Tip for OPEN MINDED Audiophiles

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > - CB
> >
> > This message describes a tweak intended for OPEN MINDED AUDIOPHILES
> > only. If you are only reading it to criticize, scoff or ridicule, or
> > any other negative behavior, please leave my thread now. We're not
> > interested in your opinion. The net is full of audio dogmatists and
> > their "objectivist religions", and we are already fully aware of the
> > opinions of audio naysayers and so-called objectivists. You are free to
> > preach your objectivist religions in threads that cover the topic of
> > objectivist issues in audio. To do so in a thread that doesn't purport
> > to discuss the objectivist angle, and where you are not invited, only
> > causes great dissension and wars in the audio community. So please stay
> > in discussions where you are welcome. Thank you. For those of you "true
> > audiophiles" who remain, please read on to see how you can easily
> > improve your hifi systems.
> >

> > Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white paper.
> > IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used unbleached paper, but
> > regular plain white paper should do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't
> > matter, but mine is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
> > prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the centre, where
> > the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture or photograph of a 4-legged
> > animal with a tail, that is smaller than the piece of paper you cut
> > out. Now place the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
> > paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to the speaker box
> > (where doesn't matter, but I taped mine to the top of the box). Now
> > place an aspirin on the center pinhole of the white piece of paper.
> > That's it. Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
> > don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does. And
> > remember to... enjoy the music!

> If you think this made them sound better, try some
> origami with Advil for smoooother lows.

Can you not read, son? Or do you just have trouble understanding what
you read? I did make a polite request at the beginning of my post you
are responding to, that people please refrain from contributing to this
thread if its only to attack me with ridicule, mockery, derision and
other such negative, antisocial, unproductive, unwarranted personal
attacks. If you're a troll, please do you're trolling elsewhere. If
however you have a sincere interest in audio and improving your hifi
system, then stay and maybe we can try to have a productive discussion
about audio. You can start it by telling me whether you've tried my
tweak or not, and if not, why you won't.

But if you don't have a sincere interest in improving the sound quality
of your system, then don't you have better things to do than trolling
people on audio groups and launching unprovoked personal attacks
against them?

BE NICE OR LEAVE.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 2:04:27 AM2/23/06

to

George M. Middius wrote:

> elm...@pacificcoast.net said:
>
> > > Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white paper.
> > > IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used unbleached paper, but
> > > regular plain white paper should do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't
> > > matter, but mine is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
> > > prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the centre, where
> > > the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture or photograph of a 4-legged
> > > animal with a tail, that is smaller than the piece of paper you cut
> > > out. Now place the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
> > > paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to the speaker box
> > > (where doesn't matter, but I taped mine to the top of the box). Now
> > > place an aspirin on the center pinhole of the white piece of paper.
> [snip]

> Nobody will buy it.

Hey, I'm not selling it! I'm offering it for free....

> Just to clue you in, I tried it this afternoon and it
> didn't do a damned thing.

> Oh wait, I didn't aBxercise the tweak.

That's okay. ABX is utter nonsense, and a waste of anyone's time. It
reminds me of a banana. Back in the day, Tiefenbrun used to run ads
showing Linn equipment next to a banana, with the point that
specifications are about as relevant to audio as a banana. No
audiophile actually ABX's equipment they intend to purchase but if they
did, your ABX would be the banana.

What I do advocate is a simple A/B test. Before you do any tweaking
experiment, be they one of mine or anyone else's, you simply listen to
a piece of music you're familiar with (natural acoustic music is often
best in this case, even if your normal tastes run opposite). Then do
the experiment, then listen immediately again to see if there are
observable changes. Don't switch until you are sure you have heard the
song well enough to remember its relative sound quality. If you're at
all unsure about differences, go back to the original condition, after
removing the "tweak" (providing it is reversible). Listen again. Then
listen again with the tweak in place. (It usually takes me just seconds
to recognize differences, but for most people, I'd say at least
30s-1min should do it). If after a few A/B trials like this you are
certain you're not hearing any differences, then you can probably say
you've done a fair test. I can tell you this, the more A/B trials that
you do, the better you will become at doing them, and differences that
were hard to discern before, will seem much more apparent.

> I guess my opinion is "unreliable".

That's okay, I'm not relying on your opinion. Your opinion is only of
value to yourself, as is everyone else's here. Meaning that if it
didn't work for you, it didn't work for you. At least you tried it,
which means you have automatically evolved past many others that never
would. But I would be interested to learn of the details of your
experiment, if only to see if you had performed it correctly. Was the
paper perfectly blank and white? Was the centre pinhole on the same
diagonal as the corner holes? Was there a 4-legged animal pic and an
aspirin involved, or did you forego any of the instructions because you
didn't have all the materials? What's also important to know is, how
did you listen. Did you play the same song from the beginning, or did
you expect to hear a noticeable change in mid-stream?

The effect is there and it does work, even if it passed over you. But a
lot of times people just don't listen properly, and then figure there's
no difference. Another problem is that everyone has a different
threshold of consciousness; meaning some are more sensitive to changes
in sound than others. A lot of this has to do with how much experience
you have observing these changes. I'm sure you can hear differences in
all sorts of things that you didn't know you could, we just need to
find your threshold. There are, for example, things that produce larger
improvements than the 5-pinhole paper tweak, but they may require a
little more involvement or materials on your part.

For example, do you have any quarter round doweling laying about your
place? (also known simply as "quarter round", used in most residences
to trim the baseboard of a home). Even if its just a small piece no
bigger than 3", it'll do for our purposes (but to help ensure it will
reach your threshold, its better if its longer, as long as your wall is
tall). If you don't have the stuff lying around, well its very cheap,
but it will require that you invest a couple of dollars at a hardware
store (you can justify that it is in the name of science!). Take the
quarter round and simply attach it to the corner of your room, behind
your loudspeakers (you can temporarily fix it in the corner by means of
blue-tak or double-sided adhesive tape). If you're using a small piece,
attach it near the ceiling. Listen again to see if you recognize an
improvement in your hifi. If you do the same to the opposite corner
behind your loudspeakers, the effect is doubled. Now I think that
should be enough to reach your threshold of hearing, but if you try it
using the A/B test I described above and it doesn't produce any audible
results, then let me know, and I'll try to come up with something that
will. Which again, you won't have to buy because it won't cost you a
dime!

Speaking of which, if the quarter round is out of the budget for this
week, then.... still have that piece of white paper? Try placing it
under one of the feet of your components, if they have the usual 4
feet. See if that does anything good. If in doubt, do the same with all
your audio components, and anything else you have that has 4 feet
(chairs, tables, whatever). Now see if you can monitor any differences.
You might be surprised. I find that for those who are not particularly
sensitive to hearing differences, compounding the effect can really
help. For example, the pinhole paper & aspirin tweak didn't do anything
for you when you tried it on the loudspeaker. But what if you were to
do the same thing of attaching the paper & aspirin to all the
components in your system. That just might be enough to recognize what
effect it is having. Remember, if you do this and once the "tweaks" are
all in place and you've listened to it, immediately remove them all at
once to return to the original condition (A/B), listen as soon as
possible and see if there's any change.

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 3:08:22 AM2/23/06

to

In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of whole cloth, for no
one here has forwarded such an idea. Why do you keep embarrassing
yourself?

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:57:19 AM2/23/06

to

"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com

Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it can't be true.

> Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

If irony killed!

What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a miniscule fraction
of all audiophiles still think vinyl sounds better.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:59:28 AM2/23/06

to

<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140677232.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Don't get me wrong, Mr. Priority. I think you have come up with a great
tweak. I'm sure that it has put the technology of audio tweeks into sharper
perspective for many. I eagerly await the glowing reports from Scott, Jenn,
Art, George, and David, etc. as to its stunning effectiveness.

George M. Middius

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:45:35 AM2/23/06

to

Jenn said to the Krooborg:

> Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

You might think embarrassing himself is Krooger's objective, but I assure
you it's not. To the extent Arnii is aware of how fatuous his "debating
trade" tactics are, he believes he's providing moral direction and
siccicnenetiificcc inspiration to Mikey and the lesser 'borgs.

Clyde Slick

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 7:31:47 AM2/23/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com...

>
> What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a miniscule fraction
> of all audiophiles still think vinyl sounds better.
>

Sure, if you define everyone with an $79 Technics as an audiophile.

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

Clyde Slick

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 7:32:50 AM2/23/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message

news:cdydnY3A44c9PmDe...@comcast.com...

We are leaving the eye gouging to you.

J.Major

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 8:42:07 AM2/23/06

to

Or that CD are more realistic than LP. Yes CD have a more realistic
sound than a cheap LP but try listening to a properly configure High End
turntable and you will see why Jenn and several others prefer the sound
of LP...

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 8:49:39 AM2/23/06

to

"J.Major" <jocely...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OWiLf.11005$W63....@weber.videotron.net

Huh?

> Yes CD have a more realistic sound than a cheap LP but try listening to
> a properly configure High End turntable and you will see
> why Jenn and several others prefer the sound of LP...

Never happens.

The very few people who still think that the LP has any justification except
as in an archival sense are more clearly undstandable as a study in
sociology or psychology than technology.

124

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 10:29:28 AM2/23/06

to

> Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
> don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does.

This does raise an interesting point. How does one know when any
device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is
to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion? I think that there
are at least some subjectivists that believe that some bogus audio
products exist. How do subjectivists decide which of these products
are bogus and which are worth a try?

--124

westpas...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:00:55 AM2/23/06

to

Why is it when someone tries to improve on anothers concept
it is considered an attack on the integrity of the OP?
Apparently we are all flat-earthers in our collective responses.
I propose that your audio would sound better if you placed your
loudspeakers under a miniture pyramid.
Remember to be open minded and that if all of us had followed
your response criteria, there would be no responses.
Why would you post in an opinions forum if you don't want our
unbiased replies?
If you want only accolades, those are in another forum.

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:04:41 AM2/23/06

to

In article <YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >> <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> >>
> >>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>

> >>>> Now for the tweak: get <snip>

>
> >> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
> >> that violin sound from a LP is always more realistic
> >> than that from a CD.
>
> > An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of whole
> > cloth, for no one here has forwarded such an idea.
>
> Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it can't be true.

Yawn. It's perfectly logical (and no doubt true) that you are referring
to my position. You, yet again, misrepresented it.

>
> > Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
>
> If irony killed!

I'd be alive and well. It's far less embarrassing to hold a honestly
held opinion than it is to constantly die by the straw-man argument,
which is what you do.

>
> What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a miniscule fraction
> of all audiophiles still think vinyl sounds better.

I "get that" just fine, thanks. My opinions on what sounds like what
aren't affected by popularity polls.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:24:44 AM2/23/06

to

> Robert Morein wrote:

I tried your tweak using a picture of a cat, and then a frog. The music
sounded more complex, but also somehow standoffish, with the cat.
Thanks, it's interesting tweak.

--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:30:18 AM2/23/06

to

news:jennconducts-A262...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com

> George M. Middius wrote:

> > Nobody will buy it.

Actually, someone posted today to RAHE who claims he *does* routinely do
DBTs before purchases. So have a banana.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:32:02 AM2/23/06

to

124 <roogg...@kriocoucke.mailexpire.com> wrote:
> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
> > don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does.

> This does raise an interesting point. How does one know when any
> device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is
> to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion?

The answer is: one doesn't *know*. But audiophilia today is mainly
a faith-based hobby...so all that's required is *belief*.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:35:02 AM2/23/06

to

Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

> > "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > > In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,
> > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > >>
> > >>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Now for the tweak: get <snip>
> >
> > >> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
> > >> that violin sound from a LP is always more realistic
> > >> than that from a CD.
> >
> > > An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of whole
> > > cloth, for no one here has forwarded such an idea.
> >
> > Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it can't be true.

> Yawn. It's perfectly logical (and no doubt true) that you are referring
> to my position. You, yet again, misrepresented it.

To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
as realistic as on the best LPs.

And that's an idea that's only a little more probable than the
utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:40:24 AM2/23/06

to

"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> In article <YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com>,
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
>>> In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now for the tweak: get <snip>
>>
>>>> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
>>>> that violin sound from a LP is always more realistic
>>>> than that from a CD.
>>
>>> An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of
>>> whole cloth, for no one here has forwarded such an idea.
>>
>> Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it
>> can't be true.

> Yawn. It's perfectly logical (and no doubt true) that
> you are referring to my position. You, yet again,
> misrepresented it.

Apparently Jenn your statement is one that gives itself to
mis-interpretation. Want to try to restate it better?

>>> Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

>> If irony killed!

> I'd be alive and well.

Assertion with nada, zip, zero evidence noted. In fact Jenn its kinda
embarassing that you so desperately hold onto tired old beliefs that so easy
to debunk.

> It's far less embarrassing to
> hold a honestly held opinion than it is to constantly die
> by the straw-man argument, which is what you do.

Yet another groundless assertion.

>> What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a
>> miniscule fraction of all audiophiles still think vinyl
>> sounds better.

> I "get that" just fine, thanks. My opinions on what
> sounds like what aren't affected by popularity polls.

I guess this means that Jenn's beliefs about LP which are like believing in
a flat earth, would be unaffected by a popularity poll that said that most
people think that the earth is a roundish sphere-like object.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:51:54 AM2/23/06

to

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:35 am
Email: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>

>To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
>as realistic as on the best LPs.

>From what I've seen (and I have not read all of the threads, nor all of
the posts in all the treads, pertaining to Jenn and LPs), it's more
like this:

"Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds as realistic to
her as on the best LPs."

I've not seen Jenn make any 'scientific' claims as to why this is the
case. I *have* seen, in what I've read, several people dismissing her
preference. I *have* seen, in what I've read, people questioning her
hearing abilities.

To me, from what I've read, this clearly falls under the 'preference'
category.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 11:55:32 AM2/23/06

to

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:1140713514.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> From: Steven Sullivan
> Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:35 am
> Email: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>
>
>> To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD
>> ever sounds
>> as realistic as on the best LPs.
>
>> From what I've seen (and I have not read all of the
>> threads, nor all of
> the posts in all the treads, pertaining to Jenn and LPs),
> it's more like this:
>
> "Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds as
> realistic to her as on the best LPs."
>
> I've not seen Jenn make any 'scientific' claims as to why
> this is the case.

I believe that Jenn has said in a recent post that there are technical
reasons behind her perceptions.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:17:10 PM2/23/06

to

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:55 am
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>

>I believe that Jenn has said in a recent post that there are technical
>reasons behind her perceptions.

I have not seen that. I've seen several comments from her like this
one:

"I've never stated that LPs are more accurate. The fact that some LPs

are, in some aspects, more superior in sound is simply my opinion,
based
on what my ears tell me."

Whatever. It just seems that preferences or opinions like hers are
entirely valid. It seems that trying to argue her out of them isn't.

George M. Middius

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:04:07 PM2/23/06

to

4 of 12 snitted:

> How does one know when any
> device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is
> to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion?

One doesn't care. Only the multiplicities of nonentities ensconced in the
Hive care about that.

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:24:27 PM2/23/06

to

In article <Sp-dnZujO4P...@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

Others have it right, Shhhh for instance. See his post.

>
> >>> Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
>
> >> If irony killed!
>
> > I'd be alive and well.
>
> Assertion with nada, zip, zero evidence noted.

The evidence is that I've said nothing that's ironic.

> In fact Jenn its kinda
> embarassing that you so desperately hold onto tired old beliefs that so easy
> to debunk.

You know that the best LPs have better violin (for example) sound than
CDs to my ears? You can "debunk" that?

>
> > It's far less embarrassing to
> > hold a honestly held opinion than it is to constantly die
> > by the straw-man argument, which is what you do.
>
> Yet another groundless assertion.

Nope, you constantly ascribe statements and beliefs to me that aren't
true.

>
> >> What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a
> >> miniscule fraction of all audiophiles still think vinyl
> >> sounds better.
>
> > I "get that" just fine, thanks. My opinions on what
> > sounds like what aren't affected by popularity polls.
>
> I guess this means that Jenn's beliefs about LP which are like believing in
> a flat earth, would be unaffected by a popularity poll that said that most
> people think that the earth is a roundish sphere-like object.

Faulty logic. That the earth is not flat is demonstrable.

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:25:13 PM2/23/06

to

In article <dtko7l$2on$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

> Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > > > In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,
> > > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > > >>
> > > >>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Now for the tweak: get <snip>
> > >
> > > >> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
> > > >> that violin sound from a LP is always more realistic
> > > >> than that from a CD.
> > >
> > > > An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of whole
> > > > cloth, for no one here has forwarded such an idea.
> > >
> > > Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it can't be true.
>
> > Yawn. It's perfectly logical (and no doubt true) that you are referring
> > to my position. You, yet again, misrepresented it.
>
> To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
> as realistic as on the best LPs.

Well, that's very close :-) Add "to me" and you've got it.

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:25:40 PM2/23/06

to

In article <a_mdnUvNr7iYdGDe...@comcast.com>,
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:

Incorrect, again.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:46:55 PM2/23/06

to

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message

news:1140715030....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:55 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>
>> I believe that Jenn has said in a recent post that there
>> are technical reasons behind her perceptions.
>
> I have not seen that. I've seen several comments from her
> like this one:
>
> "I've never stated that LPs are more accurate. The fact
> that some LPs
>
> are, in some aspects, more superior in sound is simply my
> opinion, based
> on what my ears tell me."

She's gone further than that.

> Whatever. It just seems that preferences or opinions like
> hers are entirely valid.

They are valid in some senses, but not all senses, especially given her
later clarifications and expansions.

> It seems that trying to argue her out of them isn't.

I'm not trying to that, just establish their scope as related to other
people.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:47:45 PM2/23/06

to

"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jennconducts-D551...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com

OK Jenn, you're just to squirrely and defensive to be worth the trouble. Buh
bye!

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:48:42 PM2/23/06

to

"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jennconducts-3701...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com

As long as you admit that your opinions have no meaning to anybody but you
Jenn, enjoy!

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:50:00 PM2/23/06

to

"Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:jennconducts-73D7...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com

That the LP format introduces a vast number of grotesque, non-lifelike
audible distortions and noises is demonstrable.

elm...@pacificcoast.net

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 12:52:03 PM2/23/06

to

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> 124 <roogg...@kriocoucke.mailexpire.com> wrote:
> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
> > > don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does.
>

The two experts 124 and Sullivan dialogue:

> > This does raise an interesting point. How does one know when any
> > device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is
> > to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion?
>

> The answer is: one doesn't *know*. But audiophilia today is mainly
> a faith-based hobby...so all that's required is *belief*.

So very different from preferences in various makes of violins,
pianos and flutes. Wire is wire, sheep gut is sheep gut, and wood is
wood-right?
The virtuosos are lucky. They can air their preferences without
constant noises off by BScs. and high-school graduates explaining to
them that what they need is an input from the said B.Scs and high
school graduates.
Ludovic Mirabel

Sander deWaal

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 1:14:06 PM2/23/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> said:

>>> Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white
>>> paper. IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used
>>> unbleached paper, but regular plain white paper should
>>> do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't matter, but mine
>>> is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
>>> prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the
>>> centre, where the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture
>>> or photograph of a 4-legged animal with a tail, that is
>>> smaller than the piece of paper you cut out. Now place
>>> the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
>>> paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to
>>> the speaker box (where doesn't matter, but I taped mine
>>> to the top of the box). Now place an aspirin on the

>>> center pinhole of the white piece of paper. That's it.

>>> Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final
>>> thought: don't worry about how it works, just be happy

>>> that it does. And remember to... enjoy the music!

>> If you think this made them sound better, try some
>> origami with Advil for smoooother lows.

>It's actually only a little less probable than the idea that violin sound
>from a LP is always more realistic than that from a CD.

I wrapped the rectangular paper around the electrolytics in my amp, I
gave the picture of the four-legged animal to my little niece and
glued 3 aspirins to my forehead (3 pcs as to compensate for the
absence of the picture of the four-legged animal).

Then I spinned a 78-er.
I couldn't believe what happened!
Such detail, such warmth!

Even this tweak can be improved upon by glueing the tube the aspirin
came in, to your tone arm (or laser mechanism, whichever you prefer),
folding the rectangular paper sheets into a plane, and throwing said
paper planes across the room while turning from the left side of your
room to the right side, opposite to the speakers, while whistling "Oh
When The Saints Go Marching In" 3 times in a row.
Drinking black coffee before usually helps to improve staging a bit.

Forget about the picture of the four-legged animal, this didn't do
anything for me.
But I'm willing to concede that either my audio gear isn't up to
snuff, or my ears may contain too much tin.

--

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

dave weil

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 2:34:35 PM2/23/06

to

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:04:41 GMT, Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> What you don't seem to get Jenn is the fact that only a miniscule fraction
>> of all audiophiles still think vinyl sounds better.
>
>I "get that" just fine, thanks. My opinions on what sounds like what
>aren't affected by popularity polls.

Don't worry about Arnold - he just wants everyone to believe as he
does. Why? I dunno. Maybe he just wants to be Stalin.

dave weil

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 2:36:46 PM2/23/06

to

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:32:02 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

>124 <roogg...@kriocoucke.mailexpire.com> wrote:
>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
>> > don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does.
>
>> This does raise an interesting point. How does one know when any
>> device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is
>> to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion?
>
>
>The answer is: one doesn't *know*. But audiophilia today is mainly
>a faith-based hobby...so all that's required is *belief*.

You're certainly the high priest...

dave weil

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 2:38:11 PM2/23/06

to

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:35:02 +0000 (UTC), Steven Sullivan
<ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

>To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
>as realistic as on the best LPs.
>
>And that's an idea that's only a little more probable than the
>utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.

And tell me how you determine what an individual finds "realistic"?

Are you now going to demand that chocolate tastes better than vanilla?

George M. Middius

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 2:53:59 PM2/23/06

to

dave weil said to Sillybot:

> Are you now going to demand that chocolate tastes better than vanilla?

Only in even-numbered months.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 3:45:48 PM2/23/06

to

<elm...@pacificcoast.net> wrote in message
news:1140717123.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com

> So very different from preferences in various makes
> of violins, pianos and flutes. Wire is wire, sheep gut is
> sheep gut, and wood is wood-right?

Empty posturing like this has to come from someone with no appreciation or
understanding of acoustics or mechanics.

> The virtuosos are lucky. They can air their
> preferences without constant noises off by BScs. and
> high-school graduates explaining to them that what they
> need is an input from the said B.Scs and high school
> graduates.

Sort of like a MD who tries to tell engineers what their jobs are, right?

ScottW

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 3:48:24 PM2/23/06

to

I was thinking heart surgeon playing neurologist.

ScottW

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 3:58:03 PM2/23/06

to

"ScottW" <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140727704.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com

Scott, you appear to have a better recollection of the details of Mirabel's
situation than I do. It's very clear that he's way outside his area of
competence when he starts posturing about audio.

jclause

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 4:09:52 PM2/23/06

to

In article <f4urv1h52r1bakk36...@4ax.com>, nos...@wanadoo.nl
says...
>
>
> -snip-

>while whistling "Oh When The Saints Go Marching In" 3 times in a row.

With that I would tend to agree...
But you failed to note in what key
The stage is not wide,
And the images collide
When whistled in the key of C.

Hammingaway & Associates

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:00:52 PM2/23/06

to

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message

news:1140715030....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:55 am
> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>
>> I believe that Jenn has said in a recent post that there
>> are technical reasons behind her perceptions.
>
> I have not seen that. I've seen several comments from her
> like this one:
>
> "I've never stated that LPs are more accurate. The fact
> that some LPs
> are, in some aspects, more superior in sound is simply my
> opinion, based
> on what my ears tell me."

You must have missed this interchange:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/msg/492ea887e8a30d00

Jenn wrote:
> > I've said that the best LPs give what I
> > perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.

Arny responded:

> Well then Jen is that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
> is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?

Jenn then wrote:

Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other people whose
ears I trust (for good reason) share those perceptions, I'd have to go
with the later.

IOW Jenn thinks that her perception is related to the technical properties
of the LP medium. That's a technical claim.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:35:55 PM2/23/06

to

From: Arny Krueger
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 5:00 pm
Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>

Begin quote
**************************************************************************

Jenn wrote:
> > I've said that the best LPs give what I
> > perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.

Arny responded:

> Well then Jen is that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
> is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?

Jenn then wrote:

Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other people whose
ears I trust (for good reason) share those perceptions, I'd have to go
with the later.

end quote
**************************************************************************

>IOW Jenn thinks that her perception is related to the technical properties
>of the LP medium. That's a technical claim.

Um, OK. But I still fail to see where that is not a statement of
preference. And if that's the most technical claim that she's made in
the massive amounts of posts in several threads pertaining to Jenn and
LPs (and again, I have not read all of them), then I think that you'd
have to admit that, objectively, it's pretty weak.

She made no claim, in this post anyway, that LPs are 'superior' or
'more accurate' or 'better than' CDs based on this alleged technical
claim. It's just a simple statement of preference (to my eye) that
recognizes that there are technical differences between the two.

That LPs are technically different from CDs is not, and cannot, be at
question. And that's about all that I can see that she claimed: that
her preference for LPs is based on a technical difference between LPs
and CDs. She doesn't even claim to know what those differences (or
properties) are. You offered her a choice of two and she selected the
one that made sense to her.

I mean, don't get me wrong: you're certainly free to bash preferences
if that is your wish. It's a free country. Let's just call it what it
is.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:43:24 PM2/23/06

to

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <arty...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message

news:1140737755....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> From: Arny Krueger
> Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 5:00 pm
> Email: "Arny Krueger" <a...@hotpop.com>
>
> Begin quote
> **************************************************************************
> Jenn wrote:
>>> I've said that the best LPs give what I
>>> perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.
>
> Arny responded:
>
>> Well then Jen is that percpetion completely imaginary on
>> your part Jen, or is it somehow related to the technical
>> properties of the LP medium?
>
> Jenn then wrote:
>
> Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other
> people whose ears I trust (for good reason) share those
> perceptions, I'd have to go with the later.
>
> end quote
> **************************************************************************
>> IOW Jenn thinks that her perception is related to the
>> technical properties of the LP medium. That's a
>> technical claim.
>
> Um, OK. But I still fail to see where that is not a
> statement of preference.

Its a statement of preference based on it being a given fact that the LP is
in some sense technically superior.

> That LPs are technically different from CDs is not, and
> cannot, be at question. And that's about all that I can
> see that she claimed: that her preference for LPs is
> based on a technical difference between LPs and CDs. She
> doesn't even claim to know what those differences (or
> properties) are. You offered her a choice of two and she
> selected the one that made sense to her.

No, the parallel claim of increased liveness based on technology establishes
a hierarchy of technological goodness that favors the LP.

> I mean, don't get me wrong: you're certainly free to bash
> preferences if that is your wish. It's a free country.
> Let's just call it what it is.

Obviously Shhhh! you don't want to call Jenn's posturing what it is -
promotion the LP format over the dead body of the CD format. Good thing your
biases are so visible in your other posts.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 6:57:47 PM2/23/06

to

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> From: Steven Sullivan
> Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:35 am
> Email: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>

> >To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
> >as realistic as on the best LPs.

> >From what I've seen (and I have not read all of the threads, nor all of
> the posts in all the treads, pertaining to Jenn and LPs), it's more
> like this:

> "Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds as realistic to
> her as on the best LPs."

> I've not seen Jenn make any 'scientific' claims as to why this is the
> case. I *have* seen, in what I've read, several people dismissing her
> preference. I *have* seen, in what I've read, people questioning her
> hearing abilities.

Jenn continues to infer that it is something about digital (or maybe
'CDs') that is diminishing the 'realism' to her. She has been
offered an alternative that's based on the physical characteristics
of the two media: that it's the well-documented audible distortion
that LP *adds*, that she likes,whereas a CD is just giving her what's
on the master tape. The solution would be to make CDs from LPs, but
alas the classical music industry doesn't seem to agree with her in
the least.

> To me, from what I've read, this clearly falls under the 'preference'
> category.

Sure -- a preference for the sound of *LPs*. But theory and practice
both suggest that a CD can easily be made to sound like an LP. The reverse
isn't true.

--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 7:04:09 PM2/23/06

to

>Its a statement of preference based on it being a given fact that the LP is
>in some sense technically superior.

I don't see that. I'll take another look:

Jenn wrote:
> > I've said that the best LPs give what I
> > perceive to be the best reproduction of violins.

(OK, she said LPs give her what *she perceives* as the best
reproduction of violins. Preference statement)

Arny responded:

> Well then Jen is that percpetion completely imaginary on your part Jen, or
> is it somehow related to the technical properties of the LP medium?

Jenn then wrote:

Since my perception hasn't changed since 1982 and other people whose
ears I trust (for good reason) share those perceptions, I'd have to go
with the later.

(She'd have to say that there are technical properties of LPs that give
her what *she perceives* as the best reproduction of violins.
Preference statement)

end quote
**************************************************************************

I don't see it. It's still a preference statement.

>No, the parallel claim of increased liveness based on technology establishes
>a hierarchy of technological goodness that favors the LP.

For her preference. So what?

I think that you're reaching pretty hard to justify your actions. The
evidence that you've presented is pretty weak.

>Obviously Shhhh! you don't want to call Jenn's posturing what it is -
>promotion the LP format over the dead body of the CD format. Good thing your
>biases are so visible in your other posts.

"promotion the LP format over the dead body of the CD format?" Has she
really tried to do that? Wow!

Whatever. As I said, let's just call preference bashing what it is.

And I see no reason to hide my biases.;-)

Harry Lavo

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 7:07:45 PM2/23/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:PZ-dnd1cjsdUaGDe...@comcast.com...

Which has nothing to say one way or the other about how one perceives it's
"realism" vs. the CD. When are you going to face the fact, Arny, that
listening to music is a SUBJECTIVE experience, and is not measured by
frequency response or distortion, but by how we poor, deluded, human beings
actually describe the sound versus our own standards of realism based on our
own training and listening experience to live music.

Harry Lavo

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 7:56:48 PM2/23/06

to

"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dtli5r$9u$8...@reader2.panix.com...

Just go on living in your fantasy world, where there aren't hundreds of
thousands of audiophiles and thousands of audio engineers who feel the same
way as Jenn.

Even some of the esteemed "authorities" on usenet, such as Dick Pierce,
don't argue that CD reproduction is perfect...and problems with the high
frequency cutoff are acknowledged as the leading culprit. You don't have a
problem if it doesn't affect the sound, and it does!

Over on RAHE I recently described the sound of the multichannel layer,
stereo layer, and CD layer of the Phillips DSD recording of Mozart's Piano
Concertos K271 and K503 (Brendel, and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra under
Mackerras). Since it is a very fine DSD recording, the sound is very fine
on three layers, but there are differences. After describing how realistic
the strings sections sounded on the SACD layers, I noted:

"The other difference is at the high end of the
strings register. On that section I mentioned above (just short of the two
minute mark) when the three sections of strings come in in unison, it is
still possible to hear that they are three sections, but at the very top of
the frequency range their is a "smear". If the sections were like letters
of icing on a cake, it is as if somebody drew a knife across the top of
them, blending the letters together with a smear of colored icing. The
effect is subtle, but it is there."

This is a common characteristic of CD's and has been commented on by many,
many others than just Jenn. Your insistance that it aint so and that CD
reproduction is audibly perfect is simply nonsense to many audiophiles and
engineers, not because somebody told them what to believe, but simply
because the can hear the problem.

Clyde Slick

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 8:01:19 PM2/23/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message

news:A4SdnafHP6cB1WPe...@comcast.com...

>
> Obviously Shhhh! you don't want to call Jenn's posturing what it is -
> promotion the LP format over the dead body of the CD format. Good thing
> your biases are so visible in your other posts.
>

Watch out!
We're going to sneak in your house one night and steal all your cd's.

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

Jenn

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 9:03:29 PM2/23/06

to

In article <dtli5r$9u$8...@reader2.panix.com>,
Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

> Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! <arty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > From: Steven Sullivan
> > Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 10:35 am
> > Email: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>
>
> > >To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
> > >as realistic as on the best LPs.
>
> > >From what I've seen (and I have not read all of the threads, nor all of
> > the posts in all the treads, pertaining to Jenn and LPs), it's more
> > like this:
>
> > "Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds as realistic to
> > her as on the best LPs."
>
> > I've not seen Jenn make any 'scientific' claims as to why this is the
> > case. I *have* seen, in what I've read, several people dismissing her
> > preference. I *have* seen, in what I've read, people questioning her
> > hearing abilities.
>
>
> Jenn continues to infer that it is something about digital (or maybe
> 'CDs') that is diminishing the 'realism' to her. She has been
> offered an alternative that's based on the physical characteristics
> of the two media: that it's the well-documented audible distortion
> that LP *adds*, that she likes,whereas a CD is just giving her what's

> on the master tape. <snio>

And as I've stated often in the past, I'm totally open to that
possibility. Further, to me, it doesn't matter ONE BIT.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 10:34:35 PM2/23/06

to

"Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1eGdnbrmu8VFxGPe...@comcast.com

> "Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:dtli5r$9u$8...@reader2.panix.com...

>> Jenn continues to infer that it is something about

>> digital (or maybe 'CDs') that is diminishing the
>> 'realism' to her. She has been offered an alternative
>> that's based on the physical characteristics of the two
>> media: that it's the well-documented audible distortion
>> that LP *adds*, that she likes,whereas a CD is just
>> giving her what's on the master tape. The solution would
>> be to make CDs from LPs, but alas the classical music
>> industry doesn't seem to agree with her in the least.
>>> To me, from what I've read, this clearly falls under
>>> the 'preference' category.
>>
>> Sure -- a preference for the sound of *LPs*. But theory
>> and practice both suggest that a CD can easily be made
>> to sound like an LP. The reverse
>> isn't true.

> Just go on living in your fantasy world, where there
> aren't hundreds of thousands of audiophiles and thousands
> of audio engineers who feel the same way as Jenn.

Those numbers are probably high at this point.

No matter because in the real world there are 100s of millions of music
lovers who favor digital over analog.

> Even some of the esteemed "authorities" on usenet, such
> as Dick Pierce, don't argue that CD reproduction is
> perfect...and problems with the high frequency cutoff are
> acknowledged as the leading culprit. You don't have a
> problem if it doesn't affect the sound, and it does!

Yes, there's a lot of people who have not yet had the personal experience of
trying to differentiate CD format digital from a straight wire. They
sometimes say things that they would regret if they knew better.

> Over on RAHE I recently described the sound of the
> multichannel layer, stereo layer, and CD layer of the
> Phillips DSD recording of Mozart's Piano Concertos K271
> and K503 (Brendel, and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra
> under Mackerras). Since it is a very fine DSD recording,
> the sound is very fine on three layers, but there are
> differences. After describing how realistic the strings
> sections sounded on the SACD layers, I noted:

> "The other difference is at the high end of the
> strings register. On that section I mentioned above
> (just short of the two minute mark) when the three
> sections of strings come in in unison, it is still
> possible to hear that they are three sections, but at the
> very top of the frequency range their is a "smear". If
> the sections were like letters of icing on a cake, it is
> as if somebody drew a knife across the top of them,
> blending the letters together with a smear of colored
> icing. The effect is subtle, but it is there."

Two words: sighted evaluation.

Four words: self-serving sighted evaluation.

Ignornace can clearly be blissful.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 23, 2006, 10:37:32 PM2/23/06

to

"Harry Lavo" <hl...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:7_2dnaaVONv...@comcast.com

> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:PZ-dnd1cjsdUaGDe...@comcast.com...

>> That the LP format introduces a vast number of

>> grotesque, non-lifelike audible distortions and noises
>> is demonstrable.

> Which has nothing to say one way or the other about how
> one perceives it's "realism" vs. the CD.

Since when is realism about adding many kinds of audible distortion to
perfectly good music?

> When are you
> going to face the fact, Arny, that listening to music is
> a SUBJECTIVE experience, and is not measured by frequency
> response or distortion, but by how we poor, deluded,
> human beings actually describe the sound versus our own
> standards of realism based on our own training and
> listening experience to live music.

Barring some unforseen advances by medical science Harry, your hearing is
not going to improve to the point where you will hear how the grotesque,
non-lifelike audible distortions and noises that the LP format introduces
eliminate the possiblity of lifelike reproduction.
.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:29:35 AM2/24/06

to

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

> I tried your tweak using a picture of a cat, and then a frog. The music
> sounded more complex, but also somehow standoffish, with the cat.

I wouldn't expect the frog to do much of anything positive, as the
animal in question has to be a four legged animal with a tail. The
tweak will still work without a picture of any animal, its just better
with the pic.

> Thanks, it's interesting tweak.

Thanks for trying it out and letting me know. I found it interesting
too, and I have a lot of interesting other tweaks too that might help.
A very simple thing you can try is to pin up one corner of a curtain
with a safety pin, and see if you can hear an improvement in your
sound. The larger you make the corner, the greater the effect,
basically.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:34:21 AM2/24/06

to

Steven Sullivan wrote:

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > George M. Middius wrote:

>
> > > elm...@pacificcoast.net said:
> > >
> > > > > Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white paper.
> > > > > IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used unbleached paper, but
> > > > > regular plain white paper should do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't
> > > > > matter, but mine is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
> > > > > prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the centre, where
> > > > > the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture or photograph of a 4-legged
> > > > > animal with a tail, that is smaller than the piece of paper you cut
> > > > > out. Now place the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
> > > > > paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to the speaker box
> > > > > (where doesn't matter, but I taped mine to the top of the box). Now
> > > > > place an aspirin on the center pinhole of the white piece of paper.

> > > [snip]
>
> > > Nobody will buy it.
>
> > Hey, I'm not selling it! I'm offering it for free....
>
> > > Just to clue you in, I tried it this afternoon and it
> > > didn't do a damned thing.
>
> > > Oh wait, I didn't aBxercise the tweak.
>
> > That's okay. ABX is utter nonsense, and a waste of anyone's time. It
> > reminds me of a banana. Back in the day, Tiefenbrun used to run ads
> > showing Linn equipment next to a banana, with the point that
> > specifications are about as relevant to audio as a banana. No
> > audiophile actually ABX's equipment they intend to purchase but if they
> > did, your ABX would be the banana.
>
> Actually, someone posted today to RAHE who claims he *does* routinely do
> DBTs before purchases. So have a banana.

My definition of "hell" would be to be invited over to his house to
listen to his sound system.... Maybe I would need to bring 2 bananas,
to plug up my ears with.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:46:02 AM2/24/06

to

J.Major wrote :

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> > <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> >
> >
> >>soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>

> >>>Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white
> >>>paper. IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used
> >>>unbleached paper, but regular plain white paper should
> >>>do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't matter, but mine
> >>>is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
> >>>prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the
> >>>centre, where the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture
> >>>or photograph of a 4-legged animal with a tail, that is
> >>>smaller than the piece of paper you cut out. Now place
> >>>the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
> >>>paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to
> >>>the speaker box (where doesn't matter, but I taped mine
> >>>to the top of the box). Now place an aspirin on the

> >>>center pinhole of the white piece of paper. That's it.

> >>>Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final
> >>>thought: don't worry about how it works, just be happy

> >>>that it does. And remember to... enjoy the music!
> >

> >>If you think this made them sound better, try some
> >>origami with Advil for smoooother lows.
> >
> >

> > It's actually only a little less probable than the idea that violin sound
> > from a LP is always more realistic than that from a CD.
> >
> >

> Or that CD are more realistic than LP. Yes CD have a more realistic
> sound than a cheap LP but try listening to a properly configure High End
> turntable and you will see why Jenn and several others prefer the sound
> of LP...

I would argue that you don't need an "officially" high end turntable to
hear how vastly superior analogue replay is to the humble CD. One of my
turntables is an old Connoisseur from the 70's. The pick-up is an old
Shure, the tonearm is a very flimsy affair. And yet... properly
calibrated, this record deck has a midrange to die for, and is one of
the most musical components Ive ever heard. I could play violin
recordings or just about anything, and they sound more realistic and
far more musical overall than my $3k DAC/transport setup. I only wish
digital sounded as good, because the LP format is a lot fussier and
harder to care for. Besides media, the only reason most audiophiles
maintain their record collections is because they simply sound far
superior to their CDs. I've done countless tests of recordings in both
the CD and LP formats on countless hifi systems, and there are always
superior results with the LP on a properly calibrated record deck.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:52:48 AM2/24/06

to

Steven Sullivan wrote :

> Jenn <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <YaCdnfOtkIuCPmDe...@comcast.com>,
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Jenn" <jennco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:jennconducts-89C5...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com
> > > > In article <77Gdna5Ej5J...@comcast.com>,

> > > > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> <westpas...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:1140660464.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
> > > >>
> > > >>> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>

> > > >>>> Now for the tweak: get <snip>

> > >
> > > >> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
> > > >> that violin sound from a LP is always more realistic
> > > >> than that from a CD.
> > >

> > > > An idea that, like so much else, you made up out of whole
> > > > cloth, for no one here has forwarded such an idea.
> > >
> > > Great logic Jenn - if nobody on RAO thought it up, it can't be true.
>
> > Yawn. It's perfectly logical (and no doubt true) that you are referring
> > to my position. You, yet again, misrepresented it.
>

> To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD ever sounds
> as realistic as on the best LPs.
>

> And that's an idea that's only a little more probable than the
> utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.

Given that you've tried the tweak and it proved valid for you, we can
conclude that you also believe that violin on the best LPs sounds more
realistic than on CD. You would think it would also be obvious to most
people, but that proves not to be the case, because you have to
remember, most people are ignorant, of what a good record deck can and
does sound like. If they were made cheaply and readily available, and
as convenient to use, the CD would have died a short death a long time
ago.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:23:30 AM2/24/06

to

Sander deWaal wrote:

> I wrapped the rectangular paper around the electrolytics in my amp, I
> gave the picture of the four-legged animal to my little niece and
> glued 3 aspirins to my forehead (3 pcs as to compensate for the
> absence of the picture of the four-legged animal).

I thought the instructions I gave were pretty clear and simple, yet no
one seems to be able to follow them correctly. Should I be writing them
in Braille, perhaps?

> Then I spinned a 78-er.
> I couldn't believe what happened!
> Such detail, such warmth!
>
> Even this tweak can be improved upon by glueing the tube the aspirin
> came in, to your tone arm (or laser mechanism, whichever you prefer),
> folding the rectangular paper sheets into a plane, and throwing said
> paper planes across the room while turning from the left side of your
> room to the right side, opposite to the speakers, while whistling "Oh
> When The Saints Go Marching In" 3 times in a row.

> Drinking black coffee before usually helps to improve staging a bit.

No doubt the caffeine does have an effect on your mood, which affects
your listening experience. I did not test it as I don't drink coffee,
but I would expect it to be a detrimental one. What can improve staging
(and other things) a bit, is simply crossing your ankles or your legs.

> Forget about the picture of the four-legged animal, this didn't do
> anything for me. But I'm willing to concede that either my audio gear isn't up to
> snuff, or my ears may contain too much tin.

How would you know? I doubt that you tried the tweak, given your
hostile attitude of sarcasm, mockery and ridicule. Do you really think
that this sort of negativity is doing anything to improve the sound of
your hifi? Did you know that if someone else in the room tells a lie,
it can affect the perceived sound quality for both you, and everyone in
that room? You probably don't believe it, but these things happen
whether you do or don't believe it. Think positive, be positive, and I
promise you'll have a more positive listening experience. I don't
believe your ears are made of tin. I believe the tin-ear / golden-ear
thing is a tired old myth, that we should put to rest. I think I have
more confidence in your listening ability than you do, and that can
only be a problem. The only thing that is likely to be limiting your
listening ability is your mind. If you don't listen with an open mind,
you'll never hear anything that you otherwise might.

Did you check out the system I said I had, which I was able to
completely transform through the use of such tweaks? Is yours actually
worse than mine? I doubt it! I'm sure that if you opened up your mind a
little, you could turn your system into something that would make your
audiophile friend with the high end piece of kit turn green with envy,
and white with wonder, at how you are able to make your modest system
sound more musical than his. Then when he asks how you did, tell him
that you started by removing all the video tapes in your listening
room....

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:37:31 AM2/24/06

to

westpas...@hotmail.com wrote:
> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > > If you think this made them sound better, try some
> > > origami with Advil for smoooother lows.
> >

> > Can you not read, son? Or do you just have trouble understanding what
> > you read? I did make a polite request at the beginning of my post you
> > are responding to, that people please refrain from contributing to this
> > thread if its only to attack me with ridicule, mockery, derision and
> > other such negative, antisocial, unproductive, unwarranted personal
> > attacks. If you're a troll, please do you're trolling elsewhere. If
> > however you have a sincere interest in audio and improving your hifi
> > system, then stay and maybe we can try to have a productive discussion
> > about audio. You can start it by telling me whether you've tried my
> > tweak or not, and if not, why you won't.
> >
> > But if you don't have a sincere interest in improving the sound quality
> > of your system, then don't you have better things to do than trolling
> > people on audio groups and launching unprovoked personal attacks
> > against them?
> >
> > BE NICE OR LEAVE.
>
> Why is it when someone tries to improve on anothers concept
> it is considered an attack on the integrity of the OP?

Because as you and I both know, you were trolling me. I know very well,
like you, that you were not sincere in your response about employing
"origami and Advil" to improve sound. You never tested any of those
devices on your system, just as you never tested mine, and are unlikely
to ever do so. You probably have no interest in tweaking your system at
all, and your only interest in responding to me in this thread is to
attack someone who doesn't share your belief system.

As such, you were simply attempting to mock and ridicule my very
sincere effort to help people who wanted to improve their system,
because you think you're funny to do so. And I guess because it makes
you feel better and more secure with yourself to ridicule things you
don't understand. I could see that by the fact that you don't even
understand the concept my tweak is based on. I never said it would
improve "the sound quality of your system". If you understood anything
about what you were "allegedly" advising people to do, then you would
have understood that an Advil and an origami is not going to "improve
the sound of your system", since it can have no direct or significant
effect on either the signal path or sound pressure waves. However, my
tweak can have an effect on the _perception_ of sound by the listener,
and that's another means to the same end. Moreover, if you understood
what my tweak was about, then you would have understood that in part,
it relies on a major ingredient in Aspirin that is significant in this
experiment in that it is derived from the bark of the willow tree, and
that is missing in Advil.

So please, don't play wiseass with me. I'm a lot smarter than you think
you are. If you have something you want to say, fine, say it. But don't
use underhanded sarcasm and think yourself clever to do so. You're not
the first to invent that, and you're not that good at it to begin with.

> Apparently we are all flat-earthers in our collective responses.

Apparently. Except thus far, one person did claim to make an attempt to
try the tweak out, but now I'm not sure if that was supposed to be
sarcasm as well.

> I propose that your audio would sound better if you placed your
> loudspeakers under a miniture pyramid.

I tried that, except it was called "Tenderfeet". I didn't like what it
did. All hard substances I've tried as isolating devices, ie. metal,
glass, ceramics, shift timbres toward higher registers, creating sounds
that do not represent their natural state. You can guess that I don't
like spikes under speakers either. Along with the Tenderfeet, I've
tried everything from pumice stones to cement blocks under my speakers.
And the thing that works the best, I find, is simply toilet paper. Or
even a single small rectangle of blank white paper, under one corner.
That I believe is what I currently have under there.

> Remember to be open minded and that if all of us had followed
> your response criteria, there would be no responses.

That is simply not true. As I just mentioned, one of the first
responses was a comment noting the tweak had been tested.

> Why would you post in an opinions forum if you don't want our
> unbiased replies?

I think the question to you should be, why would I, or anyone, post a
suggestion to help people improve their system, if all they can expect
in reply is mockery, derision and ridicule from those who never tried
it, and never will? I think I posted my suggestion in an opinon forum,
in order to get opinions on the tweak, from thsoe who've tried it, or
are willing to. I already know many people with whom this tweak works
for, and was interested to see if there would be any others here. Why
would these sarcastic, negative replies, that you call "biased
replies", be of value to anyone, other than the original poster?

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:42:00 AM2/24/06

to

Arny Krueger wrote:

> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140677232.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

> > Arny Krueger wrote :

> >
> >> It's actually only a little less probable than the idea
>

> Don't get me wrong, Mr. Priority. I think you have come up with a great
> tweak. I'm sure that it has put the technology of audio tweeks into sharper
> perspective for many. I eagerly await the glowing reports from Scott, Jenn,
> Art, George, and David, etc. as to its stunning effectiveness.

Thank you, but I can't take credit for the 5-pinhole tweak, it isn't
mine to take credit for. I am simply one of many audiophiles that have
used it to good effect (I'm not saying it alone will transform your
system, but it has the potential to transform your knowledge of sound
reproduction). I would agree that it puts the technology of audio
tweaks into a different perspective, as it is based on ideas that are
millions of years old, you might say. Why do you await reports from
other audiophiles, why not try it yourself? I presume you're part of
this discussion group because you have an interest in improving the
sound quality of your audio system. So if you do, or if you simply have
any scientific curiousity, I would deem it worth a minute of your time.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:58:13 AM2/24/06

to

124 wrote:

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
> > don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does.
>

> This does raise an interesting point. How does one know when any
> device or tweak produces an improvement in sound quality if evidence is

> to be ignored and one only relies on one's opinion? I think that there
> are at least some subjectivists that believe that some bogus audio
> products exist. How do subjectivists decide which of these products
> are bogus and which are worth a try?
>
> --124

Indeed, that's an interesting point. If you are at where I was 25 years
ago! What I learned then after I asked myself the same question as you
just did, is that your opinion is all that matters, and all that needs
to matter. Its your system, its your ears, its your enjoyment. If for
example, you hear differences that are pleasing to your ears, but you
slog them off because your intellectual self says you can't possibly
have heard what you did, then you are putting yourself in a state of
denial. Denying yourself the pleasure that you were able to receive,
before you allowed yourself to disallow it. This results in a life of
"half-pleasures"; or limited experience. You may think yourself clever
for having saved yourself from that "thing that almost fooled you"...
but did you really avoid fooling yourself, or are you fooling yourself
by thinking you avoided fooling yourself?

I don't know what "subjectivists" do, since I don't follow their
activities. But speaking for myself, these days, there is almost
nothing that I will not try if I think it might help to improve my hifi
system, or my life. Providing I have the time to do so. One exception
would be if the idea comes from some ignorant clown who thinks he's
being clever, funny and original, by offering up a completely insincere
"tweak suggestion", as a form of mockery for things he doesn't
understand. I'm thinking in particular of the clown who advised
utilizing origami and Advil to improve your hifi experience, as a
sarcastic attack of my suggestion, and other original thinkers here who
followed him and made similarly inane and insincere suggestions. If
someone doesn't even pass the test of honesty and sincerity, then
you're going to be wasting your time following their false advice,
aren't you.

Why so open-minded? Because I don't want to limit my experience and my
knowledge in life, and be another smartarse "know-it-all" like the
clowns I just mentioned, who in truth and reality, knows very little.
If you just limit yourself to things that you _do_ know, then you don't
really offer yourself any chance to learn anything completely new, do
you?

In short, "bogus audio products" do not exist. What's "bogus" to one,
is a sonic revelation to another. In my travels over the net, I've come
across audio enthusiasts so unbelievably deaf, dumb and ignorant, as to
believe that not only are there little or no differences between cd
player components, but that even amplifiers exhibit little to no
differences! Amplifiers, mind you! My grandfather with one ear shot
off, can hear the differences between two amplifiers. And he doesn't
know what an amplfiier is! Perhaps stranger still, are the people who
believe that cables and wire generally don't influence the sound
quality, and neither do spikes, resonance absorbers, and a host of
other things, if you listen to them. Some can't even tell the
difference between cd and lp in a blind test, believe it or not. The
point is, if we eliminate the list of supposedly "bogus" audio products
that some people claim do not have any inherent sound qualities any
different from anything else, then we've effectively eliminated
_everything_ in audio today. Certainly, that makes life a lot less
complicated, since it eliminates most of all possible choices, and your
hifi kit needn't cost above the minimum. The problem is, systems chosen
that way tend to sound like sonic torture.

I make the claim that "bogus audio products" do not exist, because no
matter how far-fetched the product may seem to _you_, do you know of
any audio product that never sold a single unit? If it sold a unit, one
would have to assume someone heard it, and found it wasn't bogus to
them. That puts them in the same camp as all of us audiophiles who
readily hear differences among amps, cd players, wire, etc. And there
are more audiphiles that do hear these things, than don't. So who and
what is bogus, exactly? I say that first off, you can not even begin to
answer that question until you've tried the allegedly bogus product.
And even then, you're only answering it for yourself, at that current
moment in time. (During another moment, you mind come up with a
different answer). From this we can conclude that either everything in
audio is bogus, or nothing is bogus. In order to keep that all
important open mind, if I had to choose, I'd choose the latter.

Fella

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 4:40:33 AM2/24/06

to

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
>
> I mean, don't get me wrong: you're certainly free to bash preferences
> if that is your wish. It's a free country. Let's just call it what it
> is.
>

Why do you keep beating around the buShhhh! The man is just simply nuts,
crazy, berserk, kooky, psycho, screw-loose, whacko, bonkers, cracked,
cuckoo, unbalanced, demented, deranged,haywire, psycho ... I am
surprised that Jenn keeps talking back to him about the subject. If I
were her I'd just sit down and listen to violins on vinyl and not make
another beep.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 4:43:32 AM2/24/06

to

<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140766920....@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

> Why do you await reports from other audiophiles, why
> not try it yourself? I presume you're part of this
> discussion group because you have an interest in
> improving the sound quality of your audio system. So if
> you do, or if you simply have any scientific curiousity,
> I would deem it worth a minute of your time.

Unfortunately, my busy schedule of serious technical work takes up every
minute available.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 4:50:09 AM2/24/06

to

<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140763968.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com

Can't read very well, can you Mr. Sound?

> You would
> think it would also be obvious to most people, but that
> proves not to be the case, because you have to remember,
> most people are ignorant, of what a good record deck can
> and does sound like.

LP technology has not changed meaninfully since the days when it was all we
had (ca. 1900-1983). At that time there were plenty of people who knew
exactly what a good record deck sounded like because it was the only source
of pre-recorded music that was available to them. Except for a tiny
remainder of archiveists, dance-music DJs and luddites, all music lovers
have abandoned that relatively primitive level of audio reproduction.

> If they were made cheaply and
> readily available, and as convenient to use, the CD would
> have died a short death a long time ago.

You forgot about the requirement that the immutable laws of physics be
changed in order for the LP format to sound good enough to music lovers in
general. LP can sound pretty good - considering that it is based on a rock
being dragged across a cheap piece of molded plastic.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 4:59:36 AM2/24/06

to

<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140763562.1...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com

> I would argue that you don't need an "officially" high
> end turntable to hear how vastly superior analogue replay
> is to the humble CD. One of my turntables is an old
> Connoisseur from the 70's. The pick-up is an old Shure,
> the tonearm is a very flimsy affair.

There's a good chance that this system fits the description of "a good
record deck". LP recording and playback technology has not improved
meaningfully since the 70s. The last significant advance in LP production
was the introduction of mastering from recordings tracked, mixed, and
mastered on digital equipment in 1973-1979.

> And yet... properly
> calibrated, this record deck has a midrange to die for,
> and is one of the most musical components Ive ever heard.

To bad about your limited experience with good SOTA digital equipment. The
bass, the midrange, and the treble slightly exceeds the best that analog
ever had to offer.

> I could play violin recordings or just about anything,
> and they sound more realistic and far more musical
> overall than my $3k DAC/transport setup.

Just goes to show the failings of the strategy of choosing equipment based
only on its high price. Since that's the only specification you give for it,
its clear that blowing a lot of cash was your only goal when you bought it,
Mr. Music.

> I only wish digital sounded as good,

Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback equipment!
Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many appliance stores.
Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms *any* LP setup and by a
rediculous margin.

> because the LP format is a lot
> fussier and harder to care for.

LP can sound pretty good - considering that it is based on a rock

being dragged across a cheap piece of molded plastic.

> Besides media, the only

> reason most audiophiles maintain their record collections
> is because they simply sound far superior to their CDs.

Actually, almost all audiophiles have put their LP systems aside for years
because they just don't sound as good as modern digital.

> I've done countless tests of recordings in both the CD
> and LP formats on countless hifi systems, and there are
> always superior results with the LP on a properly
> calibrated record deck.

Speaks to the state of anti-digital hysteria that must have infected your
mind, Mr. Music.

Clyde Slick

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 7:58:08 AM2/24/06

to

"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message

news:-8-dnUpzn8n...@comcast.com...

Arny doesn't even have time to enjoy cornflakes anymore.
And not time at all for listening to music
for casual enjoyment. And, alas, not even
any time to keep his wife's 'stereo' running.
Now she has to take her tweeters out to be tweaked by
another techie. Tom?

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:26:30 PM2/24/06

to

Arny Krueger wrote:

> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140763562.1...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com
>
> > I would argue that you don't need an "officially" high
> > end turntable to hear how vastly superior analogue replay
> > is to the humble CD. One of my turntables is an old
> > Connoisseur from the 70's. The pick-up is an old Shure,
> > the tonearm is a very flimsy affair.
>
> There's a good chance that this system fits the description of "a good
> record deck". LP recording and playback technology has not improved
> meaningfully since the 70s. The last significant advance in LP production
> was the introduction of mastering from recordings tracked, mixed, and
> mastered on digital equipment in 1973-1979.

Nonsense. First off, you're referring to the production aspect of LP
replay, and there were many advances since that period, too numerous to
mention here. I thought we were discussing the technology of the
playback equipment, which has advanced greatly since 79. Don't argue
apples if the discussion is oranges.

> > And yet... properly
> > calibrated, this record deck has a midrange to die for,
> > and is one of the most musical components Ive ever heard.
>
> To bad about your limited experience with good SOTA digital equipment.

Too bad about your limited experience with the concept of honesty in
your affairs, Mr. Kreuger. Since we've never met, you would have
absolutely no idea what my experience is with SOTA equipment, digital
or otherwise. I'm not convinced that your digital equipment is even
better than mine. Please let me know, what exactly do you have in your
system for playing CDs, so I can hope to guage your experience with
good SOTA equipment?

> The
> bass, the midrange, and the treble slightly exceeds the best that analog
> ever had to offer.

What exactly have you listened to that you qualify as "the best that
analog ever had to offer"? (Never mind the fact that analogue still has
a lot to offer....).

Personally, I bristle when audiophiles describe their experiences of
"bass, mid and treble", as though this were the be all and end all of
all that is reproduced music.

> > I could play violin recordings or just about anything,
> > and they sound more realistic and far more musical
> > overall than my $3k DAC/transport setup.
>
> Just goes to show the failings of the strategy of choosing equipment based
> only on its high price. Since that's the only specification you give for it,
> its clear that blowing a lot of cash was your only goal when you bought it,
> Mr. Music.

Well, Mr. Dishonest, I'd have to ask again, have we met? I think I
would recall meeting someone like you, because it must not be a
pleasant experience. Not having done so, means you have zero idea of
what I based my decision to buy my equipment, or how much I paid for
it, if anything. If all you can do in your effort to understand things
in this life is make presumptions, Mr. Kreuger, then I'm sorry to have
to inform you, that you really know nothing.

> Since that's the only specification you give for it,
> its clear that blowing a lot of cash was your only goal when you bought it,
> Mr. Music.

Using your novel conception of logic Mr. Kreuger, I could argue that
since you didn't say that you weren't an ignorant, presumptious liar,
it's clear that you must be.

> > I only wish digital sounded as good,
>
> Well, for goodness sake buy some good-sounding digital playback equipment!
> Let me recommend the Coby DVD player - $34.95 in many appliance stores.
> Given an appropriate CDs to play - it outperforms *any* LP setup and by a
> rediculous margin.

Is the $34.95 Coby the cd player that you have in your hifi, which
outperforms the LP setup that you have? If so, I think I'm beginning to
understand the source of your grave problems, which leads to the
"rediculous" things you say about audio. Did you attend a lot of Who
concerts when you were younger? Is there a constant drone in the
background when people speak to you, even though you are sure you did
not leave the tv on? Did you consume a lot of THZ perhaps, in those
days? I'm just curious as to what amount of narcotics you might have to
consume, before you can convince yourself that a $35 Coby cd player
outperforms a $30,000 SME turntable. It must be wonderful living in
your world, Mr. Kreuger, where it only takes a $35 piece of plastic
garbage from Korea to outperform a highly refined $30,000 dollar piece
of equipment.

> > because the LP format is a lot
> > fussier and harder to care for.
>
> LP can sound pretty good - considering that it is based on a rock
> being dragged across a cheap piece of molded plastic.

Don't fool yourself again, the "rock" you're referring to is a diamond,
and last I checked, diamonds don't come cheap. Lasers however, can be
bought for a dollar at the dollar store. The CD is an even cheaper
piece of moulded plastic, as it costs less to produce than a record. In
fact, less than even a CD-R. And yet, remind me again, how much are CDs
priced at?? Paying more for a format that sounds worse than the LP (by
far, on good equipment), makes little logical sense. But whoever said
the mass consumer was a creature of logic? If put in animal form, the
mass consumer looks more like a sheep. You need only the _slightest_
nudge to push the sheep in one direction or another. The intelligent
consumer is a different beast, and is the one most likely to utilize
alternative technologies, if they are better.

> > Besides media, the only
> > reason most audiophiles maintain their record collections
> > is because they simply sound far superior to their CDs.
>
> Actually, almost all audiophiles have put their LP systems aside for years
> because they just don't sound as good as modern digital.

False (And being that you're not an audiophile, how would you know?).
Some play them less often, because they can't find the titles they want
on the analogue format; but that works in reverse as well.

> > I've done countless tests of recordings in both the CD
> > and LP formats on countless hifi systems, and there are
> > always superior results with the LP on a properly
> > calibrated record deck.
>
> Speaks to the state of anti-digital hysteria that must have infected your
> mind, Mr. Music.

Given the fact that my CD setup costs more than yours, by what twisted
force of logic are you describing me as being "infected by anti-digital
hysteria"? I think the marketing of the consumer electronics industry
must have infected your mind. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you
work for this industry. Assuming you have time to work, given the
amount of time you seem to spend on these discussion groups. Your utter
lying nonsense aside Mr. Arny, the fact is, I have no allegion to
either format. I just prefer what sounds more like music. In most
cases, that is the LP on good equipment.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 1:56:44 PM2/24/06

to

Arny Krueger wrote:

GIven that Mr. Google says you post daily to the tune of having at
least 60,000 messages up on the discussion groups in your name, most of
which seem to be attacks on those who don't follow your outmoded
beliefs on audio, is this the accepted definition of "serious technical
work" where you hail from? Most serious technical people I've met would
consider what you do a complete and utter waste of their time.

Fact is, it would take you far less time to perform my pinhole paper
tweak, than it would to engage in pointless debating games that you do
with everyone, every day of your life, Mr. Kreuger. But since you can't
be honest with the people you debate, what I question is, whether you
would even be honest with yourself, if the tweak produced discernible
changes for you. Further to that, there is the question about whether
you would admit it here, since if it did have an effect on your hearing
perception, it would run counter to every belief you have ever held
about audio in all your years. And that would probably be a scary thing
for you, I imagine, since so much of your life seems to hinge on these
misguided beliefs you have.

I think the real question we should ask is: are you ready to have your
audio belief system destroyed? Or is your wrongful audio belief system
the only glue that holds your fragile ego together, and without your
ego, you're nothing? Get back to me on that.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:05:09 PM2/24/06

to

Arny Krueger wrote:

> <soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1140763968.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com

>
> >> And that's an idea that's only a little more probable
> >> than the utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.
> >
> > Given that you've tried the tweak and it proved valid for
> > you, we can conclude that you also believe that violin on
> > the best LPs sounds more realistic than on CD.
>
> Can't read very well, can you Mr. Sound?

No, I can't bead very well Mr. Arny, but I don't see what "beading" has
to do with the your statement that violins sound more realistic on good
LPs than on CD. Speaking of which, you have hijacked my thread to
promote your idea that violins sound more realistic on LP than on CD,
and given your vast experience on the newsgroups, you should already
know that hijacking threads Mr. Arny, is not good netiquette.

> LP technology has not changed meaninfully since the days when it was all we
> had (ca. 1900-1983). At that time there were plenty of people who knew
> exactly what a good record deck sounded like because it was the only source
> of pre-recorded music that was available to them. Except for a tiny
> remainder of archiveists, dance-music DJs and luddites, all music lovers
> have abandoned that relatively primitive level of audio reproduction.

That is false. LP technology changed in great leaps and bounds since
the early days of this technology. Anyone comparing a Victrola with a
SME record deck would easily recognize this. Furthermore, LP technology
could have gone a lot further, had it not been overtaken by the
convenience factor of the digital format, on the part of the typical
bargain stereo shop consumer (and a lot of psychological manipulation
on the part of the electronics industry, which was trying to find a way
to triple the profits on LPs, and CDs was the miracle answer).

I don't know what "Luddites" have in their homes as hifi systems, nor
do I know what concoction of pharmaceuticals and spirits inspired you
to come up with the idea that the only people who listen to LPs today
are "archivists, dance hall DJs and Luddites". There are literally
millions of people using and loving listening to LPs as we speak. I
would argue that those who abandoned the superior sound of vinyl were
not "music lovers" but "convenience lovers". "Music lovers" are those
who would put up with the fuss of using and maintaining a record
collection, simply because the sound they get off their record decks is
unattainable with today's digital technology. As such, you tend to see
a lot of advanced audiophiles with good decks in their home. This
includes but is not limited to: psychiatrists, doctors, audio
journalists, engineers, chief executives of large Japanese electronics
corporations, and Robert Redford (well, check out the record deck in
"Pretty Woman"....). Point is, that many of these people can and do
afford the best digital gear. Yet they favor their turntables, not
simply because there are zillions of recordings on LP not available on
CD. But simply because the properly reproduced LP is technically
superior to CDs within its operating range. As a result, it simply
sounds more like real music than what CD is capable. When I play both
issues of the same recording on both types of sources for my musician
friends, they are often astounded at how much better and more realistic
the LP sounds with the music that they hear. Especially when they've
created the music!

> > If they were made cheaply and
> > readily available, and as convenient to use, the CD would
> > have died a short death a long time ago.
>
> You forgot about the requirement that the immutable laws of physics be
> changed in order for the LP format to sound good enough to music lovers in
> general.

You are correct, sir. I did forget that people would first need to
"grow a brain", to have some hope of realizing that the CD format is
inferior to the LP format, and that what the electronics industry tried
to tell them was false. Merely in the interest of making large sums of
money off of them by selling shiny little silvery discs at prices ten
times and more what it cost them to manufacture (e.g. despite the fact
that CDs became cheaper to manufacture than either compact cassettes or
LPs, their prices never went down to reflect that, because the gullible
public at large had already been brainwashed into accepting these
artificially inflated prices for CDs). Those who already had a brain
and could think on their own, compared the sound of CDs to LPs. Most
found in most cases, the LP version was far superior in ways that are
most important to music lovers (a violinist here gave a good example of
violins, for instance, being more realistic on LP than on the CD
format).

> LP can sound pretty good - considering that it is based on a rock
> being dragged across a cheap piece of molded plastic.

Likewise, if you put enough money into it, CD can sound pretty good,
considering that it is an artificial simulation of the analogue
waveform, and has to be converted at least twice, and perhaps processed
some more, before you finally get to hear a computer's idea of what the
music is supposed to sound like. And given all the differences in how
different CD players and DACs can sound, computers don't agree on what
your music is supposed to sound like. Whereas turntables always agree
on what the signal is supposed to sound like, as they don't try to
reconstitute it after many complex processing steps. They just aren't
all equally good at reproducing that signal. Unfortunately, arguing
with so-called "objectivists" that the result isn't what music is
supposed to sound like, is just like arguing with a computer. You get a
response spat out at you showing mathematical calculations that are
supposed to imply the output is an identical representation of the
input. Yet, as I've said elsewhere, I've had much experience with
digital recording and software, and it is trivial to produce different
results where the theory says the results should be identical with the
input.

Those who think CD is superior to LP simply have unrefined standards as
to what music is supposed to sound like, and what makes a reproduction
superior to another. For example, they latch on to things like the
background, and presume that a silent background is what makes CD more
"realistic" than the music on LP sound. Or maybe frequency response
gets this same simple simon treatment, or what's known as "analytical
detail" becomes "CD superiority". Those with Linns and Townshend Elites
and such who were already accustomed to a very refined sound, thought
that CD was a joke when it first came out, and they were being told it
was supposed to be better than their record kits! I was one of those
laughing my head off, at the brigade enamoured of technology, saying
that CD was "perfect sound" and "duplicates of the original masters",
etc. etc. When I asked some of them to bring over their puny little
"superior" CD players and pit them next to my "The Source", they shut
up real quick.

Even to the technologically enamoured, bedazzled by powerful marketing
as you obviously are, the superiority of my record deck was impossible
to ignore. Just the soundstage alone produced by my record deck, would
swallow up the stage of the CD player, and make it sound a lot like it
was playing in mono. I shudder to think how far LP replay would have
come, had it been economically viable to pursue this analogue
technology. But in no way did it die in 1983, so I'm afraid your
information is entirely false. Try looking at the market some time
before you speak and attempt to misinform. Record decks are still being
produced, sold and so are records.

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:13:31 PM2/24/06

to

From: Steven Sullivan
Date: Thurs, Feb 23 2006 5:57 pm
Email: Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com>

>> To me, from what I've read, this clearly falls under the 'preference'
>> category.

>Sure -- a preference for the sound of *LPs*. But theory and practice
>both suggest that a CD can easily be made to sound like an LP. The reverse
>isn't true.

And the big question left begging is....

So what?

Jenn has a preference. You, Mr. Krueger, and nob are trying to 'prove'
that her preference isn't valid. Why?

Sander deWaal

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:29:10 PM2/24/06

to

>> I wrapped the rectangular paper around the electrolytics in my amp, I
>> gave the picture of the four-legged animal to my little niece and
>> glued 3 aspirins to my forehead (3 pcs as to compensate for the
>> absence of the picture of the four-legged animal).

>I thought the instructions I gave were pretty clear and simple, yet no
>one seems to be able to follow them correctly. Should I be writing them
>in Braille, perhaps?

I'm very disappointed in your closed-mindedness.
If only you were willing to accept that other tweaks than the ones you
came up with, could be beneficial, too.

This really saddens me.

To the mere beginners who can't think of anything more daring than
painting the edges of their CDs with a green marker, I say this:
I have 30+ years of tweaking experience behind me, I know of what I
speak.
I started out back then in the years of Lore and germanium transistors
with cigarette paper folded around the input connectors on my
amplifier (of course, I still smoked back then).
Drilling holes in volume knobs et al.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I've seen them all, including your picture of a four-legged animal
with a tail - suggestion.
Old news, but for some it might actually work.

>> Drinking black coffee before usually helps to improve staging a bit.

>No doubt the caffeine does have an effect on your mood, which affects
>your listening experience. I did not test it as I don't drink coffee,
>but I would expect it to be a detrimental one. What can improve staging
>(and other things) a bit, is simply crossing your ankles or your legs.

That, as well as having sex before listening.

Now *there's* a tweak no one dares to speak about!

>> Forget about the picture of the four-legged animal, this didn't do
>> anything for me. But I'm willing to concede that either my audio gear isn't up to
>> snuff, or my ears may contain too much tin.

>How would you know? I doubt that you tried the tweak, given your
>hostile attitude of sarcasm, mockery and ridicule. Do you really think
>that this sort of negativity is doing anything to improve the sound of
>your hifi? Did you know that if someone else in the room tells a lie,
>it can affect the perceived sound quality for both you, and everyone in
>that room? You probably don't believe it, but these things happen
>whether you do or don't believe it. Think positive, be positive, and I
>promise you'll have a more positive listening experience. I don't
>believe your ears are made of tin. I believe the tin-ear / golden-ear
>thing is a tired old myth, that we should put to rest. I think I have
>more confidence in your listening ability than you do, and that can
>only be a problem. The only thing that is likely to be limiting your
>listening ability is your mind. If you don't listen with an open mind,
>you'll never hear anything that you otherwise might.

Again, I'm deeply saddened by your hostile reaction.
Is it because I like to spin the occasional 78 rpm record?

Here I am, relying sincerely the experiences I've had with some simple
tweaks, thinking I could share this knowledge with fellow-minded
audiophiles who wouldn't deny good results beforehand, just like the
objectivists here do.

Take your own advice, and be open minded about what others tell you
what worked for them. It's only in your own interest!

By the way, thanks for acknowledging that my ears are not made of tin.
I will now hurry off to my hobby room to replace the feet under my
equipment with slices of cucumber (I'm almost certain that the slight
harshness I heard is due to the equipment feet).

>Did you check out the system I said I had, which I was able to
>completely transform through the use of such tweaks? Is yours actually
>worse than mine? I doubt it! I'm sure that if you opened up your mind a
>little, you could turn your system into something that would make your
>audiophile friend with the high end piece of kit turn green with envy,
>and white with wonder, at how you are able to make your modest system
>sound more musical than his. Then when he asks how you did, tell him
>that you started by removing all the video tapes in your listening
>room....

I got better results by locking the cats up in the attic.
While cats in general are very sensitive and spiritual beings, they
can ruin the focusing on the sweet spot.

Before you go off on a tangent with me again, be aware that my room is
decorated according to the best Feng Shui traditions, in combination
with speaker placing directions that Howard Ferstler himself e-mailed
me some time ago. That could account for differences in effectivity
for the various tweaks.

--

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

Jenn

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 2:52:34 PM2/24/06

to

In article <1140808411.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,

Small "manhood"?

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 4:40:03 PM2/24/06

to

Sander deWaal wrote :

> soundhas...@yahoo.com said:
>
>
> >> I wrapped the rectangular paper around the electrolytics in my amp, I
> >> gave the picture of the four-legged animal to my little niece and
> >> glued 3 aspirins to my forehead (3 pcs as to compensate for the
> >> absence of the picture of the four-legged animal).
>
> >I thought the instructions I gave were pretty clear and simple, yet no
> >one seems to be able to follow them correctly. Should I be writing them
> >in Braille, perhaps?
>
> I'm very disappointed in your closed-mindedness.
> If only you were willing to accept that other tweaks than the ones you
> came up with, could be beneficial, too.
>
> This really saddens me.

No, this really amuses you, but you may be shocked to learn that I
don't find your insincerity very droll. I find it very predictable and
shallow, actually. Typical of a closed mind Flatlander. If you had
actually "come up with" interesting tweaks that you believed yielded
audible benefits, instead of pretended to because you take comfort in
the mockery of others, I would have been very open to trying them. But
you never even tried the ones I mentioned, nor did you try the one you
mentioned. If you have no interest in improving the sound of your
system and only in mocking and ridiculing what you don't understand,
then you should at least have the courage to say so. Because its as
plain as the aspirins on your forehead.

I will point out again that that I did not "come up with" any of the
tweaks I mentioned here, nor did I say I did. Someone a lot smarter
than I (and a _hell_ of a lot smarter than you) did.

> To the mere beginners who can't think of anything more daring than
> painting the edges of their CDs with a green marker, I say this:
> I have 30+ years of tweaking experience behind me, I know of what I
> speak.

Is that so? (rolling eyes...) It sounds more to me as though you've
never undertaken an audio test in your life. If you did have 30+ years
of tweaking experience, then that would suggest your listening skills
would be fantastic, whereas you described yourself earlier as
"tin-eared". But perhaps I'm wrong. Please elaborate on what you've
tested in 30 years of tweaking, and what conclusions you've made.

Unlike you and your insincere retorts, I actually have done extensive
testing of markers of many colours, on CDs, and other objects over the
years. Including testing the green CD Stoplight marker, to which you
refer. The green CD Stoplight marker did make a definite positive
improvement to the sound of CDs. But the manufacturer did not
understand the operating principles of the Stoplight pen. They claimed
it worked on "absorbing excess infrared laser light" or some such
nonsense, which is utterly impossible. It doesn't even approach the
wavelength of a CD's laser, assuming stray light would even reach the
edge of the cd to have an effect. Proof that it doesn't work as
advertised, is in the fact that it was equally as effective improving
the sound of LPs, or compact cassettes. Neither of which have anything
to do with digital and laser beams.

So because humans are an imperfect lot at best, many people got hung up
on the theoretical aspect of the green marker, and having thought
themselves clever to "prove" a faulty argument wrong, they concluded
the pen wasn't and couldn't be effective, after having wasted their
time registering bitstreams and other irrelevant tests. Many others
already came to this conclusion before even trying it. Those were even
more foolish than the first batch of testers, because they wouldn't
even get past the theories in order to test it "objectively". (Sound
like someone we know, Mr. Sarcastic?). Thus, misinformation spread
widely about the pen, and scared off those who might have used it to
good effect. Those who are still greening their CDs today have a
slightly better level of reproduction than those that aren't.

What a lot of people also didn't realize, is that green isn't the best
color to use for this application. Violet is. And you don't need to
draw entire circles around the edge of the CD. Four simple 1 cm marks
at the major clock positions is best, with a go all around the inner
edge using a black marker. To satisfy the skeptics among my
acquaintances, I've performed blind tests on people who had no trouble
picking out the "markered" CD (but I would stop short of saying the
improvement is so dramatic that everyone, "tin-eared" or not, would be
apt to recognize the differences. However, if you're an audiophile, you
should!).

> I started out back then in the years of Lore and germanium transistors
> with cigarette paper folded around the input connectors on my
> amplifier (of course, I still smoked back then).
> Drilling holes in volume knobs et al.
> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

Does the t-shirt, by chance, say "I'm With Stupid", with an arrow
pointing upward?

Cigarette paper used as described, would prevent the metal contact of
your phono plugs from making contact with the input connector, which
eliminates the shielding, which in my tweaking experience results in a
vastly reduced output and greater distortion. So my question is, how
much did you have to smoke before this tweak produced audible benefits?

> I've seen them all, including your picture of a four-legged animal
> with a tail - suggestion.
> Old news, but for some it might actually work.

Really? If you have seen and know it all Mr. deWaal, and its all "old
news", then please explain what are the operating principles behind the
4-legged animal with a tail suggestion, according to the person who
originated the idea?

I can tell you as fact that for some, including myself, it doesn't
"might" actually work, it "does" actually work. Some can't tell the
difference between a $35 Coby CD player and a $30,000 SME turntable. So
for others, nothing works. But I can guarantee this much: the tweak
won't work for you, or anyone else, if you don't try it.

> >> Drinking black coffee before usually helps to improve staging a bit.
>
> >No doubt the caffeine does have an effect on your mood, which affects
> >your listening experience. I did not test it as I don't drink coffee,
> >but I would expect it to be a detrimental one. What can improve staging
> >(and other things) a bit, is simply crossing your ankles or your legs.
>
>
> That, as well as having sex before listening.
>
> Now *there's* a tweak no one dares to speak about!

No, I'd have no problem speaking about it, except I've never tested it.
Nevertheless, like the coffee idea, sex does affect mood, and as I
said, mood affects the senses. So I don't see why it wouldn't have an
effect on your sound perception.

> Here I am, relying sincerely the experiences I've had with some simple
> tweaks, thinking I could share this knowledge with fellow-minded
> audiophiles who wouldn't deny good results beforehand, just like the
> objectivists here do.

No, you're not sincerely relating experiences you've had gluing
aspirins to your forehead. You're simply lying about having done that,
because it amuses you to mock me. You're not expecting to be taken
seriously, and believe me, you're not. Many however, have taken the 5
pinhole/aspirin tweak seriously, and been surprised at the results that
it can and does have an effect on our perception of sound quality. They
have now improved their listening experience where you haven't. Which
is why it pays to be sincerely open-minded, as opposed to just pretend
"open-minded". Now since you mentioned this objectivist/subjectivist
nonsense again, I don't know if you consider yourself a subjectivist...
but assuming you do, how does that make you any different than the
objectivists, who lie to themselves about what can and can't influence
sound perception?

> By the way, thanks for acknowledging that my ears are not made of tin.
> I will now hurry off to my hobby room to replace the feet under my
> equipment with slices of cucumber (I'm almost certain that the slight
> harshness I heard is due to the equipment feet).

Instead of making stupid sarcastic remarks every day that you think are
clever and original, do something smart for a change and try the toilet
paper tweak under your speakers. I am sure you'll find it sounds a lot
better than cucumbers.

The harshness you hear in your hifi is most likely due to adverse
effects in your environment. Most people are not aware of how insidious
this harshness is or the influence of the adverse effects, which is why
I'm talking about how to tackle it. The more that you apply the tweaks
that I've mentioned, the more you reduce this harshness, and the more
you become aware of how much it affects your listening experience. I
can tell you that none of my audio gear is at all harsh any longer, due
to my tweaks (including my mp3 player). It all sounds startlingly
natural sometimes, and is free of that typical "hifi sound". In fact, I
can no longer stand listening to typical audio systems that contain
this hifi harshness, because I have elevated standards due to living
with the absence of harsh hifi artifacts. If you really want to reduce
that slight harshness, then instead of gluing the aspirin tablets to
your forehead, which is hardly practical even if it did work, why don't
you try scattering a number of them inside your amp and cd player unit,
near the entry and exit paths. Listen again, and you will likely find
your slight harshness has disapeared, replaced by natural hifi
goodness. Or don't do it and remain blissfully ignorant and continue to
mock things you don't understand, your choice.

> >Did you check out the system I said I had, which I was able to
> >completely transform through the use of such tweaks? Is yours actually
> >worse than mine? I doubt it! I'm sure that if you opened up your mind a
> >little, you could turn your system into something that would make your
> >audiophile friend with the high end piece of kit turn green with envy,
> >and white with wonder, at how you are able to make your modest system
> >sound more musical than his. Then when he asks how you did, tell him
> >that you started by removing all the video tapes in your listening
> >room....
>
>
> I got better results by locking the cats up in the attic.
> While cats in general are very sensitive and spiritual beings, they
> can ruin the focusing on the sweet spot.

It sounds like you are perfectly happy with the sound of your stereo
system, although I can't speak for how happy your cats are. Anyway,
that being the case, I'm happy for you. So we don't need to discuss
this any longer.

> Before you go off on a tangent with me again, be aware that my room is
> decorated according to the best Feng Shui traditions, in combination
> with speaker placing directions that Howard Ferstler himself e-mailed
> me some time ago. That could account for differences in effectivity
> for the various tweaks.

Howard Ferstler is not someone who could advise you correctly on how to
tie your shoelaces, much less how to improve your hifi system. So yes,
that could account for differences in effectivity, if you hear none.
Now there might be something to the Feng Shui thing, but personally, I
haven't ever delved into that.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:03:51 PM2/24/06

to

Harry Lavo <hl...@comcast.net> wrote:

Why aren't *they* releasing CDs sourced from LPs? Btw, how do you know
there are 'thousands' of engineers who feel that way (or that there
aren't twice as many who don't?)

> Even some of the esteemed "authorities" on usenet, such as Dick Pierce,
> don't argue that CD reproduction is perfect...and problems with the high
> frequency cutoff are acknowledged as the leading culprit. You don't have a
> problem if it doesn't affect the sound, and it does!

I'd say perfect with respect to a master tape. Not necessarily with respect to
a live event...and that is an issue with *recording*, not digital per se.

However, I'd be interested to Mr. Pierce post about high frequency
cutoffs being a problem with Redbook. I trust you can point me to it.
If I were you I'd be very careful about citing what Mr. Pierce says.
He is very careful about his claims. Interestingly, over on RAHE
today he made a long post that was *in part* about the relative ability
of CD and LP to reproduce harpsichord. FWIW, I didn't see anything about
high frequency cutoffs being a problem...nor CDs being a problem.

One problem Mr. Pierce did cite was the tendency of people to believe
erroneous things about what they hear. His reference was to a review
of a harpsichord recording in the audiophile press. The reviewer
had no clue what he was talking about, re: harpsichords, but that didn't
stop him from waxing on about how *real* this one sounded.

> Over on RAHE I recently described the sound of the multichannel layer,
> stereo layer, and CD layer of the Phillips DSD recording of Mozart's Piano
> Concertos K271 and K503 (Brendel, and the Scottish Chamber Orchestra under
> Mackerras). Since it is a very fine DSD recording, the sound is very fine
> on three layers, but there are differences. After describing how realistic
> the strings sections sounded on the SACD layers, I noted:

Never mind, Harry, I know how you 'compare' stuff, and it's just
useless anecdotes. Show me some real evidence.

--
-S
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison (1788)

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:08:44 PM2/24/06

to

> Steven Sullivan wrote:

> > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

> > I tried your tweak using a picture of a cat, and then a frog. The music
> > sounded more complex, but also somehow standoffish, with the cat.

> I wouldn't expect the frog to do much of anything positive, as the
> animal in question has to be a four legged animal with a tail. The
> tweak will still work without a picture of any animal, its just better
> with the pic.

Well, frogs begin life with a tail. But I take your point. I tried
it a again , this time with cat vs. newt, and got the same
result. The sound was a bit more 'moist' with the newt, it
seemed to me.

> > Thanks, it's interesting tweak.

> Thanks for trying it out and letting me know. I found it interesting
> too, and I have a lot of interesting other tweaks too that might help.
> A very simple thing you can try is to pin up one corner of a curtain
> with a safety pin, and see if you can hear an improvement in your
> sound. The larger you make the corner, the greater the effect,
> basically.

I have heavy curtains over both entrances to my listening room...
I can definitely alter the sound by opening them or closing them.
There's nothing 'tweaky' about that, it's just absorbing
high frequencies within the room, as well as noise from outside the room.
But I wonder, would there be any further benefit to attaching
pictures of animals to them?

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:09:39 PM2/24/06

to

> Steven Sullivan wrote:

I fear the bananas would distract you.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:12:52 PM2/24/06

to

> Steven Sullivan wrote :

Why can you conclude that? It doesn't follow logically. Just because
this amazing animal picture tweak works, doesn't mean *all* tweaks
work.

> You would think it would also be obvious to most
> people, but that proves not to be the case, because you have to
> remember, most people are ignorant,

Oh, believe me, I'm convinced of that.

> of what a good record deck can and
> does sound like. If they were made cheaply and readily available, and
> as convenient to use, the CD would have died a short death a long time
> ago.

Turntables were made cheaply and readily available, around the time
CDs were introduced. Hell, I used to sell them at Crazy Eddie's in
Manhattan. Somehow CDs flourished while turntable sales withered.
It was clearly traumatic for some.

Steven Sullivan

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:17:31 PM2/24/06

to

Sander deWaal <nos...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
> soundhas...@yahoo.com said:

> >> I wrapped the rectangular paper around the electrolytics in my amp, I
> >> gave the picture of the four-legged animal to my little niece and
> >> glued 3 aspirins to my forehead (3 pcs as to compensate for the
> >> absence of the picture of the four-legged animal).

> >I thought the instructions I gave were pretty clear and simple, yet no
> >one seems to be able to follow them correctly. Should I be writing them
> >in Braille, perhaps?

> I'm very disappointed in your closed-mindedness.
> If only you were willing to accept that other tweaks than the ones you
> came up with, could be beneficial, too.

> This really saddens me.

I suspect it's simply a potassium deficiency on his part. More
bananas would help.

> To the mere beginners who can't think of anything more daring than
> painting the edges of their CDs with a green marker, I say this:
> I have 30+ years of tweaking experience behind me, I know of what I
> speak.
> I started out back then in the years of Lore and germanium transistors
> with cigarette paper folded around the input connectors on my
> amplifier (of course, I still smoked back then).
> Drilling holes in volume knobs et al.
> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

> I've seen them all, including your picture of a four-legged animal
> with a tail - suggestion.
> Old news, but for some it might actually work.

Have you tried putting a grilled cheese sandwich (uniformly browned
but NOT BURNT) under your solid-state gear? The benefits are
subtle but undeniable, once you've heard them.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:24:24 PM2/24/06

to

"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:dto0d4$9cu$8...@reader2.panix.com
> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>

>>> To be clear, Jenn's position is that no violin on CD
>>> ever sounds as realistic as on the best LPs.
>>>
>>> And that's an idea that's only a little more probable
>>> than the utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.
>
>> Given that you've tried the tweak and it proved valid
>> for you, we can conclude that you also believe that
>> violin on the best LPs sounds more realistic than on CD.
>
> Why can you conclude that? It doesn't follow logically.
> Just because this amazing animal picture tweak works,
> doesn't mean *all* tweaks work.
>
>> You would think it would also be obvious to most
>> people, but that proves not to be the case, because you
>> have to remember, most people are ignorant,

> Oh, believe me, I'm convinced of that.

>> of what a good record deck can and
>> does sound like. If they were made cheaply and readily
>> available, and as convenient to use, the CD would have
>> died a short death a long time ago.

> Turntables were made cheaply and readily available,
> around the time CDs were introduced. Hell, I used to
> sell them at Crazy Eddie's in Manhattan. Somehow CDs
> flourished while turntable sales withered.
> It was clearly traumatic for some.

As I recall the last gasp of the mainstream LP player involved straight line
tracking turntables that loaded and operated something like CD players.

Now, the straight line tracking part was a pretty good idea, if implemented
well.

Goofball_star_dot_etal

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 5:34:09 PM2/24/06

to

On 22 Feb 2006 10:19:34 -0800, soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

>- CB
>
>This message describes a tweak intended for OPEN MINDED AUDIOPHILES
>only.

Bugger!

> If you are only reading it to criticize, scoff or ridicule, or
>any other negative behavior, please leave my thread now. We're not
>interested in your opinion. The net is full of audio dogmatists and
>their "objectivist religions", and we are already fully aware of the
>opinions of audio naysayers and so-called objectivists. You are free to
>preach your objectivist religions in threads that cover the topic of
>objectivist issues in audio. To do so in a thread that doesn't purport
>to discuss the objectivist angle, and where you are not invited, only
>causes great dissension and wars in the audio community. So please stay
>in discussions where you are welcome. Thank you. For those of you "true
>audiophiles" who remain, please read on to see how you can easily
>improve your hifi systems.
>
>First, know that I am not here to sell you anything. I am an audiophile
>like yourselves. I may be at a far more advanced level of
>"audiophilism" than most of you, if not all, who are currently
>participating in this news forum. But that is of little importance.
>Audiophiles come in all colors, shapes and sizes, and degrees of
>knowledge, experience and interest in the hobby. We all can learn new
>things, no matter what level of audiophilism we are currently at in our
>lives.
>
>This tweak is for real, and I'm putting it out there for the benefit of
>my audiophile brothers and sisters. It is not simply for open minded
>people, but for "active audiophiles", who take an active interest in
>improving the sound of their hifi systems. Although this is a more
>advanced tweak than most of you have experience with, even for those
>who have plenty of experiecne tweaking, it is easy to do and completely
>safe. The only thing it requires is enough listening skill to determine
>what kind of changes are taking place. Best of all, it DOES NOT COST A
>CENT for you to try it (everyone likes this kind of tweak!). And the
>effect is so amazing, that YOU CAN NOT ACHEIVE THIS KIND OF IMPROVEMENT
>IF YOU SPENT HUNDRED$ OR THOU$AND$ OF DOLLARS ON YOUR HI-FI SYSTEM!
>
>That is to say, the nature of the improvement is extremely difficult to
>obtain in hi-fi, no matter what component you change. Still interested?
>Read on!...
>
>
>THE TWEAK:
>
>Every audiophile has a pair of loudspeakers in their hi-fi system, so
>this will work no matter what system you have (this tweak may not work
>for you if your speaker boxes are not wood). After having made this
>tweak (and a few others that cost me nothing), I have compared my
>system to a friend's high end audiophile system costing THOUSAND$ OF
>DOLLAR$, and we both preferred playing music on mine. Mine is a very
>modest system, which proves you do not need an expensive hifi audiofile
>system for this tweak to work for you. Please do not believe that it
>will only work on megabuck systems. These are the components of the
>system I have:
>
>- Amp: Scott ss receiver (about 25-30 years old).
>
>- Loudspeakers: No-name home made 3-way floor-standing wood speakers
>with paper cones and textile dome midrange
>
>- CD Player: Cyberhome CHDVD-300 (DVD player, but it plays CDs and MP3s
>- cost: about $30 US)
>
>- RCA Inter-connects: so-called "garden variety", the black kind with
>red and white plastic connectors, that came with the Cyberhome DVD
>player (the interconnects have also been tweaked)
>
>- Speaker wire: no-name "zip wire", thin and transparent with silver
>and gold wires, the kind you find in a dollar store (n.b. the speakers
>do not have terminals, because they are home made, so the speaker wires
>are not connected directly to terminals. they are tied to a small piece
>of thin brown zip wire that is connected to the crossover terminals in
>the speaker).

>
>Now for the tweak: get yourself a plain piece of white paper.
>IMPORTANT: It must not be printed on. (I used unbleached paper, but
>regular plain white paper should do). Now cut a rectangle. Size doesn't
>matter, but mine is about 3" by 2" to make it discreet. Now with a pin,
>prick a small hole in each corner, and then one in the centre, where
>the diagonals meet. Now cut out a picture or photograph of a 4-legged
>animal with a tail, that is smaller than the piece of paper you cut
>out. Now place the picture of the animal underneath the white piece of
>paper and tape the white piece of rectangular paper to the speaker box
>(where doesn't matter, but I taped mine to the top of the box). Now
>place an aspirin on the center pinhole of the white piece of paper.

>That's it. Remember to always keep an open mind, and one final thought:
>don't worry about how it works, just be happy that it does. And

westpas...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 24, 2006, 10:04:52 PM2/24/06

to

Well you certainly have told me a thing or two.
Shame about that $3k rig of yours sounding so crappy.
You were tweaking a system retrieved while bin diving right?
My perception is that you like convincing folks do your bidding and
warming yourself in the glow of self gratification.
Based from your assertions you must have extensive analog circuit
design and development experience to support the digital is lame claim.
I mean actual hands on the board experience.
Just to be clear, is that tube only analog or analog with solid state
devices
that are not logic based?
Holistic-herbal based audio tweaks, whats next?
I'm not trolling, I'm giving counter-point to your concept.
Don't like it, gee whiz, I'll just have to take my keyboard and go home
:-(

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 1:09:14 AM2/25/06

to

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > westpas...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:

> Well you certainly have told me a thing or two.

Really? You don't seem to be able to learn anything, and neither do you
seem to ever tire of being a sarcastic prick.

> Shame about that $3k rig of yours sounding so crappy.

I'm not worried. I haven't gotten around to tweaking it yet.

> You were tweaking a system retrieved while bin diving right?

Like I said, you never seem to tire of being a sarcastic prick. The
el-cheapo system that I spent time tweaking was a friend's... since
you asked.

> My perception is that you like convincing folks do your bidding and
> warming yourself in the glow of self gratification.

That's a desperately confused statement, revealing a very confused mind
that you have. You also have a very negative mind, which can't be doing
wonders for your sound perception. Unless you meant that confused
statement in a positive way, which is that I take pleasure in teaching
and helping others. But given all the negative vibes that you put out,
I'm tending to think that comment was meant to be negative. Although I
can't imagine how twisted you would have to be, to see something
negative about audiophiles attempting to help others in the audiophile
community. Years of trolling and waging wars with others on these
discussion groups must have rotted out your insides.

> Based from your assertions you must have extensive analog circuit
> design and development experience to support the digital is lame claim.
> I mean actual hands on the board experience.
> Just to be clear, is that tube only analog or analog with solid state
> devices
> that are not logic based?

Sorry, either you're confusing me with someone else, or you're just
confused in general, as I have no idea what you're on about.

> Holistic-herbal based audio tweaks, whats next?

I don't know of any holistic herbal based audio tweaks, so I don't know
where you heard that. But I do know of a herbal plant based tweak....
Actually, this will work with any potted plant. And its simple enough,
that I think maybe you could follow it as well. Just place a piece of
plain blue paper under your potted plants. That's all you need to
improve your sound quality.

> I'm not trolling, I'm giving counter-point to your concept.

I don't call your sophomoric ridicule intelligent counterpoints. If
you're interested in my tweaks, try one first, before you offer
counterpoints. If you're not interested in improving your sound, why
are you still here?

> Don't like it, gee whiz, I'll just have to take my keyboard and go home

I know you think your sarcastic deliveries are clever and mocking
things you don't understand is a hoot, but to me its just tired, boring
old nonsense, and I don't care to engage in stupid, childish games. If
you have a grave problem with anything I've said, say so. If you
disagree with anything I said, say so. If you have anything intelligent
to say, well then by God, don't wait until Y3K. But if all you can do
is engage in childish mockery, move on, I'm not interested.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 1:35:42 AM2/25/06

to

Steven Sullivan wrote :

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
>

> > > soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I tried your tweak using a picture of a cat, and then a frog. The music
> > > sounded more complex, but also somehow standoffish, with the cat.
>
> > I wouldn't expect the frog to do much of anything positive, as the
> > animal in question has to be a four legged animal with a tail. The
> > tweak will still work without a picture of any animal, its just better
> > with the pic.
>
> Well, frogs begin life with a tail. But I take your point. I tried
> it a again , this time with cat vs. newt, and got the same
> result. The sound was a bit more 'moist' with the newt, it
> seemed to me.

I'm curious to know, what exactly in your opinion is stopping you from
actually trying the tweak, instead of glibly pretending that you have?
Basically what I'm asking is, what are you afraid of? My tweak isn't a
joke, so why are you treating it as such? A lot of small-minded people
seem to get hung up on the animal picture. Would it make you feel
better if you didn't have to find an animal picture? Then you can
consider that optional. Try it with just plain paper and an aspirin,
see if it does anything for you... without trying to make a joke about
it. If you don't want to, then instead of playing games, tell me why.

> I have heavy curtains over both entrances to my listening room...
> I can definitely alter the sound by opening them or closing them.
> There's nothing 'tweaky' about that, it's just absorbing
> high frequencies within the room, as well as noise from outside the room.

I know. But I didn't say anything about opening or closing them. I said
to pin up one corner with a safety pin. Now are you going to tell me
that if you perceive a difference in your sound quality, its due to
acoustical room treatment? If so, then try it with a curtain in another
room. It should have the same benefit.

> But I wonder, would there be any further benefit to attaching
> pictures of animals to them?

I don't know, interestingly enough. Why don't you try? Seems simple
enough.

> > > And that's an idea that's only a little more probable than the
> > > utility of the tweak discussed in this thread.
>
> > Given that you've tried the tweak and it proved valid for you, we can
> > conclude that you also believe that violin on the best LPs sounds more
> > realistic than on CD.
>
> Why can you conclude that? It doesn't follow logically. Just because
> this amazing animal picture tweak works, doesn't mean *all* tweaks
> work.

I think you're confused, because you haven't followed the conversation
to determine the context of what was said. I never said "all tweaks
work", so go back and read what was said between me and Mr. Kreuger.

> > You would think it would also be obvious to most
> > people, but that proves not to be the case, because you have to
> > remember, most people are ignorant,
>
>
> Oh, believe me, I'm convinced of that.

Not as convinced as I, surely.

> > of what a good record deck can and
> > does sound like. If they were made cheaply and readily available, and
> > as convenient to use, the CD would have died a short death a long time
> > ago.
>
> Turntables were made cheaply and readily available, around the time
> CDs were introduced. Hell, I used to sell them at Crazy Eddie's in
> Manhattan. Somehow CDs flourished while turntable sales withered.
> It was clearly traumatic for some.

Again, you're confused, as you've taken things out of their proper
context. My comment was that _good_ turntables should have been cheaply
made and readily available. The key word here is "good".

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 1:41:52 AM2/25/06

to

Arny Krueger wrote:

I thought I already informed you that turntables are still produced and
readily available for purchase new. Why are you spreading
misinformation deliberately? Do you ever go out of the house Mr,
Kreuger, or are you a homebound invalid?

> Now, the straight line tracking part was a pretty good idea, if implemented
> well.

No, it was not. The most horrid turntables were linear trackers, and
the best arms, were not. This was common knowledge among record buying
audiophiles. The turntables you are referring to that were designed to
operate like CD players were cheap plasticated junk, that explains more
than anyone needs to know about why you think a $35 Coby cd player will
outperform a $30,000 SME turntable.

Arny Krueger

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 10:31:03 AM2/25/06

to

<soundhas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140849712....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com

They are not mainstream devices.

> Why are you spreading misinformation deliberately? Do you
> ever go out of the house Mr, Kreuger, or are you a
> homebound invalid?

Lots of obscure and obsolete devices are still being made in far tinier
volumes than they once were. I own a modest vinyl playback system which I
use to liberate rare recordings from their vinyl tombs and give them new
life as CDs.

>> Now, the straight line tracking part was a pretty good
>> idea, if implemented well.

> No, it was not. The most horrid turntables were linear
> trackers, and the best arms, were not.

What's unclear about "if implemented well"?

>This was common
> knowledge among record buying audiophiles.

Indeed. However, there have been good implementations of linear tracking,
no?

>The turntables
> you are referring to that were designed to operate like
> CD players were cheap plasticated junk,

Indeed, but you are not addressing what I said.

> that explains
> more than anyone needs to know about why you think a $35
> Coby cd player will outperform a $30,000 SME turntable.

It's not my fault if your ears are deaf to the benefits of superior modern
technology.

westpas...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 11:24:48 AM2/25/06

to

Well for someone that rips another poster on honesty, you yourself
started
this topic with the words " These are the components of the
system I have: "
not
' this is my friends system that I have convinced now sounds better.'

I am not confused, your just a poser, caught in your crapfest of tweak.
Haven't tweaked your own system, try these out, they're just what you
need.
http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm
ROTFLMAO
I myself prefer the electronic adjustment/surface treatment adjustment
based on actual acoustical measurement.
If you really have tested and compared what was it, "countless
systems",
then you should have similar test instruments.
I don't need your affirmation to know how smart I am, or atta boy's
from
other discussion members to support my viewpoint.
A few other matters from some of your postings:
You can buy diamonds at Target and K-Mart, according to a web search
so spare no expense.
I'm also sure you informed Studer Revox that their linear tracking
system
was utterly inferior.
I apologize in assuming you knew something of analog circuit design.
It's obvious you don't grasp the economics of recording distribution as

to why CD's excellent and inferior mastered ones, have replaced vinyl.
Your extensive digital recording background, and musician acquaintances
with both vinyl and CD releases to playback for them implied the grasp
of basic consumer driven economics.
And I'm sorry your grampa shot his ear off, it's a common flinch
reflex.

I do say positive things, only it's to those that actually should
receive it.
None of that "Only give good grades because Johnny will have a lowered
self image if it's shown he's done poorly compared to his peer group"
crap.

Sander deWaal

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 5:43:21 PM2/25/06

to

Some snips for brevity:

>> This really saddens me.

>No, this really amuses you, but you may be shocked to learn that I
>don't find your insincerity very droll. I find it very predictable and
>shallow, actually. Typical of a closed mind Flatlander. If you had
>actually "come up with" interesting tweaks that you believed yielded
>audible benefits, instead of pretended to because you take comfort in
>the mockery of others, I would have been very open to trying them. But
>you never even tried the ones I mentioned, nor did you try the one you
>mentioned. If you have no interest in improving the sound of your
>system and only in mocking and ridiculing what you don't understand,
>then you should at least have the courage to say so. Because its as
>plain as the aspirins on your forehead.

Which I removed, BTW (there were 3, remember?)
My wife complained about distraction during the sex.

But I still think this was a legitimate deviation from your
instructions, because when you remove something, you have to replace
it with something else. Not only does that seem logical, it also *is*.
If you don't, how can you ever expect a tweak to work?

>I will point out again that that I did not "come up with" any of the
>tweaks I mentioned here, nor did I say I did. Someone a lot smarter
>than I (and a _hell_ of a lot smarter than you) did.

Without a doubt, I never said I am the sharpest pencil in the drawer.
But I am already way past the stadium where I have to try tweaks,
designed by others, however bright they may be.
I design my own.

>> I have 30+ years of tweaking experience behind me, I know of what I
>> speak.

>Is that so? (rolling eyes...) It sounds more to me as though you've
>never undertaken an audio test in your life. If you did have 30+ years
>of tweaking experience, then that would suggest your listening skills
>would be fantastic, whereas you described yourself earlier as
>"tin-eared". But perhaps I'm wrong. Please elaborate on what you've
>tested in 30 years of tweaking, and what conclusions you've made.

I'd be the last to describe my listening skills as "fantastic",
however I've been asked many times to evaluate hifi gear and to design
the most appropriate tweak for that certain component.
If you insist on knowing, the most recent request was from a company
called Ego Audio (!), which I don't expect you to know about since
your tweaking activities still seem to concentrate around the bottom
of the barrel, so to speak.

I highly doubt your experience beats mine in this regard.
But, even in the highly unlikely case that you actually *do* , your
approach to tweaking still leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.

I can tell from your reply below that you *never* actually tried the
drilling-the-volume-knob tweak, not even on your car radio.
Your out-of-hand dismissal of the paper-around-electrolytics tweak
further demonstrates your 'unwillingness' to boldly go where no one
has gone before (thereby avoiding the word "ignorance", which has such
a negative impact on my brain activities every time I read it).

I was also among the first to try cigarette paper around interconnects
(not on the inside, you fool!), years even before Peter Belt arrived
at the scene.

I have a shallow understanding of electronics as well, an area where
tweaks can be very beneficial, but also dangerous.

You probably know that insulation material around cables can degrade a
signal.
So, (and this is NOT for everybody!), by getting rid of the insulation
of your mains cabling, a veil, nay, whole trucks of cloth are removed
from before the loudspeakers.
Take care with pets and little children (but, as I adviced earlier, it
is best to not have them around in the first place because of system
balance).
Also, it's usually best to shut down electricity or pull the plugs
before removing the insulation from said cables.
The first time I tried this tweak, I didn't, and while my system
sounded shockingly good for the few milliseconds before I passed out,
I can't recommend this to the faint-hearted people out there.

But I know what you're after, my friend:
You're trying to benefit from my years of tweaking experience, without
paying anything for it.

That dog won't hunt, I'll keep my trap shut from now on, unless you're
willing to exchange tips of course.

>Unlike you and your insincere retorts, I actually have done extensive
>testing of markers of many colours, on CDs, and other objects over the
>years. Including testing the green CD Stoplight marker, to which you
>refer. The green CD Stoplight marker did make a definite positive
>improvement to the sound of CDs. But the manufacturer did not
>understand the operating principles of the Stoplight pen. They claimed
>it worked on "absorbing excess infrared laser light" or some such
>nonsense, which is utterly impossible. It doesn't even approach the
>wavelength of a CD's laser, assuming stray light would even reach the
>edge of the cd to have an effect. Proof that it doesn't work as
>advertised, is in the fact that it was equally as effective improving
>the sound of LPs, or compact cassettes. Neither of which have anything
>to do with digital and laser beams.

Strange, my (also extensive) experience with red and black coatings
tells me that green doesn't work at all.
Unless applied to the CD tray as a resonance damer of course, but
that's not the point.
A black coating on the laser lens will result in absolute silence, an
increase of S/N of about 40 dB (my mV meter doesn't allow me to
measure anthing below -136 dB, so the actual number may be even
lower).

Especially when playing Cage's " 4'33 " , this tweak proved to be one
of the best I've ever designed.

Can you top that? Didn't think so!

>> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

>Does the t-shirt, by chance, say "I'm With Stupid", with an arrow
>pointing upward?

How did you know that???

Are you a mind reader of some kind, or did I forget to turn off my
webcam again?

>Really? If you have seen and know it all Mr. deWaal, and its all "old
>news", then please explain what are the operating principles behind the
>4-legged animal with a tail suggestion, according to the person who
>originated the idea?

While I must admit to not nowing what the inventor of said tweak was
thinking when he designed it, I must assume he was either drunk, or
stoned.

Every tweaker worth his salt knows that the four legs stand for the 4
corners of the room, with the tail at the sweet spot.
The purpose of pinning the picture behind a rectangular white sheet is
to create the metaphor of a blind test.

Any more silly questions?

> I don't know if you consider yourself a subjectivist...
>but assuming you do, how does that make you any different than the
>objectivists, who lie to themselves about what can and can't influence
>sound perception?

I don't know how long you've been reading RAO, but you can google back
to 1996 and read about the mockery, derision and outright hostility I
had to endure from those you call "objectivists".

I consider myself a unique, which is a more than apt description.
Let's leave it at that.

>Instead of making stupid sarcastic remarks every day that you think are
>clever and original, do something smart for a change and try the toilet
>paper tweak under your speakers. I am sure you'll find it sounds a lot
>better than cucumbers.

Thanks, but I think I'll keep my speakers soaked in an aquarium, to
damp vibrations.
Toilet paper would be unneccesary and even a nuisance, because it
would get wet and hence useless.

>> Before you go off on a tangent with me again, be aware that my room is
>> decorated according to the best Feng Shui traditions, in combination
>> with speaker placing directions that Howard Ferstler himself e-mailed
>> me some time ago. That could account for differences in effectivity
>> for the various tweaks.

>Howard Ferstler is not someone who could advise you correctly on how to
>tie your shoelaces, much less how to improve your hifi system. So yes,
>that could account for differences in effectivity, if you hear none.
>Now there might be something to the Feng Shui thing, but personally, I
>haven't ever delved into that.

I forgot to mention that I reversed every step in Howard's advice,
which proved to be a very rewarding idea.

Feng Shui comes in different flavors, I'll let you discover this on
your own.

Sander deWaal

unread,

Feb 25, 2006, 5:46:37 PM2/25/06

to

>I'm curious to know, what exactly in your opinion is stopping you from
>actually trying the tweak, instead of glibly pretending that you have?
>Basically what I'm asking is, what are you afraid of? My tweak isn't a
>joke, so why are you treating it as such? A lot of small-minded people
>seem to get hung up on the animal picture. Would it make you feel
>better if you didn't have to find an animal picture? Then you can
>consider that optional. Try it with just plain paper and an aspirin,
>see if it does anything for you... without trying to make a joke about
>it. If you don't want to, then instead of playing games, tell me why.

As you probably remember, I tried the tweak *without* the picture of a
four-legged-animal-with-a-tail, and used 2 more aspirins instead.

Instead of applauding me for trying this (and find a worthwile
improvement on this tweak in the process), you accused me of fraud,
sarcasm and closed-mindedness.

Rather a double-standard you have there, mr. SoundHasPriority!
Are you sure you're not a closet borg?

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2006, 1:27:17 AM2/26/06

to

> soundhas...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > westpas...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > I know you think your sarcastic deliveries are clever and mocking
> > things you don't understand is a hoot, but to me its just tired, boring
> > old nonsense, and I don't care to engage in stupid, childish games. If
> > you have a grave problem with anything I've said, say so. If you
> > disagree with anything I said, say so. If you have anything intelligent
> > to say, well then by God, don't wait until Y3K. But if all you can do
> > is engage in childish mockery, move on, I'm not interested.
>
> Well for someone that rips another poster on honesty, you yourself
> started this topic with the words " These are the components of the
> system I have: "not' this is my friends system that I have convinced now sounds better.'

Stop being ridiculous, your point is trivial and meaningless. There was
nothing dishonest about my disclosure. I'm currently staying with my
girlfriend, and its her system. It is in fact, the _only_ system in the
house. Therefore, the only system I have available to me. The fact that
it is or isn't "technically" owned me, and that I didn't specify
exactly who's name is on the bill of sale for the components in my
opening message, is only important to you. Because apparently, you
think its going to help you score points in a pointless debate against
me here. No one else would care about that, which is why I didn't feel
a need to "reveal to the world" that I did not take money out of my
pocket and pay for the system I said I had. It seems fair to say that
your Mr. Krueger is as dishonest as you are a troll.

> I am not confused, your just a poser, caught in your crapfest of tweak.

You're so confused, that you've even managed to confuse me, in all of
your confusion. What the heck is that supposed to mean exactly?

> Haven't tweaked your own system, try these out, they're just what you
> need.
> http://www.audiotweaks.com/collection_ascend.htm
> ROTFLMAO

If that's the site with the 450 tweaks on it, well I've contributed a
number of them myself, so I don't need you to tell me where it is.
What I'm curious to know is, why the site makes you laugh so hard?
There's absolutely nothing unusual on that site, so I'm starting to
conclude that you're a hostile troll who's targets are anyone who
practices improving their audio system. Particularly in ways that you
don't "condone", despite being entirely ignorant about all of them. You
said you weren't a troll, but then you also said that the idea of
tweaks makes you "ROTFLMAO", and yet you are involving yourself in my
thread about tweaks. In fact, there seems to be nothing I can say that
would get you to leave. So maybe the reason you don't find Mr. Krueger
dishonest, is because you're as dishonest as he is, and have just been
"caught in your crapfest of dishonesty".

> I myself prefer the electronic adjustment/surface treatment adjustment
> based on actual acoustical measurement.
> If you really have tested and compared what was it, "countless
> systems", then you should have similar test instruments.

Yes, I do have very sensitive test instruments that I use for
acoustical measurement. Actually, everyone I know has the same test
instruments. They're called "ears", brainiac.

> I don't need your affirmation to know how smart I am, or atta boy's
> from other discussion members to support my viewpoint.

No, I'm sure you already know how smart you are. Problem is, where you
don't realize how smart you aren't.

> You can buy diamonds at Target and K-Mart, according to a web search
> so spare no expense.

I'm sure you must have been overcome with joy to discover this after
looking for a wedding ring for your bride to be.

> I'm also sure you informed Studer Revox that their linear tracking
> system was utterly inferior.

Yes, every day and twice on Sundays. They've apologized profusely for
introducing it, about a thousand times to me now. The turntable that
resulted from their chunky, clunky linear tracking tonearm, is in
musical terms, worse than the scrap parts that end up in Linn's trash
bins at the end of the day. Goldmund made linear trackers at a cost
that makes the Revox look like a Technics. They sounded like a
"crapfest", as you like to put it. Sorry, but you're obviously not a
vinylphile, and you don't know anything about turntables either. Did I
say you're not a vinylphile? On second thought, I'm not even convinced
that you're an audiophile.

> I apologize in assuming you knew something of analog circuit design.
> It's obvious you don't grasp the economics of recording distribution as
> to why CD's excellent and inferior mastered ones, have replaced vinyl.
> Your extensive digital recording background, and musician acquaintances
> with both vinyl and CD releases to playback for them implied the grasp
> of basic consumer driven economics.

> And I'm sorry your grampa shot his ear off, it's a common flinch
> reflex.

He didn't shoot his ear off. It was shot off for him during the war. I
have no doubt that with you and your gung-ho ignorance, it would have
taken you less than 5 minutes to shoot your foot off, before you even
got to see a day in battle.

> I do say positive things, only it's to those that actually should
> receive it.

Uh-huh. Yes, I know. Those who's belief systems mirror yours, so that
there isn't even an accidental chance of you learning anything you
don't already think you know.

> None of that "Only give good grades because Johnny will have a lowered
> self image if it's shown he's done poorly compared to his peer group"
> crap.

I'm sure that if you have any children, they're probably plotting on
how best to murder you as we speak. Sleep tight, now. And keep in mind
that if you continue to troll me with further responses, I think you'll
have proven how low your self-image actually is.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2006, 3:20:57 AM2/26/06

to

Sander deWaal wrote:

> soundhas...@yahoo.com said:

> >No, this really amuses you, but you may be shocked to learn that I
> >don't find your insincerity very droll. I find it very predictable and
> >shallow, actually. Typical of a closed mind Flatlander. If you had
> >actually "come up with" interesting tweaks that you believed yielded
> >audible benefits, instead of pretended to because you take comfort in
> >the mockery of others, I would have been very open to trying them. But
> >you never even tried the ones I mentioned, nor did you try the one you
> >mentioned. If you have no interest in improving the sound of your
> >system and only in mocking and ridiculing what you don't understand,
> >then you should at least have the courage to say so. Because its as
> >plain as the aspirins on your forehead.
>
>
> Which I removed, BTW (there were 3, remember?)
> My wife complained about distraction during the sex.

Did you put them on your forehead so you can have a quick response when
she tells you "not tonight I have a headache"?

> But I still think this was a legitimate deviation from your
> instructions, because when you remove something, you have to replace
> it with something else. Not only does that seem logical, it also *is*.
> If you don't, how can you ever expect a tweak to work?

Rather, one should ask that of you. Your so-called "tweak" is merely a
joke, and not a particularly funny or original one at that, I find. And
since your "joke" tweak wasn't sincere (you never tried it yourself),
how can anyone ever expect it to work? I must say, you appear to be a
very "fearful" person to me, because you keep trying to make the point
that people should not try tweaks that do not seem "logical", yet you
don't have the cahones to stop playing childish games and simply say
that. I don't care whether you do or you don't try the tweak, but it's
not very intelligent to keep trying to beat the same dumb joke into the
ground, when it wasn't riotously funny to begin with.

> >I will point out again that that I did not "come up with" any of the
> >tweaks I mentioned here, nor did I say I did. Someone a lot smarter
> >than I (and a _hell_ of a lot smarter than you) did.
>
>
> Without a doubt, I never said I am the sharpest pencil in the drawer.

You didn't have to. The other pencils spoke on your behalf.

> But I am already way past the stadium where I have to try tweaks,
> designed by others, however bright they may be.
> I design my own.

Could you elaborate, that doesn't make any sense to me. I design my own
tweaks as well, but I can't imagine why someone would suggest they have
advanced beyond using other tweaks. Unless you weren't sincere about
that either. From my position, the tweaks that I described in this
thread are very advanced. So advanced, I would never have had the
imagination and perhaps background to come up with them. If someone
designs a tweak that works, which you never thought of, why wouldn't
you try it? And if you have actually designed serious tweaks, and not
merely insincere "joke tweaks" that you describe in your messages to
me, then I'm curious to know what tweaks you have designed.

> I'd be the last to describe my listening skills as "fantastic",
> however I've been asked many times to evaluate hifi gear and to design
> the most appropriate tweak for that certain component.

If you're sincere, then why are you avoiding describing any of your
tweaks in the last 30+ years? What are you afraid of?

> If you insist on knowing, the most recent request was from a company
> called Ego Audio (!), which I don't expect you to know about since
> your tweaking activities still seem to concentrate around the bottom
> of the barrel, so to speak.

Why on earth would you say that, other than to be provocative? And yes,
I do know about "Ego Audio", and why you won't find them in a telephone
directory. Because it doesn't actually exist. You're the only employee!

> I highly doubt your experience beats mine in this regard.

In tweaking activities? I'll bet it does. I wrote a book on the
subject.

> But, even in the highly unlikely case that you actually *do* , your
> approach to tweaking still leaves a lot to be desired IMHO.

Really?! I can see why you work for Ego Audio, now. Well, you've
managed to make me laugh quite a bit already, so please don't stop
there. Explain to me why my approach to tweaking leaves a lot to be
desired...

> I can tell from your reply below that you *never* actually tried the
> drilling-the-volume-knob tweak, not even on your car radio.

Nope. I can't say I have tried it. But then, I don't believe that you
can either. Why would it work?

> Your out-of-hand dismissal of the paper-around-electrolytics tweak
> further demonstrates your 'unwillingness' to boldly go where no one
> has gone before (thereby avoiding the word "ignorance", which has such
> a negative impact on my brain activities every time I read it).

Not at all. I've gone so far with my tweaking, that if I described some
of the more advanced tweaks, your mind would be so blown you would have
a neurological meltdown and have to be fed through a straw the rest of
your days. And I don't want to be responsible for that, so I'm "keeping
it safe", here. The only problem I have with your tweaks, is that
you've been trying to feed me a streaming line of bollocks from the
get-go. Now I have done tweaks on electrolytics, caps, resistors and
all that other good stuff, and I'm not talking about swapping them out
for higher quality components. And as you can see in my first tweak in
this thread, I know that simple plain paper placed strategically in, on
or near equipment, can have an effect on the sound you perceive. I've
also experimented with rubber bands around caps. Put that all together
and it helps lend some credibility, however small, to your idea. Maybe
its just another joke to you but it does something and you don't even
know it, because you would never try something like that. So frankly,
I'm leaving .000001% doubt that you may be on the level about your
so-called tweak. But given your proven penchant for BS in this
conversation, my out-of-hand dismissal is reasonable. Maybe if you try
my tweak in a sincere fashion, and you have the courage to report on it
honestly, I might try yours, if you tell me that you actually did this
and it actually did something positive.

> I was also among the first to try cigarette paper around interconnects
> (not on the inside, you fool!), years even before Peter Belt arrived
> at the scene.

I'm sorry... Peter who? Is he the guy that invented rolling papers?
Sorry for my ignorance Mr. Ego, but how exactly do you apply the
cigarette paper that it doesn't interfere with the signal or ground of
the IC?

> I have a shallow understanding of electronics as well, an area where
> tweaks can be very beneficial, but also dangerous.

I laugh at danger. And then I ask it over for dinner and a nightcap.
Are you sure you've tweaked before?

> You probably know that insulation material around cables can degrade a
> signal.
> So, (and this is NOT for everybody!), by getting rid of the insulation
> of your mains cabling, a veil, nay, whole trucks of cloth are removed
> from before the loudspeakers.

Sorry, I don't go for crazy tweaks. I do know that any dielectric will
degrade a single from my experiments with DIY ICs, using bare magnet
wire, and working from there. (I've also made my own high performance
mains cables). So I'm not saying that won't help, but removing
insulation from the mains cable is just asking for trouble. If ever the
positive and negative wires interact, well you know what happens. I do
however put light coats of oil on the plug of my mains cable. Betcha
didn't know about _that_ one!

> Take care with pets and little children (but, as I adviced earlier, it
> is best to not have them around in the first place because of system
> balance).

Pets I don't mind, but I can think of a lot more reasons not to have
children around....

> Also, it's usually best to shut down electricity or pull the plugs
> before removing the insulation from said cables.
> The first time I tried this tweak, I didn't, and while my system
> sounded shockingly good for the few milliseconds before I passed out,
> I can't recommend this to the faint-hearted people out there.

I also have a good-sized list of "reckless tweaks" that makes your
no-insulation idea look smart and reasonable by comparison. But it
would be irresponsible of me to post that stuff, because well, you're
not the only dull pencil in the box around these parts...

> But I know what you're after, my friend:
> You're trying to benefit from my years of tweaking experience, without
> paying anything for it.

What, your amazing "3 aspirins on the forehead" idea? How much do you
suppose that's worth? Maybe I'll buy it and sell it for a profit as an
April Fool's joke.

> That dog won't hunt, I'll keep my trap shut from now on, unless you're
> willing to exchange tips of course.

Well what do you think I've been doing here the last few days? I've
already posted at least 5 tips in this thread, all of which are pure
Gold. In fact, I just gave you one or two in this message. The only
thing you've revealed to me on the subject of tweaks is a variation of
a tweak I gave you. So you owe me at least 5 to start. Then maybe we
can make a deal, if I like what you have to offer.....

> >Unlike you and your insincere retorts, I actually have done extensive
> >testing of markers of many colours, on CDs, and other objects over the
> >years. Including testing the green CD Stoplight marker, to which you
> >refer. The green CD Stoplight marker did make a definite positive
> >improvement to the sound of CDs. But the manufacturer did not
> >understand the operating principles of the Stoplight pen. They claimed
> >it worked on "absorbing excess infrared laser light" or some such
> >nonsense, which is utterly impossible. It doesn't even approach the
> >wavelength of a CD's laser, assuming stray light would even reach the
> >edge of the cd to have an effect. Proof that it doesn't work as
> >advertised, is in the fact that it was equally as effective improving
> >the sound of LPs, or compact cassettes. Neither of which have anything
> >to do with digital and laser beams.
>
>
> Strange, my (also extensive) experience with red and black coatings
> tells me that green doesn't work at all.

...and yet professional audio journalists have tested and observed the
effects of greening your cd's. That is strange. Some people are colour
blind, which implies a sensitivity to green. Perhaps there is such a
thing as being colour blind to sound, and you're the first known case?

> Unless applied to the CD tray as a resonance damer of course, but
> that's not the point.

Perhaps but, unlike you, I'm not joking when I say that I did paint the
tray of my Arcam green. And it did improve matters. However, I think
you've got your concepts wrong. It does not operate by principles of
resonance damping, but by morphic resonances. Are you sure you know
what a tweak is, Mr. deWaal? We're not talking about pinching someone's
bottom here, you know.

> A black coating on the laser lens will result in absolute silence, an
> increase of S/N of about 40 dB (my mV meter doesn't allow me to
> measure anthing below -136 dB, so the actual number may be even
> lower).
>
> Especially when playing Cage's " 4'33 " , this tweak proved to be one
> of the best I've ever designed.
>
> Can you top that? Didn't think so!

I suppose I could, by putting my ear up to a cannon, at which point the
absolute silence will be enjoyed no matter the programme material. But,
er, I'm not sure I want to do that. It might interfere with the other
tweaks.

> >> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
>
> >Does the t-shirt, by chance, say "I'm With Stupid", with an arrow
> >pointing upward?
>
> How did you know that???

I dunno. I just guessed from the word "stupid" written on your
forehead... ;)

> Are you a mind reader of some kind, or did I forget to turn off my
> webcam again?

I'm sorry I'm not at liberty to say. But you should really consider
hiring a maid.

> While I must admit to not nowing what the inventor of said tweak was
> thinking when he designed it, I must assume he was either drunk, or
> stoned.

Popular theory, but nope, wrong again. He was stone cold sober. Which
makes the tweak even more brilliant.

> Every tweaker worth his salt knows that the four legs stand for the 4
> corners of the room, with the tail at the sweet spot.
> The purpose of pinning the picture behind a rectangular white sheet is
> to create the metaphor of a blind test.

Nope, not even close, but good guess.

> Any more silly questions?

Just one. What is morphic resonance? I know that any advanced tweaker
with as much experience as you claim you have, would know all about
that.

> As you probably remember, I tried the tweak *without* the picture of a
> four-legged-animal-with-a-tail, and used 2 more aspirins instead.

> Instead of applauding me for trying this (and find a worthwile
> improvement on this tweak in the process), you accused me of fraud,
> sarcasm and closed-mindedness.

Yes, but that was only because you never tried my tweak or yours. You
didn't tape 3 aspirins to your forehead, any more than you dumped your
speakers in an aquarium, in order to improve your sound. All this
tweaking stuff was all just a joke to you, one that you seem to get no
end of amusement out of, apparently. But that's okay, because you make
me laugh for my own reasons.
Whether you've tried any tweak in your life, or whether you have any
interest in audio at all, I don't know. I'm finding a lot of people on
these groups have no active interest in audio, and their raison d'etre
for contributing is to mock, deride and ridicule each other as much as
possible.

> Are you sure you're not a closet borg?

I don't rightfully know, since I don't know what that is. A species of
insect perhaps? A breed of dog? An accessory for your vestibule?

westpas...@hotmail.com

unread,

Feb 26, 2006, 9:49:18 AM2/26/06

to

Wow, you have like, totally rebuked me.
So, the list of gear in the first post, is actually your girl friends.
Either you have no components, she paid way too much for them,
or the $3K system you referred to owning in a later posting is your
imaginary audiophile system (not a blatant lie).

>"Yes, I do have very sensitive test instruments that I use for
> acoustical measurement. Actually, everyone I know has the same test
> instruments. They're called "ears","

So your testing is done using an uncalibrated instrument, no controls
in
test methodology, and is totally subjective base on your opinion.
I didn't realize I was taking issue with an EXPERT.

The rest of your reply was just a bunch of yada yada yada since your
lack of credibility has been established, and your attempts to redirect
the focus by dis-crediting me through conjecture and character
assassination have proven ineffective.

FYI, I can handle a weapon, unlike you who has the propensity and
compulsion for shooting just their mouth off.

Sander deWaal

unread,

Feb 26, 2006, 4:59:31 PM2/26/06

to

Sorry for the longwinded post folks, I already snipped away most
dribble, but mr. Aspirin here needs to be taught a lesson:

>> Which I removed, BTW (there were 3, remember?)
>> My wife complained about distraction during the sex.

>Did you put them on your forehead so you can have a quick response when
>she tells you "not tonight I have a headache"?

God, you're sharp!
That was *exactly* what I had in mind.

> I must say, you appear to be a
>very "fearful" person to me, because you keep trying to make the point
>that people should not try tweaks that do not seem "logical", yet you
>don't have the cahones to stop playing childish games and simply say
>that. I don't care whether you do or you don't try the tweak, but it's
>not very intelligent to keep trying to beat the same dumb joke into the
>ground, when it wasn't riotously funny to begin with.

I am fearful indeed, I've already gone out on a limb to explain some
of my tweaks here, something I would never have done without
provocation done of the mighty powers of the objectivists dominating
this newsgroup.
I already got complaints in my e-mail from various audio heavyweights,
that one can roughly all translate to the single phrase "prove it!"

And you're right that it isn't funny at all, I was dead serious!

>Could you elaborate, that doesn't make any sense to me. I design my own
>tweaks as well, but I can't imagine why someone would suggest they have
>advanced beyond using other tweaks. Unless you weren't sincere about
>that either. From my position, the tweaks that I described in this
>thread are very advanced. So advanced, I would never have had the
>imagination and perhaps background to come up with them. If someone
>designs a tweak that works, which you never thought of, why wouldn't
>you try it? And if you have actually designed serious tweaks, and not
>merely insincere "joke tweaks" that you describe in your messages to
>me, then I'm curious to know what tweaks you have designed.

One day, you will discover that tweaks, designed by others, can't
possibly work for you because of the lack of interaction between you
and the tweak.

As I already told you, I'm past that stage for some time now.

>If you're sincere, then why are you avoiding describing any of your
>tweaks in the last 30+ years? What are you afraid of?

Mockery, derision and ridicule from the "usual subjects".
And my employer, note.

>Why on earth would you say that, other than to be provocative? And yes,
>I do know about "Ego Audio", and why you won't find them in a telephone
>directory. Because it doesn't actually exist. You're the only employee!

Close, but no cigar.
"Ego Audio"stands for the fact that no other system sounds as good as
your own, *especially after you've tweaked it intensely* !

>Really?! I can see why you work for Ego Audio, now. Well, you've
>managed to make me laugh quite a bit already, so please don't stop
>there. Explain to me why my approach to tweaking leaves a lot to be
>desired...

I already gave you several subtle hints on achieving a higher state of
mind, after which one can design his own tweaks and be a happy camper.

In fact, I only have to *think* about a certain tweak to make my
system sound better.
That's what I meant with your approach not being very effective.

>> I can tell from your reply below that you *never* actually tried the
>> drilling-the-volume-knob tweak, not even on your car radio.

>Nope. I can't say I have tried it. But then, I don't believe that you
>can either. Why would it work?

Because of what you wrote below, morphic resonance and the control one
has over it.

The power of the mind is so overwhelming, it can get scary at times.
Maybe that's why the cats react so fiercely on my audio system!

>I'm sorry... Peter who? Is he the guy that invented rolling papers?
>Sorry for my ignorance Mr. Ego, but how exactly do you apply the
>cigarette paper that it doesn't interfere with the signal or ground of
>the IC?

Peter Belt tried to commercialize some tweaks, but of course, it
didn't work at all for those poor suckers who tried his devices.
Again, it was because of the lack of interaction between the tweak,
the material used for said tweak and the individual trying it.

I'll let you work out the cigarette paper tweak for yourself, you'll
thank me afterwards, because you used all that energy to take your
system to that higher level.

OK, a small hint: think laterally (NOT literally!).

>Sorry, I don't go for crazy tweaks.

Your loss.
Thanks for the oiling tip, BTW, indeed I've never heard that one
before, I'll try to incorporate that idea in one of my own tweaks.

Maybe LHM sounds better, hm? :-)

>I also have a good-sized list of "reckless tweaks" that makes your
>no-insulation idea look smart and reasonable by comparison. But it
>would be irresponsible of me to post that stuff, because well, you're
>not the only dull pencil in the box around these parts...

Of course my non-insulation idea looks smart, because it *is*!
You're beginning to understand where I'm going, that's good.

>Well what do you think I've been doing here the last few days? I've
>already posted at least 5 tips in this thread, all of which are pure
>Gold. In fact, I just gave you one or two in this message. The only
>thing you've revealed to me on the subject of tweaks is a variation of
>a tweak I gave you. So you owe me at least 5 to start. Then maybe we
>can make a deal, if I like what you have to offer.....

I just gave you the almost complete recepy for freeing your mind, if
you can read between the lines that is.

That's worth a lot more, pal!

>Perhaps but, unlike you, I'm not joking when I say that I did paint the
>tray of my Arcam green. And it did improve matters. However, I think
>you've got your concepts wrong. It does not operate by principles of
>resonance damping, but by morphic resonances. Are you sure you know
>what a tweak is, Mr. deWaal? We're not talking about pinching someone's
>bottom here, you know.

Unless it is your wife. Ever tried?
Here's another tip, free of charge: unclench your keister, you'll be
amazed at the effect.

>I suppose I could, by putting my ear up to a cannon, at which point the
>absolute silence will be enjoyed no matter the programme material. But,
>er, I'm not sure I want to do that. It might interfere with the other
>tweaks.

That's an absurd tweak, and you know it.
I once tried to emulate this effect by running a sine wave generator
at 40 watts on a headphone for almost a day.

That wasn't the smartest thing I ever did, admittedly.

>> Any more silly questions?

>Just one. What is morphic resonance? I know that any advanced tweaker
>with as much experience as you claim you have, would know all about
>that.

At the risk of being ridiculed again, and to be accused of being a
blundering dilettante of the worst order, I'd say it has something to
do with snoring in your sleep, and the damping of said noises.

Apneu is a serious threat to someone's listening pleasure, let alone
someone's health.
Not something one makes silly jokes about, you will note.

>> Are you sure you're not a closet borg?

>I don't rightfully know, since I don't know what that is. A species of
>insect perhaps? A breed of dog? An accessory for your vestibule?

Check under your bed first, are there any bugs there?

Borg is the sweet word that mr. Middius came up with to aptly describe
the nature of some objectivists, with their meters, dBs, nuts and
volts.
They're out there to destroy other people's pleasure in listening,
just as you are trying to do here with me.

Fortunately, I stand firmly in my beliefs.
Just recently, I replaced all the power transistors in my amp for KT88
tubes, without changing anything else.
You won't believe how good that sounds, the only drawback is that one
has to listen with his ears in the speaker.
I'm still working on that.

soundhas...@yahoo.com

unread,

Feb 27, 2006, 2:36:07 PM2/27/06

to