I have always found it risky to confuse sincerity with facts
jan
Ah but it is the lack of facts that raises the issue! I have a reviewer's opinion and the crowd calling for his head. Neither side has acceptable measurements.
Ah at least it is not the manure beneath me!
My argument is not with the guy selling the stuff, it is with the folks who assume the reviewer is insincere. Here is someone who says to the best of my ability to try things out these work for me and here is the data on the equipment I used.
The review is a bit of data and one can certainly look at the reviewers qualifications, their reviews of other equipment one may be familiar with or even other reviewers testing the same product.
I just object to the outright dismissal of others OPINIONS due to biases. (No matter how well intentioned or even founded.)
But I do understand why folks like to do it.
Come on Ed, when you read that description and 'arguments' on the website, you know the score.
It's all right to give everyone a fair chance, but there's a limit to credibility.
jan
Two women were sharing a hospital room. The first is bragging about her children. "My son the doctor has just invented a vaccine for cancer!"
"That's nice" said the second.
"My daughter just was appointed to the supreme court!"
"That's nice" said the second.
"My youngest just graduated at the top of his class at Harvard!"
"That's nice" said the second.
"And what about you?"
"I just finished charm school."
"And what did you learn there?"
"To say that's nice instead of Bool Flop!"
So it is the lack of civility that I object to. It seems most folks start out with the presumption of fraud. If I witness a crime I consider it an obligation among the civilized to stand forward. (And the common sense not to get involved has been demonstrated to me to be an easier approach more than once!)
I think the folks involved are sincere as the claims could at least be possible, you don't, but we should be able to agree to be civil about it at the minimum.
Trouble is that I feel claims like "runs 2 years on a battery, but agitates the air in the entire listening room", to be an insult of my intelligence.
In other words, to take it for granted that I am that stupid, is not particular civilized in my book.
Magura
The onus of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims, especially if they are selling something. I attach no significance whatsoever to the opinions of a journalist. Where is the peer reviewed evidence for air stiction, for example? I don't assume fraud, as stupidity and self-deception are equally possible.
No Ed, people read about it on the website, think for themselves (what happened to that routine anyway) and then conclude what they conclude.
My personal conclusion is that the description is bogus.
What's 'uncivil' about that?
jan
This thread started by mentioning the reviews of the product! Now if it were about the product as derived from the website, that to me would be different. The issue is that reviewers have given what seems to be, a not in the mainstream line of thought product, good reviews and that is the subject of derision.
As I mentioned I could postulate possible methods for such a product to change the sound field. It may not be the claimed mechanism, but the possibility exists. So the reviewers who I believe to not be in league with the devil may be reporting on an interesting phenomenon.
If even more reviewers or friends report that the product offers an improvement in sound reproduction quality from this product then no matter what is claimed it may be worthwhile looking at what is really happening.
The best example of misapplied science might just be Ohm's law. Ohm used a length of wire for his variable resistor. He had to use thermocouples for the voltage source as he could not get stable results from a voltaic pile. The other notable experiment at the time used salt water for the resistor. The assumption was that adding salt increased conductivity. As there was no linear relation between adding salt and the voltage current relationship, Ohm's work not only was out of the mainstream, but seemed bogus.
Now what Ohm missed is the internal resistance of his power supply and that if he used voltaic piles with much larger plate area then those results would have been closer to his equation predicting a constant V/I relationship.
But laugh as they did at the time, we remember Ohm's work.
Now this product is almost certainly not in the same league, but to dismiss positive reviews because we believe the explanation is nonsense is to me an error. To do it rudely is just plain inappropriate for a public forum.
Last edited:
Not at all. Facts and figures are not decided by a democracy.
You perfectly well know how 'trends' and reputaions and peer pressure can shape preceptions and how products become a hit.
"Even if 50 million French say something wrong, it still is wrong" - Anatoyli France
We are not on the same page. In short the issue is not does the product do what it claims, but is it fair to be derogatory to reviewers for giving their positive opinions of the performance of the product?
There is a difference between the due diligence expected from a self posted internet review, a popular periodical or a scientific journal. Thus the merit we attach to each differs. But I suspect most here already have an idea of Sam Tellig's reviews merit.
I do not suggest you need to treat such reviews as fact. Only that when you disagree, to do so in a polite manner as you almost always do.
Now if it turns out there is great merit in this product, I suspect a DIY version just might be under $25!
Holger, not Hager. Science Citation Index shows nothing from him. Amazon shows a book on economics, but it could be another Holger Stein.
“The air molecules in the listening room are propelled through the loudspeaker and thus transmit the sound. In order to elongate the air molecules from their rest position it is necessary to spend energy. It is easier to move them once they’re in motion. This phenomenon is similar to static and dynamic friction.
“To move a large rock is not an easy task. But once in motion it’s more easily pushed forward. The SteinMusic Harmonizer works on a similar principle at an ethereal level. The air, which is not actually moved, is charged with information, producing the same effect. It is elongated from its rest position without much effort and is thus able to transport sound of a different quality."
Some years ago my wife decorated our showroom with rose quartz. When we powered up the system we had the impression that the sound had changed. It was not a big difference, more like moving a curtain into a different position. We wondered what this was about. When we moved the quartz we thought that it made a small but detectable change in the music. How could this be? Physically, the atomic cores of these crystals have a very regular structure. Indeed, the electrons around the atomic core are also ordered. This uniformly of order is transferred to the neighboring electrons, thus imparting this structure to the surrounding air.
“The Magic Diamonds differ from the Magic Stones primarily with respect to activation. Here we use techniques based on quantum physics that operate at a higher intensity than do the Magic Stones. Their application within the Harmonizer system is best applied in conjunction with Magic Stones. Four to five pieces in the right places will work quite effectively. Skilled placement impacts image size in all three dimensions. Like the Magic Stones, the Magic Diamonds are made of a carbon-filled epoxy resin and six active elements in an exactly balanced ratio.
quote: Holger Stein
I don't care what any of the reviewers say, this is about Physics, something I know a bit about. The above is... it's beyond quantum physics. If it does what he says it does he deserves a Nobel prize, as he says it works on the Etherial level. If he has equipment to mesure variations on the etherial level he must have gotten them from aliens. No, i'm not kidding, because they don't exist on earth.
“To move a large rock is not an easy task. But once in motion it’s more easily pushed forward. The SteinMusic Harmonizer works on a similar principle at an ethereal level. The air, which is not actually moved, is charged with information, producing the same effect. It is elongated from its rest position without much effort and is thus able to transport sound of a different quality."
Some years ago my wife decorated our showroom with rose quartz. When we powered up the system we had the impression that the sound had changed. It was not a big difference, more like moving a curtain into a different position. We wondered what this was about. When we moved the quartz we thought that it made a small but detectable change in the music. How could this be? Physically, the atomic cores of these crystals have a very regular structure. Indeed, the electrons around the atomic core are also ordered. This uniformly of order is transferred to the neighboring electrons, thus imparting this structure to the surrounding air.
“The Magic Diamonds differ from the Magic Stones primarily with respect to activation. Here we use techniques based on quantum physics that operate at a higher intensity than do the Magic Stones. Their application within the Harmonizer system is best applied in conjunction with Magic Stones. Four to five pieces in the right places will work quite effectively. Skilled placement impacts image size in all three dimensions. Like the Magic Stones, the Magic Diamonds are made of a carbon-filled epoxy resin and six active elements in an exactly balanced ratio.
quote: Holger Stein
I don't care what any of the reviewers say, this is about Physics, something I know a bit
about. The above is... it's beyond quantum physics. If it does what he says it does he deserves a Nobel prize, as he says it works on the Etherial level. If he has equipment to mesure variations on the etherial level he must have gotten them from aliens. No, i'm not kidding, because they don't exist on earth.
Last edited:
Did Ohm predict a linear relationship or observe one? If he actually predicted it, on what grounds? They didn't have a good model of the inside of conductors, so was it a lucky hunch?simon7000 said:
People have been known to get the right answer by a totally wrong method - in science and maths this is known as a mistake, but everyone else would be happy to accept it as a success.
I think it would be better to say that the explanation offered for these audio toys is not wrong, but "not even wrong" i.e. not as good as merely wrong.
You are very polite! I don't think "beyond" is the word I would use. Maybe "not"? It raises the question: in what sense of the word is Stein a physicist? Degree from real university? Industrial R&D leading to conventional products? Published peer-reviewed research?revboden said:
Last edited:
Ohm's conclusion based on observation was that for a given length of wire V/I was constant. The constant was proportional to the length of wire. He also had the temperature of the thermocouples in there but by keeping the temperature constant we got what we now call Ohm's law.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.