• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

PS Audio Noise Harvester

ExtremeSkeptic said:
How is that clock powered? With magic?
Click to expand...

Meaning what? Figure out the impact of the frequency imprecision of a crystal oscillator and come back.

It's not hard to know which one has more credibility. He actually tried it himself, and he had music playing too. Skeptics listen to the improvements with the music paused...
Click to expand...

So you consider a subjective listening more reliable than technologocal insight. Well, standard audiophile position, but you will be surprised by this:

He was right. He did hear a difference. Not one that existed in the material world, but the nice feeling of knowing his fuses were well polished made him enjoy his music more.

Hans
 
TjW said:
Interesting. But not very responsive to the question.
What physical units are you measuring logrithmically?
Click to expand...
Why should ExtremeSkeptic know? That's one of those things that belongs to simple, primitive physics. He uses advanced physics, don't you know?

For anyone following along who might be interested, dB is used to represent relative sizes of various signals. dB is unitless, and is a logarithmic representation of a relative sizes of two signals. By saying that signal A is 60 dB louder than signal B, I am saying that the size of signal B is A*10^(60/20)=A*10^3=A*1000.

By saying 60dB without including a unit, ExtremeSkeptic is saying that the volume he is listening to is 1000 times louder than some unspecified volume.

To properly represent a volume, he would need to use dBA or dBC or dB(SPL). These specify a standard sound pressure level. The dB and the number then says how much louder your volume is compared to that standard.

To give ExtremeSkeptic the benefit of the doubt, apparently it is common practice among some folks to leave off the unit when discussing dB(SPL.) Understandable when verbally discussing the subject, bad practice when writing about it.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
The more you believe in something the further you are from the real truth.
Click to expand...
There you have it, folks. Right from the horse's - err, - mouth.

ExtremeSkeptic believes quite fervently in all of his tweaks, which takes him further and further from reality.
 
Post #51 I asked who wants to see a double blind test video, nobody even saw it. This further proves my point that skeptics cherry pick what they want to see and ignore the rest. Who's having the placebo here?
Skeptics are delusional inside a dream world, they can only see numbers when shown in front of their face, they can't think by themselves. They don't have a mind of their own, they are just programmed human plants with predictable answers. Once they have started growing you can't get them back to reality because their root is flawed from the beginning. The ground from where they grow is built upon a primitive science book. If you remove the ground they fall down and are lost, and they don't want that. So instead they defend their solid foundation as hard as possible. But they know that they can't defend it forever, so what do they do? They start ignoring things. The more time that passes by the more they ignore things, they go deeper and deeper into the dream world they have created for themselves. After a while they start hallucinating to remove the truth and eventually they see the world in the way they want to see it.

Everything you don't see is an illusion; it is all in your mind, if you think something doesn't exist...it will not exist for you. If you don't hear a difference from the Noise Harvester, then there's a problem.
 
Last edited:
ExtremeSkeptic said:
Post #51 I asked who wants to see a double blind test video, nobody even saw it. This further proves my point that skeptics cherry pick what they want to see and ignore the rest.
Click to expand...

I noticed the post, but where was the video? And what is a double blind test video? Is that video documentation of a double blind test?

However, yes, a double blind test would be interesting,


Who's having the placebo here?
Skeptics are delusional inside a dream world, they can only see numbers when shown in front of their face, they can't think by themselves. They don't have a mind of their own, they are just programmed human plants with predictable answers.
Click to expand...

DO you have any arguments for your case or are you satisfied making ad hominems?

Everything you don't see is an illusion; it is all in your mind, if you think something doesn't exist...it will not exist for you. If you don't hear a difference from the Noise Harvester, then there's a problem.
Click to expand...

Is your conviction about the power of suggestion a one-way thing? Can you only disbelieve things away? Don't you think you can do it the other way?

Hans
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
Everything in audio is overpriced because they manufacture them in low quantities. The Noise Harvester made the biggest difference I had ever heard (10 million on my 1-10 scale), and it wasn't for the better, I had to compensate for the heaviness elsewhere in my system (stiffer rubber bands for isolation foot). When I removed it from the wall I could hear the noise build up the next 2 minutes I listened. It was pretty cool. First the music sounded heavy and then it slowly got thinner and thinner and then the edginess appeared.
Click to expand...
Oh, and looking on that page, I found this. Do you really, really believe that noise is something that accumulates in your system :roll: ? Noise moves at close to the speed of light.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Do you really, really believe that noise is something that accumulates in your system :roll: ? Noise moves at close to the speed of light. Hans
Click to expand...
You are forgetting that he is using advanced physics, where this is entirely plausible. In fact, every belief he has is plausible in advanced physics, as opposed to in the simple, real-life physics that the rest of the world relies on.
 
MRC_Hans said:
I noticed the post, but where was the video? And what is a double blind test video? Is that video documentation of a double blind test?
Click to expand...
I asked who wants to see it, but obviously skeptics don't want to see the truth because they have already made up their minds. The problem is they don't question themselves because they are full of ego and pride.

I question myself every second, I don't care if I'm right or wrong, never. Am I really writing this message or is it all in my mind? I can never be sure... Nobody can, it's infinite uncertainty. Don't you think I do the same thing with my audio system? While being uncertain of a tweak at least it temporarily sounds better until the placebo wears out. So far nothing has worn out. And so far my blind tests haven't failed. But I still can't be sure if it's just luck.

MRC_Hans said:
However, yes, a double blind test would be interesting,
Click to expand...
Interesting if it fails so you can further brag that you know everything? Do you want the end result to be what you want it to be or do you want it to be the truth?

MRC_Hans said:
DO you have any arguments for your case or are you satisfied making ad hominems?
Click to expand...
The branch is connected to the root...

MRC_Hans said:
Is your conviction about the power of suggestion a one-way thing? Can you only disbelieve things away? Don't you think you can do it the other way?

Hans
Click to expand...
Everything exists in one way or another. Apparently not for you.


I can't hear a difference from Brilliant Pebbles yet even when it should make a difference based on true physics. It doesn't mean there isn't a difference, it's just that human ears are too crappy that's why. I need to change into another vessel...
But with the Harvester... People who don't hear a difference from Harvester are delusional and need help fast!
 
Last edited:
mroek said:
You are forgetting that he is using advanced physics, where this is entirely plausible. In fact, every belief he has is plausible in advanced physics, as opposed to in the simple, real-life physics that the rest of the world relies on.
Click to expand...
Advanced physics is little truer than simple physics, but it's still flawed. True physics is better. But true physics is still flawed since it's a name to describe something that is different from something else. But it's ignorance to think that something can be different. Everything is the same, real truth has no names, it can't be described, it's just everything. All you can do is to get as close as possible for a description of truth to be made.
 
ExtremeSkeptic said:
I asked who wants to see it, but obviously skeptics don't want to see the truth because they have already made up their minds.
Click to expand...

Yes, you asked "who wants to see". So what did you expect people to do? Beg you to show it? If you have evidence produce it, otherwise.....

And so far my blind tests haven't failed.
Click to expand...

Do you happen to have documentation of those blind tests?

But I still can't be sure if it's just luck.
Click to expand...

I suppose we never can, still, if the result is consistent.

Interesting if it fails so you can further brag that you know everything? Do you want the end result to be what you want it to be or do you want it to be the truth?
Click to expand...

Evidence. Evidence is what counts. Stop shooting your mouth and show us the evidence.

Everything exists in one way or another. Apparently not for you.
Click to expand...

That is the point. Everything might exist in one way or the other, but what exists only in your mind does not exist for me, and vice versa.

I can't hear a difference from Brilliant Pebbles yet even when it should make a difference based on true physics.
Click to expand...

Brilliant Pebbles? Sounds like a cartoon character. ...... Or a cereal.

But with the Harvester... People who don't hear a difference from Harvester are delusional and need help fast!
Click to expand...

Or, vice versa.

Hans
 
Oh, looked Brilliant Pebbles up now. More nonsense, I'm afraid. The "explanation" is not true physics, just technobabble.

Hans
 
A double blind test would be interesting.

Heck, it'd be interesting to see what ExtremeSkeptic considers a valid double blind test.

I do hope he's not going to show us a video with audio and expect us to hear a difference with/without Noise Harvester, however.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Oh, looked Brilliant Pebbles up now. More nonsense, I'm afraid. The "explanation" is not true physics, just technobabble.

Hans
Click to expand...
Holy Fark, Batman!
If "True Physics" or "Advanced Physics" in anyway supports or predicts that these pebbles will work, then I'm going to stick to the plain old physics that the rest of the world uses. Plain old stupid, simple "so easy ExtremeSkeptic learned all about it in a couple of days" physics seems to more accurately reflect the real world.
 
I have not posted on the PSAudio site in over 24 hurs but they have now taken to comparing Paul to all sorts of famous people to help prove he is a real engineer. They are fond of this sort of thing but when it comes to asking them fo any proof of testing of the products they sell, they seem to shut up and deflect to these sorts of posts.Jim Jones would be proud of that group.
 
This is a favorite quote of mine from PSA its on the power cable page for the SC cable.

Quote"Well guess what? SC cables don’t have to be as big as the older technology cables. We wish we could give you the scientific explanation. But we can’t. At least not exactly…What we think is that without all the grain (crystal) boundaries, the current flow is greatly enhanced, kinda like using larger gauge conductors to achieve the same results"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom