Fantastic free CD / LP tweak!

[Soundhaspriority]

=================
Fantastic free CD / LP tweak!

Since this subforum is about "fantastic free tweaks", I think this one I came up with recently qualifies. We're messin' with the Mekon here, so this ain't your grandfather's tweak. But it should (or rather, "could") provide a sound lift all the same. I know it's not going to make any sense to anyone, and there's no obvious reason on earth why this should do anything. But it's NOT a joke tweak, it's perfectly free, it uses household items most have, and takes a minute to implement. So... try it anyway. Consider it a science experiment in morphogenetic fields. And if you do, I hope you will post your experiences. I could use the feedback.

For the MF tweak, you will need:

* One fine point black magic marker / felt tip pen (the darker the ink the better)
* One sheet of white paper (blank)
* Scissors
* One commercial CD (with standard full size jewel case and booklet)

(n.b. Before starting anything, you should have a careful listen to your sound as is current, so you will have a better idea of what may have changed). Now, with the fine point black marker, write the following phrase in ALL CAPS, on a single line, trying to keep the letters small but legible (write along the long side of the paper, so you can get it all in one line - if you find you can't fit it on one line, that's ok, you can curve the line around the paper):

EVERYTHING IS SAFE INSIDE (x5) > O.K.

n.b. The instruction (x5) indicates that you repeat the phrase "EVERYTHING IS SAFE INSIDE" 5 times (no brackets), ending the line with: > O.K. (If possible, emphasize the "O.K." part in bolder print).

Cut the line you wrote out of the paper, keeping close to the letters, without cutting into them. Fold the printed strip of paper in half, with the printed side showing. Fold it in half again and again, until it can be folded no longer, and press it flat. (Keeping it in your fingers), remove the CD disc from its jewel case tray, place the folded strip of paper against the teeth in the centre of the tray, so that it lies across the teeth of the tray. Next, press the CD into the tray, over top of the strip (the CD will float above the tray, because of the thickness of the paper; that's expected). Now close the cover of the CD case.

You now have an IF CD "device". Place this CD inside a drawer in the listening room. You are now ready for testing.

TESTING

You will not be testing the CD you tweaked, so you will need to put on another CD for testing. I recommend the normal standard testing method for audiophiles; A/B (sighted) method, at least initially. (If you wish to do fancy blind tests, do them later, if the results under sighted are positive).

TEST A (Device IN): Listen to another CD, while the CD you tweaked is inside the drawer. Keeping the volume at a suitable level for testing and using simple music with little complexity is recommended.

TEST B (Device OUT): Because of the nature of the fields, steps must be taken to try to remove the influence of the message strip. Simply take the CD case out of the drawer, take the strip out of the CD case, and remove both the case and strip out of the listening room (preferably out of the house if you really want to be sure no influence remains). Listen again with the CD case / strip out of the room.

If you do not think you heard a difference:

A) Repeat the A-B test. The differences may just be subtle for some, and it could take a few back and forths before they are heard.

B) If no differences can be discerned as above, increase the effect. Instead of just the 1 CD, apply the same message strip to 7 or 9 CD's (keeping them all in the same drawer, removing them all at the same time during the B test).

C) Some have reported hearing differences only after the music has been playing for a while. So you might try leaving it playing for half an hour, and return to see if you can discern differences then.

If you still haven't heard any change and you wish not pursue things any further, I hope you enjoyed the experience anyway.


Addendum

I can't and won't guarantee results, but I guarantee that IMEO (In My Expert Opinion), it is worth trying out. But if one doesn't hear some sort of improvement in their sound, this alone should not be considered a valid reason for dismissing the entire phenomenon as "rubbish". I will concede that if one does discern a change in the sound, it isn't really (scientific) proof of anything either. As audiophiles, we only need to prove things for ourselves.

Know that this does not work by placebo effect, autosuggestion, nor does it require any belief in it to work. It is an experiment that I and others have had positive success with. Mind you, I have a lot of experience listening to this sort of thing. But I can hear distinct differences that I can describe, and they are consistent and repeatable, for me. So I'm curious to know if others might have success with it as well. For any other issues that might come up, I have written a FAQ to deal with that.

MF FAQ:

Q. Are the little details necessary? Or should I just run this how I feel like, because it ALL looks like nonsense to me and I can't see how any of this matters?

A. Yes. It might sound trivial, but little things do matter in this business. I spent time working out those details, in order to ensure best results for this particular tweak.

Q. This can't possibly have any correlation with the audio signal or room acoustics.

A. Tell me something I don't know...

Q. So this can't possibly work.

A. Fortunately, the tweak doesn't know that, so it does anyway. And that much has been confirmed thousands of times by hundreds of audiophiles for at least 15 years, if that means anything to you. Of course, it isn't supposed to affect the signal. It's meant to affect you.

Q. So it's a placebo then?

A. No. There are a million things that can affect the listener, that don't include "placebo", or imaginary flights of fancy. You do not have to believe it works for it to have an effect. On the other hand, being absolutely convinced you will NOT hear a difference with any listening test may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, a sort of nocebo effect. It is wise to try to keep an open mind in any sort of listening test. So stop repeating "load of bollocks!" to yourself. That would be a start.

Q. What kind of an effect?

A. Rather not say how the sound will change, because then I would be accused of introducing that bias, if someone heard the difference I described. Just listen carefully, as always, to timbre, tone, FR, PRAT, musicality and all the rest.

Q. How does it work?

A. If I told you, I would have to kill you. And I just met you. You look like a nice chap, and I'm not in the habit of killing people I just met. In fact, I could be offed myself just for sharing it with you. So let's just say, it's a novel application of a so-called "alternative science".

[The Vinyl Adventure]

I don't want to get into or start another long winded row here so simple answer please
you say you would have to kill us if you told us.. If you told us surely we would all be clear and this alternative science would become a science!

The phrase seems to me to be talking to someone or something, do you belive that inanimate objects have some kind of intelegence, or maybe a spirit (like in that Japanese religion (can't remember it's name)). If not then who or what is the mesage for? If it's for you, then surely this is auto suggestion, almost by definition?

Like I said, short answers would be apreciated, even just to hold my attention!

[The Vinyl Adventure]

To give you an idea of why I'm taking this stance ... I'm the sort to listen to the j.w. when they come to the door, I will even read the pamflets people hand me on the street. You never know there might be a little nugget of info or a shred of something I'm there that at least sparks an idea. I don't belive in any of the organised religions, but it doesn't mean you can't find things in there that might work for you!

Now, I think it is perhaps more unlikely that this will happen in the case of shippys ideas, but would it not be a shame to miss out on Reading somthing that might trigger your own idea that does fit in to more sensible ways of thinking?? Eg the knots in cables idea might make a someone question it enough to leas to an actual explainable theory that is a million miles from the knot idea... But it could be that the planted the seed...


Just to clarify, I really really don't buy into this stuff, I haven't been sucked in, I just don't see why if it all remains sivilised, shippy can't have a quite little corner of his own to talk about his aspect of our hobby

[Soundhaspriority]

I don't want to get into or start another long winded row here so simple answer please
you say you would have to kill us if you told us.. If you told us surely we would all be clear and this alternative science would become a science!

Wherever did you get that idea?! I have been talking about how this works since I've been here. Seems all it has inspired from people is to go mad and spend their time scouring the internet to post pointless, mindless, angry, nutty conspiracy theories about me.

The phrase seems to me to be talking to someone or something, do you belive that inanimate objects have some kind of intelegence, or maybe a spirit (like in that Japanese religion (can't remember it's name)). If not then who or what is the mesage for? If it's for you, then surely this is auto suggestion, almost by definition?

Like I said, short answers would be apreciated, even just to hold my attention!

Here's the problem, and the reason I didn't want to make my post longer by talking about the theories: why are you talking to me about this, instead of trying the tweak? Does it not occur that it would take less time to see if it might work than to debate how it might work? I will respect your interest by responding to your concerns anyway, but in response, I hope you will respect mine by trying it out anyway, and sharing your experience in this thread or PM. Regardless of what odds you give of this doing anything for you!

