I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, "false and misleading" claims must be specific and testable.
If you say, "My wires will improve your 15-20Khz response by 0.5db," or, "My snake oil will make your p___s larger" (or cure your cancer), then you'd be in trouble, unless you could prove that your statement was true through scientific testing.
If, however, you say, "My wires will brighten and enhance your highs and open up your soundstage," or "My snake oil will produce natural male enhancement," or "My chips taste better than their chips," then you're on solid ground, because you haven't actually said anything meaningful at all - either the nature of claims or the actual results can't be objectively tested, and are subject to the interpretation of the listener / reader.
Both the "Buyer Beware" and the "Misrepresentation is Illegal" arguments have merit - It is illegal to make specific false claims, but it up to the individual to evaluate the claims and screen out those that say nothing or make no sense. If the buyer is gullible enough to believe that claims of "greater airiness" or "natural male enhancement," or "Best Pizza in Town" mean something specific, then, legally, and perhaps morally, they deserve what they get, which is usually expensive sugar pills, very expensive RCA cables, or mediocre pizza.
- Eric
If you say, "My wires will improve your 15-20Khz response by 0.5db," or, "My snake oil will make your p___s larger" (or cure your cancer), then you'd be in trouble, unless you could prove that your statement was true through scientific testing.
If, however, you say, "My wires will brighten and enhance your highs and open up your soundstage," or "My snake oil will produce natural male enhancement," or "My chips taste better than their chips," then you're on solid ground, because you haven't actually said anything meaningful at all - either the nature of claims or the actual results can't be objectively tested, and are subject to the interpretation of the listener / reader.
Both the "Buyer Beware" and the "Misrepresentation is Illegal" arguments have merit - It is illegal to make specific false claims, but it up to the individual to evaluate the claims and screen out those that say nothing or make no sense. If the buyer is gullible enough to believe that claims of "greater airiness" or "natural male enhancement," or "Best Pizza in Town" mean something specific, then, legally, and perhaps morally, they deserve what they get, which is usually expensive sugar pills, very expensive RCA cables, or mediocre pizza.
- Eric
I agree, but there is a problem: How do you educate these consumers about inner workings of electronic equipment without giving them a basic training in electronics 101 and likely a lot more. Do you think that most people would be willing to spend their spare time in educating themselves on these matters? The majority of people do not understand electronics; in fact they don’t even care to do so. They just go to a HiFi store and buy a black box that supposedly enhances the sound. Similarly as they would go there to buy a new TV, a washing machine, a microwave oven or a DVD player. Gullible? Yes, sure they are but that’s not the point. I am sure you can picture yourself in being an equally gullible person as well when it comes to some things of which you know only very, very little about. The principle that we should understand how everything works just to be confident enough to buy something without a fear of being suckered is inherently wrong.
This example of selling a black box that does nothing is far from those pizza and pill examples: For instance, your pharmacy doesn’t deliberately sell you placebo and the guy at the pizzeria doesn’t handle you an empty plate with the instruction that if you imagine hard enough you can maybe taste the pizza.
I find it quite alarming if the majority of the people begin to think that it is acceptable to cheat people as long as you outsmart them somehow. With that way of thinking we’ll soon end up living in paranoia where we cannot trust anyone. It surely doesn’t stop to p__s enlargement pills or snake oil audio. For instance, I’m sure every one of us already loves those fake semiconductors or capacitors? Let me ask, how many of you could identify every single one of them?
I think we have plenty of suckers here (count me in as one).
I think this discussion is getting a bit too off topic for “solid state” forum.
This example of selling a black box that does nothing is far from those pizza and pill examples: For instance, your pharmacy doesn’t deliberately sell you placebo and the guy at the pizzeria doesn’t handle you an empty plate with the instruction that if you imagine hard enough you can maybe taste the pizza.
I find it quite alarming if the majority of the people begin to think that it is acceptable to cheat people as long as you outsmart them somehow. With that way of thinking we’ll soon end up living in paranoia where we cannot trust anyone. It surely doesn’t stop to p__s enlargement pills or snake oil audio. For instance, I’m sure every one of us already loves those fake semiconductors or capacitors? Let me ask, how many of you could identify every single one of them?
I think we have plenty of suckers here (count me in as one).
I think this discussion is getting a bit too off topic for “solid state” forum.
Okay, so to recap:
A member sent in a question about a suspicious audio device he had seen, stating that he had noticed a difference in sound, and wondering whether there was a scientific basis for this.
Other members responded, making it clear that there was no such basis, and that what he had seen was a scam, with the difference in perceived sound coming either from a hidden modification or from the power of suggestion.
The discussion then veered into the question of whether such scams were ethical, which is admittedly not directly relevant to audio circuitry, but which appeared to hold at least a few members' interest nonetheless.
I would submit that there probably is general consensus that,
a.) depending on the claims made by the scammer and the jurisdiction, they may or may not violate the law, and,
b.) such behavior would be considered by most people to be immoral or unethical.
So, in answer to teemuk's question,"How do you educate these consumers about inner workings of electronic equipment without giving them a basic training in electronics 101 and likely a lot more?" (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I would further submit that space2000 did exactly what all of us should do when confronted by a sales pitch he didn't understand, he recognized a limitation in his knowledge and sought information from a source he believed to be unbiased (and hopefully trustworthy), the diyaudio list.
Therefore, if we recognize that none of us (not even me - ouch!) can know all of the important details of every device or process we might encounter, then such education should be directed toward encouraging the consumer to seek out unbiased information before spending a significant amount of his income on anything he doesn't understand thoroughly (and perhaps providing a reliable starting point for searching out sources of such information).
I certainly do this, checking reputable publications (like "Consumer Reports" in the US for new items), discussion groups, technical manuals, etc. before spending any amount of money I would be unhappy to lose. I believe that all of the members of this group do the same.
The question, then, would be whether there is anything that can be done for those poor blighters who do not do careful research before plopping down their life's savings on a perpetual motion machine for their garage, and I would submit that, as I implied in my earlier post, there is nothing. Those who are careful (and intelligent) enough to evaluate claims carefully will avoid losing their money, those who are not, will not. If the claims are specific and false, then the scammer can and should be punished as prescribed by law, but if the claims are vague, and the consumer is incautious, then I believe that the governmental mechanisms required to protect him would be excessive and cumbersome. While, of course, the business person is obliged to conduct himself honestly, and is liable for trouble if he is not, I believe that is the responsibility of every consumer to exercise common-sense caution (as space2000 did), and that if he should choose not to do so, then it is reasonable that he may at times be swindled.
End of rant. I would consider this horse to be both dead and well-flogged.
Thank you.
- Eric
A member sent in a question about a suspicious audio device he had seen, stating that he had noticed a difference in sound, and wondering whether there was a scientific basis for this.
Other members responded, making it clear that there was no such basis, and that what he had seen was a scam, with the difference in perceived sound coming either from a hidden modification or from the power of suggestion.
The discussion then veered into the question of whether such scams were ethical, which is admittedly not directly relevant to audio circuitry, but which appeared to hold at least a few members' interest nonetheless.
I would submit that there probably is general consensus that,
a.) depending on the claims made by the scammer and the jurisdiction, they may or may not violate the law, and,
b.) such behavior would be considered by most people to be immoral or unethical.
So, in answer to teemuk's question,"How do you educate these consumers about inner workings of electronic equipment without giving them a basic training in electronics 101 and likely a lot more?" (and at the risk of beating a dead horse), I would further submit that space2000 did exactly what all of us should do when confronted by a sales pitch he didn't understand, he recognized a limitation in his knowledge and sought information from a source he believed to be unbiased (and hopefully trustworthy), the diyaudio list.
Therefore, if we recognize that none of us (not even me - ouch!) can know all of the important details of every device or process we might encounter, then such education should be directed toward encouraging the consumer to seek out unbiased information before spending a significant amount of his income on anything he doesn't understand thoroughly (and perhaps providing a reliable starting point for searching out sources of such information).
I certainly do this, checking reputable publications (like "Consumer Reports" in the US for new items), discussion groups, technical manuals, etc. before spending any amount of money I would be unhappy to lose. I believe that all of the members of this group do the same.
The question, then, would be whether there is anything that can be done for those poor blighters who do not do careful research before plopping down their life's savings on a perpetual motion machine for their garage, and I would submit that, as I implied in my earlier post, there is nothing. Those who are careful (and intelligent) enough to evaluate claims carefully will avoid losing their money, those who are not, will not. If the claims are specific and false, then the scammer can and should be punished as prescribed by law, but if the claims are vague, and the consumer is incautious, then I believe that the governmental mechanisms required to protect him would be excessive and cumbersome. While, of course, the business person is obliged to conduct himself honestly, and is liable for trouble if he is not, I believe that is the responsibility of every consumer to exercise common-sense caution (as space2000 did), and that if he should choose not to do so, then it is reasonable that he may at times be swindled.
End of rant. I would consider this horse to be both dead and well-flogged.
Thank you.
- Eric
maybe this thread should ne in "Everything Else"..... or maybe not..... i seem to remember reading about an early (ca 1920 or so) "free energy" device that could light a bank of 10 100W light bulbs, using only an antenna and a ground wire. from the best descriptions available, the device seems to have been a very crude MOSFET acting as a synchronous detector. i read about this many years ago, but IIRC the inventor of this device was suspected of having a large RF alternator nearby when he demonstrated his device. if he was actually broadcasting power, he was infringing on several patents, but he was claiming to be drawing power out of "the ether" (the first "ethernet"? 
) with no external source. the device was described as having a large crystal of what appeared to be carborundum (SiC, silicon carbide) with several electrodes attached to it. while MOSFETS aren't made with SiC, but other semiconductor materials, it's possible he stumbled onto something. but with his claims of free energy, he discredited himself, and his device never got developed beyond a curiosity. if he had instead marketed it as a new type of wireless receiver, it might have developed further, and we might have had SS devices much earlier.
) with no external source. the device was described as having a large crystal of what appeared to be carborundum (SiC, silicon carbide) with several electrodes attached to it. while MOSFETS aren't made with SiC, but other semiconductor materials, it's possible he stumbled onto something. but with his claims of free energy, he discredited himself, and his device never got developed beyond a curiosity. if he had instead marketed it as a new type of wireless receiver, it might have developed further, and we might have had SS devices much earlier.
Re: Re: just asking
Wow, that's novel. Never seen the parallel lamp trick. Gotta be tricky to get right. An unlit filament has a very low resistance, low enough to act as a short. Maybe a little DC offset would be an advantage here, to warm up the filament.
BTW Nordic. I have agree with Audio-Kraut. All recordings are as near perfection as they can be and all recording and mastering engineers are geniuses. We should never, ever tamper with them.
Not!
whoandcar said:
Wow, that's novel. Never seen the parallel lamp trick. Gotta be tricky to get right. An unlit filament has a very low resistance, low enough to act as a short. Maybe a little DC offset would be an advantage here, to warm up the filament.
BTW Nordic. I have agree with Audio-Kraut. All recordings are as near perfection as they can be and all recording and mastering engineers are geniuses. We should never, ever tamper with them.
Not!
fizzard said:
this device was different. a crystal radio uses a small crystal of galena (PbS), carborundum (SiC), or germanium (Ge) and a sharp needle as a diode.. the currents are in the microamp range. this device used a large crystal and more than two electrodes and produced several amps (at least) of current. the thing was powered by RF received at the antenna (from a nearby transmitter). and lit a bank of light bulbs. while the device didn't produce free power, it did transfer large amounts of power and rectify it with a large semiconductor. at the time, not even tubes were capable of much more than a few milliamps.
Hi,
Some audio engineers are better than others, thats for sure, compare Floyds DSOTM with some Bowie albums of the same time, differences can be heard. OK, Floyd possibly spent more time in the studio but all enginneers are not created equal.
Mike Hedges (Masive Attack amongst many others), for instance, who records in a 16th century French chateau using the same desk that the Beatles used on Abbey Road (1 of only 3 made to order, the last in existance) certainly understands his art and knows how to get quality down on to the master tapes (discs).
Thanks
Gareth
Some audio engineers are better than others, thats for sure, compare Floyds DSOTM with some Bowie albums of the same time, differences can be heard. OK, Floyd possibly spent more time in the studio but all enginneers are not created equal.
Mike Hedges (Masive Attack amongst many others), for instance, who records in a 16th century French chateau using the same desk that the Beatles used on Abbey Road (1 of only 3 made to order, the last in existance) certainly understands his art and knows how to get quality down on to the master tapes (discs).
Thanks
Gareth
One time I put together a dynamic range expander using a circuit I found where a light bulb was powered by the amplifier output and was used to control the resistance of a cadmium sulfide photocell circuit in the signal path. It didn't track very well and when I turned up the amplifier the bulbs in both channels burned out. I also tried making some tubed expanders which used pentagrid convertors, but the sound quality was low. I have some articles about expanders based on tube ciruits. I was thinking of trying one that used a triode across the signal path and is controlled by a control signal generated using a rectifier and filter arrangement, but I never got around to it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.