poobah said:
Not the best example because that's almost certainly what would happen to many midranges. The oils would alter the weight of the cone, higher mass and higher Q, plus reduce the stiffness and my guess the high frequencies too. A combined LF boost and HF cut does meet a common definition of fatter sound. It's not margarine, it's poobah. Let me know if you want a crown on that avatar. 🙂
Konnichiwa,
Acceptance without data is the same as rejection without data.
My point is that unless one has sufficient data upon which one may base ones opinions and conclusions either is pure prejudice.
In fact you barely concealed hostility of what you have prejudicially decided is "snake oil" places you firmly in the camp that will reject all they do no not like without data.
The fact that one (or many) who can afford a relativelty low amount in absolute terms may be "conned" serves as excuse for and moralising agent for what can only be described as religeous Dogma and belief without basis in fact.
Sayonara
ray_moth said:
Acceptance without data is the same as rejection without data.
My point is that unless one has sufficient data upon which one may base ones opinions and conclusions either is pure prejudice.
In fact you barely concealed hostility of what you have prejudicially decided is "snake oil" places you firmly in the camp that will reject all they do no not like without data.
The fact that one (or many) who can afford a relativelty low amount in absolute terms may be "conned" serves as excuse for and moralising agent for what can only be described as religeous Dogma and belief without basis in fact.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Thorsten,
In principle I fully agree with you. But in this case we have a claim as to the effect of 'snake oil' which is unsubstantiated. In that case, it is rational to reject this claim precisely because of the lack of data.
Acceptance of the claim, in the light of absence of data, would indeed be prejudice, while rejection because of the absence of data is a rational decision.
If someone presents extraordinary claims, it is up to him to back it up. If he can't, the only common sense answer is rejection, and this IMHO is NOT prejudice.
Jan Didden
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Hardly. The point above may only hold true if one is operating in a knowledge and common sense vacuum.
People accept or reject without data all the time, they have to, there is not enough time in the day to gather data on every choice to be made. Decisions need to be made according to past experience, the experience of others and good old common sense.
I'd argue that what is commonly termed "snake oil" is rejected because in most people's experience it simply doesn't work. If things like that do work then proof is usually forthcoming.
In most people's experience products that have a thick coating of marketing hyperbole and very few verifiable facts, are not worth the time or effort.
It's not rejection without data, it's rejection after consideration.
note: I post very little, I do read quite a bit though, if the name is unfamiliar.
I haven't responded to the nice African fellow who claims to be the son of the former finance minister and, because of my fine reputation, wants me to help transfer money out of his account into the US. For which I will be handsomely remunerated. Clearly, it is unscientific of me to reject the claim out of hand without giving this fellow my bank account information, merely because it makes no sense, offers no evidence, and is peculiarly similar to many other claims which have been found time and time again to be fraudulent.
To be clear, I'm willing to try any and all such miraculous devices if they are provided to me free of charge for testing purposes. So far, only one has done so, and it turned out to be an off-the-shelf violin varnish and shellac that had no special properties to justify the 1000x markup to the gullible audiophiles.
To be clear, I'm willing to try any and all such miraculous devices if they are provided to me free of charge for testing purposes. So far, only one has done so, and it turned out to be an off-the-shelf violin varnish and shellac that had no special properties to justify the 1000x markup to the gullible audiophiles.
Konnichiwa,
I remember a time when doctors and nurses in hospitals reject the "snakeoil" notion that washing hands would reduce patient mortality. Doctors making such proposals where ridiculed.
When one particular chap forced this in a maternity hospital in Vienna the mortality dropped sharply, as soon as he went elsewhere the practice stopped again and mortality went back to "normal". Despite all that data the medical profession in those days still resisted any implementation of modern sanitary protocols for the better part of another 100 Years.
And the chap who suggested that the cause of cholera in London was polluted drinking water was laughed at by all those who "KNEW" that he was just a snakeoil merchant and the "miasma" (polluted air) was the cause of cholera.
I will agree that the above are extreme examples where the "Snakeoil" turned out to be perfectly sound, however they also illustrate very poignant examples of cases where something was rejected on purely dogmatic grounds without investigating the claims and turned later to have been only too right.
This outright rejection of anything that seemingly contradicts that muddy bog of sullen inertia called "common sense" or that reactionary religeous dogma substituted in these days for true science is common, but no more acceptable now than it was in the other cases outlined above.
SY at least claims to be willing to test "free samples" of snakeoil, after being very antagonistic about it and making it unlikely that anyone would mistake him for openminded at least, so he does not get anything, but at least he keeps the pretense up. Most here do not even do that.
At any extent, where dogma is asserted discussion is not possible, all we get is one group shouting the dogma again and again and louder each time no matter what argument is being advanced.
Well, I shout back whenever I feel like it....😉
Sayonara
janneman said:
I remember a time when doctors and nurses in hospitals reject the "snakeoil" notion that washing hands would reduce patient mortality. Doctors making such proposals where ridiculed.
When one particular chap forced this in a maternity hospital in Vienna the mortality dropped sharply, as soon as he went elsewhere the practice stopped again and mortality went back to "normal". Despite all that data the medical profession in those days still resisted any implementation of modern sanitary protocols for the better part of another 100 Years.
And the chap who suggested that the cause of cholera in London was polluted drinking water was laughed at by all those who "KNEW" that he was just a snakeoil merchant and the "miasma" (polluted air) was the cause of cholera.
I will agree that the above are extreme examples where the "Snakeoil" turned out to be perfectly sound, however they also illustrate very poignant examples of cases where something was rejected on purely dogmatic grounds without investigating the claims and turned later to have been only too right.
This outright rejection of anything that seemingly contradicts that muddy bog of sullen inertia called "common sense" or that reactionary religeous dogma substituted in these days for true science is common, but no more acceptable now than it was in the other cases outlined above.
SY at least claims to be willing to test "free samples" of snakeoil, after being very antagonistic about it and making it unlikely that anyone would mistake him for openminded at least, so he does not get anything, but at least he keeps the pretense up. Most here do not even do that.
At any extent, where dogma is asserted discussion is not possible, all we get is one group shouting the dogma again and again and louder each time no matter what argument is being advanced.
Well, I shout back whenever I feel like it....😉
Sayonara
Ok then let's test the hypothesis. Thorsten, if you send me four chips of a type that you use in one of your bits of kit, (or valves, whatever) and a small sample of the compound you are currently using, I will apply it to two of the chips, and some normal shellac or similar to the other two. I will then send them back to you, and you can spend as long as you like listening and comparing the two samples, then post your results, and if there is a significant positive effect at least we will know. Is that open minded enough for you?
SY said:
SY,
i'm profoundly sorry.
I explained to Mr Col Vasile Sedat, from Benin republic West Africa, that my bank dissaproves of any additional transfers of such magnitude from the African continent, therefore i forwarded Mr Sedat's letter to you.
Konnichiwa,
I currently use no chips easily replaced in my gear that are lacquered (sorry), so I would have to set up an entierly different test. I did this once before and have convinced myself to a sufficient degree of the results. I see no point doing it again.
And truth be told, after a particular DB Test in which I participated and where the gentleman who produced the test set CD simply LIED when I in effect had solved the test (1) I do not let anyone "prepare" anything anymore.... I do my tests to my own satisfaction and for my own purposes. Everyone is welcome to do the same for their own satisfaction.
Sayonara
(1) The test was related to the audibility of MP3. I noted that from the prepared CD no track appeared sonically identical to the control (the CD from which I had taken my tracks), however I ranked the tracks in order of preference and posted my results. The gentleman did not post the solution, but simply quipped "you got it wrong".
I then tested the CD using a friends HDCD equipped player (as I had ripped all tracks using EAC from HDCD encoded disks from Reference recordings) and found that all the tracks I had marked as "not identical to the original sonically however best sonic quality of those present on the CD" lit up the HDCD light, non of the others did.
A bit of work in cool edit with spectrums also loosely suggested that the tracks with the most deviation from the original where ranked lowest.
Ever since I do not do or trust any tests I do not fake myself.
pinkmouse said:
I currently use no chips easily replaced in my gear that are lacquered (sorry), so I would have to set up an entierly different test. I did this once before and have convinced myself to a sufficient degree of the results. I see no point doing it again.
And truth be told, after a particular DB Test in which I participated and where the gentleman who produced the test set CD simply LIED when I in effect had solved the test (1) I do not let anyone "prepare" anything anymore.... I do my tests to my own satisfaction and for my own purposes. Everyone is welcome to do the same for their own satisfaction.
Sayonara
(1) The test was related to the audibility of MP3. I noted that from the prepared CD no track appeared sonically identical to the control (the CD from which I had taken my tracks), however I ranked the tracks in order of preference and posted my results. The gentleman did not post the solution, but simply quipped "you got it wrong".
I then tested the CD using a friends HDCD equipped player (as I had ripped all tracks using EAC from HDCD encoded disks from Reference recordings) and found that all the tracks I had marked as "not identical to the original sonically however best sonic quality of those present on the CD" lit up the HDCD light, non of the others did.
A bit of work in cool edit with spectrums also loosely suggested that the tracks with the most deviation from the original where ranked lowest.
Ever since I do not do or trust any tests I do not fake myself.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Irrelevant for the discussion at hand. We were not discussing that maybe we could be wrong rejecting certain things. We could be, of course.
Surely you are not advocating that we accept or investigate EVERYTHING on the off-chance that it may be correct, however unlikely? Wouldn't it be up to whoever has that great idea to present even a minimum of rationale so that we would be motivated to investigate?
Practical limitations of time and money mean that you can only investigate what looks promising. And the "snake oil' thing, in the light of what we know, doesn't by a long shot.
Jan Didden
Thorsten,
Leaving apart your intimations as to my honesty, if you reject the principle of experiment, how are we to investigate these claims with any degree of rigour, if the only people who can hear a difference refuse to take part in any attempt to prove that difference? How about if a third party, non involved, were to do the treatment, or at least witness it? I'm quite willing to build a couple of zero gain buffers using something well regarded like the OPA627, that could be slotted into the signal chain, and donate them to the cause. I know several professional people like doctors or policemen that have absloutely no interest in audio that would probably be prepared to act as witness.
Leaving apart your intimations as to my honesty, if you reject the principle of experiment, how are we to investigate these claims with any degree of rigour, if the only people who can hear a difference refuse to take part in any attempt to prove that difference? How about if a third party, non involved, were to do the treatment, or at least witness it? I'm quite willing to build a couple of zero gain buffers using something well regarded like the OPA627, that could be slotted into the signal chain, and donate them to the cause. I know several professional people like doctors or policemen that have absloutely no interest in audio that would probably be prepared to act as witness.
Konnichiwa,
I was not intimating ANYTHING. I merely pointed out that given my previous experiences I simply refuse such a setup with ANYONE, so nothing personal.
I do not.
First, I currently do not use ANYTHING to coat IC's.
Therefore your proposed experiment is one that cannot be done.
Second, what I do use is used to coat the whole PCB, I have already done an Experiemnt in which I have compred (blind) two items where the coating was the only difference (as has been done by two seperate and different German Mag's on seperate occasions) and the results where sufficiently clear for my own use in a commercial context (and I never intended it for publication, so I won't publish the results).
I see no reason to repeat that experiment for my own good and I see no point of doing it publically, as I have nothing to gain from it in any way and any positive outcome would be claimed by the usual nay sayers to be just "luck" and so on.
I suggest that anyone interested make THEIR OWN EXPERIMENTS. In the case for example of a $ 59 price perhaps six local DIY'ers could pool money and resources and do the experiment to gain their own data.
I have, as noted, I have tested things to my satisfaction. I will leave aside your intimation as to my honesty, in the context.
Then you do that, get Charles to send you some "goop" and all that, set up a DB Test, demonstrate the ability of the test to reveal small, but known audible differences and then DB Test the two buffers. It's all for the common good, so why not do it? BTW, don't bother asking anyone for anything to test under DB conditions unless you illustrate that your testsetup, including listeners is sufficiently discriminative to reliably identify audible phenomenae.
Again, I find this in the end a lot of hard work and if you do find that audbile differences exist with the "voodoo" or "snakeoil" item all you will find taht you are shouted down by the ABX Mafia and they declare your experiment faulty. Had that on RAHE in the mid 90's. Not interested myself, but please have fun.
I need not to detail the implications of all this. If you want to make this really worthwhile they would have to understand what is involved, including enough of the technicalities, as usually several layers are required, a third party "lockdown" inbetween applications would have to be made under conditions acceptable and so on. Finally, a clear and unambigous solution would have to pre-filed and witnessed and all that.
