Hi Sabai I use some bags 5x3 cm and some a little bigger, i dont know exactly what crystals they contain. Started putting them on the powerinletplugs on all equipments and the result was pretty clear, the soundstage got more natural, siblings were redused, more refined bass and the soundstage got bigger in every plan. After that i bought a lot more and do now have them on all plugs and terminal. Several of my friends have also tried them and it seems that the result depends on the level you have aquired. On well tweeked and good systems the effect is easy to hear. The effect is maybee minor but if you already have worked a lot with you system, you will enjoy it. The price is relative low abou 50$ for the small ons, double for the big ones. I think today, i may have 30 bags placed around, equal to ca 2 Stillpoints Ultra 5 with bases. Next to changing fuses i beleave its the most costeffective tweak you can do and i would highly recomend it.
By the way i am looking for Shakti Hallografs pairs, if anyone wants to sell. Nive music week.
I use an alum crystal suspended in front of each speaker.
I then train a vaporizer on each crystal.
And I shoot a spray of Apple Cider Vineagar across the fog from the vaporizers at a 90 degree angle in front of the speakers - I use plain old water pistols to shoot the spray - works fine.
Result is: just phenomenol sound from both speakers and sometimes even a little lightning bolt when the air pressure and due point are just right.
Very compelling!
But... I must confess... your wife will have a lot of fun with it. She gets very sarcastic when I get out my crystals, vaporizers, pistols... and... my ion gun to clean my records. I've tried to convince her that its all in the sound... you're not supposed to see anything. Well, of course... except for the occasional lighting bolt - she likes that.
northernescape Geoff, never said crystals do not work.
>>>>Then what was all that "scientifically impossible" mumbo jumbo?
I believe I believe and that always has kept tinker bell alive for me.
>>>>>>Whatever that is supposed to mean.
just suggested maybe just really test them as to real effect, which as we all noted is extremely difficult to impossible bg!
>>>>>>As you all noted? You mean all of the naysayers, the ones who have no experience with crystals? I suspect you want things both ways.
As to scientific, that would require testing, which we do not have, so until proven false(the rationale for utilizing a null hypothesis in the scientific method), they must work......huh??
>>>>You are assuming a great many things. If someone wishes to test my crystals or any crystals anyway they wish, please BE MY GUEST! There are many audiophile products based on crystals, not just mine. So one wonders, how do you know?
and please stop denigrating science as a whole, you would not have audio, save live performances, without science!!
>>>>>Huh? I’m not denigrating science as a whole. I’m criticizing the misuse of science when trying to attack an idea or a thing. I thought I was clear. Go back and re-read the sentence with the phrase "9/11 was a Government conspiracy" in it.
cheers
geoff kait machina dynamica advanced audio concepts "The difficult we do quickly; the impossible takes longer."
I believe I believe and that always has kept tinker bell alive for me.
just suggested maybe just really test them as to real effect, which as we all noted is extremely difficult to impossible bg!
As to scientific, that would require testing, which we do not have, so until proven false(the rationale for utilizing a null hypothesis in the scientific method), they must work......huh??
and please stop denigrating science as a whole, you would not have audio, save live performances, without science!!
"Scientific explanations" have been given for everything from why bumblebees can’t fly, to why battleships can’t float, to why there cannot be UFOs, why we never made it to the moon, to why 9/11 was a Government conspiracy. Give me a break. Gee, I hate to judge before all the facts are in but it appears nobody has actually stepped up to the plate and given a reasonable explanation - a scientific explanation - why crystals CAN’T improve the sound. So far all I see is a lot of who shot John and angst. I also note that one fellow brought up his credentials, just like I predicted he would, as if that would win the day.
It's all good folks, nobody understands difficult like I do, and if you think audiophiles have disagreements, try scientists when a controversial paper is presented. I really really enjoy such discourse. In addition, as I noted I am in no way an expert audiophile, and many many will be able to identify real, subtle changes I never could. That's why the real bottom line is if you like it, keep it, and maybe try and explain to others why. Bg
It's all good folks, nobody understands difficult like I do, and if you think audiophiles have disagreements, try scientists when a controversial paper is presented. I really really enjoy such discourse. In addition, as I noted I am in no way an expert audiophile, and many many will be able to identify real, subtle changes I never could. That's why the real bottom line is if you like it, keep it, and maybe try and explain to others why. Bg
I don’t believe I’m being difficult. I am after the truth, which can be both difficult and painful. I did not fall off the turnip truck yesterday when it comes to either science or audio.
Northernescape - Geoff just likes to be difficult and often snarky. But, in the long run, he’s a good guy. If you have thin skin or hold onto grudges, you’ll never get to the long run.
As far as double blind for audio.. that gets difficult because it takes a while to really hear what a system is doing. I’ve changed things and noticed a difference at first, but sometimes it takes a few weeks to truly understand what that difference is and if it’s an improvement. How you would design a double blind test that takes that into account, I don’t know.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to say. What exactly are you claiming is "scientifically impossible?" Be careful, don’t use the old Appeal to Authority on me. It won’t work. I’ve been immunized. Besides, we already have people here whose mission is protecting naive audiophiles from unscrupulous shysters and ensuring the Laws of Science are not sullied.
wolf_garcia Negative ions (as in air fresheners) attach to dust particles causing them to fall out of the air. The good news is the air is cleaner, the bad news is there are more dust particles on everything. Thunderstorms also do this, although indoor thunderstorms seem extreme and perhaps should be avoided ("Bob, why is the cat smoldering?").
BTW! Geoffkai, I missed your double blinded and most scientific studies snarky response. Are you anti science or just be difficult. Hard to be an audiophile and anti science at the same time. The former is entirely contingent on the latter in our world.
Geoffkait, your responses are why, as I first noted, I really did not want to comment in this fascinating thread. To a degree you are correct, however, the straw man argument is really not that but rather revealing my intrinsic scientific skepticism concerning the topic of this thread( and many others as well). However, the experiment here is simple and the null hypothesis, something like "crystal when( pick your single thing, placement of crystals, number of crystals, size, etc, but only when as the variable tested) do not improve the sound of song a. Experimental protocol like: First determine minimum number of observations required for significance. Then provide experimental setup... 1. A given audio setup, hidden from view. 2. A random sample of participants(and here randomness might be a questionable variable post experiment) 3. Someone who queries the participantsas to ( and here it can be a continuous result, I.e improvement on a 1-10,1-5, etc scale or discontinuous improvement yes/no) 4. Someone who behind the hidden setup varies the experimental audio setup by Only changing the test variable (crystal change, as noted above). 5. Collect results 6. Analyze the results by determining whether or not the results support the null hypothesis. 7. Discuss as to how the results may have occurred. simple
Now obviously no one is likely to expend the effort to do this for the countless audio situations, products, and perturbations existent in the known universe BG .
As to scientifically impossible, that is accepted practice. If existing dogma and the preponderance of data, gathered through countless experiments, supports a given conclusion, then yes, right now based on all existing evidence it IS scientifically impossible. However if you are saying that such a conclusion is open to and should be challenged you are correct (also see one of the great books of recent science philosophy written by one of my professors, T S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Any good acoustic scientist should always be open minded.
i never determined "how much someone should spend" and intentionally noted "wallet dependent".
As to your other statements, I do not understand what you are critical of, however, I never wished to be offensive in any way to anyone, and I am very sorry if you took it that way.
Negative ions (as in air fresheners) attach to dust particles causing them to fall out of the air. The good news is the air is cleaner, the bad news is there are more dust particles on everything. Thunderstorms also do this, although indoor thunderstorms seem extreme and perhaps should be avoided ("Bob, why is the cat smoldering?").
northernescape Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!
>>>>>>>But can be shown that a thing is or is not a placebo by careful testing. That's a pretty obvious Strawman argument you just made.
But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need.
>>>>>>Oh, geez, another Strawman argument. Maybe they are scientifically impossible in your mind. That's not the same thing as scientifically impossible.
If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome".
>>>>>Who are you to decide how much anyone can spend?
Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!
>>>>>>This is all starting to look like dogmatic criticism, not valid criticism. Sorry.
Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.
>>>>>>Of course there won't be 100% agreement for anything audio related, for the reasons I already alluded to. That's why I suggested throwing out the negative results if most results are positive. If there is only one test and its results are negative it doesn't mean anything. I dare say what appears to be a fringe issue to you is an advanced concept to some others.
Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!
But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need. If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome". Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!
Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.
stfoth, yep but kinda dropped psychotropic studies, shifted to anesthetic agents, which when you think of it, are the ultimate big gun--knocking you out, rather than fine tuning sensations, so kind of boring in comparison.
Northernescape And I guess I do have to add to this thread there is a reason that most scientific studies involving humans and responses are double blinded! AND INCLUDE A PLACEBO TO ASCERTAIN THAT EFFECT.. BG...
Nope, doesn’t work for audio. Might be OK for pharma. There are just too many reasons the tests can be done wrong for audio. Therefore nothing can be concluded if the test results are negative. Best to just throw them out. In audio we see the threat of controlled blind tests frequently, and the dreaded placebo effect and it’s ugly sister, expectation bias, you know, as if the mere threat of such is sufficient to scare the opposition into submission or "prove" the controversial device under consideration must be a hoax or scientifically impossible.
Geo, you're absolutely Right. As a skeptic, I ought to investigate...IF interested, which I'm not so much. Given my 'listening space', which is light years from being 'optimal' (you'd be appalled, really), I do what I can with it...
I don't 'get' the 'religious aspect' of the discussion mentioned, but faith is a wonderful thing in general as long as one doesn't opt for the 'ISIS approach". Bombing and beheading the opposition into compliance in regard to one's audio tastes might be an option but let's leave that to the 'cable and interconnect' crowd. They seem a bit more 'religious' about it...
Yes, the previous Does drip enormous amounts of sarcasm....sorry about the stains on your monitors. Windex....;)
(Maybe I should just toss it and become a pro troll....I do suspect that some would rather stuff my keyboard into an appropo orifice and hope for an early and quiet end to my 'absurdvations'...*sly S*)
I just could not find any constructive way to make any comments in this thread without controversy or creating animosity, even though it has fascinated me to no end!!
However, as to Randy's audiophile assertion requirements...I double majored undergrad engineering and biology (with my senior thesis on nearfield and Fairfield sound underwater), got a masters and PhD in Neurophysiology and Neuropharmacology( with Neru means lots and lots of electronics, computers, sensation analysis etc and a Doctoral thesis on psychoactive and autonomic effects of the Tetrohydrocannabinols), and a MD and residency with research training in Anesthesiology, so all boxes ticked, AND I still consider myself a very novice audiophile compared to many here who spend their lives in direct, daily, continuing contact with state of the art products, new processes and evolving mediums. I believe in most cases that is more important, given a at least a basic understanding of the science, rather than a deep understanding that I have, without daily immersion in audio.
And I guess I do have to add to this thread there is a reason that most scientific studies involving humans and responses are double blinded! AND INCLUDE A PLACEBO TO ASCERTAIN THAT EFFECT.. BG... Thanks
Randy - my main problem is your over generalizations. I personally have biochemistry and education degrees. And yet you seem to assume that I'm a wooly headed thinker who just believes what I want without evidence or theory. Or at least that's what your post seemed to imply. I'm not bothered, but it's better to use myself as an example..
My thought process, though, is not known to you, so you have no way of knowing if I'm uncritically jumping in to the crystal pool or if I'm suggesting we keep an open mind as this discussion unfolds.
As rightfully critical as you are of blind acceptance of possibly dubious claims, you should also beware the calcification of joy that an overly objectivist and critical outlook can cause.
Props to you @noromance for the apology. That's showing some strong character! I get your point though, but you probably could have stated it a bit differently or with more tact/subtlety.
Yes, not my remark and all religious beliefs are not equal. For example, it is quite possible to believe that a deity has guided biological evolution (Teilhard de Chardin) or to own major astronomical observatories to peer back billions of years ot the early stages of the universe (as the Pope does). OTOH, "quick" creationists are simply wrong in their belief that the universe is just a few thousand years old, whether they attempt to adopt a mantle of science or not. Most do not understand what science is, or how it works.
re: education - I stand by my statement.
It is very difficult (maybe impossible) to be a well educated audiophile. You would need a thorough grounding analog and digital electronics, acoustics, biology, perceptual (cognitive) psychology, and statistics. I don't have all the above, but a typical liberal arts major is completely lost.
Worse is the propensity of liberal arts majors (esp. from elite universities) to believe that they can evaluate all technical matters with expertise, and that notion can do real damage (outside of hobbies). One example was an anti-vaxer with an elite liberal arts degree who lived in Tiburon. She was also rich which may have contributed to her problems. IIRC, her child died.
Randy - I have no problem with your scepticism. I seek not to change your mind. But passing judgement on everyone's education was a bit much. As was the (not your) comment about God, suggesting that all beliefs are equal.
I probably won't even mess with crystals.. I'm too busy and highly sceptical..
But I keep an open mind only because I've been sceptical in the past and have changed my mind after experimentation and research. I have learned from my past experience..
bojack When I added crystals to my system, I totally noticed that its energy senators aligned (I am talking instantly here, man), and everything sounded so amazing and rad in tune with my energy centers, too. Crystals are right on with me...totally, really.
When I added crystals to my system, I totally noticed that its energy senators aligned (I am talking instantly here, man), and everything sounded so amazing and rad in tune with my energy centers, too. Crystals are right on with me...totally, really.
Koestler was the Author of Darkness at Noon (German: Sonnenfinsternis) is a novel by Hungarian-born British novelist Arthur Koestler, first published in 1940. His best known work, it is the tale of Rubashov, an Old Bolshevik who is arrested, imprisoned, and tried for treason against the government that he had helped to create. Anyone not see the irony?
toddverrone A subject like this is going to become playful because it just seems silly. Now, once we shake our sillies out, we can have a real conversation about these. I personally am open to the possibility despite also seeing how absolutely silly this all seems from the outside.
Randy - judgemental much lately? You know the education levels and subjects we’ve mastered? Plus I can’t even tell what you mean by your post. So get off your high 🏇 and see that a subject like this is going to become playful because it just seems silly. Now, once we shake our sillies out, we can have a real conversation about these. I personally am open to the possibility despite also seeing how absolutely silly this all seems from the outside.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