A. Understand that as far as this tweak is concerned, it doesn't matter what I personally believe, because belief doesn't enter into it. That said, no, I do not believe inanimate objects have an intelligence or consciousness of any kind. Just because I might sound insane to you, doesn't mean I actually am. I do believe they have an energy pattern, however. The message is not for the listener. I could have it say something unintelligible to you, and still be effective.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you are aware of that message or not, because someone else in the room could hear the same improvement, without knowing the message. I'll have you know that just before uploading it, I tested this tweak on my wife tonight; who by all standards could not be described as an "audiophile", and neither could the stereo system we used. I did so because I wanted to have some kind of assurance that there's a good chance average audiophiles, with average ears, could have a chance of hearing my tweak. She got it right 3 out of 3 in a blind test, FWIW. So I felt I could go ahead and post the tweak. At no point did I say what I was testing, or whether the tweak was in or out on any given track, nor did she see the CD (let alone read the message). I wrote in my post, that this is not intended to work by placebo or autosuggestion, because I knew this would the popular misconception here. But even if one thinks it can only work by placebo, the important thing is to know first whether it has any effect on a given listener. The placebo thing can later be eliminated in a DBT, if you wish, after the initial sighted a-b test.

[Beechwoods]

Q. How does it work?

A. If I told you, I would have to kill you. And I just met you. You look like a nice chap, and I'm not in the habit of killing people I just met. In fact, I could be offed myself just for sharing it with you. So let's just say, it's a novel application of a so-called "alternative science".

Shippy. If you're going to post far-out tweaks like this it's only fair that you take at least as much time to explain why it's likely to work as you've spent trying to wrap the rest of your post in grandiose detail.

I'm afraid that unless you can do that, it looks like this is just an ego-trip to see how many people you can encourage to try a completely pointless experiment. And yeah, I know it's free - but there are some things worth investing time in because there's a scintilla of scientific or proven, repeatable, subjective benefit - but frankly, this looks like it's just taking the piss.

[Soundhaspriority]

To give you an idea of why I'm taking this stance ... I'm the sort to listen to the j.w. when they come to the door, I will even read the pamflets people hand me on the street. You never know there might be a little nugget of info or a shred of something I'm there that at least sparks an idea. I don't belive in any of the organised religions, but it doesn't mean you can't find things in there that might work for you!

Now, I think it is perhaps more unlikely that this will happen in the case of shippys ideas, but would it not be a shame to miss out on Reading somthing that might trigger your own idea that does fit in to more sensible ways of thinking?? Eg the knots in cables idea might make a someone question it enough to leas to an actual explainable theory that is a million miles from the knot idea... But it could be that the planted the seed...

Just to clarify, I really really don't buy into this stuff, I haven't been sucked in, I just don't see why if it all remains sivilised, shippy can't have a quite little corner of his own to talk about his aspect of our hobby

Nice to think that you believe there's less to what I'm saying, than Jehova's Witnesses! Especially since I'm not asking you to take anything on faith, or adopt a particular belief system. Unlike JW's and their God hypothesis, mine are things you can actually TEST.

I'm all for taking the germ of an idea that you think isn't valid, and creating something valid out of it, via osmosis. In order to come up with a better theory for the reef knots, don't you have to test the reef knots in cables first? Assuming you do, and hear its effects, I assure you, no one will come up with a better theory. I have heard many alternative theories for Beltism from those with little to zero knowledge of it. They make me laugh, so they have some value, I suppose, in some sense. But getting serious, no one has even come close to a more accurate hypothesis than the Belt's have given. That's the part that most amateur armchair researchers don't get. The "accurate" part. If you want to try to play armchair researcher and figure out a theory that better fits in with your belief system, go ahead. I'll even help you get started. That "reef knot in cables" idea you mentioned? Well there's nothing particularly special about reef knotting cables. You can reef knot sewing thread; it'll have a similar (if not better) effect on your sound. Now assuming you have acquired the necessary listening skills to hear that effect, it'll be up to you to try to explain why in the name of all that is good and holy, would placing reef knots in sewing thread improve the sound of your hifi kit. Got any ideas yet? Because next, you have to also try and figure out why does the sound only become right when placing odd numbers of reef knots.

Knowing that the hypothesis now has to fit your mental limitation that only things that sound "sensible" to you should be given any accord, I already know that whatever you try to come up with, will not be anywhere near accurate, or provable in the field. As a scientific researcher, you have a lot to learn. But the good thing is, you have a lot of opportunities to learn before you. I think I've given you a pretty good one in this thread. I hope you will start there to growing your garden!

[aquapiranha]

Come to free us all from our years of ignorance have you soundhaspriority? I really have no idea why you have bothered for so many years? perhaps you are on the payroll? you have been shown to do this ALL OVER THE GLOBE and I genuinely believe you are either in the employ of belt, or are a nut. Which is it?

funny how all of these 'free' tweaks are designed to get the vulnerable hooked so they then have to start to pay for the trinkets from belts travelling circus...

[aquapiranha]

Seems all it has inspired from people is to go mad and spend their time scouring the internet to post pointless, mindless, angry, nutty conspiracy theories about me.

I assume that little dig is aimed at me? I am flattered.

the reason I went out of my way to prove you a are a shill is because what you and belt are doing is immoral and should be illegal. In the same way the police would gather evidence about a suspect, I looked around and found masses and masses of 'evidence' that you are an unhinged fool, on a global mission to pedal ridiculous products with no basis in science whatever you both claim. I have seen you come and go on four forums I (used) to frequent, and this one. I see no reason why that pattern will not be repeated here.

[Soundhaspriority]

Shippy. If you're going to post far-out tweaks like this it's only fair that you take at least as much time to explain why it's likely to work as you've spent trying to wrap the rest of your post in grandiose detail.

I'm afraid that unless you can do that, it looks like this is just an ego-trip to see how many people you can encourage to try a completely pointless experiment. And yeah, I know it's free - but there are some things worth investing time in because there's a scintilla of scientific or proven, repeatable, subjective benefit - but frankly, this looks like it's just taking the piss.

I just spent a few days witnessing literally dozens of posts in one thread alone, that if they prove anything, prove one thing: people here have NO problem "investing" as you call it, inordinate amounts of time on a daily basis , writing posts arguing against unconventional products and ideas in audio, that in nearly all cases I have seen, they have never even once tested. If you think there is anything "scientific" about this kind of behaviour, then I would argue you don't know the first thing about science.
What is "pointless" here, is to insist that you fully understand the mechanism before you ever attempt to test a one-minute tweak. Because if you can't hear any changes, the issue of how it works is moot. And if you can, only then can it hope to make sense to you..

In one of the first responses to me, The Grand Wazoo wrote "we should welcome challenges to our scientific thinking". Well this is that challenge. This is the chance to try to prove things for yourself. At this point, not welcoming it only shows that you won't accept challenges to your closed-minded and rigid ways of thinking about audio. Especially when you can be as "scientific" as you want to be. You can plug in your little ABX comparator, and get Floyd Toole to conduct the DBT for you, if that's your fancy. All I ask is that you do this after the initial standard sighted test. You can also repeat the test a thousand and one times, to be absolutely certain that something is really going on. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, Beechwoods.

Simply put, the mechanism behind these devices is advanced enough, that there is nothing in your knowledge or experience that could act as a reference point to you being able to easily understand it, to where you calm down to the point that you feel you can safely add it to your current belief system, before having any empirical experience with it. It might help you to understand this in analogous form: If I told you I built a rocketship that can fly to the moon and back, you might react with outrage, and tell me that I am mad. Which is understandable to me, because you're a cobbler in the middle ages. I tell you that if you come to the landing pad, just over the hill, I will take you up in space in the rocket. But you won't go with a madman, will you? You're just too clever to be "taken in" by a madman. Even if he is offering -free- rocket trips to space! So instead, you demand to know how its possible for me to fly to the moon, before you will ever try the experience. You know a bit about science and believe in science, so you're open to a scientific explanation. But everything I can hope to explain to you about what may be involved, well you have no knowledge or experience with that yet. It's not any kind of science you're familiar with or heard about. So you go and query the current authorities on science to confirm whether what I am saying is true or not. And not believing in it either, as they have little if any knowledge of what I am saying, they only confirm that there is nothing factual about what I am saying. And so you refuse to walk a few hundred yards with me to explore the moon, and instead stay in your little hamlet for the rest of your cobbling life, believing that you have not missed anything. Believing even, that you avoided being taken in by a phony space hustler. Who probably just wanted to steal your goats, clever you. (wink). But of course, truth is, by your adamance on rejecting any challenge to your current belief system, and using it to control your new experiences, you did indeed miss something. You missed seeing the stars from up close.

When and if enough people take a few moments to try it and report positive results with the tweak, I'll be glad to take the time to explain any and all that I can, about the working mechanism. For that is the only chance they will be receptive to the ideas behind it.

[Themis]

This tweak description is very funny.
I don't know whether it's the desired effect, but just the description of it makes me hilarous.

Thank you for all the lough, Paul.