Absolute Polarity?

[aardvarkash10]

very open and accepting of you andy.

Does your open-ness to faith extend to those who are sure that crystals positioned on source equipment have an audible effect?

Elevated speaker cables?

Cryo-ed interconnects?

telephoned psychic correction of interconnects? (I kid you not...)

Where does open-ness to faith become gullability or at least endorsement of gullability?

[andyr]

Does your open-ness to faith extend to those who are sure that crystals positioned on source equipment have an audible effect?

Elevated speaker cables?

Cryo-ed interconnects?

telephoned psychic correction of interconnects? (I kid you not...)

Where does open-ness to faith become gullability or at least endorsement of gullability?

If you want to attack people, aardvark, I suggest it is wise to learn how to spell first. ("gullability" )

My position is not one of endorsement ... simply:
a) open-mindedness and a willingness to experiment, and
b) an unwillingness to knock down what other people believe.

And re. cryoing anything (not just ICs) ... there just may be something in it. I personally have not done any experiments, so I am not going to reject the idea.

Re. elevated speaker cables? ... I'm open to the concept that there might be something in this too.

Regards,

Andy

[Ldg]

...I am open to the concept of "faith" in a particular phenomenon. If someone believes they can pick up the difference between absolute phase and reversed phase ... I'm happy enough to accept they can.

Aadvarkash10 is right.

Such things are simply useless to me if the basis of perception isn't real. Implication is one also needs to believe, in order to perceive it. Or, to the exact point, the outcome depends on expectation.

One prediction is one might expect a certain 'proneness' to follow the person in such things. It shouldn't be considered hostile, in my opinion it's just human nature.

[andyr]

Such things are simply useless to me if the basis of perception isn't real.

So with that attitude ... you are obviously an atheist?

One prediction is one might expect a certain 'proneness' to follow the person in such things. It shouldn't be considered hostile, in my opinion it's just human nature.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say, here - ie. how are you commenting on what has been said above?

Regards,

Andy

[aardvarkash10]

H andy

gee - who's on the attack?

I asked a relatively benign question - where is it that faith becomes non-sensical in your opinion. Yeah, I gave examples. You pick on typos.

I see your acceptance does have limits then.

As to above - proof is a simple requirement. Atheism has nothing to do with it - I know scientists and engineers who have religious beliefs but require empirical evidence to substantiate claims in their field. Conflating the two issues is merely a way of clouding the facts.

Here's the thing - you are open to the concept of repeatable detection of absolute polarity.

Are you open to the concept that it is NOT possible?

[andyr]

gee - who's on the attack?

Only because you're a Kiwi and I'm an Aussie, mate.

Here's the thing - you are open to the concept of repeatable detection of absolute polarity.

Are you open to the concept that it is NOT possible?

Yes, I am. But I won't agree that it's impossible to detect, just because someone loudly proclaims that it isn't (particularly since:
a) I read Clark Johnson's book, and
b) I have a test record with 2 tracks that were specifically put there for detecting inverted polarity.)

I will do my own experiments to see whether I agree with them .. or don't agree. Which I am in the process of doing.

But if I don't agree ... I won't denigrate their belief.

Regards,

Andy

[aardvarkash10]

ok - gotcha.

Meh - you take the cricket, we'll deal wit hthe basketball and rugby.

I try not to denegrate beliefs unless they are so ludicrous that you have to let go of all known physics (or physiology or whatever) for them to work.

I have no compunction in denigrating beliefs that are held in the face of reliable evidence. That isn't belief - its wilfull stupidity.

Good luck with your experiments - look forward to hearing about the results, what ever they may be.

[Hanuman]

Only because you're a Kiwi and I'm an Aussie, mate.

Andy, I'm combing through your previous posts to the thread in search of the coded reference to "Trevor Chappell". I haven't found it yet, but I will!

[andyr]

Good luck with your experiments - look forward to hearing about the results, what ever they may be.

Given I currently cannot distinguish between the 2 "polarity" tracks on the Cardas Test Record (yet my mains power is connected up optimally to the power transformers in my phono stage, preamp, active XOs & power amps), the next experiment will involve changing the slopes on my active XOs to 6dB slopes ... so I can connect the mid driver in the same polarity as the other 2.

If this still doesn't let me hear a difference ... then there are only 2 possibilities:
1. there is no difference, or
2. I belong to the class of people who are insensitive to absolute polarity.

In that case, I will choose #2 over #1.

The only way I would choose #1 is:
* if someone lent me some full-range speakers (ie. 1 driver, no XO) and I still couldn't hear a difference, and
* 999 people took the same test, on my system, and none of them said they could hear a difference. So that would mean 0 out of 1,000 people could hear a difference ... then I would start to believe it's all a myth.

Regards,

Andy

[andyr]

Andy, I'm combing through your previous posts to the thread in search of the coded reference to "Trevor Chappell". I haven't found it yet, but I will!

Who TF's "Trevor Chappell"??

Regards,

Andy

[lini]

Andy: Maybe simply try with headphones (most of those are single-driver anyway...)?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

[andyr]

Andy: Maybe simply try with headphones (most of those are single-driver anyway...)?

Greetings from Munich!

Manfred / lini

Excellent suggestion, Manfred. I don't listen to headphones but I have a friend who has a pair of those famous 80s(?) electrostatic headphones, so I'll ask him to bring them over next time he comes round.

But I wonder if headphones are a reliable source of sound for my experiment? When I last listened to these headphones, I could not cope with the illusion that the sound was located in the middle of my head - I'm used to there being a soundstage out in front of me, which has layers of depth. Possibly, being able to pick up reverse (absolute) polarity requires such a soundstage presentation, to be audible?

Regards,

Andy

[awkwardbydesign]

Cryogenic treatment; http://www.nitrofreeze.com/toolsteels.html
The point is, there is a difference, and the effects are not fully understood.
And for those who insist on double blind tests, we are talking about subtle SUBJECTIVE effects, not drukqs that could kill people, for heavens sake! Besides, I remember Thalidomide, it went through all the tests that were considered relevant, and look what happened there.
PS my computer is misspelling, it's not me.

[aardvarkash10]

subtle or not, subjective or not, any effect should be reliably and demonstrably repeatable, otherwise its not attributable, surely?

Blah blah thalidomide... one swallow doesn't make a summer, and the failure of one drug (or many actually - I can quote plenty more) to be identified as harmful at testing doesn't invalidate the test method.

The effects are not fully understood is a cop out. For a start, it assumes an effect. Even given that minor fault, they should at least be understood to the point of a commonly agreed mechanism. Cryo on audio cables (as an example) is not even in the ballpark of this.

btw, if cryo is so sota, where's the cryo industry for, say, medical industry electronics?

Its this sort of denial of reasonable experimental (or even engineering) method that makes all the weird end of audio so entertaining - so many quacks with a product and marketing budget, so many suckers with money....

I don't necessarily put Abso-Pol in this sphere - as I noted earlier, some well respected people and several studies have identified a repeatable effect and a causal mechanism under limited conditions.

Your computer is forgiven.