The league of (extra)ordinary gentlemen

i am reading the article vortex (and it is taking some time) and honestly......it doesn't seem 'fairly scientific'. It looks like this. "Okay we need to get one back at these evolution guys, let's find out all the circumstantial and obliquely related stuff that we can debunk and then fallaciously link them to the fundamental concept of evolution." You seem to place very high standards on what should be scientific. By those standards you should have thrown this article out without a second thought!!!

Please do read the article. The more number of eyeballs that we get on that fairly scientific article, the better it would be in my opinion.

I would love to fall in with the scientific group, Psychotropic, but that has not yet happened:).
 
Oh ya, did you not earlier suggest that in science there are no preponderances of probabilities and so on? So what pray tell, is 'fairly scientific'? By your reckoning it's either 100% scientific or completely worthless..."nothing at all as per scientific standards" to roughly quote you. So with these serious flaws having been demonstrated in the article, I am hoping you will be consistent in the application of this standard, and completely reject the article as having "nothing at all as per scientific standards." Thanks in advance.
 
i am reading the article vortex (and it is taking some time) and honestly......it doesn't seem 'fairly scientific'. It looks like this. "Okay we need to get one back at these evolution guys, let's find out all the circumstantial and obliquely related stuff that we can debunk and then fallaciously link them to the fundamental concept of evolution." You seem to place very high standards on what should be scientific. By those standards you should have thrown this article out without a second thought!!!

Could you explain yourself a little better? I am not able to get it when you say that this article does not seem fairly scientific. Honestly to my eyes this article was fairly scientific. And I am basically a science graduate - not that I know too much anyway:).

I also dont agree when you talk of circumstantial and obliquely related stuff and most certainly disagree when you talk of fallaciously linking them to the fundamental concept of evolution.

Oh ya, did you not earlier suggest that in science there are no preponderances of probabilities and so on? So what pray tell, is 'fairly scientific'? By your reckoning it's either 100% scientific or completely worthless..."nothing at all as per scientific standards" to roughly quote you. So with these serious flaws having been demonstrated in the article, I am hoping you will be consistent in the application of this standard, and completely reject the article as having "nothing at all as per scientific standards." Thanks in advance.

My expression 'fairly scientific' was meant in the sense that a grounding in basic science would be an asset in trying to understand and get the best out of this article. Hope this helps.

Also please follow the ongoing conversation between Ramanujam and yours truly. There is no fallacious linking. What is being shown is a gradual unravelling of presuppositions, assumptions and predictions as in the evolution theory as propounded by Darwin.
 
hey vortex,

while doing some research to see what falsehoods hunter was passing off as science, i came across this site that sets them out pretty reasonably. Have a look:

Cornelius Hunter’s Darwin Predictions – The DNA structure gave rise to the first life - Homologous Legs

Could you explain yourself a little better? I am not able to get it when you say that this article does not seem fairly scientific. Honestly to my eyes this article was fairly scientific. And I am basically a science graduate - not that I know too much anyway:).

I also dont agree when you talk of circumstantial and obliquely related stuff and most certainly disagree when you talk of fallaciously linking them to the fundamental concept of evolution.



My expression 'fairly scientific' was meant in the sense that a grounding in basic science would be an asset in trying to understand and get the best out of this article. Hope this helps.

Also please follow the ongoing conversation between Ramanujam and yours truly. There is no fallacious linking. What is being shown is a gradual unravelling of presuppositions, assumptions and predictions as in the evolution theory as propounded by Darwin.
 
hey vortex,

while doing some research to see what falsehoods hunter was passing off as science, i came across this site that sets them out pretty reasonably. Have a look:

Cornelius Hunters Darwin Predictions The DNA structure gave rise to the first life - Homologous Legs

Seriously psychotropic, if this is what sounds convincing to you, I am not sure what to say:

"Evolution by natural selection does not require abiogenesis being true to also be true. The first lifeform could have come into being by a completely supernatural process, and evolutionary theory would still be correct. However, abiogenesis did use evolutionary processes to proceed, such as mutation and natural selection. So, there is a link, but it is not a dependent link. And, as a consequence of this, evolution does not predict abiogenesis, so the falsification of abiogenesis does not falsify evolution. Sorry, Cornelius".

The student writing this article seems to have forgotten that Darwin himself has spoken about evolution being a two part process - chemical and biological.

This is not the only mistake that is being made in this article though.

Here is another:

From Darwinspredictions site:
"Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".

Naontiotami
And its not a prediction of evolution. So even if you had falsified it, which you didnt, evolutionary theory would still be fine. And it is.

What this author does not seem to understand is that we are not playing with semantics here. Darwin himself knew nothing at all about DNA. So, he absolutely could not have talked about DNA when he was presupposing theories about chemical evolution. But he does talk about chemical evolution leading upto biological evolution.

Cornelius Hunter simply takes the proof of the constituents of life forms (as in present time) and puts Darwin's theory to the sword based on that.

Lastly DNA or RNA is not the important thing. What is important and what is being drawn to our attention is the fact that for protein molecules to recombine themselves into structures needed to give rise to life - even the most primitive form - there is no explanation. Not until the present day.

To summarize this I think Cornelius has come up with a nice little paragraph:

"Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.

Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".
 
Seriously psychotropic, if this is what sounds convincing to you, I am not sure what to say:

"Evolution by natural selection does not require abiogenesis being true to also be true. The first lifeform could have come into being by a completely supernatural process, and evolutionary theory would still be correct. However, abiogenesis did use evolutionary processes to proceed, such as mutation and natural selection. So, there is a link, but it is not a dependent link. And, as a consequence of this, evolution does not predict abiogenesis, so the falsification of abiogenesis does not falsify evolution. Sorry, Cornelius".

The student writing this article seems to have forgotten that Darwin himself has spoken about evolution being a two part process - chemical and biological.

Please explain to me why that is not convincing. Are you claiming that for evolution to be true abiogenesis needs to be true? On what basis are you claiming that. It does clearly appear to be not a dependent link and cornelius appears to be dealing in fallacies. It's like someone (our hypothetical aboriginal again) looking at an internal combustion engine in operation. He's figured out how it works, but he's still not discovered the spark plug, but it is clear as day that there is a fuel air mixture, there is combustion and this combustion leads to propulsion. This argument essentially says, since he has not discovered the spark plug, combustion does not take place, and combustion is not the cause for propulsion. Would you care to SPECIFICALLY elaborate further on how this 'falsification' actually stands up to scrutiny and how it undermines evolution?

This is not the only mistake that is being made in this article though.

it's not a mistake as i've outlined above. It's a pretty solid rebuttal of cornelius's fallacious nonsense

Here is another:

From Darwinspredictions site:
"Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".

Naontiotami
And its not a prediction of evolution. So even if you had falsified it, which you didnt, evolutionary theory would still be fine. And it is.

What this author does not seem to understand is that we are not playing with semantics here. Darwin himself knew nothing at all about DNA. So, he absolutely could not have talked about DNA when he was presupposing theories about chemical evolution. But he does talk about chemical evolution leading upto biological evolution.

so?

Cornelius Hunter simply takes the proof of the constituents of life forms (as in present time) and puts Darwin's theory to the sword based on that.

he does not put the theory to the sword. he seems to be picking up either non-essential concepts, or gaps in information to try and disprove evolution. This is really really poor stuff by any standard. Even a non-scientist like me can make that out. Does Cornelius offer even one fundamental or basic criticism of the idea of evolution? I haven't yet seen it and I am a good way into the page. All I can see is a lot of sleight of hand.

Lastly DNA or RNA is not the important thing. What is important and what is being drawn to our attention is the fact that for protein molecules to recombine themselves into structures needed to give rise to life - even the most primitive form - there is no explanation. Not until the present day.

There is no explanation to this date. Science is a constant quest for explanations. But there is also nothing to suggest that this is fundamentally impossible, and Cornelius's main argument seems to be that there is no 'explanation so far' effectively. Like I've said over and over again, every aspect of evolution has not been verified 100% so far, that is a huge task which is going to take a massive amount of time. My spark plug analogy bears repetition. But to use that to devalue evolution is simply playing into the hands of the ID loonies.

To summarize this I think Cornelius has come up with a nice little paragraph:

"Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.

Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution".
[/QUOTE]

once again vortex, for someone who is a science graduate, you seem to be wilfully ignoring how science works. Lack of complete information does not disprove a theory. It does not relegate it to the position of a hypothesis either. Most of Cornelius arguments including this one are purely relating to 'lack of information' and to once again repeat my spark plug analogy, that does not discredit any of the other stuff that is as plain as day! come on!!
 
Please explain to me why that is not convincing. Are you claiming that for evolution to be true abiogenesis needs to be true? On what basis are you claiming that. It does clearly appear to be not a dependent link and cornelius appears to be dealing in fallacies. It's like someone (our hypothetical aboriginal again) looking at an internal combustion engine in operation. He's figured out how it works, but he's still not discovered the spark plug, but it is clear as day that there is a fuel air mixture, there is combustion and this combustion leads to propulsion. This argument essentially says, since he has not discovered the spark plug, combustion does not take place, and combustion is not the cause for propulsion. Would you care to SPECIFICALLY elaborate further on how this 'falsification' actually stands up to scrutiny and how it undermines evolution?

I am afraid you are mighty confused, psychtropic. I am not saying that. Charles Darwin is saying that along with a lot of scientists from his camp. Chemical evolution or abiogenesis is specifically talked about by Darwin. This student does not seem to have read that.

it's not a mistake as i've outlined above. It's a pretty solid rebuttal of cornelius's fallacious nonsense

I am sorry but I think you are allowing passion to rule here.

so?

he does not put the theory to the sword. he seems to be picking up either non-essential concepts, or gaps in information to try and disprove evolution. This is really really poor stuff by any standard. Even a non-scientist like me can make that out. Does Cornelius offer even one fundamental or basic criticism of the idea of evolution? I haven't yet seen it and I am a good way into the page. All I can see is a lot of sleight of hand.

There is no explanation to this date. Science is a constant quest for explanations. But there is also nothing to suggest that this is fundamentally impossible, and Cornelius's main argument seems to be that there is no 'explanation so far' effectively. Like I've said over and over again, every aspect of evolution has not been verified 100% so far, that is a huge task which is going to take a massive amount of time. My spark plug analogy bears repetition. But to use that to devalue evolution is simply playing into the hands of the ID loonies.


once again vortex, for someone who is a science graduate, you seem to be wilfully ignoring how science works. Lack of complete information does not disprove a theory. It does not relegate it to the position of a hypothesis either. Most of Cornelius arguments including this one are purely relating to 'lack of information' and to once again repeat my spark plug analogy, that does not discredit any of the other stuff that is as plain as day! come on!!

Psychotropic - I am afraid you are not getting the gist of the points being raised. Of course I might be mistaken as I am not even a bio-science graduate. Let the concept of who is saying something not overrule everything that is being said.

Not just Cornelius, if you read through the other links provided there are a lot of other scientists raising very particular questions on this theory. Not just inconvenient questions, but there is stuff that cannot be explained with the evolution theory as is. Multiple examples of these are present in the links provided.
 
I am afraid you are mighty confused, psychtropic. I am not saying that. Charles Darwin is saying that along with a lot of scientists from his camp. Chemical evolution or abiogenesis is specifically talked about by Darwin. This student does not seem to have read that.

I am afraid it is you who appears confused vortex. Does it matter who said what? Of course Darwin did not have a complete idea when he was setting out his theory. How on earth does that devalue the idea of evolution?? yes, Abiogenesis is a theory that ties in with evolution, but does lack of proof of that disprove evolution itself?? We are evaluating the idea of evolution. I want you to distinguish cornelius's argument from my analogy involving the spark plug, SPECIFICALLY. Please do this specifically, as opposed to telling me I am confused or that 'the student' is confused. I will address the other links or other points once you address this.
 
Vortex,

The site is fundamentally attacking followup theories after evolution, not evolution by natural selection itself. And these theories have no absolute linkage with evolution. They could very well have been independent theories. Therefore, even without understanding the points the site is making, i feel this is a mischievous, not a scientific attempt at rebuttal and discovery.

Darwin theory was evolution by natural selection. He recognised the relevant question about the first life form, but only speculated on the answers. Also, his theory is perfectly valid irrespective of what caused life first to arise. His theory limits to what caused different species to develop from life forms, once they were in place. Seriously, we cant discredit the heliocentric theory just because it does not explain why Sun came up. It is perfectly allright for the theory to explain the position of Sun related to other planets, once we accept the existence of Sun.

I later on read points about sudden variations etc, and the drift is the same. Without much valid discussion on the theory of evolution, it goes on to denounce the theory.

I think both of us should read the respective links. This just seems to be a thread for three people of late.
 
I am afraid it is you who appears confused vortex. Does it matter who said what? Of course Darwin did not have a complete idea when he was setting out his theory. How on earth does that devalue the idea of evolution?? yes, Abiogenesis is a theory that ties in with evolution, but does lack of proof of that disprove evolution itself?? We are evaluating the idea of evolution. I want you to distinguish cornelius's argument from my analogy involving the spark plug, SPECIFICALLY. Please do this specifically, as opposed to telling me I am confused or that 'the student' is confused. I will address the other links or other points once you address this.

OK, psychotropic. Lets stop here. I dont think anything productive is going to come here further given the tone the discussion is taking. I still do wish to come have a listen to the Ushers after all:)

Seriously speaking though even the most die hard of the evolution theory supporters should see that there are gaping holes in the theory. If your understanding is that the theory WILL have gaping holes and yet it is to be announced and pronounced as truth to the world at large, then you are welcome to your opinion. I would respectfully disagree.

There are a couple of points I do wish to add though - please see below.

Vortex,

The site is fundamentally attacking followup theories after evolution, not evolution by natural selection itself. And these theories have no absolute linkage with evolution. They could very well have been independent theories. Therefore, even without understanding the points the site is making, i feel this is a mischievous, not a scientific attempt at rebuttal and discovery.

Darwin theory was evolution by natural selection. He recognised the relevant question about the first life form, but only speculated on the answers. Also, his theory is perfectly valid irrespective of what caused life first to arise. His theory limits to what caused different species to develop from life forms, once they were in place. Seriously, we cant discredit the heliocentric theory just because it does not explain why Sun came up. It is perfectly allright for the theory to explain the position of Sun related to other planets, once we accept the existence of Sun.

I later on read points about sudden variations etc, and the drift is the same. Without much valid discussion on the theory of evolution, it goes on to denounce the theory.

I think both of us should read the respective links. This just seems to be a thread for three people of late.

The theory of evolution in its most basic form, Ramanujam, is very simple. Even I could get my head around it. Or so I believe, as Psychotropic would say. :)

This theory has to have solid proof before anybody can attempt to debunk it. As of today, this theory cannot be demonstrated nor can it be completely understood through observation. The worse fact is that even fossil evidence does not corroborate this theory in toto.

If points are required which provide solid evidence against evolution's direct and simple core only a simple reading of macroevolution vs microevolution is required among other things.

What the darwinspredictions site is doing is a bit different. I am not sure I would call it mischievous. It picks up where Darwin left off. It picks up discoveries and observations occurring in later times and tries to see if Darwin's theory can be used to explain these occurrences. I hope nobody here would deny that these occurrences and examples are indeed connected to the concept of evolution of life.

As to whether or not the origin of life should come under the umbrella of the evolution theory here are a few scientists talking:

"Life may have evolved from inanimate matter, with associations among molecules becoming more and more complex. In this view, the force leading to life was selection; changes in molecules that increased their stability caused the molecules to persist longer. In this text, we attempt to understand whether the forces of evolution could have led to the origin of life and, if so, how the process might have occurred". [11]

"The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand completely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earths oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved". [12]

"A Self-Replication System Evolves According to the RNA-first hypothesis, RNA would have been the first to evolve, and the first true cell would have had RNA genes". [13]

Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.

Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution.


This was taken from the very same site that we are discussing about. And yes these were points that were very conveniently ignored by the Australian student quoted by psychotropic.

The thing is this is not the only website or book asking these inconvenient questions. If scientists are whom we choose to believe then why dont we give some of our time to the scathing questions posed by fellow scientists in the dissentfromdarwin site?

Please do not fault the questions just because of the place they came from. That would be my request.
 
come on vortex, what i've pointed us a fundamental flaw in the darwin's predictions website (and that is endemic to all the points it raises). I do apologise if I've cause any offence. In the most polite and friendly way possible :cheers:, and genuinely with the greatest of respect, could i please ask you to respond to the point that I raised? It's a sincere request, since this is Cornelius's fundamental criticism against the theory of evolution, and I believe that if I can demonstrate to you how utterly flawed this is, I will be in a better position to convince you how mischievous and motivated the entire piece is.

I will anyway respond to the bits you've quoted:

"Life may have evolved from inanimate matter, with associations among molecules becoming more and more complex. In this view, the force leading to life was selection; changes in molecules that increased their stability caused the molecules to persist longer. In this text, we attempt to understand whether the forces of evolution could have led to the origin of life and, if so, how the process might have occurred". [11]

This is again some deliberate obfuscation. The theory of evolution as we understand it deals not with the "origin of life" but with the "origins of species." Yes Darwin speculated on the origin of life as well, as have many others, but that does not mean that the theory of evolution needs to explain the origin of life itself, for it to stand. The theory of evolution talks about adaptation of species, natural selection, gradual mutations and all of that, which is amply supported by observations, evidence and fossils. Gaps in information are just that....gaps in information, not fundamental flaws in the theory itself. It is the same as my example with the internal combustion engine, would the fact that the aborigine has not discovered the spark plug, discredit his clear observation that combustion of the fuel-air mixture is causing the propulsion? Let me politely and with all respect reiterate my request for your grounds for believing this is not the case

"The next step in our story is the most difficult to understand completely. From the jumbled mixture of molecules in the organic soup that formed in Earths oceans, the highly organized structures of RNA and DNA must somehow have evolved". [12]

once again, this is an origin of life issue, and i agree that the issue of abiogenesis or 'chemical evolution' or the 'origin of life' is not as well settled as that of evolution (to no small measure because of the fact that observable evidence of this, akin to fossils etc., would be far far more difficult to obtain), but like I said, it is not fundamental to establish the veracity of evolution. I would be very grateful to hear any arguments to the contrary that you might have.

"A Self-Replication System Evolves According to the RNA-first hypothesis, RNA would have been the first to evolve, and the first true cell would have had RNA genes". [13]

again, the RNA first hypothesis is one of the various hypotheses dealing with the origin of life. To discredit it does not discredit the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Though evolutionists do not know how the first cell could have evolved, they refer to the hypothetical processes leading up to the first cell as chemical evolution, and subsequent processes as biological evolution. [13] Because these two evolutionary processes are speculative, there can be some degree of overlap in how these processes are conceived. For instance, selection is contemplated as a mechanism for chemical evolution, as well as biological evolution.

The sleight of hand here is "because these two evolutionary processes are speculative." That is a blatant lie. The so called "chemical evolution" i agree is less certain than the theory of evolution, but that does not mean that the theory of evolution, or natural selection is speculative at all. Could you please point out a specific point from this article or elsewhere that questions the actual theory of evolution and not the question of the origin of life?

Darwin speculated about chemical as well as biological evolution, and since then evolutionists have continued to speculate and search for mechanisms to explain both types of evolution. The prediction that the DNA structure gave rise to first life deals with chemical evolution rather than biological evolution.

Yes, this is the one point that is being repeated by Cornelius and you, and therefore I will just have to draw your attention to point I've made repeatedly in this post. Establishing abiogenesis is not essential to establishing that the theory of evolution is a well-substantiated scientific theory (approaching the level of 'fact' in common parlance in much the same way as the idea of gravity). Once again, and with all due respect, I would love to hear the arguments that you have to controvert this, and I would love to hear how you distinguish this criticism from my internal combustion engine example.
 
OK Psychotropic, let me take you up on that.

The spark plug analogy, you say? What of it? Applied to this context, it is as if the bystander does not understand the concept of an engine at all - leave alone the spark plug. But is instead talking about the mileage that one can get out of the machine!!!

Granted that the 'Origin of Species' does not directly correspond or correlate to 'Origin of Life'. However, let us not deceive ourselves that it does not presuppose things related to that aspect. It does. And science precludes presupposition.

By the way, it is not just that science is inadequate in explaining the origin of life on earth. Lets not even mind that in this context, science and its passionate supporters are far from humble in acknowledging this lacuna. The thing is - even when you talk of evolution after the various species emerged, there are still holes. The thing is each such hole or anomaly to Darwin's explanation has been incorporated as an exception and something that adds to that theory. Only as exceptions.

Frankly speaking, right at this point, evidence is not something that Darwin's theory of evolution can talk about in black and white. I would go back to your usage of that wonderful phrase - preponderance of possibilities. I will grant this in the case of the theory of evolution as propounded by Darwin.

As far as Darwinspredictions - the site - goes, if you are not amenable to the truth pointed out in the earlier sections regarding origin of life (and of this subject not being explained by science) then the later sections starting from 4 onwards deal with evolution per se - pointing out anomalies thereof.

I am not looking for a theory which has a bit more or even a lot more evidence than another which proudly says that it needs no evidence. I am looking for an answer from the scientific community which is indisputably scientific. Period.

I am not looking for a theory which pampers my brain a little. The theory should be resounding in its logic and in its proof. Of course, when it does produce proof it no longer remains a theory - as has often been pointed out in this thread. :)

No offense meant, of course.
 
Guys the suptle improvement object of the month Audiophile Fuses :lol:
HiFi-Tuning Fuses - Large Supreme SLOW Blow T by Revolution Power
HiFi-Tuning of Berlin-Germany has released a new highest performing version of their industry-leading fuses called "Supreme"

The new line of Supreme fuses is handmade, tip-to-tip of 99% Silver combined with 1% 24k Gold, similar to the material used in the Mundorf Supreme Silver/Gold Capacitors. Mundorf also developed for HiFi-Tuning, a special Silver/Gold solder for use in the Supreme fuses. HiFi-Tuning's 99% Silver + 1%
 
I think we must negotiate with our EBs to change our supply cables to silver+gold. None of this aluminium rubbish that is ruining our audio now.

Perhaps even more important, we must get them to guarantee that no bird is ever allowed to perch on it.

Come to think of it, given the current increase in Tamil Nadu electricity prices, this is the least they can do for us! :lol:
 
God, you guys made me read the thread all over again and ROFL!! Cryogenic treated fuses, of all the things on earth. What will they think of next?

Cheers
 
Thanks for resurrecting this old thread. Makes for a very fascinating reading what with its highly inflammable mix of religion, atheism, theism, evolution, creationism, east v/s west, etc. All debated in very civil and scholarly manner.

PS: I once read a very interesting book called "Evolution: The Incredible Hoax". I have been trying to get a copy but can't find one yet.
 
The OLD thread is waiting for mature level discussions ...
To enjoy the Extra-ordinary features of your Golden/Diamond ears the following is a must

Measure HR Transfer function: Calibrate audio based on that

Visit ENT doctor to clean ears with special chemicals "EAR COTTON SWABs" are NOT recommended !!!
Clean your ears. No, Im not kidding! Normally, the ear drains away excess wax. Occasionally, a build-up can harden and block the ear canal, causing inflammation, irritation and even hearing loss. If your ear canal keeps getting clogged, you may need to see your doctor occasionally to have it removed. Physicians recommend against using cotton swabs for cleaning the ear canal. There are many products on the market, talk to your local pharmacist.

Reserve one or more month salary to ::Replace all Wall outlets with audiophile types ....
Replace AC wall outlets. The residential outlets in your wall are a significant impediment to optimum performance. Designed for use with lamps, table radios and other mundane household appliances, residential grade outlets are simply not up to the task of serving of a high-end audio or video system. There are a number of good upgraded outlets available. Often unswitched sockets sound better than switched.

Traverse with mirror..in the room ..whenever u see speaker image in mirror

It is easy to find reflection points in the room utilizing the mirror technique. ...speaker in the mirror represents. Each of these spots represents an acoustical reflection site; the points closest to the speaker are the first reflection points. Mark these positions and place absorption or diffusion material there to eradicate the reflection. For a quick cheap trial try damping with a big soft cushions of a heavy blanket

Dont Allow vibrations (if possible sit on a vibration dampened chair, placing sand plate below CDP is NOT enough , if u can sit on sand that will be better ):
drink coke CAN to make these damper rollerballs
rollerball.jpg

collected from :

Sensus Audio - Premier Australian Audiophile HiFi Dealer
CD Transports
 
Get the Award Winning Diamond 12.3 Floorstanding Speakers on Special Offer
Back
Top