|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
141.76.45.35
In Reply to: Re: Since no one has come out to say they disbelieve the Freeze Effect-does that mean it's accepted by everyone here? posted by morricab on April 11, 2007 at 06:11:22:
morricab wrote:>>I suspected you meant normal freezing and not cryogenics but it is better to err on the side of caution. <<
Brilliant. Did you surmise that all by yourself from the fact that I wrote, in the message you are responding to: "Just to make it clear for everyone, when I ask if you don't believe in the freeze effect, I am referring to improving sound by placing things in a domestic FREEZER"?
>>You can prove to me that it is a real and repeatable effect? <<
No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect. Keep in mind that I saw David Copperfield once try to turn Lake Erie into blood. And he failed. Repeatedly.
>>In that case then I would say you are simply wrong. Materials behave very differently at cryogenic temperatures than they do at normal merely "cold" temperatures, which to materials such as metals that are already frozen are not that cold at all. At cryogenic temperatures there are fundamental changes to the structure in metals that end up being permanent. Cryogenics is defined by NIST to start at -180°C.<<
Save your strawman for someone else. You must be the 10th guy here now trying to argue with me that cryo is different temps than a domestic freezer, WHEN I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE!!!
Follow Ups:
"No son, you're seriously confused. YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". "I never said this.
As PatD has pointed out your the confused one, Son. No need to rehash your lack of understanding about scientific method.
"Save your strawman for someone else."No strawman just trying to get at whether or not you think the "freezer effect" that you seem to think is a real effect is the same as the effects reported from cryogenic treatment. If you think it is the same mechanism of action then I would disagree with you. If you have another proposal for a mechanism then please state it.
No one is arguing that cryo temperature is much lower than the home freezer. That much is obvious to everyone. You have simply constructed a strawman argument.One shouldn't get too hung up on the temperature thing. That is if one is actually serious about getting to the bottom of this thing.
...in question is not so interested.
to claim to know what I am interested in and not. Why just tonight I made a big tweak to my system. I added electrostatic subwoofers to my smaller electrostatic panels with an active crossover and a second amp! I love to experiment with audio.
And all this time I thought he was one of the good guys.
x
nt
PR
"YOU are the one who said "the photo (in the freezer) is not a real and repeatable effect". Ergo, the onus is on YOU to prove to me that it is not a real and repeatable effect."But one cannot prove the null hypothesis and that is what morricab somewhat carelessly stated. The real problem is to prove that freezing pictures improves or even changes the sound. And the burden of proof is on those who do.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: