 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.166.157.254
In Reply to: RE: A Serious Proposal posted by thetubeguy1954 on January 25, 2009 at 06:53:09
thetubeguy1954,
Producing devices that a maker believes to be fraudulent at a cheaper rate seems to me a recipe for a counter productive message and probably legal trouble.
In doing so, the message- that these devices are ineffective and a waste of money would be countered by the effort to promote them. In order to sell them, the maker would have to make the same or similar claims as to their effectiveness or face a charge of fraud- intentionally selling something that the maker doesn't believe to work. You may have noticed that the makers of such devices will continually assert their effectiveness while refusing to ever explain the devices operation scientifically. This means that they are promoting and selling something they believe to be effective. In fact, the mysterious and vehement promotion is a mechanism to establish a kind of unquestioning faith in the devices necessary for their effectivenes.
As well, do you know if these devices have patents that could be subject to infringement lawsuits?
The other problem with your scheme is that while I find these devices silly in some ways, I can't deny they could be effective. There are numerous testaments to these that can't all be dismissed. My explanation of their function is as contemplative objects that focus attention away from the sound and then refocus concentration on subtle aspects of the sound- they are manipulating a higher critical level in the user by the expectation of change. This is the way placebos work too- they are faith-based- a belief in the function without understanding of the mechanism of the function. Religion is another example of a placebo, as faith in the divine function must be accepted without question and the sales techniques- the promotion - is also similar.
I would be far more interested in a proposal to make a scientific test of these devices under controlled circumstances: see if there are any measurable emissions, have completely uninformed people listen to them in double blind blind tests and then listen again informed and so on. Demystifying and exposing their function in a systematic, scientific way would be a more effective way to educate the audio consumer should you feel this is necessary. I believe such an investigation could reveal important psychological aspects of critical listening beyond the devices.
You may be interested in my September, 2008 thread on this subject in Critics:
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=critics&n=40056&highlight=Phuzzy&r=
In this thread please note geoffkaitt's post, "Thanks for proving you're a cretin", a badge of honour which I hope he will give me permission to use as a jacket blurb on my upcoming book on particle physics. This includes an essay on quantum mechanics in popular culture, focusing on the controversy over Black Holes at CERN and the use of particle quasi-science in consumer items, which I may title "Artificial Atoms" in reference to the Genius Watches and Smart Rocks.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Follow Ups:
Hi Bambi!
I attempted to clarify my postion at the link below but, here's a good portion of it...
The LFOs should just be honest and state ---{ if it's what they really believe }--- these cheap replacement tweaks will have the exact same effect for the exact same reason, i.e., they work because the user believes they work! Where's the fraud in that?
I know the LFOs won't do this because they aren't 100% postive these tweaks work ONLY because the user believes they work! Thus saying that in writing could leave them open for libel suits later if someone who manufactured these tweaks could prove that's not how or why they work! It really all comes down to putting your money where your mouth is. Heck most of the LFOs here cannot even put "proof" where their mouths are, let alone any hard earned money.
Thetubeguy1954
Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!
thetubeguy1954,To me there seems to be a danger in producing a product that is simultaneously being debunked. This would be especially true in the case of the Genius Rocks since it is faith- belief in the devices, that gives them their function. If you offer similar devices and also break the bubble of faith, it may cause them to cease working as their only possible capability is removed. This would be probably be similar in the case of someone being given a medical placebo and were told it was completely inert. We can almost guarantee there would be no perceived effect.
Still, a better course of "protecting" the gullible audiophile from dubious devices would be for "Stereophile" to make methodical tests- double blind, perhaps with control groups of non-reviewers, and present the results. In my view, a systematic investigation would more effectively communicate the message. Selling the same item for less money and challenging the buyer to prove they're worthless seems to me to be a mixed message that's also a bit condescending. Remember, the buyer of anything will be predisposed to believing it's good- that's part of the way these devices are made effective. If a good, scientifically-based analysis finds the devices produce no measurable effects, and are, in effect, placebos, that will already imply that substitute items can produce the same effects for little or no money.
Cheers,Bambi B
P> S> My idea for a substitute device is to set up a table facing away from the speakers with candles and your favourite beverage. Make the candles a contemplative item- like the rocks- and I think hearing the system turned away then hearing it face on, but thinking about the candles could produce the same effect- even while knowing the whole story.
Edits: 01/29/09
Bambi,
I only partially agree with your first paragraph. While I fully well understand as people we can be seduced by suggestion. I don't believe we, as people are as easily seduced by suggestion as many other people here on AA would have us believe. The problem as I see it is, there are three main POVs on this present topic. One POV comes from those here who automatically assume a device or tweak is "faith-based" if they cannot find a scientific reason why the tweak or device should work. Another POV comes from others who are more like myself i.e., while skeptical of some tweaks and devices, remain open-minded enough to consider the possibility that science hasn't sufficiently tested or discovered the reasons why the device or tweak works and finally the last POV are those who accept the tweak or device works as stated.
There's no danger in producing a product that is simultaneously being debunked. Only those who automatically assume the tweak or device is a "faith-based" device could believe the others could/would, have a break in their bubble of faith when others claim the product is faith-based". I don't think we can almost guarantee there would be no perceived effect on those who believe differently! For those like myself, who believe it possible science hasn't sufficiently tested or discovered the reasons why the device or tweak works were almost like an agnostic in religon. We believe it may or may not work so we have no "faith-based" bubble to break and with the last POV who accept the tweak or device works as stated, it's just like with religon. No matter how much non-believers, tell believers there is no GOD but, rather they're being seduced by the suggestion of GOD, the believers don't lose or have a break in their bubble of faith! So I don't agree with your position we can almost guarantee there would be no perceived effect on those who believe differently.
