That is just one of many possibilities. However the RF source is closer to the loudspeaker, this is a very well know instrument without reports of that kind of problem and the effect is also heard by ear.
There are lots of things that can cause a 1 db difference at the low levels involved.
The issue is interesting and certainly not proved.
However the issue I raised was, it is not nice to make fun of the reviewers who also seem to think the device does something.
Now the manufacturer may or may not be using RF I haven't ever looked at his device.
If it is the case that he actually found that low levels of RF do affect sound transmission and his response was to build and sell his magic boxes to the few who have the money and desire to play with such a tweak, then he probably has actually missed the boat! It might have been better for him to publish the results. (Now there is an issue with unaccredited individuals getting published and a possibility of intellectual theft, but the AES journal would have been a good bet.) Then as an acknowledged expert he would have better standing selling his gizmo.
His choice to sell it to a tiny market at a price that in my opinion is actually suitable for the small volume of customers and high standards was interesting. Now the nonsense explanation given for his device or lack of one would in my opinion make him a charlatan not someone guilty of fraud. Of course this is speculation since I do not know if his device works on RF or even if my readings are completely accurate.
Now if there is an issue with RF increasing the passage of sound, there might be quite significant military and commercial applications.
Last edited:
No it is clear he actually has done these types of measurements and understands the real in the field issues.
One db is a 10% difference in almost any other type of measurement that is an easy difference to measure. Here it ain't!
There is a big difference between the approach of asking a question about the measurement and source of errors and offering an opinion as to what could be an error without that experience.
Again the issue is not does the gizmo work, it is torching the reviewers without adequate information.
Leaving aside the difference between a charlatan and a fraud (afaik, tbey're synonyms), the reviewers are deserving of all the opprobrium that one can muster. They uncritically accept an explanation geared for the ignorant and gullible, don't bother doing any real testing, and fill page after page with breathless prose and regurgitated hype. In my mind, a responsible reviewer actually REVIEWS- he finds out if a device actually works or not, how it works, and honestly reports his findings. If a reviewer doesn't do these things, he's incompetent.
And since you have no idea what's in the boxes or even if there's ANYTHING in the boxes, your latest speculation has no bearing whatever on this particular fraudulent device. First ultrasound, now RF, what's next?
wikipedia said:
So we disagree on meanings, to me fraud is a specific crime with a narrow definition.
The reviewers offer their opinions and you are free to take them for however you wish. There are actually some technical reviews you may take those more seriously than others.
Now my trying to see if there was any effect that could explain the results tried three different approaches two produced no interesting results, one gets interesting. That is part of the fun. Now if I were in academia I would not mention speculation or silly negative results, but I don't mind showing the naked laundry or the process here.
If I just announce that RF reduces some acoustic losses without any chain of experimentation or the ever so popular around here website misquote it would appear to be nonsense. (And still might be!)
So if you want to dismiss strange reviews agreeing on something extraordinary and dismiss anything outside your ken you might just miss something interesting. Then again you might save some time!
I also suspect the reason why the thingies get reviewed is because of word of mouth not the advertising nonsense, but again that is just speculation.
The reviewers offer their opinions and you are free to take them for however you wish. There are actually some technical reviews you may take those more seriously than others.
Now my trying to see if there was any effect that could explain the results tried three different approaches two produced no interesting results, one gets interesting. That is part of the fun. Now if I were in academia I would not mention speculation or silly negative results, but I don't mind showing the naked laundry or the process here.
If I just announce that RF reduces some acoustic losses without any chain of experimentation or the ever so popular around here website misquote it would appear to be nonsense. (And still might be!)
So if you want to dismiss strange reviews agreeing on something extraordinary and dismiss anything outside your ken you might just miss something interesting. Then again you might save some time!
I also suspect the reason why the thingies get reviewed is because of word of mouth not the advertising nonsense, but again that is just speculation.
Last edited:
I read the review, it's hilarious. It's apparent to me that this guy is in the back pocket of the manufacturer or seriously deranged. However, the affluent boneheads that actually buy this product deserve to lose their money and will no doubt be interested in the New Improved version that will come out sometime later.
I've got a question for john curl and Simon7000, who seem to be the principal defenders of this product.
Have you ever encountered an audio product claiming to improve sound quality which you felt you couldn't endorse?
If so, what was/were it/they and what were your reasons?
In particular I'd be interested to know your reaction to the claims that ripping CDs to a regular hard disk (rotating platter) results in an inferior sound to ripping the same track to a solid-state device such as a USB memory stick, even when the process produces files with verifiably identical data.
Have you ever encountered an audio product claiming to improve sound quality which you felt you couldn't endorse?
If so, what was/were it/they and what were your reasons?
In particular I'd be interested to know your reaction to the claims that ripping CDs to a regular hard disk (rotating platter) results in an inferior sound to ripping the same track to a solid-state device such as a USB memory stick, even when the process produces files with verifiably identical data.
It happens, BUT I do not call the product 'fraudulent'. I just say I can't hear any difference and I do not understand the explanation as to why I should hear a difference. I don't like wasting my time or money on stuff I can't hear. However, I still might be wrong, and there still might be something to the product's effect on the sound in some other situation. I try not to judge.
Now, where do I draw the line?
Well, 2 days ago, an old girlfriend of mine told me that someone had designed an auto engine decades ago, that took 2 gallons of gas to get across the USA. It apparently ran off 'fumes'. THIS is told her, was NOT true. She hasn't spoken to me since. '-)
Now, where do I draw the line?
Well, 2 days ago, an old girlfriend of mine told me that someone had designed an auto engine decades ago, that took 2 gallons of gas to get across the USA. It apparently ran off 'fumes'. THIS is told her, was NOT true. She hasn't spoken to me since. '-)
Last edited:
Decades ago someone invented an engine which runs on water. The oil companies bought the patents and suppressed them, or killed the inventor (depending on which version of the story you hear). If the inventor is still alive, he probably makes audio add-ons - much safer, and no need to prove they work.
Yep...Big Oil does not keep a close eye on audio gimcrackery the way they police purveyors of 100 MPG carburetors (fuel injectors?)
I have actually written reviews where I advised not to buy the product! At least one of these may still even be up on the web!
I do not endorse the product in question nor have I ever tried it. My point is that when a group of folks listen to something and report something is there, it is at least rude to poke fun at them without actual knowledge of the product.
As to ripping CD's my stand has always been if I can hear something I can measure it. There is more to data transfer than bit errors there are also timing errors, so until those are compared you don't have the full picture. (Of course there could be other issues such as system noise created by the different sources affecting the D/A and amplifier.)
Last edited:
When the proffered explanation for how the product works is clearly nonsense, the only question worth asking is whether the author believes it himself. The same question we ask politicians: is he a fool or a knave?simon7000 said:
Before I would buy an audio gizmo I need two things:
1. evidence that it works
2. a plausible explanation of how it works
I don't accept journalists' anecdotes for (1). I don't accept pseudo-science nonsense for (2). Am I being unreasonable? I would actually rather people honestly say "I haven't a clue how it works" than be offered nonsense made up from scientific-sounding phrases.
OK, maybe I was being a bit harsh. I might settle for 1.5, if 2 are not available. Anecdote that it works with a proper explanation, or hard evidence that it works combined with at least some hand waving about how it works.
People who write the blurb for these items need to be more aware of the old saying "better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it".
People who write the blurb for these items need to be more aware of the old saying "better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and confirm it".
Perhaps the ad-copy by Steinmusic is just to put us all on the wrong track. And this device is simply a Schumann resonator? See link below.
Acoustic Revive - REVIEW - RR 77 Generator - SCHUMANN RESONANCE
Acoustic Revive - REVIEW - RR 77 Generator - SCHUMANN RESONANCE
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.