putting pinholes in a piece of paper bearing a picture of a
4-legged animal "audio".

I guess it isn't a big logical jump from obsessing over tubes to *this*
sort of silliness. :-(


"At least" its not as repulsive as your pcabx torture rituals.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access