John, you couldn't possibly hurt my feelings- I know your deepest, darkest secret, that you're actually a real teddy bear. You play that gruff curmudgeon well, but you're actually stuffed with sweet melted marshmallow. I can attest to many kindnesses.
You've made a consistent point of concentrating on the purported mechanism and not on what the device is being promoted to do- shall I dig the quotes off of Shakti's rather imaginative website? It's a device which is intended to improve (or at the least, change) the sound of a hifi system. The mechanism that they propose is microwave absorption, but what they're selling is a hifi enhancement.
If one is worried about microwaves, all that is needed is a simple shield. Looking through the bible of microwave absorption (DARPA's RCSR Handbook), I find lots and lots of microwave-absorbing materials of very high performance out there. Enough to build an airplane. For my personal use, I line my hat with aluminum foil. That defeats the CIA's satellite lasers as a side bonus. You know, the ones they use to control my thoughts.
Anyway, a bag of carbon comp resistors with their leads cut off will also be quite an efficient microwave absorber.
EDIT: I've looked pretty carefully through my posts here for an opinion about whether or not these devices work as hifi enhancers. I can't find where I've stated any firm opinion. All I've stated was that these devices are being sold with a rather dubious explanation of how they work and with no real evidence that they do. That's plain and simple a statement of fact. A nice controlled listening test, with proper protocols, will allow anyone (including me) to reach an informed opinion.
You've made a consistent point of concentrating on the purported mechanism and not on what the device is being promoted to do- shall I dig the quotes off of Shakti's rather imaginative website? It's a device which is intended to improve (or at the least, change) the sound of a hifi system. The mechanism that they propose is microwave absorption, but what they're selling is a hifi enhancement.
If one is worried about microwaves, all that is needed is a simple shield. Looking through the bible of microwave absorption (DARPA's RCSR Handbook), I find lots and lots of microwave-absorbing materials of very high performance out there. Enough to build an airplane. For my personal use, I line my hat with aluminum foil. That defeats the CIA's satellite lasers as a side bonus. You know, the ones they use to control my thoughts.
Anyway, a bag of carbon comp resistors with their leads cut off will also be quite an efficient microwave absorber.
EDIT: I've looked pretty carefully through my posts here for an opinion about whether or not these devices work as hifi enhancers. I can't find where I've stated any firm opinion. All I've stated was that these devices are being sold with a rather dubious explanation of how they work and with no real evidence that they do. That's plain and simple a statement of fact. A nice controlled listening test, with proper protocols, will allow anyone (including me) to reach an informed opinion.
Variac said:
If you mean to imply by "balancing" that any person has a defence against a charge of defamation who defamed a person who might look like someone who might defraud or injure real people, then no.
On the other other hand, j'believe that manufacturers should be held to account for injuries they cause, criminals should be held to account for their crimes, and sovereign states should pay for their oil rather than, well, j'digress.
Hi,
The Shakti website claims their "stones" revolutionizes both audio AND video rendition.
Surely if it improves resolution of videosystems in any way it should be possible to actually SEE the difference?
BTW, they also have "Electromagnetic Stabilizer" engraved on those bigger slates...
Now I wonder, what is it such a stabilizer does? Are there other devices around that make such claims other than roasted chickens that is?
The more I read up on this stuff the more skeptical I become...maybe I just didn't read enough yet...Ya never know.
Alright already....Marshmellows, a bottle of red...
O.K., we'll start a camp fire for the both of you.
Cheers,
The Shakti website claims their "stones" revolutionizes both audio AND video rendition.
Surely if it improves resolution of videosystems in any way it should be possible to actually SEE the difference?
BTW, they also have "Electromagnetic Stabilizer" engraved on those bigger slates...
Now I wonder, what is it such a stabilizer does? Are there other devices around that make such claims other than roasted chickens that is?
The more I read up on this stuff the more skeptical I become...maybe I just didn't read enough yet...Ya never know.
Alright already....Marshmellows, a bottle of red...
O.K., we'll start a camp fire for the both of you.
Cheers,
john curl said:
To which, I would add that I can see somebody deciding to take a closer look at a product which bills itself as an "electromagnetic stabilizer" if the application is not loudspeakers, but something like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I've got a good mind to report you to Jim Winey.
While your synopsis of your discussion with Rand and his minions
seemed to me as fair and evenhanded in general, don't these statements imply a bit of say.... advocacy of your point of view on your part?
I think, many people in this discussion don't agree with this. If they are effective, then they will at the least change the sound of a system. I mean that is what they are purported to do, no? Change the sound of a system for the better?
Well, some here don't seem to think that a device of this sort will work according to known scientific laws. As far as magnets go,
Don't some people sell them as a cure for things like cancer and such? Maybe they are a cure, but that would be hard to prove.
However, unlike cancer studies, whether speakers sound different with the stones on top should be no harder to prove if they have stuff inside or if they don't.
I don't remember everyone agreeing that because they might affect emf in some way or that the aren't solid bricks, that they can't be tested by a double blind test as you appear to me to be implying in your latest post...
Now, if Randi is only interested in paranormal testing, as you rightfully point out, he has no requirement to test these devices.
However, from your point of view if the people advocating pics in the fridge could come up with a theory of why putting pics in the fridge is scientifically turning the electrons so as to minimize EMF effects, thus improving the sound, they are then protected from Randis testing?
Please unconfuse me... thanks
seemed to me as fair and evenhanded in general, don't these statements imply a bit of say.... advocacy of your point of view on your part?
I think, many people in this discussion don't agree with this. If they are effective, then they will at the least change the sound of a system. I mean that is what they are purported to do, no? Change the sound of a system for the better?
Well, some here don't seem to think that a device of this sort will work according to known scientific laws. As far as magnets go,
Don't some people sell them as a cure for things like cancer and such? Maybe they are a cure, but that would be hard to prove.
However, unlike cancer studies, whether speakers sound different with the stones on top should be no harder to prove if they have stuff inside or if they don't.
I don't remember everyone agreeing that because they might affect emf in some way or that the aren't solid bricks, that they can't be tested by a double blind test as you appear to me to be implying in your latest post...
Now, if Randi is only interested in paranormal testing, as you rightfully point out, he has no requirement to test these devices.
However, from your point of view if the people advocating pics in the fridge could come up with a theory of why putting pics in the fridge is scientifically turning the electrons so as to minimize EMF effects, thus improving the sound, they are then protected from Randis testing?
Please unconfuse me... thanks
Konnichiwa,
I don't he is "backing down" as such, but he rather has come to appreciate that the subject is outside the scope of that which his foudation is aimed to do (even if you disagree with that). He may very well in future change the scope of that which is being investigated or not.
I agree. However, Having doen such things as placing crystal points on speakers and other such objects as well as having grounded speaker baskets I feel I cannot dismiss Shakti's claims and Products off-hand. And given that I lack first hand experience with them I must take the scientific view of "Case not proven in either direction". If I personally where interested to to clarify the case for myself I would no doubt see if I can borrow some Shakti Stones, though the nature of my speakers (rearwards inclined open baffles) would make testing the Shakti Stones with my speakers very difficult.
Shakti (If you had investigated for yourself, rather than relying on those in the discussion who seem to align with your religion as source) has a number of products and also suggest applications on cables, on top of equipments etc. So, again, shoddy research and the application of a priori conclusions without evidence.
Sayonara
sam9 said:
I don't he is "backing down" as such, but he rather has come to appreciate that the subject is outside the scope of that which his foudation is aimed to do (even if you disagree with that). He may very well in future change the scope of that which is being investigated or not.
sam9 said:
I agree. However, Having doen such things as placing crystal points on speakers and other such objects as well as having grounded speaker baskets I feel I cannot dismiss Shakti's claims and Products off-hand. And given that I lack first hand experience with them I must take the scientific view of "Case not proven in either direction". If I personally where interested to to clarify the case for myself I would no doubt see if I can borrow some Shakti Stones, though the nature of my speakers (rearwards inclined open baffles) would make testing the Shakti Stones with my speakers very difficult.
sam9 said:
Shakti (If you had investigated for yourself, rather than relying on those in the discussion who seem to align with your religion as source) has a number of products and also suggest applications on cables, on top of equipments etc. So, again, shoddy research and the application of a priori conclusions without evidence.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
I appreciate that. As someone with substantiative interest in esotheric philosophy and what I perfer to call "rejected knowledge" I am quite familar with the field.
As you mention UFO's, I am absolutely and postively convinced UFO's exist in the literal sense of the meaning, namely as something flying about which we cannot correctly identify (I have on occasion noticed phenomenae that fall into this class). Actually, once I would Identify "UFO's" as spaceships of an alien race they would no longer be unidentifiable but identified. At the same time I find the insistence in some circles that ALL UFO incidents have a mundaene and natural explanation (Ball Lightning, Pelicans et al) annoying and it sets off my ******** detetector every time.
It seems certain people are incapable of accepting ambiguity and uncertainty and to just keep going. Good thing I'm an engineer, which means constitutionally I must be able to accept ambiguty and uncertainty, to achieve my result, namely a Gadget that works to spec using the tools, methodes and means at hand.
Yes, that would. Thye suggest process seems to attempt to apply the hermetic principle of symphaty, one well known in magick, however it also shows a profound lack of understanding of the principle (BTW, the principle of symphaty has been illustrated in the submolecular realm, so it has reality at least within certain regions).
On the other hand, the above process is excellent reverse psychology. I have previously recommended to people who wanted better sound form their stereo to get more involved with it, tweak cheaply, clean contacts and place sticky notes on the Speaker and other equipment out of sight of course and to write on these notes in their own hand "This the best sounding XXXXXXX in the world".
Guess what, they all reported that the notes improved the sound. Of course, these notes would fail to work under a double blind test, as their function relies upon the subject knowing the note is there. It is very basic reverse psychology. And yes, much of "Beltism" is reverse psychology though I'm still stumed about his rainbow foil, but that is a stor for another day.
EXACTLY. I equally do not subscribe to the notion that just because we cannot explain something it must have a paranormal explanation. I do subscribe to the notion that if we cannot explain something we cannot explain it and that those who are bothered about it better start serious scientific investigations to find the explanantion.
I also subscribe to the point that they should otherwise leave me to my own devices which include the "New Age" and "Feng Shui" principles of placing Crystal Points and other crystals on electronic equipment. I once blind tested this on my wife. I removed the crystals from the top of the TV, where they where at the time hidden behind Birthday cards from sight. She watches a lot of TV and within a day or two she started to be stressed out. Placing the crystals back in their original positions (still blind) and she was back to her normal self.
Not a very scientific test and not conclusive, but indicative. At any extent, I like the look of a lot of crystals around the room and they make great talking points, cost is notional.
Hence my recommendation to all still reading this thread, drop the nearest "New Age" shop and pick up a buch of crystals, doesn't need to be expensive stuff, and go wild around electrical gear in your living/listening room. Tripplets of Crystal points can be used in a fashion similar to Shun Mook and should be oriented in a similar way as the Shun Mook axis pointer.
Anyway, enough rambeling, but I have provided a bit of fodder for people wanting to apply themselves empirically to playing with effects related to Shakti, Shun Mook & Brilliant Pebbles (not forgetting 1388.com's Pavane) items for little money.
Sayonara
serengetiplains said:
I appreciate that. As someone with substantiative interest in esotheric philosophy and what I perfer to call "rejected knowledge" I am quite familar with the field.
As you mention UFO's, I am absolutely and postively convinced UFO's exist in the literal sense of the meaning, namely as something flying about which we cannot correctly identify (I have on occasion noticed phenomenae that fall into this class). Actually, once I would Identify "UFO's" as spaceships of an alien race they would no longer be unidentifiable but identified. At the same time I find the insistence in some circles that ALL UFO incidents have a mundaene and natural explanation (Ball Lightning, Pelicans et al) annoying and it sets off my ******** detetector every time.
It seems certain people are incapable of accepting ambiguity and uncertainty and to just keep going. Good thing I'm an engineer, which means constitutionally I must be able to accept ambiguty and uncertainty, to achieve my result, namely a Gadget that works to spec using the tools, methodes and means at hand.
serengetiplains said:
Yes, that would. Thye suggest process seems to attempt to apply the hermetic principle of symphaty, one well known in magick, however it also shows a profound lack of understanding of the principle (BTW, the principle of symphaty has been illustrated in the submolecular realm, so it has reality at least within certain regions).
On the other hand, the above process is excellent reverse psychology. I have previously recommended to people who wanted better sound form their stereo to get more involved with it, tweak cheaply, clean contacts and place sticky notes on the Speaker and other equipment out of sight of course and to write on these notes in their own hand "This the best sounding XXXXXXX in the world".
Guess what, they all reported that the notes improved the sound. Of course, these notes would fail to work under a double blind test, as their function relies upon the subject knowing the note is there. It is very basic reverse psychology. And yes, much of "Beltism" is reverse psychology though I'm still stumed about his rainbow foil, but that is a stor for another day.
serengetiplains said:
EXACTLY. I equally do not subscribe to the notion that just because we cannot explain something it must have a paranormal explanation. I do subscribe to the notion that if we cannot explain something we cannot explain it and that those who are bothered about it better start serious scientific investigations to find the explanantion.
I also subscribe to the point that they should otherwise leave me to my own devices which include the "New Age" and "Feng Shui" principles of placing Crystal Points and other crystals on electronic equipment. I once blind tested this on my wife. I removed the crystals from the top of the TV, where they where at the time hidden behind Birthday cards from sight. She watches a lot of TV and within a day or two she started to be stressed out. Placing the crystals back in their original positions (still blind) and she was back to her normal self.
