I would like to see a controlled and documented ABX test anyway.
I mean, its not like - OK that's the proof that they actually work, is it. Its not paranormal, but as I doubt it can be detected in ABX, from my wiev it's.... expensive.
But a failed challange had been more interesting.
Good work serengetiplains!
/
I mean, its not like - OK that's the proof that they actually work, is it. Its not paranormal, but as I doubt it can be detected in ABX, from my wiev it's.... expensive.
But a failed challange had been more interesting.
Good work serengetiplains!
/
Sere, (sorry, I don't have your short name) RIGHT ON! NOW, this is RESEARCH! 'Skeptics' can be amazing! They don't look at the patent, test the product with test equipment, or read the results of others. They can JUST PRESUME that the object is fake with a 'story' attached. IF the Shakti Stones don't do what they measure that they do on their website, then THEY are in line for a lawsuit! Get real folks!
Also, Kuei, RIGHT ON, as well! We are kindred spirits, yet we do not know one another. "In another time and place, we could be friends". (Probably out of some movie or TV series) ;-)
Also, Kuei, RIGHT ON, as well! We are kindred spirits, yet we do not know one another. "In another time and place, we could be friends". (Probably out of some movie or TV series) ;-)
john curl said:
Hi John, my name is Tom by the way, I'm a lawyer practicing high-level commercial litigation in Vancouver Canada. Yes, straight from the horse's mouth, James Randi is concerned only with debunking claims asserting the existence of the paranormal, as the legally applicable wording in his "Application for Claimant Status" makes clear. His $1M test does not apply to Shakti stones.
The presumption I've seen in certain persons on this forum that designers of such products as Shakti stones are frauds is not only objectionable to those who attempt to make a living selling products to which they dedicate no small time and energy, it borders (or in many instances I've come across, actually crosses the line of) defamation. A lawyer needing income would have a heyday on this forum. I've seen instances, even, where you were defamed. Then as the story goes, when I did something to deter one such instance of what I felt to be defamation against you, my post was sent to Texas. Unprofessional, in my books.
Konnichiwa,
Then it would likely apply even less to a wide range of other Audio Esotherica, normally loved to be hated by the Audio Pelicanists. Good work, thank you.
It also removed Randi from the group of Charlatans and into the group where it is just shoddy research of the subject.
Meanwhile I suggest to others (and this may include the Great Randi) to make fewer a priori assumptions and to keep an open mind. After all, better an open mind than an open leg....
Sayonara
serengetiplains said:
Then it would likely apply even less to a wide range of other Audio Esotherica, normally loved to be hated by the Audio Pelicanists. Good work, thank you.
It also removed Randi from the group of Charlatans and into the group where it is just shoddy research of the subject.
Meanwhile I suggest to others (and this may include the Great Randi) to make fewer a priori assumptions and to keep an open mind. After all, better an open mind than an open leg....
Sayonara
If Randi is indeed backing off that's a shame. I was looking forward to blind test.
Meanwhile, Shakti-innovations might gain in credability if they published some absorption spectra and were a bit more forthcomming with a theoretical explanation about which of the absorbed RF bands interact with loudspeakers and the nature of the interaction. I am personally still keptical about how a passive object that may absorb radiation in the Mhz and low GHz bands is going to have an effect on loudspeakers. You know, if the claim had focused on an interaction with MOSFETs (where DIYers often have to cope with RF at least in the form of oscillations), the prima facie plausability would have been substantialy higher.
Meanwhile, Shakti-innovations might gain in credability if they published some absorption spectra and were a bit more forthcomming with a theoretical explanation about which of the absorbed RF bands interact with loudspeakers and the nature of the interaction. I am personally still keptical about how a passive object that may absorb radiation in the Mhz and low GHz bands is going to have an effect on loudspeakers. You know, if the claim had focused on an interaction with MOSFETs (where DIYers often have to cope with RF at least in the form of oscillations), the prima facie plausability would have been substantialy higher.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
You are correct, Kuei. James Randi has set himself up as a cultural counterpoint, if you will, to those who assert the existence of that which Randi might style as repeatably unverifiable. In that general supernatural, paranormal category are UFOs, Sylvia Browne predictions of the future, remote viewing, hands-on healing, etc etc.
I admire that he has put himself on the line with his $1M challenge, and I don't think it a slight against him that he does not, I think, well understand things like Shakti stones. He probably is not an audio type, and probably has little experience with subject matters dotting the pages of this forum. I can understand why he would issue his challenge against what he probably thought was a blob of manicured concrete named "Shakti" and bearing a $200+ price tag that, when placed anywhere in a room with an operating stereo system, magically produced audible effects. He just misunderstood what Shakti stones are about.
I think his challenge, on the other hand, would apply to "put a cd in the freezer with a picture of yourself and when playing the cd touch the picture and you'll hear a difference ..."
But don't get me wrong, I do not subscribe to the view that, just because we cannot explain it, the thing or effect in question does not exist. That view is silly and implies NO FURTHER ROOM for scientific exploration or development.
serengetiplains said:
The basic test for a defamation suit is "substatial damage to reputation." So far I've seen on this thread I've seen the stones touted by a famous, and respected, audio designer, and an audio engineer and reviewer. I've seen the hobbyists be skeptical with humor.
Throwing around defamation is a bit of a stretch dont you think?
serengetiplains said:
No offense to you, but in my opinion, and by your statements above, it seems lawyers are always looking for a buck.
If a "lawyer needing income" is looking for a fight, Randi would be the only shot for defamation.
Leave this forum alone...
sam9 said:
Frankly, I don't care much about absorption spectra. Unless, of course, they involve comparisons to roast chickens. What I want to see is actual controlled listening tests. Anecdotes are a nice start but a lousy beginning. This stuff is being promoted and sold for money, it's not a diy project.
Lusso5 said:Leave this forum alone...
I won't leave this forum alone because I am part of it and I have an interest in how it operates. You are wrong on your definition of defamation. Damages are presumed and need not be proven in any case where a person's professional or commercial reputation is diminished. The threshold for proving diminishment is lower than you think.
But I don't want to argue law, especially if I have to teach it. I *am* concerned that less is done than I think required about statements imputing or insinuating fraud on the part of certain audio designers. Reread this thread and you'll find, in fact, that some posters wrote such statements.
Lusso5 said:
What do you mean I'm after a buck? Be a man and have some respect. My concern is for real people, which is the very concern driving the law of defamation, which is: tread very lightly when a person's means of living is concerned because little by way of insinuation is actually required to financially hurt someone.
I don't much either. It was my response to the many comments that the stones really do have a physical as opposed to paranormal "theory of operation". This was my way of raising a eyebrow and muttering, "Oh, really. Show me more."
BTW, I saw "I, Robot" on Tuesday and now when checking this thread, I can't get the scene out of my mind where Will Smith sneezes.
serengetiplains said:
Tom, I wasn't directing that toward you. Unless you plan on suing anyone this thread for defamation...
I disagree. http://www.adidem.org/articles/DS5.htmlserengetiplains said:
serengetiplains said:
I've followed this thread since it's first post. Some would think KYW thinks were all frauds because were all "prisoners of our minds." By your definition Tom, "damage is presumed", and I presume he thinks we're all too stuipid to hear the difference the stones can make.
Real info regarding
defamation on the internet if anyone is interested.
Regarding the stones, I've looked for a place to review them, but I have to drive a couple of hours either way. When business, or otherwise takes me that direction, I will do a review and post it here.
The Shakti devices are sold as things which are claimed to make your hifi system sound better. All that side stuff about microwaves is irrelevant- these are purported explanations for a claimed effect, and the effect itself has yet to be shown to exist. That's step one.
It doesn't take ABX (though I think that technique is useful for other things). It just takes proper experimental design of a blind test. And a roast chicken.
It doesn't take ABX (though I think that technique is useful for other things). It just takes proper experimental design of a blind test. And a roast chicken.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.