 
|
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 |
208.58.2.83
In Reply to: No explanation offered *at all* posted by Srajan Ebaen on September 24, 2005 at 09:13:45:
First, "the complete absence of any explanation or hypothesis for how this clock is supposed to work really troubles me." Yet look at all the TROUBLE Geoff got into for advancing an explanation of the IC. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. Besides, consider the explanation offered in the 6moons review of the NESPA doohickey; it immediately came up for challenge, leaving the average reader as unsure as if there had been nothing at all.Then, "An 8% defective/failure rate in any other category of audio components would be an outrage. Does the Intelligent Chip propaganda talk about the possibility that if you buy it, it may not work?" We see here not the word "explanation", rather the word "propaganda" -- but let it pass, let it pass. You confuse the simple "not effective" with the more dire "defective/failure"; truth is, there are just some CDs and/or some players that are not susceptible to it. In my original, first-off-the-block report for Positive Feedback I even mentioned two times it misbehaved. One must realize that the only reason CD tweaks work is unskillful design and/or realization of the CD system. It has to be imagined that here and there certain designs have succeeded in overcoming the need for certain tweaks, although their makers may not have intended that, nor even have realized the effect.
Finally, the speech on hoaxes, while all true, will lead certain angry audiophiles (and you know who you are) to lump this in as one, without any further consideration.
clark
Follow Ups:
I respectfully disagree. Not working = defective. If I CD player doesn't work (i.e. makes no sound), it's defective and will get replaced or fixed. If a tweak doesn't work as advertised? What's the customer to think - tuff luck?With the NESPA, what we published was our *reviewers'* theory, not the manufacturer's explanation (which, being Japanese, we can't read). So the word is still out on what the *supplied* explanation for that device is as per the actual maker. -:)
I think we're all in favor of "pushing the art forward" as it were. So if a new breakthrough product enters the market, I'd like to see an explanation - OR a "we don't have a clue how it works, we stumbled over this by accident, we invite the audiophile and scientific community to chime in".
And providing an explanation does open the floor to disagreements but that kind of discourse can prove educational. Not providing any explanation but claims as to what the device does? Well, I think it really is bad for our industry.
If Geoff Kaitt with all his professional science background feels comfortable marketing these devices, I'd expect that his own scientific rigor and doubt felt satisfied by the theories behind these products. So why not publish them? If they seem silly or implausible, now the potential customer has one more thing to go on, about whether to buy or not...
Given the general reaction to that effort, I wouldn't blame him for not subjecting himself to the same treatment with his Clever Little Clock.
A CD already treated with Optrix is treated to Auric Illuminator, but with no discernible change in sound. "Auric Illuminator = defective."Or, A CD player mounted on a Vibraplane has a Silent Running unit placed under it, but with no discernible change in sound. "Silent Running = defective."
Or, finally, speaker wires strung along an unpolymerized wooden floor are elevated with Speaker Elevators, but with no discernible change in sound. "Speaker Elevators = defective."
Or so speaks the sage of Albuquerque!
But seriously... the fact that no cure anywhere, anytime is universally effective must be factored in without the dismissive charge of "defective". And in the case of CD specifically, one hopes that our vaunted designers *will* find ways around these necessary amelioratives and make them superfluous. But that does not mean they have become defective.
clark
What's with the sir, Clark? We're talking pure working class on my part - lotsa work, lotsa class. Ha -:)Now you're talking tweaks "in parallel" or "series". Granted, that could undermine their effectiveness or end up with completely unpredictable results.
The speaker elevator example is poor because companies who sell such products talk about their effectiveness with synthetic carpets, less so with wool carpets and perhaps none at all with bare wooden or stone floors.
The point being, if a tweak is a special application product, list the recommended applications and those that are possibly (or known to be) counter-productive. Then also state that certain scenarios may elicit no results whatsoever.
That would be full disclosure, no?
I still remember the artillery in the chip debates leveled at detractors. "You guys simply don't understand the science involved here." Nano tech. Quantum. Etc. A lot was thrown into people's faces who asked reasonable questions.
Clearly the same is already happening again. Reasonable people look at the clever little clock and remember the TICE clock. Unless of course the marketing strategy is exactly this: create an information vacuum and have people react to that. Kick off a few heated threads, attract attention, sell some product.
Hey, if so, it seems to be working . What do I know? -:)
But if any kind of science be invoked (and of the advanced kind us primitives can't fathom), then scientific etiquette demands that the invention be presented jointly with the hypothesis or theory that compelled the research in the first place. Right - sir?
But this goes
vb
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 ]
