Isolation Ward From ebony pucks to magic foil, mystical and controversial tweaks.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Isolation Ward ] [ Return to Search Results ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: Bybee, Belt, Tice and Kait.

Posted by May Belt (M) on August 25, 2008 at 08:03:23

In Reply to: Bybee, Belt, Tice and Kait. posted by rick_m on August 22, 2008 at 11:00:51:

> > > "So, what is behind all of this? Is there really anything to it beyond the power of suggestion and knowing that there's one born every minute? If so how many mechanisms are involved, are these different ways to skin the same cat, are they different facets of some ultimate truth or do they exist in isolation? Are they operating on the signal or the listener?

The truth will set us free, but how do we find it?" < < <

Followed by Unclestu's reply to you, rick m:-
> > > "It is difficult to weed out the chaff if you haven't tried the products. From a purely intellectual exercise it is difficult to believe that some products do work." < < <

Of course it is difficult to weed out the chaff if you haven't tried the products !!!

Of course, from a purely intellectual exercise, it is difficult to believe that some products do work !!!

What I find absolutely amazing, rick m, is that over all the years you claim to have been listening to your audio and attempting to (and claiming interest in) gaining improvements in your sound you have not been confronted - many times - with your sound changing where you could not explain WHY or HOW !! Or that you have not tried, for yourself, many of the numerous things referred to as 'improving sound' over these past decades.

You know the answer already, rick m, to your question "The truth will set us free, but how do we find it?" You find it by trying things for yourself !!!!!!!!

Now, I personally have not tried George Tice's Clock device but I recognise the parallel story to ours in Unclestu's repeat of Tice's words "it (the Clock) simply served as a useful and functional means of using the technology."

I.e using a standard product or standard material and getting it to do something other than what it was originally made for.

Even though I have never tried the product by Amanda which Unclestu referred to, I also recognise a parallel story to ours.

Take Unclestu's comment:-
"Intrigued they brought it home for use on their television sets which was helped and then noticed that it also helped the sound of their stereo systems. Serendipity as you may say was at work here."

Amanda and her husband had NOTICED that it also helped the sound of their stereo !!

The crucial part is that it does not make any difference whether they noticed that their sound had got better or had got worse !! IF what they had done had changed their sound at all, then if they were 'professionals in audio', then they HAD to (or SHOULD have had to) investigate further as to WHY and HOW !!!

I also recognise the parallel to our story when Amanda described why they had not taken out patents - i.e "that the process used was invisible and therefore impossible to verify."

I think that many people are quite naive regarding the benefits of patents. I find that some people firmly believe that if a patent is granted and the procedure therefore publicly described, then that patent becomes a 'protection from anyone else copying'. Whereas, once the patent is published, then ANYONE who can read has access to the technique or procedure described. So then it becomes a matter of policing it.

Let me describe a hypothetical story.

Say, hypothetically, someone finds that they can process finely spun glass into a loudspeaker cone and no one else has ever done a finely spun glass loudspeaker cone before.

There are at least three criteria to be satisfied before a patent can be granted.
1) The idea (or product or technique) has to be NOVEL. In other words, never used before in that particular field or area.
2) The idea (or product or technique) has to take the existing 'State of the Art' (in that particular field) further forward. It cannot be just different. It has to take the existing 'State of the Art' further forward.
3) The idea (or product or technique) has to be fully described so that any competent engineers (in that specific area) can make the product from the description or can identify it from the description given.

The new idea of a finely spun glass loudspeaker cone could satisfy Criteria No.1, even though finely spun glass may have been used in many other unrelated fields, if it has never been used before as a loudspeaker cone (or being expected to be used in that area), then it could satisfy Criteria No. 1. I.e NOVEL.

If it takes the existing State of the Art further forward, i.e it makes a more efficient cone, it gives much better sound and so on, then it could satisfy Criteria No. 2.

If the procedure of manufacture can be fully described, so that a competent engineer in that particular field could make it or identify it, then it could satisfy Criteria No 3.

O.K so far.

Now, say hypothetically, some years later, someone discovers that cryogenically freezing not only the finely spun glass speaker cone but ALL speaker cones could give greater efficiency and much better sound, even though that technique might take the 'State of the Art' further forward and even though the procedure could be fully described, it would not be Novel enough to satisfy Criteria No 1 as so many things in so many different areas are known to be better if cryogenically frozen.. Nor could any patent (even if granted) be policed because something which has been frozen looks no different to something which hasn't.

I recognised a parallel story to ours when I read, some 20 years ago (late 1980s), about Ed Meitner's experiences in cryogenically freezing CDs, audio components, audio wires etc and gaining improvements in his sound.

At the beginning of the 1980s, Peter was investigating the 'sound' of different metals (in bare metal form) when used as a conductor. Copper i.e in all it's configurations sounded different to silver which sounded different to brass, which sounded different to steel baling wire and, in the end, the best sounding metal was pure Lead (Pb) !! But, as soon as Peter put plastic insulation material anywhere near any of the bare metals, the sound was worse !!

Peter decided to 'bake' (anneal) all the metals in our gas oven (275 degrees F - Gas mark 3 !! as described by Martin Colloms in his 1984 article "Cable Controversies"). Peter made sure that, after cooking, the metals were allowed to return to room temperature very, very slowly by wrapping them in a towel or blanket. After this treatment, ALL the metals sounded better but still, when he again tried to put plastic insulation material onto the bare metals, the sound was worse !! Peter knew that he could not 'cook' the plastic insulation material in the gas oven so he decided to do the opposite. He decided to freeze the plastic insulation material by putting it in our domestic deep freezer. Again he made sure that, after freezing, the plastic material was allowed to return to room temperature very, very slowly. He was surprised to find that now, after freezing, he could put the plastic insulation material around the metal conductors without causing such a huge deterioration to the sound !!!

He reasoned out that if freezing the plastic insulation material could have such a beneficial effect, why not try putting the metals through the freezing/slow defrost process also, after they had been through the 'baking' process. This he did with similar beneficial results to the sound !!!

So, when years later we read of Ed Meitner's success with using the cryogenic freezing procedure, we recognised the parallel to our own story.

Before anyone steps in with the usual response (the usual knee jerk reaction) of "Well then, have you tried this, and this and this and that?" I will answer in advance. I do not have to try everything anyone mentions if I can recognise that they are going along (or have been along) a similar path as Peter and I have.

In exactly the same way as, going back over 100 years, and personally understanding Lister's concept that the micro-organisms which caused septicaemia were 'in the air' and had to be prevented from getting into the patients open wounds, I would not need to try every single one of the different techniques which Joseph Lister had tried. Such techniques as :-

In addition to using a carbolic spray, Lister's trials of the various antiseptic gauzes were,

Early 'antiseptic' pads were - a piece of calico dipped in a solution of one part carbolic acid in four parts of Linseed oil.

then a mixture of carbolic acid, linseed oil and common whitening - antiseptic putty, spread on tinfoil.

then oiled silk, coated with copal varnish.

In 1868.
He tried a mixture of carbolic acid and shellac, spread on calico and coated with a solution of gutta-percha.

then he tried a complex combination of paraffin, wax, olive oil and carbolic acid.

then he tried Chloride of Zinc, Boracic acid and salicylic acid.

In 1878.
Charles Darwin suggested Benzoic acid.

In 1881.
Lister became interested in oil of eucalyptus and also tested oxidized oil of turpentine.

In 1882.
He tried iodoform.

In 1883
He tried gauze containing corrosive sublimate beneath which he used a rubber protective.

In 1885
He used gauze impregnated by Sal Alembroth, the double cyanide of mercury and zinc.

then he tried various zinc and mercury compounds, often in combination with the new aniline dyes.

In 1887.
Lister dropped the carbolic spray and experimented with various dressings to replace carbolic acid. All these experimental dressings were coloured with different dyes as a King's student put it :- In a Ditty :-

"There is a worthy Baronet who once took up the cause

Of Antiseptic surgery and Antiseptic Gauze.

First there was a yellow one, then there was a blue,

Then there was a red one, and a white one too.

Next there was a violet one, so we thought he'd go

Right through all the colours of the bright rainbow."

The Violet gauze was the last one to be produced. It was muslin gauze covered with a fine white powder, the double cyanide of zinc and mercury. Lister found that this powder would not stay on the gauze unless it was moistened. He first tried a solution of chloride of mercury, but it proved too irritating to the skin. Then he found a dye called "rosanilin" would fix the powder, so he had a very satisfactory dressing which was coloured a beautiful shade of heliotrope. This cyanide gauze was used as a dressing for many years.

**************

Reading what Lister had been trying and finding, I would be able to recognise what Lister had been discovering - without having to try each and every one of his techniques for myself !!!

So, rick m, in answer to your question and using the Joseph Lister "Germs are in the air" story as an example.
There ARE many mechanisms involved.
There ARE different ways to skin the same cat.
There ARE different facets of some ultimate truth
And they do not exist in isolation.

Regards,
May Belt.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Amplified Parts

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---