That is an awfull lot of effort and involvement for anyone of "no interrest", if it was my product tested (not that I have one) I personally would probably insist on a Notariat to wittness and certify all is above board, such services do cost.
Further, at best the test would be single blind as the items would (have to) be clearly identifiable and a simple preference test would not suffice as it is entierly possible that a person might prefer the sound of the item that has not been altered by some "voodoo snakeoil". So you would have in fact have to set up a full DB Test and demonstrate that your test setup is capable of resolving all known audible differences.
But alas, I have no interrest in the sales of any particular lacquer for any particular purpose so don't expect me to contribute either time or effort or money. I merely point out that to declare anything "bunk" without sufficient data is unscientific.
One may suggest that the suggested principle is according to currently accepted theory unlikely to have any effect and that other than that no data exists to either recommend or disrecommend the item without investigation (of which one may or may not have any interrest to investigate).
Anything else, either way is unscientific.
Sayonara
pinkmouse said:
I was not intimating ANYTHING. I merely pointed out that given my previous experiences I simply refuse such a setup with ANYONE, so nothing personal.
pinkmouse said:
I do not.
First, I currently do not use ANYTHING to coat IC's.
Therefore your proposed experiment is one that cannot be done.
Second, what I do use is used to coat the whole PCB, I have already done an Experiemnt in which I have compred (blind) two items where the coating was the only difference (as has been done by two seperate and different German Mag's on seperate occasions) and the results where sufficiently clear for my own use in a commercial context (and I never intended it for publication, so I won't publish the results).
I see no reason to repeat that experiment for my own good and I see no point of doing it publically, as I have nothing to gain from it in any way and any positive outcome would be claimed by the usual nay sayers to be just "luck" and so on.
I suggest that anyone interested make THEIR OWN EXPERIMENTS. In the case for example of a $ 59 price perhaps six local DIY'ers could pool money and resources and do the experiment to gain their own data.
pinkmouse said:
I have, as noted, I have tested things to my satisfaction. I will leave aside your intimation as to my honesty, in the context.
pinkmouse said:
Then you do that, get Charles to send you some "goop" and all that, set up a DB Test, demonstrate the ability of the test to reveal small, but known audible differences and then DB Test the two buffers. It's all for the common good, so why not do it? BTW, don't bother asking anyone for anything to test under DB conditions unless you illustrate that your testsetup, including listeners is sufficiently discriminative to reliably identify audible phenomenae.
Again, I find this in the end a lot of hard work and if you do find that audbile differences exist with the "voodoo" or "snakeoil" item all you will find taht you are shouted down by the ABX Mafia and they declare your experiment faulty. Had that on RAHE in the mid 90's. Not interested myself, but please have fun.
pinkmouse said:
I need not to detail the implications of all this. If you want to make this really worthwhile they would have to understand what is involved, including enough of the technicalities, as usually several layers are required, a third party "lockdown" inbetween applications would have to be made under conditions acceptable and so on. Finally, a clear and unambigous solution would have to pre-filed and witnessed and all that.
That is an awfull lot of effort and involvement for anyone of "no interrest", if it was my product tested (not that I have one) I personally would probably insist on a Notariat to wittness and certify all is above board, such services do cost.
Further, at best the test would be single blind as the items would (have to) be clearly identifiable and a simple preference test would not suffice as it is entierly possible that a person might prefer the sound of the item that has not been altered by some "voodoo snakeoil". So you would have in fact have to set up a full DB Test and demonstrate that your test setup is capable of resolving all known audible differences.
But alas, I have no interrest in the sales of any particular lacquer for any particular purpose so don't expect me to contribute either time or effort or money. I merely point out that to declare anything "bunk" without sufficient data is unscientific.
One may suggest that the suggested principle is according to currently accepted theory unlikely to have any effect and that other than that no data exists to either recommend or disrecommend the item without investigation (of which one may or may not have any interrest to investigate).
Anything else, either way is unscientific.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
Hmmm. If you say: "This is bunk" (or anything to the same equivalent) you make an unqualified statement that declares the subject being discussed to be of a certain nature. You do not say "It might be" but you claim knowledge and proof that it is, just if I said "I does this and that" would do in the other direction.
