Are we foolin' ourselves...

[pauln]

Lascaladan,

Hang in there with us. It is very difficult to stand by one's experience in the face of "proofs" that something is not real. We are not as far apart as some would think. There are really two different things at play in this discussion - one is whether some tweak makes an objective difference, and the other is whether that tweak makes a subjective difference. The contention arises when the answer to the first is "no" but the answer to the second is "yes". This leads to the accusation that one is fooling oneself. Aren't we all are fooling ourselves when we listen - aren't we all try to fool ourselves into believing the illusion that the music is real and present before us? Don't both the objective performance of the system and our variable subjective state combine in the listening experience? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The reason I keep pointing folks to the Belt link http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/bpaip.html is because this guy Belt (and his wife) explicitly state that the treatments he offers do not make objective changes in the system performance, they make a subtle change in the listeners subjective mind! That is, one's state of awareness, acuity to sensation, improved sense of psychological musical time/space, and other attributes conducive to listening receptivity are increased or accentuated. He all but states outright that his tweaks are designed to help one fool oneself. There is nothing wrong with that - it is really no different from me noticing that I really think my system sounds better after a brisk walk or bike ride, after a warm phone call with my relatives, after completing a drudgery task around the house I've been putting off. So it is important to realize that one's immediate mental state determines to some degree how receptive one will be to listening and how much one may enjoy it. If these kinds of things make my listening more enjoyable, that's what I do.

For example, when I prepare to listen I go through what could best be described as a ritual that warms me up to listen, just like the tubes are warming up to play. I change the central air system thermostat so it won't kick on during my session. I turn off all the fluorescent lights in the house, I start a pot of tea, I finger through all my records and pick out 3 or 4 from my collection thinking about my mood, I clean the record and the stylus, I turn off my phone, I dust off the tops of the speakers, I adjust the blinds for soft lighting... its all sort of like foreplay. As I do all these things I can feel myself anticipating listening and my mood getting geared up to listen. I am sure this ritual enhances my subjective experience of my listening, but I do not believe they change the objective reality of what is coming out of the speakers (well, maybe the cleaning part).

Therefore, I would say that any person's rituals they employ to enhance their music listening enjoyment are valid and it is not particularly important whether the thing is objectively real, so long as it works subjectively. But, that said; it is OK to utilize these tweaks that work subjectively but wrong to try to support them based on objective principles. If they work, they work and don't need a physical/mechanical justification. For example, as far as the idea that greening and similar techniques based on the reduction of spurious laser light reflecting and refracting around inside the CD, consider the physical reality of what is happening. The distance traveled by the laser light when reading the CD surface is small and takes a short amount of time. Any stray light traveling around in the CD that makes it's way back to possibly be read back into the detection as noise will have been taking much more time. So, two things: 1) The stray light bouncing around in the CD from the particular instance of reading a bit state does not have enough time to get back and mess up the reading. 2) OK, you might think that the stray light in the CD from previous reads might make it's way back to add noise or interfere with a later detection; but if this was the case, CDs could not operate at all because all the reads would be compromised with stray artifacts. The objective reality is that the reads are accurate and precise, and nothing was improved. But, if by performing the greening tweak one's subjective enjoyment is improved, it is a valid tweak regardless of whether one believes it objectively changes the sound or not.

It's like the story of the reporter that went to interview Niels Bohr (quantum physicist). The reporter noticed a horseshoe nailed over Bohr's front door and asked about it. Bohr said the local people say it brings good luck. The reporter was amazed that one of the world's smartest physicists might believe such a thing and asked him how he could possibly be so superstitious. Bohr replied that he did not believe in it at all. The reporter asked then why was it up there nailed over his front door? Bohr answered that the local people say it brings good luck even to those that don't believe in it!

Regards,

Pauln

[DrWho]

I am simply convinced that unless you have tried these tweaks and have listenened for yourself, you have nothing to say to me that makes me feel like I am a looney.

Why do you assume nobody else has tried the tweak? The problem with your argument is that you'll just claim those that don't hear a difference don't have the same level of golden ears as yourself - which is the typical arrogant audiophile response that makes so many people hate getting into this hobby (sorry for venting a pet-peave). You also conveniently dodged the original question - so allow me to extrapolate and talk about the objective factors...

The data read from a CD is put into a buffer inside the CD Player. The data stored in this buffer will be exactly identical to the data stored on the CD. There is no denying this fact, which can easily be verified. It never fails to surprise me the number of people that choose to reject this fact based solely on emotion - funny how they have absolutely no experience with the circuits involved either. How is it any different than you complaining about others not trying your snake oil ideas? You complain about others not trying things and then complain about other things you have absolutely no experience with.

