Home Propeller Head Plaza

Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics.

Presto, stop trolling.


> > My inclination to disbelieve that it works is not unjustified since nobody suggesting this tweak will ever provide any technical or scientific reasoning as to why it would make ANY difference whatsoever, and why that difference is sure to be an improvement. < <

So your inclination is to immediately disbelieve any idea that someone claims improves sound, if you don't have a technical or scientific explanation for such that suits you?

> > Is it being said that a consumer freezer is capable of bringing items down to the same temperatures as a cryogenic chamber? Likely not. < <

Not likely not. Not. Not only would that be a ridiculous claim, but its irrelevant. Both methods can improve things. Whether one is more effective than the other, I don't know, I haven't seen research on that.

> > So, if metal is in a solid state when at room temperature, at what temperature do you consider it to be "frozen"?

It's really not that complicated. Try this: freeze a piece of metal, and once you think it's frozen, give it a good lick. If your tongue sticks to it, it's frozen. Or, about the time it might take to freeze your groceries. Or, say about 8-12 hours.

> > If a vacuum tube is 100 degrees celcius when operational, would it not be considered "relatively frozen" when at room temperature and just "more frozen" in a freezer? < <

That's a strange question. The operational temp of an item has nothing to do with freezing temps. Any item can be thrown into a kiln and reach hundreds of degrees. That doeesn't make it more "frozen" when it sits at room temp. The one thing I haven't frozen actually, is vacuum tubes. But I have no reason to doubt it would probably respond very well to the procedure.

> > Yes, poeople can die in freezers, and meat lasts longer, but what happens to electronic components? < <

No, it's not just electronic components.

> > And if something happens, why is it "better"? Just what "change" does freezing components in a domestic freezer actually impart? < <

There are obviously changes that occur, but it's hard for me to say what, and some of the theories are not going to make any sense to you anyway; especially if you haven't experimented. But it might be said that it's not a very well understood or researched phenomenon. That itself is worthy of debate. Also, I do think it's a very misunderstood one.

> > How is the "not previously frozen" part now inferior? < <

Doesn't sound as good as its frozen counterpart (assuming the process was done correctly, and that the listener has the skills to discern the difference).

> > Is the change temporary? < <

Or indefinate? < <

Neither. The change is "indefinite".

> > Because that is what we discuss here at PHP. We discuss what it does. Not whether or not someone has tried it, or how someone "feels" about it. We talk about the science and technology behind the claim. < <

Fair enough. But wouldn't you have to actually know something about the phenomenon you're talking about before you can discuss it?

> > Are you up for that? If so, perhaps you could tell us how YOU think it works. We don't need to try everything to compare things to known principles or discuss theories do we? < <

But you're assuming the Freeze Effect relies on well known principles, or even well known theories. I don't.

> > But to be completely honest? I think this post is not in the interest of learning or exchanging ideas, but an attempt to get a specific reaction to prove some sort of "sociological" point about those who typically post here. < <

To be completely honest, I didn't think you were sincere about learning or exchanging new ideas either. So no, I don't think you and me are gonna be debating anything any time soon. Some of your recent responses on the group, especially around me, left me with that impression. For example... You posted this in a thread from May of PWB, concerning a cessation of personal attacks:

-----------------------------------------
.but below is a link to a page of "Free Improvements" from what appears to be an authentic "P.W.B. Electronics" website.

Free Sound Improvements for all. Get 'em while they're hot!
-----------------------------------------

Now, what does that have to do with the topic of the thread, or your pet fetish, the topic of this forum? Were you making an attempt to prove some "sociological point"? Or were you, as it appears (since you've stated here that you don't believe in such ideas), making mockery attacks in a thread calling for the cessation of such attacks? When I asked you, you ignored my query. Next.

Somehow, you latched on the screw alignment idea, which is another idea that proposes an improvement in sound. Instead of "proposing a thesis for it", or an explanation of why it can't work (after you've experimented with it), you wrote, without knowing anything about it or having ever tested it:

---------------------------------
Wouldn't want to be appraising audio equipment with a SCREW LOOSE...

Cheers,
Presto
---------------------------------

Then, in yet another message on this, you provided us with a reason for your closed-minded intolerance of this proposal. You said:

---------------------------------------

I will not be using this free tweak. I think it does nothing to improve sonics and only risks damaging things.

-----------------------------------------

Your reasoning behind the assertion that it does nothing to improve sonics was NOT stated in any way, shape or form. Contrary to your pet fetish, the theme of this forum. The "reason we are all here at PHP", as you say. Not very scientific of you, let alone "hard scientific". Furthermore, you claimed that it "risks damaging things", after doing an assessment and showing a basis for your concerns. But you made this conclusion before submitting your work for peer review.

Had you done so, here's what the peer-review board would have come back with:

"Who said you couldn't LOOSEN the screw, you nincompoop? REJECTED FOR REASONS OF RUBBISHNESS. Don't waste this board's time submiting papers like this again".

This simple demonstration you gave us of your analytical "talents", over an extremely simple audio idea, shows that you are not qualified to judge any audio product or idea, if this is the kind of conclusions you're prepared to make. It's obvious that you rejected a perfectly good audio improvement idea, because you didn't understand the concept, you couldn't get past your prejudices toward it, not even to actually try it (which would have taken far less time to do than to write up a technical analysis of it for the rest of the group), and you came to premature conclusions about it, based on your premature judgements of it. In a word, you're bad for audio. Maybe your expertise lies in power systems, bridges or "human life safety systems". But personally, i wouldn't trust you to design a remote control unit for a cd player.

In case I didn't post enough evidence of your intellectual dishonesty and insincerity,
there's also this immature character-attacking flame post from you to indicate that perhaps no, you're not interested in learning anything new or exchanging ideas:

"Lonlieness+Boredom+Belief+Pseudo-Science = Posey Rorer (nt) -"

Sounds like "Presto The Troll" didn't get his attention fix from Posy today. Is that why you're flailing your arms trying to get my attention, in attack post after attack post?

I think you are a PRIME EXAMPLE of my point about those who show prejudice and intolerance of ideas that challenge conventional views of the science of sound reproduction, and I don't need to add any more to prove it.

> > "Proof is in the pudding" does not wash here. We don't design power systems and bridges and human life safety systems with "proof in the pudding" techniques. < <

Where did you get the idea that AA is for the discussion of power systems, bridges and human life safety systems? I think you might be on the wrong discussion board. This is the one about audio.

> > We're trying to understand what things will AFFECT sound and of those, which do so in a positive manner. < <

What a coincidence, so am I. I do that all the time. That requires experimentation. Empty talk won't tell you, it can only, at best, point you in some direction that may or may not help. The proof, listen carefully, "is in the pudding". Once you understand what the pudding is trying to tell you, then you can try to understand what's in the recipe. You don't do it backwards and then expect to get anywhere in audio.

> > You can't rip "Proof is in the pudding" to shreads. There is nothing there to rip up. < <

Correct. Pudding is quite "unrippable". But it is bakeable.

Objective Audiophile 2007


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


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups


You can not post to an archived thread.