Just as you or others would demand my proof if I said so (or to modify my statements) I demand others do.
No, I merely demand that statements are reasonably factual.
For example:
"I have no experience with this, but I cannot conceive how it might work!" (and principle variations of the theme)
is fine.
It states exactly what the facts are, the person in question has no data relevant but extrapolation from experience, learning or sheer prejudice give rise to an opinion that may then be evaluated as to it's relevance.
"This is snakeoil, does not work and the seller is a fraudster out make money!" (and variations however specifically phrased)
is not okay, UNLESS there is proof that it does not work, is indeed made, marketed and sold principly to deceive people and such proof requires not just simple first hand experience of the item under discussion, but further exhaustive investigation.
I feel pretty safe in intimating that those that shout "fraud" loudest have done the least investigation, in the vast majority of cases.
That depends entierly on the intentions and aims of such a person. This is capitalism, it may be wiser to sell something efficious mismarketed as something different or to make claims not consistent with the actual operation of a given device in order to protect the "trade secret" (ever since at least the blackberry court case, if not the walkman case it should be clear that patents only protect those who have deep enough pockets for litigation and bancrupt those who are stupid enough to insist on their right in absence of such pockets).
I am not asking anyone to investigate anything. I merely as for such investigation as a precursor to make certain types of statements, which in fact require such investigation. That is all.
Sayonara
janneman said:
Hmmm. If you say: "This is bunk" (or anything to the same equivalent) you make an unqualified statement that declares the subject being discussed to be of a certain nature. You do not say "It might be" but you claim knowledge and proof that it is, just if I said "I does this and that" would do in the other direction.
Just as you or others would demand my proof if I said so (or to modify my statements) I demand others do.
janneman said:
No, I merely demand that statements are reasonably factual.
For example:
"I have no experience with this, but I cannot conceive how it might work!" (and principle variations of the theme)
is fine.
It states exactly what the facts are, the person in question has no data relevant but extrapolation from experience, learning or sheer prejudice give rise to an opinion that may then be evaluated as to it's relevance.
"This is snakeoil, does not work and the seller is a fraudster out make money!" (and variations however specifically phrased)
is not okay, UNLESS there is proof that it does not work, is indeed made, marketed and sold principly to deceive people and such proof requires not just simple first hand experience of the item under discussion, but further exhaustive investigation.
I feel pretty safe in intimating that those that shout "fraud" loudest have done the least investigation, in the vast majority of cases.
janneman said:
That depends entierly on the intentions and aims of such a person. This is capitalism, it may be wiser to sell something efficious mismarketed as something different or to make claims not consistent with the actual operation of a given device in order to protect the "trade secret" (ever since at least the blackberry court case, if not the walkman case it should be clear that patents only protect those who have deep enough pockets for litigation and bancrupt those who are stupid enough to insist on their right in absence of such pockets).
janneman said:
I am not asking anyone to investigate anything. I merely as for such investigation as a precursor to make certain types of statements, which in fact require such investigation. That is all.
Sayonara
How's 'bout a few beers next time I make it up to the "wet coast"?
Trying to get up there this summer...
must... work... and... resist... urge... to... read... forum... fights...
Trying to get up there this summer...
must... work... and... resist... urge... to... read... forum... fights...
Poobah, don't know if that was directed at me or not, but if so, I'm always happy to welcome any diyAudio-er passing through, assuming I'm in town at the time. Beer, wine, and music.
That was for rdf but... Right on,
I really want to make a trip up the coast this summer. Been on the same project for nearly 2 years now... finally getting off the ground and generating some $flow for my client (and the poo). About to face off with all the mean and evil people at U.L.
Time to finish my boat... take a trip... build a tube amp... get some sleep... drink heavily in many new places.
What's your take on Nippono beer?... I fell in love with the stuff while captive... even the common stuff.
😉
I really want to make a trip up the coast this summer. Been on the same project for nearly 2 years now... finally getting off the ground and generating some $flow for my client (and the poo). About to face off with all the mean and evil people at U.L.
Time to finish my boat... take a trip... build a tube amp... get some sleep... drink heavily in many new places.
What's your take on Nippono beer?... I fell in love with the stuff while captive... even the common stuff.
😉
Any idea when you're passing through?- Status
- Not open for further replies.