Wow... Your pet rock really has grown since the last time we saw it!
I have a feeling a lot of these snake oils are simply banking on the placebo effect. Other than that, it should be that the shapes of certain "devices" might break up standing waves, or change how quickly certain reflections get to the listener. Which very well could improve SQ. And it could be that breaking down these standing waves and such is amplified by the placebo effect. Regardless, I don't think most of these "devices" are worth the amount they are advertised for. But then again, most other "art" doesn't seem to fit the bill for me either...
I have a feeling a lot of these snake oils are simply banking on the placebo effect. Other than that, it should be that the shapes of certain "devices" might break up standing waves, or change how quickly certain reflections get to the listener. Which very well could improve SQ. And it could be that breaking down these standing waves and such is amplified by the placebo effect. Regardless, I don't think most of these "devices" are worth the amount they are advertised for. But then again, most other "art" doesn't seem to fit the bill for me either...
i wish you would. From wikipedia:
While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and so it is important to ensure that science as a whole can eliminate this bias.[28][29] This can be achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results as well as any conclusions.[30][31] After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.[32]
the non transparency is why science minded folks generally think of bybee and most of high-end audio as snake oil.
I admit that the box probably has a Crystal oscillator in it at some unknown frequency. But what is up with the other lumps of rose quartz, Quantum harmonization? Lets say the oscillator is set at 37.63Khz, the internal resonances of a lump of whole quartz would be in the Mhz range if they were very thin, the ones he is holding in the article are squares. You're going to need a hammer to make those "ring". Also with a Q in the 100,000 to 10,000,000 range you need to hit the sweet spot very very very very^10 precisely.
Too bad they didn't last until the early digital era. Those dihydrogen monoxide cables could have made that early digital music sound sooooo liquid!
Sort of like the way dating a beautiful woman makes you feel handsome when in fact you're as ugly as a turd and she's only into you for the money.
I think you mean non-repeatability, which means that one time phenomena are not real. So, the birth of the world never happened....
My personal opinion is one of the reasons high end audio is dying is because it is being choked by snake oil. $4K for rocks and a box that plays off some super natural concept--without any form of proof of what it does?
In the REAL world, if you invent something it is up to YOU to provide the burden of proof that it actually works! It is not up to the world to buy your junk and prove to themselves. If it works, it can be tested and proven that it does. If I get traditional audiofool BS language, it is fraud until proven otherwise.
I don't buy things that the burden of proof is on the buyer--it is on the seller and will always be.
Who want to buy these fuel line magnets that alter the molecular structure of fuel to improve your gas mileage by 25%. If, after 5 years of use, you are not completely satisfied you can have your money back! What do you have to lose?
Send $500 to
Magnoline
Bank of Nigeria
123 Audiophile St.
Lagos, Nigeria
I think you mean non-repeatability, which means that one time phenomena are not real. So, the birth of the world never happened....
No, non-repeatability is a totally different thing. So is irreversibility.
No need to ask around, to have an answer to that.
Think about it, it would be some hefty battery, that could supply much beyond a LED for two years, as they claim possible.
So either they are real close to inventing the perpetuity machine, or nothing much is happening.
Magura
WHAT they have a loose change type of video for Lamarckism now? Seriously. Wikipedia says it has been discredited for larger lifeforms.
What bothers me more than the H2 being sold for a lot of $. Is the fact that a "reputable" audio manufacturer has put it on the market. And that a at least 2 reviewers rate them as having a positive influence. Stereotimes and Positive feedback. Plus men like Norbert Mundorf endorse them according to stereotimes.
most likely
I'd go with #2...
No need to ask around, to have an answer to that.
So either they are real close to inventing the perpetuity machine, or nothing much is happening.
Magura
I'd go with #2...
That is Ohm of the now well regarded Ohm's law, Einstein of "Modern" physics (Not the bagel guy) and Chevy Chase who is sometimes quite funny.
Now SY and I differ on the issue of fraud. I think the manufacturers and reviewers are giving honest OPINIONS. He doesn't. There is no reason to attack him or his ability to discern what he hears.
Those folks who have tried magic silly string or whatever and hear a difference are welcome to their opinion. Those who have not listened to it can have an opinion also although even they must recognize it is not based on the claims made. If you have never listened to or measured some of the "ridiculous" claims but dismiss them entirely, then your opinion has less weight.
Now the reason why I pick on magic silly string is because that was one of the early acoustic patents. You stretch two sets of taut metal wires across a room. One set lines up vertically the other horizontally. The wires in each set should be about 18" apart. The sets should be around 1/3 and 2/3 of the length of the room. This serves to "Polarize" the sound in the room and reduce echoes and improve speech recognition. Yes I have seen this in action! So I can comment on the effectiveness with an informed opinion.
Less weight than someone who can spot nonsense when he sees it? You would rather listen to people who spout nonsense? They might not realise it is nonsense, of course; in some cases they may actually believe it.simon7000 said:
If I want to to sell a genuine audio enhancement for, say, $50 to intelligent people then I would expect them to rely on something more substantial than my opinion and an 'explanation' which does not use accepted science (but merely a collection of 'scientific' words and phrases). If, on the other hand, I wanted to sell an item for $250 to gullible people then that is exactly how I would do it. Of course, I have the disadvantage of some knowledge of science.
Those who have tried these items need to realise that their opinion of them may be partly (or wholly) based on the claims made. Dismissal of a clearly false claim is also, at least in part, based on the claim but in a negative sense.
Ohm's law was considered nonsense when he first published, even by the experts!
Every so often nonsense turns into common sense.
It remains there are independent reviewers who perceive a value. I will not be disrespectful of their opinions, even when I do not share them.
Every so often in my career I have encountered issues where the results were quite different than the expectations.
Now the issue of extraordinary claims requiring additional proof is a different issue. But the devices in question could actually change the sound field or one's perception of the sound field via several different methods. So an out of hand dismissal can certainly be your OPINION, but it has less weight than one from someone who at least listens to the devices.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.