|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
71.20.215.148
In Reply to: RE: Sound science posted by geoffkait on July 22, 2010 at 04:57:55
"already understood physics can [not] explain voodoo tweaks"
Ah, so you are explaining them with physics that isn't understood, surely an improvement...
Couldn't resist. Science is of course just our best guess at any given moment but has the saving grace of being a better set of guesses as we learn more. I was going to say 'as time passes' but I no longer believe in time.
I would in general consider 'science' adequate if it can be used for successful engineering. But monkeys are a curious breed and we like to know what makes things tick. Things like May's stuff, and yours, and the universe, whether there is a direct application or not.
This causes a constant 'conflict' whatever the mechanisms are. While it behooves you guys to protect your intellectual properties and business practices you have to balance that with customers' reluctance to buy a pig-in-a-poke. We'd like to believe that we are paying for something beyond just belief whether it's true or not.
I know that often that belief is poorly founded, especially with audio gear and we are all painfully aware that two components with essentially identical routine measurements may sound quite differently in a given application. It's clearly a systems issue and it falls on the poor user to try and patch together a satisfactory solution. So while we don't give much credence to the measurements that we do have, we want them so we know that we aren't buying 'snake oil'.
It's probably best not to ponder the human thought process too deeply, depression may ensue...
Rick (merely a human)
Follow Ups:
Hey, you pays your money and you take your chances. Even with stuff that can be measured, no? Besides, all the items you're so suspicious of come with a 30 day guarantee. So, where's the beef?
I should probably also point out that of my eleven or so products about half are fairly straightforward physics based... so again, where's beef?
Edits: 07/22/10
"Hey, you pays your money and you take your chances. Even with stuff that can be measured, no?"
Absolutely! That's what it comes down to in the final analysis. However, some of us, yours truly for instance, have a bend to not buy things based solely upon arm-waving. If only the rest of the electorate had that bend... Anyway it may not be logically defensible in this arena, but there you are.
If I think something is unlikely but am curious my approach is to try and cobble something up and see it has an effect. Sooner or later I'll probably buy a 'doubter's kit' or whatever it's called from May and play with it. Geoff, I'm not saying I'm sane, how would I know? But we all have our turns. I didn't think interconnect cables were important but eventually I tried some experiments and discovered that I was wrong. That's life!
Rick
If anyone has put more into attempting to explain difficult to explain tweaks than PWB or me I don't know who it is.
Geez, you don't expect me to hold my breath waiting for you to get a doubter kit, do you? :-)
Anyone put more into explaining the tweaks?
Don't make me laugh. Seems your fundamental approach is financial and thus advancement on an objective level is being foiled by your "attempts".
Stu
Apparently you haven't read the explanations of mine or the Belts. If you had, most likely you wouldn't be quite so high on your RFI theory.
Edits: 07/22/10
I've read your stuff. Highly misleading and it doesn't make any sense nor does it lend itself to any known principles of science. But in a world full of ether or something similar, it may have some application. But it doesn't hold sense in the world I live in.
Still you still avoid the issue. What have you tried to duplicate the foil? You're very good at coming back with misleading posts and comments, but really nothing verifiable by any other human, it seems. Mumbo jumbo does not constitute science, in my thinking, nor does it further the advancement of audio, because you leave nothing for serious experimentation.
But that's all I ever expected from you any way. Lots of self aggrandizement, and very little substance.
Stu
"I've read your stuff. Highly misleading and it doesn't make any sense nor does it lend itself to any known principles of science."
Since I'm the scientist and you're the non-scientist - steel worker, isn't it? - I'll be the judge of whether my "stuff" lends itself to known principles of science. You can be the guy that just pretends to know all the principles of science.
"But in a world full of ether or something similar, it may have some application. But it doesn't hold sense in the world I live in."
I am still trying to figure out what world you live in -- it appears to be the same one The Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight lives in.
"Still you still avoid the issue. What have you tried to duplicate the foil? You're very good at coming back with misleading posts and comments, but really nothing verifiable by any other human, it seems. Mumbo jumbo does not constitute science, in my thinking, nor does it further the advancement of audio, because you leave nothing for serious experimentation."
I already explained, as did May, that the rainbow foils are extensively treated. I also already stated that many other PWB foils are assembled by PWB. I've already given you the answers and you either ignore them or dispute them. Your continued demand for answers is just plain silly.
"But that's all I ever expected from you any way. Lots of self aggrandizement, and very little substance."
You get an A for Name-calling, F for Science and F for Experimentation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets see a list the replicable treatments you have tried. Your seemingly ignorance of the scientific method is rather appalling and while I do not even claim to be a scientist, I believe my methodology lends itself more towards the "scientific" method than your useless prattle, which do absolutely nothing to illuminate the methodology and the procedures you have "attempted" to duplicate.That May does not make the foil is evidently clear. That she treats them is another subject. Unless May is either a God or a witch with supernatural powers, then her method of treatment should be replicable by any other mortal on the planet. However, you seem to be of the persuasion that her treatment is not replicable by another mortal. Maybe it is very directly applicable to your experience. It is vary difficult to ascertain because you have not and apparently will not define your past actions. You claim to have already written about it but you never answer a post with any clear and definite facts. Is it too much to ask for a restatement of your supposed facts and experimentation...
If you are the "scientist", I pity the school that gave you that degree.
Stu
PS. The mark of a true scientist would have been to ask how I treated mz foil. That way you could have replicated my experimentation. The fact that that simple question never ever entered your mind shows the depth of your supposedly scientific training.
And incidentally while I was a steel worker, and damn proud of the work I did, I also finished all my pre med courses with the exception of organic Chemistry. I took three semesters of calculus, I was only 8 credits short of getting a second degree in sociology, my degree was in Asian history. I graduated with 15 credits in applied music, too. I switched majors many times.
Edits: 07/28/10
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: