|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
202.4.4.24
Came across this site today (courtesy of Gizmodo) which claims it has been "Attaching the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of audiophiles since 1999"If you're interested in a sarcastic view from outside the cloistered walls of audiophile fora, check out this page. The author says: "These are some of the worst 'audiophile' products I can find. They amuse me greatly. If you know of any more, drop me a line." I'm sure inmates would have many ideas
Favorite quote: "'If we were able to reproduce a recording without any distortion... ...It would make us sick.' I can see it now: projectile vomiting at Hi-Fi shows across the land."
Follow Ups:
People, it's a JOKE! It's pretty funny too, if I may say so. You so-called "audiophiles" are so uptight. By the way, for those of you that don't have a PhD, there is no reason to make fun of it. If you are jealous, just admit to it. For those of you that want to spend $30,000 on speaker cales, I say go ahead. It's your money, and you can waste it anyway you see fit. I do hope that you would contribute to charity (like the Katrina relief fund) before you buy your speaker cables. Some people can actually do some good with that kind of money
.
I do think our hobby is inhabited by many people who have much more money than sense and the MM's are one of the more extreme examples (along with speakers running well in excess of $100K). My own gear is not cheap by any means, but enough is enough.I cannot imagine the justification for Transparent (and I use Transparent Ref speaker cables so I do like their products) to charge such exhorbitant fees -- and I don't buy the "R&D investment" argument at all.
As for the other "tweaks", I have tried a number of them and perhaps I'm blessed with a tin ear because cable elevators do nothing in my system, my Elrod Sig 3 and Kimber Palladian 14 powercords are no different than a much less expensive PS Audio ones and I don't care what HP says, spraying treatment X, Y or Z on a cd doesn't really do much of anything (yes, I've tried these as well using a GNSC heavily modded Wadia 860SE and on a MF Trivista sacd player).
Think of how many people we'd have in the hobby if the overall market prices were just a bit more reasonable. And if you DO have the money for the > $100K speakers, just go spend it on a really nice car, rare stamp or antique.
I should be put out of my misery ... the very idea of being such an perpetual pain in the arse is just too painful to contemplate. I mean really!, try imagine a day when you something like ... "but JJ said" ... escapes from you lips. The Horror ... The Horrorp.s.
Also younger than the sun...You have any time to explain that mystical stuff to me now?
Deet, deet, deeta la deet Deet, deet, deeta la deet.
making sarcastic, derogatory remarks about almost anything and feel better about himself because that's the only way he knows how. Obviously intelligent though sadly mis-guided. A parasite.
*** This hear hobby is one fine hobby indeed...a passion ***
s
Parasitic as in attaching to a host for survival. The audio hobby presents an easy and tasty host for him to keep that sarcastic, un-productive part of his "life" alive.
*** This hear hobby is one fine hobby indeed...a passion ***
say, charging the price of a luxury car for 20 feet of wire? Or $100 for a jar of gravel?
the easiest target. Link to an "exotic" high-priced (I'm using discipline here and not adding over-priced) item, add a smarmy line about it and move on.
He could link to cosmetics, find a few products/treatments that are (or at least seem high/over-priced) attach a smarmy /sarcastic line about it and move on.
"$80.00 a jar! It removes wrinkles? Wonder if it'll remove the butt wrinkles I've developed sitting on my ass all day surfing the web to find things to mock... No way possible!"
Choose your subject. He'll find an area in it to mock/belittle. It's not exactly consumer reporting he's doing.
Doesn't mean he has the slightest idea what he's talking about.
He probably just enjoys the attention it gains him around places like this. And cosmetics boards.Prices? What, if by his definition, $100 was a lot to spend on ICs? To almost anyone it would be. I suppose then he would have a LOT more links on his page...
*** This hear hobby is one fine hobby indeed...a passion ***
I sure wouldn't/don't know, but someone in this crazy world does...
*** This hear hobby is one fine hobby indeed...a passion ***
Who is the real parasite here?Pretty funny, really....like the kid who saw the emperor.
The kid that is. ;-)
Let us hope his day job does not involve things that might hurt other people.
Har De Har Har!
and apt.
But as George Carlin once said, "shoot" is "shit" with two o's.
z
Regardless of how much you or any other audio reviewer might rant and rave about a set of $30,000 cables (holy s**t!), there's only the narrowest of possibilities that I or any other mere mortal will ever get to "audition" them. Hell, I don't know of any audio emporium in my area who would want to carry such a thing in their inventory, and there are a couple of pretty fancy ones around here that cater to the auto execs.Besides, what would be the point? To demonstrate the "state of the art" in cable technology? Give me a break! This is just "audio elitism" carried to the extreme. Not to mention that from an engineering statepoint, it's highly doubtful that there would be any audible benefit in the first place, certainly not one that's worth 30 grand.
I'd much rather spend the money on speakers, where the difference would be heard and appreciated immediately.
His declaration regarding the Silver Rock PotentiometersAlso note that once you've bought it, you can't send it back; not for any reason.
is absurd in light of the fact that the dealer specifically warns and recommends in the Terms and Conditions section
Silver Rocks cannot be returned or exchanged for any reason so please make sure it fits in your system by trying a demo unit...
This skeptic is technically accurate, but unfortunately intellectually dishonest in the spirit of his commentary.
that could not be returned "for any reason" even if I had heard a demo in my system. I don't think it is intellectually dishonest to quote the company's stated policy. What if the one they deliver didn't live up to the demo? What if it was defective? SOL, it can't be returned for ANY reason.I kinda think anyone with the brass to charge $475 for a wooden knob is looking for suckers, and would have no compunction about fleecing them any way they might. But that's just me.
Regarding the issue of intellectual dishonesty, the author only quoted PART of the Terms and Conditions. Apparently the part that suited his purposes.FWIW, I've never tried any of the products on his list, I'm just opposed to his methodology.
c
...I don't try to tell the Rolex wearer that he's misspent his money.
You missed the point, here. The Rolex wearer owns a Rolex because of the social status wearing a Rolex gives him.
Rolex just state that their products will last long because of their tight manufacturing tolerances, QA controls and skilled workmanship. From these facts, the brand is established, and so the image of the wearer's social status builds up by years.Rolex does not state their watches are more accurate than any cheapo steel crystal watch. Nor they state that Rolex wearers will have their transportation or commuting time cut in half.
I'd have more patience with overpriced, useless audio tweaks if they were marketed for what they are: status goods.Instead, they're marketed as if they have magical properties that will improve your sound system.
Now, THAT's intellectually dishonest.
From Answers.comIntellectual dishonesty is the creation of false impressions or advocacy of false ideas and concepts using rhetoric, logical fallicies, or insufficient or falsified evidence. It often stems from self-deception or a covert agenda, which is expressed through a misuse of various rhetorical devices. The unwary reader may be deceived as a result. It is often very difficult to distinguish whether the intellectual dishonesty is due to conscious dishonesty by somebody or due to unconscious self deception.
Scientists and scholars generally consider plagiarism a serious form of intellectual dishonesty.
j
There is pride when it is a luxury good. Luxury goods ownership implies pride, or it is just to show one's money off.
Are audio products luxury goods?
To my eyes, real high-end is:
- (1)best components,
- (2)best work,
- (3)best design,
- (4)best look,
- (5)no compromise which could be noticed by the customer,
- (6)compromises without shame above,
- (7) final price in relation with the used materials and workmanship.
Which are characteristics of any luxury good.Is advertised high-end real high-end to the above definition? Many, not all of them.
