Funniest snake oil theories

[jan.didden]

+10

 

[Carlp]

I can’t keep up with this thread

Has anyone conducted a properly controlled test on any Bybee product?

No, I'm pretty sure ABX tests are far too expensive and require too many repetitions to be done properly by anyone here.

 

[Carlp]

One side seems to understand very little science at all, including how science works. Nobody has said that QED is the final word in physics - in fact we expect it to be replaced/enhanced one day. What we are saying is that when this happens it won't be because an audiophile has directional cables; in the meantime the physics we have is perfectly adequate to explain how audio systems actually work.


Any study which claims to find out what people hear must take place in such a way that it is only hearing which is tested. Done properly, it is extremely likely that it will be found that some people hear better than others. However, what usually happens is that people who are quite sure that they hear better than others then find that under test conditions they only hear what others hear. Instead of admitting that they do not have golden ears they blame 'test stress' for their lack of performance.


No. Statistics can show how likely it is that a person with outlier results has genuine ability or is just being lucky. For this you need to have done a sufficient number of tests, of course.

You seem to cast this discussion as being between those with facts, and those with conventional knowledge which they are clinging to. You are wrong on both counts. They do not have facts, they just have anecdotes. We know our knowledge will one day be extended/replaced, but we also have the fact that our current knowledge is adequate to explain far more demanding applications of science than audio electronics.

Nothing here is inconsistent with what I wrote. Read it again.

 

[jan.didden]

No, I'm pretty sure ABX tests are far too expensive and require too many repetitions to be done properly by anyone here.

Depends how seriously interested you are.
I did.

Jan

 

[DF96]

others are throwing out arguments that suggest QM and QED are the final word in physics

Nobody has said that QED is the final word in physics - in fact we expect it to be replaced/enhanced one day.

I cannot see how these two remarks are not "inconsistent". They appear to say opposite things.

 

[billshurv]

I think Carl is stirring the pot for his amusement as there is nothing on TV at the moment

 

[Markw4]

However, what usually happens is that people who are quite sure that they hear better than others then find that under test conditions they only hear what others hear. Instead of admitting that they do not have golden ears they blame 'test stress' for their lack of performance.

That may be what usually happens, but there may in fact be some kind of test stress affecting test results for some people.

If so, there may be some people who thought they were better listeners than they actually are, and some people who's listening abilities were not correctly identified by the particular test.

My guess would be that we might find some people in both groups if we ever decided to spend research money to find out.

 

[VenusFly]

Well I would be stressed if I were placed in front of a $50,000 audio system and expected to listen to something that I haven't got at home and have never heard before. If it were up to me I would only change one component at a time and yes a room change would count as a component of the audio system.

 

[Max Headroom]

I'm waiting to hear one side say "I know what we're saying flies in the face of what we know about physics, but I also know what I'm hearing" (instead of trying to explain it in terms they don't fully understand). And waiting for the other side to say "I understand you feel like you hear a change, but it doesn't make sense given what we know about physics, though maybe there's something we don't know that might someday explain it" (instead of acting like the laws of physics are immutable and fully known or acknowledging that maybe someone else can hear things they can't). Those two phrases, worded this way, acknowledge what the other side is saying without agreeing to it nor casting aspersions to those who say it.

Hello Carl. Thank you for putting into words what I am trying to communicate.

I am not say that standard level physics is wrong, but I am saying that Maxwell is not sufficient to describe energy transmission and transduction at the deeper level, and that I observe that there are subtle interesting effects going on at deeper levels and according to the conductor and the transducer.

Dan.

 

[billshurv]

You mean you 'feel' that there is a problem with Maxwell's equations, but have no evidence or testable hypothesis?

 

[jasse]

OK, because someone finds this quote worthy, I feel the need to also post.

Although neither side will likely admit it, there are 2 sets of "closed minds" here, though I personally wouldn't call them closed, just not yet able to see or at least acknowledge the other side of the story. Perhaps one side doesn't understand some of the science being discussed and how their statements fly in the face of the facts as we know them, but others are throwing out arguments that suggest QM and QED are the final word in physics and there's no way people could be hearing what they say they are hearing. Or suggest that double blind audio studies are infallible at capturing what EVERYONE hears without allowing that perhaps there IS a 5% (or 1%?) who can hear much more than others.

BTW, that's not a scientific assessment of double-blind testing. DBTs do capture the average response pretty well, but they fail miserably at capturing the outliers. In fact, they are DESIGNED to capture the average, and statistical analyses used for them can't (thus far) evaluate the potential real existence of the outliers. I know statistics well...

In short, these kinds of discussions don't have to be personal, and they shouldn't be.

I'm waiting to hear one side say "I know what we're saying flies in the face of what we know about physics, but I also know what I'm hearing" (instead of trying to explain it in terms they don't fully understand). And waiting for the other side to say "I understand you feel like you hear a change, but it doesn't make sense given what we know about physics, though maybe there's something we don't know that might someday explain it" (instead of acting like the laws of physics are immutable and fully known or acknowledging that maybe someone else can hear things they can't). Those two phrases, worded this way, acknowledge what the other side is saying without agreeing to it nor casting aspersions to those who say it.

I find I learn a lot about people from HOW they say things. Those who attack people instead of their ideas sound, frankly, like they feel threatened...

But then, again, it's always nice to have some laughs while I listen to music at night. So carry on.

Well said.
I on the other hand, who has swotted one semester philosophy at university level and learned that no matter the subject, there's always possible to see things from more than one point of view, have come to peace with the fact that everybody else is wrong.
But I also enjoying the hell out of this thread.
Rant on.

 

[jasse]

I cannot see how these two remarks are not "inconsistent". They appear to say opposite things.

Is this overuse of negations ment to induce more ambiguition to this thread ???

 

[kaputt]

I am not say that standard level physics is wrong, but I am saying that Maxwell is not sufficient to describe energy transmission and transduction at the deeper level, and that I observe that there are subtle interesting effects going on at deeper levels and according to the conductor and the transducer.

You have means to "observe energy transmission and transduction at the deeper level"? I'm curious what machinery you are using and what depth are approachable for you with these means.

 

[NATDBERG]

BTW, that's not a scientific assessment of double-blind testing. DBTs do capture the average response pretty well, but they fail miserably at capturing the outliers. In fact, they are DESIGNED to capture the average, and statistical analyses used for them can't (thus far) evaluate the potential real existence of the outliers. I know statistics well...

Outliers are often deliberately removed precisely because they don't help with analysis. only after failing with a theory do you then look at the outliers to see if they are nothing but noise or are indicative of something.

In a subjective assessment with human subjects, we are talking about something completely different from physics or chemistry. Social science, any study of human behaviour is hardly even a science - it's mainly guess work because you cannot remove thousands of variables from the equation like you can with physics etc. It is reduced to a science of data analysis and averages and assumptions (i.e. bias by those making those assumptions before data analysis) - exactly the kind of study where removing outliers is absolutely necessary for understanding.

 

[Speedskater]

It seems that the believers have a list of reasons why the rest of the world can't hear the differences that they hear. Reasons like our equipment isn't good enough or our hears arn't good enough.

On the other hand, the believers have a long list of reasons why they can't hear the differences when asked to demonstrate those differences.

 

[Evenharmonics]

No, I'm pretty sure ABX tests are far too expensive and require too many repetitions to be done properly by anyone here.

Typical straw-man argument by those who don't like the test results. It's commonly used by shills of high-end / snake oil audio products.

 

[00940]

Question. Is the difference in sound quality of a DAC being powered by a toroidal transformer and one being powered by an E-Core transformer. Is that snake oil? or is that founded in science.

Let's take this example to explicit two kind of claims that can be made.

Someone exchange a toroidal transformer for an E-Core in his DAC. He listens to it and judges that it sounds better. Should that claim be dismissed ? Not quite. There are reasons why it could be so in a particular case, depending on the implementation of his DAC: noise from the mains being more or less filtered, pattern of magnetic fields, etc. There's no certainty but at least it's possible.

Now someone paints three little white dots on the enclosure of his DAC. He judges that the sound is much better. No further comment is needed.

In the first case, we can honestly answer "maybe you hear something". The "maybe" expresses some likeliness.
In the second case, to say "maybe you hear something" would be pure politeness and the likeliness would tend towards 0. It would be dishonest to not mention it.

 

[Carlp]

I cannot see how these two remarks are not "inconsistent". They appear to say opposite things.

I grant you that. I parsed my words a little carelessly, but you are right. My apologies.

 

[Carlp]

Depends how seriously interested you are.
I did.

Jan

You're willing to spend many 10s of thousands of dollars on this?

 

[Charles Darwin]

In the first case, we can honestly answer "maybe you hear something". The "maybe" expresses some likeliness.
In the second case, to say "maybe you hear something" would be pure politeness and the likeliness would tend towards 0. It would be dishonest to not mention it.

1st case answer:"MAY BE you hear something."

2nd case answer:'May be YOU hear something."