Anyways, if the data stored on the buffer is identical to the data in the CD, then there are no improvements to be made. It doesn't matter if any of your tweaks make the CD "easier to read" - which is already a long shot bogus argument that doesn't need to be argued out because it doesn't matter. The reason I made an analogy to a harddrive is because you can stream music off a harddrive - and before it gets sent out to the DAC it sits in a buffer - identical to the buffer in a CD Player. So if the data in the CD Player buffer is identical to the data in a harddrive buffer, and both buffers are driving the same DAC, then the output from both devices will be identical.

And again, anyone that thinks I'm full of crap is more than welcome to join me in the lab where I can easily show that the data in the buffer is identical to the data on the CD.

Arguing that you can hear a difference just proves that your hearing isn't consistent. Can you honestly claim that you can walk into your system and verify whether or not your wife put in the CD with the green marker or the one without? If you claim you can and can consistently prove it then I will retract all my claims in an instant. The problem is you can't - and no amount of twisted reasoning is going to change that fact.

Btw, I agree completely with Paul's comments....if some crazy idea tricks you into believing you're hearing something better, then more power to you. But let's not be so naive as to assume that everyone is just as gullible.

I apologize if my comments come across as harsh....logic doesn't really facilitate emotion.

Oh, and btw....I was completely serious about painting the speakers and using blacklights....

[jacksonbart]

Lascaladan,

Hang in there with us. It is very difficult to stand by one's experience in the face of "proofs" that something is not real. We are not as far apart as some would think. There are really two different things at play in this discussion - one is whether some tweak makes an objective difference, and the other is whether that tweak makes a subjective difference. The contention arises when the answer to the first is "no" but the answer to the second is "yes". This leads to the accusation that one is fooling oneself. Aren't we all are fooling ourselves when we listen - aren't we all try to fool ourselves into believing the illusion that the music is real and present before us? Don't both the objective performance of the system and our variable subjective state combine in the listening experience? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The reason I keep pointing folks to the Belt link http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/product/bpaip.html is because this guy Belt (and his wife) explicitly state that the treatments he offers do not make objective changes in the system performance, they make a subtle change in the listeners subjective mind! That is, one's state of awareness, acuity to sensation, improved sense of psychological musical time/space, and other attributes conducive to listening receptivity are increased or accentuated. He all but states outright that his tweaks are designed to help one fool oneself. There is nothing wrong with that - it is really no different from me noticing that I really think my system sounds better after a brisk walk or bike ride, after a warm phone call with my relatives, after completing a drudgery task around the house I've been putting off. So it is important to realize that one's immediate mental state determines to some degree how receptive one will be to listening and how much one may enjoy it. If these kinds of things make my listening more enjoyable, that's what I do.

For example, when I prepare to listen I go through what could best be described as a ritual that warms me up to listen, just like the tubes are warming up to play. I change the central air system thermostat so it won't kick on during my session. I turn off all the fluorescent lights in the house, I start a pot of tea, I finger through all my records and pick out 3 or 4 from my collection thinking about my mood, I clean the record and the stylus, I turn off my phone, I dust off the tops of the speakers, I adjust the blinds for soft lighting... its all sort of like foreplay. As I do all these things I can feel myself anticipating listening and my mood getting geared up to listen. I am sure this ritual enhances my subjective experience of my listening, but I do not believe they change the objective reality of what is coming out of the speakers (well, maybe the cleaning part).

Therefore, I would say that any person's rituals they employ to enhance their music listening enjoyment are valid and it is not particularly important whether the thing is objectively real, so long as it works subjectively. But, that said; it is OK to utilize these tweaks that work subjectively but wrong to try to support them based on objective principles. If they work, they work and don't need a physical/mechanical justification. For example, as far as the idea that greening and similar techniques based on the reduction of spurious laser light reflecting and refracting around inside the CD, consider the physical reality of what is happening. The distance traveled by the laser light when reading the CD surface is small and takes a short amount of time. Any stray light traveling around in the CD that makes it's way back to possibly be read back into the detection as noise will have been taking much more time. So, two things: 1) The stray light bouncing around in the CD from the particular instance of reading a bit state does not have enough time to get back and mess up the reading. 2) OK, you might think that the stray light in the CD from previous reads might make it's way back to add noise or interfere with a later detection; but if this was the case, CDs could not operate at all because all the reads would be compromised with stray artifacts. The objective reality is that the reads are accurate and precise, and nothing was improved. But, if by performing the greening tweak one's subjective enjoyment is improved, it is a valid tweak regardless of whether one believes it objectively changes the sound or not.

It's like the story of the reporter that went to interview Niels Bohr (quantum physicist). The reporter noticed a horseshoe nailed over Bohr's front door and asked about it. Bohr said the local people say it brings good luck. The reporter was amazed that one of the world's smartest physicists might believe such a thing and asked him how he could possibly be so superstitious. Bohr replied that he did not believe in it at all. The reporter asked then why was it up there nailed over his front door? Bohr answered that the local people say it brings good luck even to those that don't believe in it!

Regards,

Pauln

one word,Neurotic. You have a tuff time enjoying music. Its like always having your wife dressed in a girl Scout's uniform to get you off. Once and a while, fine, but all the time, not right. To each his own.

[pauln]

Nice try Jacksonbart, but this week it's the French maid's outfit (her turn to wear it!)

[jacksonbart]

Nice try Jacksonbart, but this week it's the French maid's outfit (her turn to wear it!)

huba huba, your ok in my book.

[kev313]

I am simply convinced that unless you have tried these tweaks and have listenened for yourself, you have nothing to say to me that makes me feel like I am a looney.

Anyways, if the data stored on the buffer is identical to the data in the CD, then there are no improvements to be made. It doesn't matter if any of your tweaks make the CD "easier to read" - which is already a long shot bogus argument that doesn't need to be argued out because it doesn't matter. The reason I made an analogy to a harddrive is because you can stream music off a harddrive - and before it gets sent out to the DAC it sits in a buffer - identical to the buffer in a CD Player. So if the data in the CD Player buffer is identical to the data in a harddrive buffer, and both buffers are driving the same DAC, then the output from both devices will be identical.

OK OK. But what about green marker on the buffer?

[Parrot]

For example, when I prepare to listen I go through what could best be described as a ritual that warms me up to listen, just like the tubes are warming up to play. I change the central air system thermostat so it won't kick on during my session. I turn off all the fluorescent lights in the house, I start a pot of tea, I finger through all my records and pick out 3 or 4 from my collection thinking about my mood, I clean the record and the stylus, I turn off my phone, I dust off the tops of the speakers, I adjust the blinds for soft lighting... its all sort of like foreplay. As I do all these things I can feel myself anticipating listening and my mood getting geared up to listen. I am sure this ritual enhances my subjective experience of my listening, but I do not believe they change the objective reality of what is coming out of the speakers (well, maybe the cleaning part).

This is so extraordinarily revealing about who you are, Pauln, that I sure wish you would use it in your signature line.

[pauln]

Parrot! I was wondering when you would jump in here. It's been getting awfully philosophical in this thread. Hey, I'm an open book without pretense. Recall when I was made fun of after my La Scalas were delivered because I described spending 15 minutes finding the right polish for them before getting around to hooking them up? Maybe explains the French maid's uniform... oui?

[DrWho]

I am simply convinced that unless you have tried these tweaks and have listenened for yourself, you have nothing to say to me that makes me feel like I am a looney.

Anyways, if the data stored on the buffer is identical to the data in the CD, then there are no improvements to be made. It doesn't matter if any of your tweaks make the CD "easier to read" - which is already a long shot bogus argument that doesn't need to be argued out because it doesn't matter. The reason I made an analogy to a harddrive is because you can stream music off a harddrive - and before it gets sent out to the DAC it sits in a buffer - identical to the buffer in a CD Player. So if the data in the CD Player buffer is identical to the data in a harddrive buffer, and both buffers are driving the same DAC, then the output from both devices will be identical.

OK OK. But what about green marker on the buffer?

Now you're talking [Y]

[oldbuckster]

Lascaladan....................Tough crowd, EH Bud..............back to my original point.......Who am I to say that it doesn't work, if you hear an improvement, that's fine, I'm not going to tell you that you don't, or can't hear anything different, I don't know what you hear, only what I hear. Hope that came out right, not thinking well today...................all worked up.........................

[SilverSport]

...or perhaps said another way...if YOU hear a difference and others say they don't...what do you care???...if you are wrong, all you are out is the price of the markers perhaps and some time...if you are right, you are hearing more sound then the rest...just do it!

Bill

[BigBadBabyBoomer]

Go tubes with the best DAC chip-set.....almost...ALMOST... like vinyl.

[Mallette]

Hey, it works....I took a magic marker and marked the edge of a CD. When I loaded it, the spreadsheet was correct to two more decimal places and the fonts looked, well, crisper, with better definition. No going back now...

Seriously, faith is good. If one hears a difference, that's all that counts. As I always say, it is metaphysically absurd to suggest I can somehow know what someone else hears.

Dave

[Parrot]

OK OK. But what about green marker on the buffer?

I would like to try this, but, if I put green ink on the processor, would this maybe make it overheat? Could I use ink from a cryogenically treated marker, or wouldn't that matter?

[kev313]

On topic:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue29/ramblings.htm

[kev313]

A quote from the above link:

"Much of this stuff is whacky as all get out and flies in the face of reason, and yet for many they hear a difference and a difference they like with their music. They get serious and others get nasty. Not so sure why, but let me digress here a bit and get something out for one and all the Clever Little Clock (CLC) and stuff from Belt does not affect ones' system or music, it is purported to affect the listener by addressing conflicts in our inner-self or sub-consciousness or something like that, it is all rather convoluted as to how this does that. We have played around with the CLC and Belt items and heard differences (that is we heard what we likedjust reporting on the experience not making any claims or assurances, no need to shoot the messenger or make fun of my glasses)."

[:|]

[edwinr]

My next door neighbor and fellow hi-fi nut is into astral projection. He holds meetings every other week for members of his 'club', for want of a better word. He has told me he has never achieved a true out of body experience in the several years he has meditated. But his aim is to achieve the 'Holy Grail' at least once in his life.

Who am I to say he is barking up the wrong tree? He has never lied to me about what he has achieved. He hasn't misled me about his aspirations. Maybe there's something in this astral projection stuff...

Then again, maybe he's a bloody nutcase!

P.S. I told him the other day that when he achieves his goal, he has to send me a postcard...

[pauln]

This is really the placebo effect, which very few folks realise is a serious paradox. What is a placebo? It is something that is not supposed to have any effect. What happens to the group that takes the placebo? They show the effect (the one that is not supposed to happen by which the placebo is defined and selected as a control). This undermines the experimental design for controls using placebos.

The primary assumption in a trial that uses placebos in the control group is that the placebo is inert and cannot have any effect whatsoever. The trials end up demonstrating that the people in the control group using the placebo actually do show effects. What almost everyone misses is that the very experimental design of the trial is based on the assumption of no placebo effect, yet in reality this assumption is wrong because it clearly does show an effect; therefore the fundamental design paradigm of the experimental methodology is totally flawed. The primary assumption is clearly not valid because instead of selecting a true placebo (no effect) they choose a false placebo (with an effect).

So what is a true placebo? Knowledge of administration is what makes the placebo have an effect. In a trial where the dose was administered secretly (for placebo and active agent) the placebo effect won't occur (like in a double blind).

Well it all makes sense now... because the subjective effectiveness of the perceived improvements are based on the listener's knowledge of having performed the tweak, removing that knowledge (double blind) should counter-act the subjective effectiveness - which it does in double blind testing; the change in effectivness in and outside the test is clear proof that the tweak operates as advertised and actually does work...as a classic placebo, which is a real effect.

Now I'm going to put some special wheat tail pennies on top of my La Scalas (tails up), put on The New Miles Davis Quintet, and get back to foolin' myself.

[Mallette]

Who am I to say he is barking up the wrong tree? He has never lied to me about what he has achieved. He hasn't misled me about his aspirations. Maybe there's something in this astral projection stuff...

He is correct. Tell him to keep at it, but try to avoid complete panic when he finds himself looking down at his own body. Years ago I attempted the same thing. I eventually succeeded, much to my own shock. In fact, the shock was so great I slammed back into my body with such force and resolve I was never able to repeat the experience, though I tried.

The above is no joke. I will not go into the details so as to avoid appearing more insane than I actually am.

If there is anything on topic here, it is that each and every human experiences things differently. The highest crime, in my opinion, is to judge anothers experiences by ones own with the assumption that ones own represent Divine Truth.

Dave

[Lascaladan]

I was not sure if I should respond or not, or to even continue on this topic. Do I have golden ears. My ears are actually getting better while my libido and my eyesight are growing weaker(I am in my fifties). New prescriptions and meds help those areas. My doctor tells me not to qtip on a daily basis, because wax is good, and I can cause damage if I am careless. I choose to take the risk. I would like to continue to be part of this forum. I never intend to say that I am "better" than anyone. Just to share what I hear. Why the marker works, I do not care. Why the better ac cords work, again, I do not care. I like softer "feet" under my equipment, as opposed to metal ones(except under speakers) because my ears/brain appreciates the improvement. Once a difference is heard, I make the choice as to it being better, or not. Those forum members who continue to make fun, continue if you wish. My recent thoughts on the matter is I do not care. Most of us spend good money on our systems, and when a small amount of money and time is spent for an improvement(must make a difference to determine if it is an improvement),I will mention it. Kev313, OB, I believe you are both behind me as to "what I hear". Thank you. To those others of you, I take back the Qtip statement. You can all buy your own. Just remember: rolling tubes in amps/preamps and changing caps in crossovers is all along the same lines as to what I am talking about(with maybe a bit more "witchcraft"). Till the next time.