Is a $30,000 cable a luxury good? Since its price is obviously way above point (7) , it is not. It's just an inaesthetic way to show your money. And a stupid one, what visitor will notice the thing's price? And if you tell them, they will never believe you're so stupid as to waste your money this way... (well, by you, I don't mean you ☺. I hope so...)
nt
And exactly what do you know (if anything) about earning that level of eductional distinction?
and, so, discouraging your youngsters to embrace an engineering or scientific career, where at the best, their social image would be a pimply fat pizza-eater nerd, your nation is ready to lose science rank#1 to China, Europe and soon India and Brazil.
Look at the author's names in IEEE Proceeding along the years, and you will see that the phenomenon has yet well begun, and even achieved in some areas.
Snerk!
Quote taken from a 'reader's system' article showcased in the December issue of Hi-Fi News:"Finally , a surprise. Howard is a devotee of the Golden Sound Intelligent Chip. He bought his first one after reading Ken Kessler [HFN June '05].
'Friends have come round, listened to the chip and literally fallen on the floor. Today I gave the demonstration to you (interviewer is Steve Harris), and I think you will concur!' But perhaps that's another story."
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
z
Otherwise, they remain dubious, which is all the author maintains.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
x
And it's Clark. My, my, people to get upset when cherished believes are challenged. His ears are his religion: don't question it.
a
so I'm going to send that Nigerian Prince my SS# and checking account # and I'll be rich by Christmas. Yee-Hah!
The burden of proof is on those who claim something is so. Has nothing to do with bitterness.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
...because there is nothing to PROVE. Who are YOU to make such a demand? Show me the MONEY and I'll conduct whatever tests. Otherwise you have NO STANDING here, and must resort, like the rest of us, to your own ears.Good luck with that.
You are talking through your hat again, Clark. I made no demand. I simply point out that if any proof is to be done, it is up to those who claim something is so to do it. I simply point out, and that is basically what the other fellow did, that no one seems to have proved that those products make an audible difference.Indeed, since you now maintain "there is nothing to PROVE," I can only interpret this as meaning that you do not think they make an audible difference.
Not buying those products has not made me a bitter man, but it has saved me some money.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
Your interpretative abilities would seem to equal your listening abilities. That is, you require someone else to do it for you.So listen to this and hear it well:
We audio hobbyists care not a whit about your needy need for "proof". We're in this for fun and to advance the state of the art if possible. It's a neverending and even joyous voyage of discovery. And if you're not a part of the solution... well... you know what the man said.
You would be quite correct if the supplier of a product such as, for example, a cable said here is my product it costs $XXXXX and has this technical specification (involving standard reproducible measurements). But is this what is done? Or, perhaps, do they make claims about improvements to the sound for which they provide no reproducible evidence.Unlike yourself apparently, most of the suppliers recognise the need to justify their claims and provide supporting technical information which is a source of amusement to the technically educated.
So if I claim that "Clark Johnsen actually has profound hearing loss on both sides", the burden of prove is not on me right?
> Or, perhaps, do they make claims about improvements to the sound for which they provide no reproducible evidence.>There is no such thing as 'reproducible evidence' for an improvement in sound. It's all a matter of personal preference.
If an auto manufacturer claims you'll have more fun driving his car or a cosmetic manufacturer claims you'll be more beautiful using his product, why aren't the same clowns asking them for 'reproducible evidence'?
you are right that it is impossible to prove a "better" sound but it is possible to prove a "difference" in sound. I would be content if someone could prove or disprove that this thing makes ANY difference at all. Good bad or the other it matters not.
Which thing do you refer to?
> There is no such thing as 'reproducible evidence' for an improvement in sound. It's all a matter of personal preference.It is only a matter of personal preference if the sound changes audibly. It is straightforward to prove an audible change.
It is also fairly easy to establih a statistical preference: "9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas" will have been checked by the advertising standards authority for supporting evidence. As will "9 out of 10 cats prefer Kitty-Chunks".
> It is straightforward to prove an audible change.>If you believe 'amateur audio DBTs with music' can do this, you must also believe all amplifiers sound the same and the earth is flat.
> It is also fairly easy to establih a statistical preference: "9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas" will have been checked by the advertising standards authority for supporting evidence. As will "9 out of 10 cats prefer Kitty-Chunks".>
Know of any audio manufacturers making similar claims?
> > It is straightforward to prove an audible change.>
> If you believe 'amateur audio DBTs with music' can do this, you must also believe all amplifiers sound the same and the earth is flat.I cannot see how your response follows? It is for the audio industry to perform the tests not the customers although there is nothing to prevent enthusiasts from doing this if they wish. The more conventional sector of the audio industry performs such tests all the time as do many other areas of industry.
> > It is also fairly easy to establih a statistical preference: "9 out of 10 cats prefer Whiskas" will have been checked by the advertising standards authority for supporting evidence. As will "9 out of 10 cats prefer Kitty-Chunks".>
> Know of any audio manufacturers making similar claims?No but I have not looked. However, I suspect there is a rather large practical difficulty for the sector of the audio industry which would like to include such claims. If they could then this would be evidence since it is something which could be independently tested.
...the most risible statement I've seen here in weeks.
Struggling to follow your logic here.The subject of the thread was a non-techie and therefore could not draw on knowledge to determine what worked and what did not. He bought various kit, found they did not meet the advertised claims and posted accordingly. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Techies have a model of how the world works concerning audio and electrical kit built up by many bright people over the last couple of hundred years or so. Almost all are more than open to violations of the model because this where advances are made. If the claims made for the kit in question were true in a technical sense you would be swamped with VCs and PhDs trying to exploit the hell out of it. This is how the technical side of world works.
I am less able to comment on how the marketing side of our world works but am pretty sure this is where the learning needs to take place.
You say "He bought various kit, found they did not meet the advertised claims and posted accordingly" but nowhere does it say that he did that. In fact, from his comments and his comment about departing audiophiledom years ago, I'd say it appears obvious that he hasn't tried them. Not one of his comments refers to personal experience - they tend to refer to advertising claims or posts he received from others.
> You say "He bought various kit, found they did not meet the advertised
> claims and posted accordingly" but nowhere does it say that he did
> that.It says it in the bottom paragraph (bi-wiring, spikes, concrete plinths, external DACs, brasso,...).
That paragraph does not mention any of the items referred to specifically in the page. There is no indication that he tried any of them, and even some indications that he didn't try some, judging by his comments on them.
I cannot see why you believe he should reject the evidence of his own ears? He has established first hand that the unsubstantiated claims of all his "audiophile" products were not true. No rational person is then going to believe the unsubstianted claims of other "audiophile" products such as those listed on his page. Note it is the lack of evidence that is key and not whatever particular improvement to the sound is being claimed.Of course, had even one unsubstantiated claim proved true I am sure he would adopt the view you would appear to hold that some unsubstantiated claims for audiophile products might be true.
1- I see no reason for him or anyone to disregard the evidence of his own ears. If he doesn't hear anything, that means he doesn't hear anything and he definitely shouldn't spend money on it. If he doesn't h ear anything, however, that doesn't mean that no one else can hear anything. Others may hear something. If some people hear something and some don't, then there may or may not be something audible resulting from the item. People can and do make mistakes, and that's just as true of those who don't hear something as of those who do. Ultimately we all have to make our mind up about whether what we hear is worth the cost, and that's as true of the differences we hear between 2 different pairs of speakers we're auditioning as it is of the results of a tweak.2- I see no reason to believe that he is relying on the evidence of his own ears. As I said, his comments on individual items make no mention of hearing them, he specifically states of the Dual Beam Ultra Clarifier "I wasn't going to put this in, despite the forty odd emails I got about it. After all, it is only a hundred dollars (sale price! Get it while you can!).
