Home Tweakers' Asylum

Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ.

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ Tweakers' Asylum ]
[ Alert Moderator ]

Re: Oh no it isn`t.......

I was including you in the condescending comment, not the claiming something couldn`t possibly work - however, just in case you assume I`m backing down and aren`t big enough to apologise etc, I`ll apologise sincerely anyway if you subjectively feel I was putting words in your mouth - even though objectively this may not have been so.

Yes, but you included me in condescending comment, but didn't exclude me when you immediately specifically qualified what you meant by condescending by saying "in that I`d question whether you`d even listened to the Cryo-treatment before explaining why it couldn`t possibly work."

So while I'd say that it was poorly phrased, I won't argue condescending in a general sense because I'd be the first to agree that I can be condescending at times.

To qualify this accusation against Charlie G though, remember that this thread began with someone asking why the cryo treatment could possibly work. Charlie G`s reply was;

"Just put the treated and untreated discs in a transport that gives feedback on the error rates from the disc. If there is no difference in the bit error rates, THERE CAN BE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE SOUND"

Now I don`t know about you, but to me that means the cryo treatment CAN`T POSSIBLY WORK if the bit error rates aren`t different, or rather aren`t great enough to be measured via the transport.

Ok. That's an issue you'll have to take up with Charlie as it's not my argument.

The accusation of being condescending is born out in almost every posting you make, so much so that this is almost an objective fact rather than my subjective opinion - I`ll elaborate shall I?

By all means.

In response to somebody`s posting stating "As I said, I have done some blind testing with the Bedini. My test showed that 2 people have good ears or could correctly make a series of guesses with a result having the chances of 33.55 million to one".

Uh huh...

You responded with "great. But all this is anecdote. Without knowing all the details and procedures of the testing, there`s nothing to comment on".

Yup. That's what I said.

Now if - and it`s a big if when you don`t know the individual - a proper blind test was carried out where the subjects were unaware of the inclusion or omission of the Bedini (which is what a blind test is after all), then this is NOT anecdotal at all; an anecdote is a brief account of a personal event, whereas three people were involved here. Obviously, three scientists taking notes would be a valid test?

That was my whole point! I DON'T KNOW whether a proper blind test was carried out as he offered no details to speak of. So why should I mindlessly assume so any more than just as mindlessly assume that he hadn't? And without any details and without knowing anything either way, there's simply nothing for me to say.

You also state "The only established fact I`m aware of is that some people subjectively perceive differences. And that I`m sorry to inform you (how patronising is that!) does not in itself establish any actual audibility".
In a blind test where only the ears are used, and differences are perceived when a treatment/product is introduced, of course this establishes actual audibility - how else could differences be perceived?

Please take the time to read what I actually said. There are two words you seemed to have skipped over which were crucial to the point I was making. I said that people subjectively percieving differences does not (and pay attention, here come those two words I mentioned, and yes, I'm being condescending) in itself establish any actual audibility.

In other words, I was referring to subjective perceptions exclusive of any blind or other conditions.

What I really find condescending though is the assumption that hardly anyone who mentions a `tweak` seems to understand basic psychology, specifically the placebo effect.
Granted, you never actually go the extra yard and directly accuse someone of being a gullible fool, but the implication is always there to anyone who reads between the lines, not that you`re subtle.

Mmmmm. And what of your wild assumption here? Christ, I MANUFACTURE A TWEAK (and tweaked) PRODUCT! So whatever the hell it is you're reading between the lines, I think you need to get your eyeglass prescription checked.

This isn't about "tweaks." It's about getting at the truth. And in this specific instance which I got involved in, it was simply to make the point that one should not jump to conclusions until one has considered ALL possibilities. Not just those possibilities which conveniently fit the conclusion one has jumped to.

On the whole, your reaction when someone states they`ve heard any audible difference is the same as a psychiatrist would give to someone claiming he`d just been abducted by aliens who took him to see Elvis on the planet Zog; this reaction being "well I believe that you believe it, and if to you this is true - that`s all that really matters...".

No, all I have done is make the point that our subjective perceptions do not in and of themselves (a little emphasis there seeing as you're so preoccupied reading between the lines you seem to miss much of what's actually in the lines) establish any objective fact.

Jumping from subjective perception to making objective claims of fact is no problem to me as most of us have the sense to appreciate we`re reading an opinion...

When one makes an objective claim of fact, one has gone beyond simply expressing a personal opinion or relating a personal experience.

...even when manufacturers such as yourself give `facts` which can alter depending on how data is interpreted.
My own DAC has no brick-wall digital filter, and a couple of manufacturers explained to me in great detail (I`ve still got the emails) why this DAC wouldn`t give decent audio reproduction; ultrasonic signals in the DAC output mainly.
Well, I listened to many DACs which probably measured near perfectly, and ended up buying the one which defied accepted digital technology.

There you go with more assumptions. You wouldn't get such an answer from a manufacturer such as myself because this manufacturer believes that "decent audio reproduction" is ultimately in the ears of the beholder and meaningful only to that individual doing the beholding and not in any set of objective performance criteria.

In parting then, I`ll just put two simple questions to you which require very straightforward answers; these will enable me and others on this forum to decide if you`re to be taken seriously - nobody should ever take ME seriously by the way as I`ve no idea what I`m talking about.

Well if you've no idea what you're talking about, what the hell am I doing wasting my time on this?

se




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Atma-Sphere Music Systems, Inc.  

Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
You can not post to an archived thread.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]