Not a very scientific test and not conclusive, but indicative. At any extent, I like the look of a lot of crystals around the room and they make great talking points, cost is notional.
Hence my recommendation to all still reading this thread, drop the nearest "New Age" shop and pick up a buch of crystals, doesn't need to be expensive stuff, and go wild around electrical gear in your living/listening room. Tripplets of Crystal points can be used in a fashion similar to Shun Mook and should be oriented in a similar way as the Shun Mook axis pointer.
Anyway, enough rambeling, but I have provided a bit of fodder for people wanting to apply themselves empirically to playing with effects related to Shakti, Shun Mook & Brilliant Pebbles (not forgetting 1388.com's Pavane) items for little money.
Sayonara
Hi,
may I present another theory here? Shakti stones actully influence the sound, but not by EMI absorbtion, but by adding mass to the loudspeaker and changing resonances of the cabinet. Since this is an obvious tweak, that anyone could copy with a brick, why not throw a decoy about EMI absorbtion and have people arguing about that instead thinking of the obvious?
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
may I present another theory here? Shakti stones actully influence the sound, but not by EMI absorbtion, but by adding mass to the loudspeaker and changing resonances of the cabinet. Since this is an obvious tweak, that anyone could copy with a brick, why not throw a decoy about EMI absorbtion and have people arguing about that instead thinking of the obvious?
Best regards,
Jaka Racman
Konnichiwa,
Actually, now you are being defamtory to my position and you are misrepresenting my comments, substantially so.
I pointed out that those who make the a priori supposition that Shakti Stones and related "Audio Esotherica" (some might inclide cables and expensive equipment into this category) are fraudulent and do not operate on principles rooted in natural law and science.
And I suggested that those holding and vociferously diseminating this view are in effect adherent of a religion, having closed their minds to any ideas and evidence running counter to their religion and having therefore made themselves prisioners in their own minds.
I do imply that such individuals would fail to hear a difference even if one existed (for the same reasons that the "believers" report improvements from my suggested "Best sound in the world" sticky notes), but the reason is not stupidity as you aledge and presume (you are a presumtious person I must note), but prejudice.
And I believe that aledging that someone is prejudiced against a certain something I can do without damaging reputations. And if the people who I aledge are holding prejudices where seen in public to illustrate by their behaviour such prejudices, it would be they themselves who damage their reputations, not anyone else....
Sayonara
Lusso5 said:
Actually, now you are being defamtory to my position and you are misrepresenting my comments, substantially so.
I pointed out that those who make the a priori supposition that Shakti Stones and related "Audio Esotherica" (some might inclide cables and expensive equipment into this category) are fraudulent and do not operate on principles rooted in natural law and science.
And I suggested that those holding and vociferously diseminating this view are in effect adherent of a religion, having closed their minds to any ideas and evidence running counter to their religion and having therefore made themselves prisioners in their own minds.
I do imply that such individuals would fail to hear a difference even if one existed (for the same reasons that the "believers" report improvements from my suggested "Best sound in the world" sticky notes), but the reason is not stupidity as you aledge and presume (you are a presumtious person I must note), but prejudice.
And I believe that aledging that someone is prejudiced against a certain something I can do without damaging reputations. And if the people who I aledge are holding prejudices where seen in public to illustrate by their behaviour such prejudices, it would be they themselves who damage their reputations, not anyone else....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Can You comment on this:
http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_wire.htm
Feel free to check the other tests also.
/
Konnichiwa,
I hope everyone is appreciative of the fact that a certain amount of hyperbole is essential to marketing. Just look at McDonalds, CocaCola and Pepsi.
Sure, but clearly not in a "blind" test.... ;-)
It is good to be sceptical, of all things, including ones own perceptiosn, but scepticism allows a reasonabe chance of either the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. Unless you do, you are not a sceptic but a religious fanatic, may it be orthodox, catholic or evangelical... ;-)
Sayonara
fdegrove said:
I hope everyone is appreciative of the fact that a certain amount of hyperbole is essential to marketing. Just look at McDonalds, CocaCola and Pepsi.
fdegrove said:
Sure, but clearly not in a "blind" test.... ;-)
fdegrove said:
It is good to be sceptical, of all things, including ones own perceptiosn, but scepticism allows a reasonabe chance of either the acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis. Unless you do, you are not a sceptic but a religious fanatic, may it be orthodox, catholic or evangelical... ;-)
Sayonara
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.