Where we totally disagree is with your statement that a better course of "protecting" the gullible audiophile from dubious devices would be for "Stereophile" to make methodical tests- double blind, perhaps with control groups of non-reviewers, and present the results. There's just to much wrong with how most if not almost all DBTs are done for most anyone but their present proponents to accept the results of.
Like every DBT vs Non-DBT, Objectivist vs Subjectivist etc arguements that are had here on AA. I don't see anyway for a meeting of the minds, without a lot of compromise on both sides. That said the beliefs of both sides are so strong that to even think this compromise could ever happen would be akin to believing atheists & theists could compromise their beliefs and meet in the middle as well.
Thetubeguy1954
Rational Subjectivism. It's An Acquired Taste!
...to make methodical tests- double blond
Double blond tests. Sign me up!
rw
BB
I don't see how there would be any fraud if the vendor makes no claims about the devices' effectiveness but does believe they are a legitimate substitute for other devices on the market that others believe are effective. John Dunlavy pretty much did this with his speaker cables. Although his cables were anything but cheap.
An example would be the brass screws for cartridge mounting that was all the rage at one time. If I owned a hardware store and saw brass screws being marketed at $50.00 a pair and I had them on sale for $ 0.50 a pair I think I would be able to sell them to audiophiles at that price without breaking any laws.
Analog Scott,
When you say, "I don't see how there would be any fraud if the vendor makes no claims about the devices' effectiveness but does believe they are a legitimate substitute for other devices on the market that others believe are effective," I believe the vendor of the substitute device would be making the statement that the substitute device is as effective as the other device, which was asserted as being affective. If I buy an aftermarket alternator for my car, or a generic version of a pharmaceutical, I must be able to assume it functions in the same way as the original and there are laws that require it do so. In this way, the potential maker of $20 "Genius Rocks" would be making an statement of effectiveness by association as a "substitute". If however, the vendor stated, "Of no use, function, effectiveness whatsoever" there is no fraud. This is why "Pet Rocks" could be sold in the 60's- they were purposely promoted as useless!
Cheers,
Bambi B
"When you say, "I don't see how there would be any fraud if the vendor makes no claims about the devices' effectiveness but does believe they are a legitimate substitute for other devices on the market that others believe are effective," I believe the vendor of the substitute device would be making the statement that the substitute device is as effective as the other device, which was asserted as being affective."
Well maybe. Lets take the case of the brass screws. I don't think one has to make any assertions one way or another for the effectiveness of brass screws in improving the sound of the cartridge to legally sell them to audiophiles. If there is a "belief" amoung audiophiles that brass screws improve sound then all the vendor really has to do is sell authentic brass screws. It would be hard to argue that the vendor's brass screws at fifty cents is any less effective than the fifty dollar brass screws if the belief is simply that brass screws make a difference.
OTOH, and this is where it gets interesting, if the claim is that rocks or pebbles have some special effect because they are special proprietary pebbles or rocks and someone comes along and sells pebbles or rocks for pennies on the dollar and claims that his pebbles or rocks are just as effective (or ineffective) as the proprietary pebbles or rocks. I think, (I am not a lawyer) that it would be up to the vendor of the proprietary pebbles or rocks to prove his are somehow different. That would make for quite an interesting case. I think one can point to tarot cards here as an analogy. You don't have to believe in tarot cards to manufacture them and sell them legally. From a non-believer's perspective tarot cards are tarot cards regardless of what the maker believes and if there is a market for tarot cards there is no fraud in making and selling tarot cards. It is asserted by believiers (I'm not making this up by the way) that belief is a key ingredient in the effectiveness of tarot cards. Were someone to bring some sort of fraud suit against the maker of tarot cards who is a non-believer, I think the burden of proof that his cards are somehow ineffective and thereby fraudulant while other tarot cards are legit would be on the believers not the maker/non-believer. IOW I think the non-believer producer of tarot cards are within the law in making something they don't believe works.
Analog Scott,
Good points. The issue at hand is still seems to me to be who makes what claims for the devices. My take is that if you sell the brass screws to an audiophile and never make any audio claims for them, there is no assertion of equivalency to the "audiophile rated" one. If the hardware store said, "Yes, these brass screws will function as well as the audiophile ones", that would seem to constitute a claim that could be legally challenged by the consumer and the proprietary vendor. On a different tack, the maker of tarot cards will assert- as do psychics, Quija boards, casters of horoscopes, and fortune-tellers, that these products and services "are for entertainment purposes" only.
In the case of the proprietary vs. aftermarket rocks, for the proprietary vendor to claim infringement, they would have to demonstrate the other vendor used patented design or process or conversely, that key elements were missing, and/or the aftermarket vendor has no proof of effectiveness similar to the proprietary ones. An infringement case might be possible too, if- IF- the proprietary vendor could obtain a broadly defined design patent for the idea of selling rocks of any kind as audio enhancements. This may have been the case of "pet rocks" which were admittedly of no functional value. - My memory was that many were sold but I was never aware of competitors. I imagine that there could be patents for medical placebos as these would have to be tested and approved as functioning as described and necessary- that they create no chemical interactions.
Interesting discussion.
Cheers,
Bambi B
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
