Tweakers' Asylum

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

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

Re: clarification... pun intended

Posted by Charlie G on November 6, 2001 at 07:41:39:
I understand what you are saying. My two big problems with these sorts of cases are:
1) None of these guys come out and SAY "We don't know what is going on." instead we get an endless stream of pseudoscience that gets disproved again and again. Of course you might argue that they are truly clueless enough to not even realise they are giving out false information.
2) These guys MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ONTO SOMETHING! It is possible that some new effect or aspect of physics has been discovered, but instead of encouraging scientific understanding of what is happening, we hear "I can hear the difference, and if you can't, you're deaf, and it doesn't matter what is going on." But it seems most of these guys just don't even want to hear skepticism or criticism of something, even if it could eventually lead to a better understanding.
A good case is the various CD 'treatments'. Anyone can sit down with some datasheets, and some benchmark programs and (in about two hours) discover that the product cannot possibly work the way it is claimed to work. (It does not tend to lower the unrecoverable error rate, and it does not lower jitter at the DAC.) Now... maybe it DOES work, and it DOES improve the sound somehow. Nobody seems interested in finding out how, in fact they usually refuse to even let go of the flawed reasoning given by the company. (or given by 'authority' with pages of 'credentials')
When someone comes up with an invention, and can not explain how it works, then we must call into question the results that they have achieved. We MUST bring a great deal of skepticism to bear and explore the various claims made to find out which are true and which are false. It's the only way to root out the pseudoscience and gain a true understanding of what is happening.
Charlie G
ps At one point you said this sort of stuff reflects more on the inventor than the invention. Well, I'd say "Consider the Source." And no, I'm not talking about their 'credentials'.