Then I read the description. "...truly experience the reality of... ...Multimedia CD-ROMs and Photo CDs". I wonder if it'll work on my hard drive too - I'd really love to truly experience the reality of some text files I've got here." So he says he included it because others mentioned it, not because he's tried it and heard nothing, and he obviously hasn't tried one at home or he'd know whether it works on his hard drive. Other items have similar comments. Nowhere does he actually state that he has tried any of these items. In his comments at the bottom he does not mention owning any item discussed earlier. I don't think he has heard most of them, and he may not have heard any.3- I've said nothing in this thread to indicate that I believe any unsubstantiated claims to be true, or that any of the items listed actually work. All I have said in this thread is that I don't believe he has heard any of the items mentioned.
Having made that last point, I will say that the only item I have tried on his list are the cable elevators, and I think they do work noticeably with some cables but not with others. I think they insulate cables from static electricity in carpets and some cables seem to be noticably affected by static electricity while others don't.
I have no idea if any of the other items work or not and I've never seen any of the other items here in Australia.
Thanks for taking the time to post a considered response.> As I said, his comments on individual items make no mention of hearing them.
As far as I can see he has not claimed to have heard any but the ones he has owned. But why, based on his experience, would he need to hear them to know the unsubstantiated claims are almost certainly false and the advice of the technically educated about what is audible is almost certainly correct? There is substantial evidence and personal experience at one end of the scale and unsupported claims at the other. Given this, most people would start to draw some conclusions and, possibly, get a bit defensive although this would depend to some degree on what lead to the original purchases.
> I will say that the only item I have tried on his list are the cable elevators, and I think they do work noticeably with some cables but not with others.
Can I ask how you came to this conclusion and if you have a high confidence in it? Why do you feel so many apparently well informed people disagree and without feeling the need to test?
> I think they insulate cables from static electricity in carpets and some cables seem to be noticably affected by static electricity while others don't.
Why do you feel the need to appeal to science for an explanation when you have gone against conventional scientific reasoning in being able to hear a difference? Don't you feel the explanation may lie somewhere else?
"As far as I can see he has not claimed to have heard any but the ones he has owned." - Yes, but then he doesn't claim to have owned any of the items he ridicules.Read the page extremely carefully and critically - there is no evidence whatsoever that he has owned or listened to any of the products he ridicules.
"Can I ask how you came to this conclusion (about elevators) and if you have a high confidence in it? Why do you feel so many apparently well informed people disagree and without feeling the need to test?" - I came to it by listening and I have reasonable confidence in it. All of the 'well informed' people you refer to who have not felt the need to test this product have obviously never tried them, or they would effectively have tested them, and their 'information' often comes solely from pages like the one in the link being discussed here, which provide no scientific comment whatsoever on this product so they're not particularly well informed.
"Why do you feel the need to appeal to science for an explanation when you have gone against conventional scientific reasoning in being able to hear a difference? Don't you feel the explanation may lie somewhere else?" - I haven't gone against scientific reasoning, conventional or otherwise. At best scientific reasoning will strongly suggest that I shouldn't hear anything but conventional scientific reasoning has often been wrong and revised during the history of science. In this particular case, please share with us all the reasoning you refer to which suggests that I shouldn't hear anything - I'd like to know the scientific basis for your belief on this one.And that request is not an attempt to shift the onus of proof. You say that there are scientific reasons why I shouldn't hear anything so I'm simply asking you to tell me what those reasons are. Can you do that?
David Aiken
> there is no evidence whatsoever that he has owned or listened to any of the products he ridicules.We are in full agreement here.
My point was that neither he, nor I, nor most people with an interest/understanding of audio and/or the audio industry need to to listen them to know they do not meet the unsubstantiated claims for sound improvement. It is no different to going to the local market and seeing designer goods on sale for, apparently, 10% of their retail price. Most people do not need to inspect these goods to know they are not real. Instead they rely on their own knowledge of how things work.
> I came to it by listening and I have reasonable confidence in it.
Despite this, I have far more than reasonable confidence that they do not work (but not absolute because there is a minute possibility there is something extreme about the situation in your room) even though I have not heard them. I have this confidence because I have studied and learned a model of how electrical devices work. This model has been proven to be accurate in my work over the last few decades and it is the same model used by scientists, engineers and teachers in research, industry and schools throughout the world and for well over a 100 years. This really is something one can have confidence in because of the massive amount of evidence supporting it and none, that I am aware of, indicating that it is wrong for normal electroacoustic devices.
In addition, the chances of your having performed an experiment where a subtle audible difference could be reliably distinguished is negligible. Of course, I am assuming you are claiming a subtle improvement here rather than a "night and day" improvement which would be something else.
But do not worry, I do not have a switch box to sell or believe that careful unbiased experiments should be compulsory for every consumer before purchasing kit. Nonetheless, if comparing audio tweaks is part of your audio hobby it is something to consider if you are interested in whether the tweaks work or not.
> All of the 'well informed' people you refer to who have not felt the need to test this product have obviously never tried them, or they would effectively have tested them, and their 'information' often comes solely from pages like the one in the link being discussed here, which provide no scientific comment whatsoever on this product so they're not particularly well informed.
I doubt the page referred to is considered a source of reliable information by anyone including the author. I suspect the only intention was to amuse.
Instead, the "techies" would rely on their technical knowledge and the "arties" would rely on common sense having listened to what the "techies" had to say and having been to the local market.
> At best scientific reasoning will strongly suggest that I shouldn't hear anything but conventional scientific reasoning has often been wrong and revised during the history of science.
Utter nonsense. After Newton and the establishment of a sound mathematical basis for formulating and testing the laws of physics there have been incredibly few revisions of established laws. These revisions were to include observed wrinkles in extreme cases usually involving the motion of stars and sub atomic particles but not audio cable stands.
> In this particular case, please share with us all the reasoning you refer to which suggests that I shouldn't hear anything.
You have not significantly changed the electrical properties of your cable, the signal from your amplifier, the properties of your speaker or the acoustics of your room. Without changing one of these and changing it enough to be audible you will not reliably here a difference.
Of course, it is possible for all of us to hear all sorts of unreliable differences due to signals to our brain from sources other than our ears influencing our perception of sound. With the possible exception of a glass wine, I would suggest almost none are going to help with the appreciation of music.
You said - with a quote from me in '> <'s:"> there is no evidence whatsoever that he has owned or listened to any of the products he ridicules. <
We are in full agreement here.
My point was that neither he, nor I, nor most people with an interest/understanding of audio and/or the audio industry need to to listen them to know they do not meet the unsubstantiated claims for sound improvement. It is no different to going to the local market and seeing designer goods on sale for, apparently, 10% of their retail price. Most people do not need to inspect these goods to know they are not real. Instead they rely on their own knowledge of how things work."
And that directly contradicts what you implied in your first post here where you said:
"The subject of the thread was a non-techie and therefore could not draw on knowledge to determine what worked and what did not. He bought various kit, found they did not meet the advertised claims and posted accordingly. Seems pretty reasonable to me."
So originally you claimed he bought these products and personally found they didn't work.
Frankly, I don't think it's reasonable to make the sort of claims he makes about products he hasn't tried. There's nothing in them but ridicule, and no technical reasons given for the ridicule, but you seemed to find that ok through most of this thread.
Re the elevators: you imply that you've tried them and heard nothing. That doesn't mean that I heard nothing. I've used them now with 3 different sets of cables and the results have been diffeerent with each. They do nothing I can detect with my current cables apart from looking good which is why I still like using them, but my current cables pay attention to electrostatic charges in their construction while my previous ones don't. I also find they don't seem to produce a difference when used on polished floors, but do on floors carpeted with synthetic carpet - depending, of course on cable. Since what I hear varies on circumstances but seems to form a consistent pattern depending on the circumstances, I see reason to have some confidence in what I hear.
And if, as I suggested, it is due to electrostatic charge issues, then the materials used for cable dielectrics and how they are shielded will influence results so, given those factors, there may be a mild change introduced into cable properties by insulating them from floor coverings like carpet.
It's not a big thing and I would hardly suggest playing with elevators to solve major problems in a system, but they may be benificial in helping to get a little bit more out of a good system. Your mileage may definitely vary but nothing you've said proves they don't work - just that some people don't hear anything but that could be because of different circumstances or simply because of individual differences in hearing acuity, or a combination of both.
[SNIP] - I suggest we let people read what was said in the thread?> And if, as I suggested, it is due to electrostatic charge issues...
Do you believe the explanation for the improved sound lies with known science or some modification to known science?
If the former, I suggest you put some estimated numbers to the electrostatic charges involved to see what the effect is for a cable on the floor and a cable supported on a stand. You do not need precise numbers just order of magnitude estimates to see if the effect is large enough to be significant. Be prepared for disappointment though because rather a large number of scientists and engineers will have performed this estimate over the years since electrical equipment was first connected together with cables.
If the latter, then the potential rewards are enormous if you can perform a repeatable experiment to demonstrate the effect since, ultimately, this is the foundation of all science.
Whatever the explanation, just being able to demonstrate the effect will net over $1 million from various challenges that have been open for quite a few years now. If I, or millions of audio enthusiasts around the world, thought the device in question had even the slightest chance of creating an audibly discernible difference (doesn't need to be an improvement) we would be after the money like a shot.
> but nothing you've said proves they don't work
Yes this is what is so interesting. Not so much what I have said but that you seem able to hold a view that you know is against scientific reasoning and yet want it to be supported by a scientific explanation.
"Yes this is what is so interesting. Not so much what I have said but that you seem able to hold a view that you know is against scientific reasoning and yet want it to be supported by a scientific explanation."Hmm…
I've actually done some research and had it published, but in a very different field. I don't claim to be an electronics expert. I do know how hard it can be to prove something and I'm quite happy about the fact that the standards of scientific proof are quite rigorous, and I tried to comply with those standards in the research I did. I do try to be equally rigorous about examining my own perceptions when I think I hear something in my system.
I also know that science exists to explain what we observe - not to tell us what we must observe. I accept that our observations are sometimes mistaken and I think that science should be able to give reasons for those mistakes when they occur.
But, as I said, I do hear something with cable elevators under certain conditions. It seems to be dependent on floor covering and it seems to be dependent on the cable. If I'm mistaken, then it's a strange error - not the so called usual audiophile one of consistently hearing something that isn't there. So, while I could be mistaken, I'm inclined to think there's a little less chance of that simply because of the consistency of the pattern as to whether I hear something or not. I happen to think it would be nice if I heard something when they are used with my current cables but, as I said previously, I don't.
Since I happen to be faced with the fact that I do think I hear something under the conditions that I've mentioned, I naturally have wondered why that is the case and what could cause that pattern of observations. I haven't been able to come up with a reason which would explain the pattern in my thinking that I hear something if I actually am mistaken when I think I hear it, and I do happen to have a major in psychology in my undergraduate degree and my wife was a psychologist. I'm not totally ignorant about the causes of error. On the other hand, I've also tried to consider what explanation could account for what I hear if I happen to be right in my perceptions. The only thing I've been able to think of is electrostatic charges and I said that was the only reason I could think of. If the elevators actually do something, then they may well do it for some totally different reason.
I don't need to support my view that I hear something under some circumstances with a scientific explanation. If there was a scientific explanation that we were all aware of, you wouldn't be asking me to support my view. If I happen to feel the need for further support for my view that I hear something, I'll try and repeat my observations. I'll listen again over time with different cables and try taking the elevators to some friends homes to try them with different floor coverings since I don't intend changing the carpet in my current house just for a test. The reason I'll try and repeat my observations is that I haven't come across a scientific explanation for why they work, and I've never seen one from the manufacturer. Once again, I'd have no need to support my view if there was an accepted explanation.
Lack of an explanation doesn't mean that something doesn't work. Explanations don't make something work - they explain why it does work, and things that do work will continue to work regardless of whether or not there is an explanation and also whether or not any explanation given is true or false. The fact that something does work isn't enough in itself to guarantee that the explanation given for why it works is correct.
On the other hand, explanations for why things shouldn't work are a lot more messy. Such explanations can also be right or wrong. The explanation could be wrong and the thing may not work for a totally different reason, so the fact that something doesn't work doesn't guarantee the correctness of any explanation for why that should be the case. On the other hand, if the explanation is correct, it's often only correct under certain circumstances and the thing may actually work under other circumstances. It's actually quite difficult to come up with an explanation for why something can't work - period - because you have to be able to prove that that explanation is correct under every circumstance. That's particularly hard to do.
So take all of that where you will. At present I happen to think that there may be something that I hear under certain circumstances and I simply offered an opinion on what that was. I'm happy to consider reasons for why I could be mistaken. I have considered some in the past and I'm still prepared to consider some but if you offer a reason, you better be prepared to offer one that accounts for the pattern in when I think I hear something and when I don't. Don't bother to try presenting a reason that doesn't take the pattern into account because a reason that doesn't do that simply won't explain what I think I hear and when I think I hear it. And don't bother to simply say as you have that it doesn't comply with scientific reasoning unless you can show that there is absolutely no possibility of there being a scientific reason that you haven't considered. Scientific reasoning exists to explain observations - observations come first. We don't adjust our observations to conform to reason - we use reason to ensure that our scientific explanations conform with the facts of our observations.
So I suggest we just call an end to this discussion unless you've got a reason to offer for why I might be mistaken and why I make the mistake in the particular pattern in which I make it, and you're also prepared to seriously entertain the idea that the person mistaken may be you.
f
e
he probably believes that drinking the right kind of beer will get him more chicks, too. ;-)
.
.
This is not a techies view. The author is a non-techie who, over time, noticed that his more unwise purchases did not work as advertised. What is unusual is that instead of being embarrassed and keeping quiet he has posted on the web.There is nobody with a reasonable technical education in electrical and acoustical engineering (i.e. a techie) who would purchase such products in the first place (unless they were involved in selling such products of course).
In my environment, techies are the prople who keep our networks and computers running, and are usually interested in the latest cell phones, PDAs, and MP3 players. I assumed this species, not the electrical engineers. But really, the post was just intended to be a light hearted time waster, not a serious debate
no more
After a while you can't help but think about those folks who used to strongly believe in voodoo, bloodletting with leeches, etc. etc..
I reckon that since application of scientific method to stereo equipment is opposed by many, perhaps audiophilia will always be a haven for imagination and snake oil.
Not someone I'd pay any heed to personally.
he mentions polishing his AC plugs with Brasso in a past life...the jokes you could make from that.. :-D
... that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I mean, I thought everyone used Flitz. And he's still biwiring, while most sane people know that biwiring is a hoax :-)And he totally ignores the fact that folks don't really take this stuff seriously. It's just an amusing hobby, isn't it?
The guy seems more interested in the "hits" his site gets daily than ANYTHING that has to do with audio. He must love AA!Biwiring is a hoax? Curses...
*** This hear hobby is one fine hobby indeed...a passion ***
...that he's "ashamed" that his speakers are bi-wire equipped. Audiophilia must have been terribly painful for one so sensitive. :rolleyes:
:-)
BTW, the quote about lack of distortion making people sick was from Altmann, a person/company I have not come across before and apparently a maker of many things with quite spectacular claims
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: