Kuei Yang Wang said:
You identified the target as believers and scientists, but then removed yourself from both when I asked.
Back to the Shakti Stones - I'm traveling to San Antonio on Saturday to audition them. I'm trying to round up some other ears as well, to go along, for other opinions to post.
Konnichiwa,
"The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms.
I personally believe nothing at all. NEVER EVER. I do know and I know probably fewer things than most people believe, but at least I KNOW. I prefer first hand opinion to 2nd or 3rd.
Sayonara
Lusso5 said:
"The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms.
I personally believe nothing at all. NEVER EVER. I do know and I know probably fewer things than most people believe, but at least I KNOW. I prefer first hand opinion to 2nd or 3rd.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
To accomplish really big things, you have to be a sort of "believer" . Otherwise you are only a "wonderer", trying a bit of this and that, but in the end, not acomplishing really anything.
Believe is a big driving force, and while it's working, it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong. The end result is of most importance.
Huh? I thought this was an English language forum.
What a load of cr@p! I've never met a scientist that believed axioms are unshakable. That goes completely against the spirit of the scientific method. Scientific knowledge is completely unrelated to belief, for belief does not need evidence, and indeed persists despite the evidence.
By that logic you should fly to orbit to make sure the earh is round with your own eyes. After all, all these photos could have been faked.
No, unfortunately there are many engineers and scientists who have limited insight to what is possible or what can work. This includes audio, bigtime!
Randi's 1 mil challenge
Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you round up the people. The main reason why I would not bother with Charlatans of the ilk of Randi, Nousiane and the ABX people is that they already set out to prove me wrong and will do so by any means available. I don't need that sort of proverbial.
Sorry to pop your ballon, but in the case Of Tom Nousaine and the"ABX" people they set out to prove the opposite. They started out as true beleivers in the alleged differences of high end audio equipment. It was the fact that there were so few of them that they changed their minds.
In the case of Randi, calling him a charlatan might have worked when he was a professional magician, his job was to create illusions. Now his job is defend against the illusions being passed of as reality by charlatans.
I feel he's preaching to the choir since the people who beleive in the paranormal don't really care about proof, and very often don't accept it even in one case I saw, where the perpetrator admitted he was hoaxing them.
I have better things to do with my time than to convince people who are convinced their illusion is the only true one of their error.
Apparently you still have time to smear people you don't know much about.
BTW, even the BBC is on record as endorsing ABX for audio.
Maybe, maybe not. Why don't you round up the people. The main reason why I would not bother with Charlatans of the ilk of Randi, Nousiane and the ABX people is that they already set out to prove me wrong and will do so by any means available. I don't need that sort of proverbial.
Sorry to pop your ballon, but in the case Of Tom Nousaine and the"ABX" people they set out to prove the opposite. They started out as true beleivers in the alleged differences of high end audio equipment. It was the fact that there were so few of them that they changed their minds.
In the case of Randi, calling him a charlatan might have worked when he was a professional magician, his job was to create illusions. Now his job is defend against the illusions being passed of as reality by charlatans.
I feel he's preaching to the choir since the people who beleive in the paranormal don't really care about proof, and very often don't accept it even in one case I saw, where the perpetrator admitted he was hoaxing them.
I have better things to do with my time than to convince people who are convinced their illusion is the only true one of their error.
Apparently you still have time to smear people you don't know much about.
BTW, even the BBC is on record as endorsing ABX for audio.
Mr. Curl:
Your objections to ABX testing are simply incorrect.
ABX is about one thing and one thing only, determining DIFFERENCE. In order to that teh DUT are not visible and they are level matched.
They've never been about preference only difference.
Your objections to ABX testing are simply incorrect.
ABX is about one thing and one thing only, determining DIFFERENCE. In order to that teh DUT are not visible and they are level matched.
They've never been about preference only difference.
Torsten[/i] "The "Scientists" are by and at large just "believers" in another religion. Just like the "believers" they believe in the absolute unshability of their fundamental Axioms. [/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by john curl said:
This is hillarious.
Yes, there are crook scientists (just not as many as crook accountants), but as a whole, noone can fault the scientific community and SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The whole premise of science is "no dogmas".
Everything is testable, everything has to be proven and EVERYTHING is open for a discussion.
Who do you think gave us such unthinkable concepts like quantum physics, anti matter, multidimensional space and "stretchable" time scale ? Pundits pondering in DIY audio forums discarding science as "religion" ?
Gimme a break.
Oh yes, by the way, electromagnetic benefits of Shakti stones for automotive industry are well known to all top engineers working on engine management modules for F1 cars. Large blocks of unknown matter hang off the engines of Ferrari, Williams (BMW), McLaren (Merc) and BAR (Honda), hereby squeezing the last KW possible.
Yeah, sure.
If you are so damn sure, why not at least TRY to get that cool million off that moron Randi ?
But no, all you guys are just too busy inventing another oh so eloquent reason as to why a blind test cannot work and why you all can hear which way a piece of wire is pointing only if you can see it.
Kuei Yang Wang said:
If I understand you right, you believe (sorry, "KNOW") that science is in effect another religion and those who practice it are just believers in that religion (that is, they do not "KNOW"). If this is true, and your statement that you do not believe anything at all is true, then how did you go about designing RIAA equalization networks? I'm assuming that you used the equations of Lipshitz, or some similar equations that were based on scientific ideas. Your component values bear this out, so I'm quite sure you didn't use your "magic eight ball". Since those equations were derived from the practice of science, which apparently by your own beliefs (sorry, "KNOWING") is simply a religion, that would imply that you also believe in the religion of science (because you used its results in your design). But that contradicts your statement that you do not believe in anything at all. Another possibility is that you "KNOW" that the equations of Lipshitz (or whatever you used) are right. But that would imply that science is really not a religion at all, because it involves "KNOWing" and not "BELIEVing". Either way, it's a contradiction.
What I'm getting at here is that I believe you're being dishonest with yourself and with others in your assertion that you do not believe in anything. Everybody believes in something. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. Simply playing word games by swapping "believe" with "know" just doesn't cut it with the majority of people. But why should you care about the majority of people? Because your posts are trying to convince the reader of a point of view. That is, the statement "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause" fits your posts. That description is taken from the dictionary.com definition of "propaganda". So you're not doing well as a propagandist. But as an obfuscator, you're doing superbly.
Peter Daniel said:
Very well said Peter.
For a moment there I thought we had 3 types of people in the world: Scientists, believers and Thorsten. 😱 Then I realised Thorsten is just one of the other groups, but he likes to wander from one to the other as suits him at a particular time.
Jan Didden
Meta commentary
I'm a MId-Fi guy aspiring to be Hi-Fi and I'm trolling around this site looking for ways to get Hi-Fi (as in more realistic musical reproduction). It's been useful and remarkably entertaining and I feel badly I have little to contribute of a technical nature. But this thread happens to to have gone down the Avenue of Wierd in which I have some knowledge and experience.
If you are a scientific person you believe in products of reason as applied to the subject at hand.
If you are religious person you believe in products of faith as applied to the subject at hand.
Belief entails an emotional commitment and is applicable to either reason or faith.
Folk are complicated and compartmentalize. We probably all know scientist who apparently sincerely believe tenets of some religious faith but while in the lab believe in the applicability of their reasoned scientific axioms. This, despite contradictions the the two systems generate.
Interesting observation.
For subjectivity this may be a correct observation, but in many cases, I suspect, doubt is nearly always present to some degree, however small.
Reminding a believer of their doubt often provokes remarkable reaction.
And, not the same, reminding an undoubting believer of possibility their belief may not be true also often provokes remarkable reaction.
In either case it's probably wise to step back a bit if you are going to provoke doubt or question the canon.
With regard to the "end result" of the belief, it can often be a matter of regret or, at least, of unanticipated consequences.
Personally, I believe in the products of reason, however limited they might be..... History shows, long term, they are winners.
Simple questions seemed to provoke an awful lot of smoke and fire:
Do Shakti stones have a measurable effect on audio electronics operation? If so, is it audible, and is it an improvement, or a degradation?
The second set of questions are the more contentious, I think, because the methodology (protocols and statistical treatments) for measuring pyschoacoustic phenomenae is either not yet highly developed or perhaps just not as well known as that for electronic ones. In any case, amongst some of us there is a definite mistrust these "soft science" methodologies will be properly applied in the Randi Challenge.
The other aspect of the smoke and fire generated that bemuses me is the marginal nature of the product under discussion. Even if its effect is absolutely validated, its effect on audio quality has to be magnitudes less than any of the following variables: room characteristics, speaker polar response, system frequency response curve, decent amplifier design, and a bunch more I can't think of right now. Is it because it's a stand in for the subjective judgements we have to make of the effects these other variables have? That is, what actually are the characteristics of good reproduced sound?
As I said, I believe in the products of reason, and therefore believe bad, mediocre, good and superb reproduced sound has electronic, acoustic, and subjective parameters which can be objectively described well enough that they can be drawn up on a table of engineering requirements and achieved consistently in practice. I think the first two sets of parameters have been intensively examined by engineers, but they've yet really to bite into the third to the same degree. Not surprising, engineers are more trained to to deal with the first two and tend to specialize.
So, the HIfi mags are full of hand waving commentary. The salespeople (who care, and some do) don't know what needs their customers need to fill and t Believe is a big driving force, and while it's working, it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong. The end result is of most importance.he customers don't know which needs to prioritize. The DIY guy is tweeking the bias because it "sounds better" and doesn't know why the sound itself is better....
There is no objective baseline to refer to which is satisfactory.
I'm a MId-Fi guy aspiring to be Hi-Fi and I'm trolling around this site looking for ways to get Hi-Fi (as in more realistic musical reproduction). It's been useful and remarkably entertaining and I feel badly I have little to contribute of a technical nature. But this thread happens to to have gone down the Avenue of Wierd in which I have some knowledge and experience.
If you are a scientific person you believe in products of reason as applied to the subject at hand.
If you are religious person you believe in products of faith as applied to the subject at hand.
Belief entails an emotional commitment and is applicable to either reason or faith.
Folk are complicated and compartmentalize. We probably all know scientist who apparently sincerely believe tenets of some religious faith but while in the lab believe in the applicability of their reasoned scientific axioms. This, despite contradictions the the two systems generate.
Interesting observation.
For subjectivity this may be a correct observation, but in many cases, I suspect, doubt is nearly always present to some degree, however small.
Reminding a believer of their doubt often provokes remarkable reaction.
And, not the same, reminding an undoubting believer of possibility their belief may not be true also often provokes remarkable reaction.
In either case it's probably wise to step back a bit if you are going to provoke doubt or question the canon.
With regard to the "end result" of the belief, it can often be a matter of regret or, at least, of unanticipated consequences.
Personally, I believe in the products of reason, however limited they might be..... History shows, long term, they are winners.
Simple questions seemed to provoke an awful lot of smoke and fire:
Do Shakti stones have a measurable effect on audio electronics operation? If so, is it audible, and is it an improvement, or a degradation?
The second set of questions are the more contentious, I think, because the methodology (protocols and statistical treatments) for measuring pyschoacoustic phenomenae is either not yet highly developed or perhaps just not as well known as that for electronic ones. In any case, amongst some of us there is a definite mistrust these "soft science" methodologies will be properly applied in the Randi Challenge.
The other aspect of the smoke and fire generated that bemuses me is the marginal nature of the product under discussion. Even if its effect is absolutely validated, its effect on audio quality has to be magnitudes less than any of the following variables: room characteristics, speaker polar response, system frequency response curve, decent amplifier design, and a bunch more I can't think of right now. Is it because it's a stand in for the subjective judgements we have to make of the effects these other variables have? That is, what actually are the characteristics of good reproduced sound?
As I said, I believe in the products of reason, and therefore believe bad, mediocre, good and superb reproduced sound has electronic, acoustic, and subjective parameters which can be objectively described well enough that they can be drawn up on a table of engineering requirements and achieved consistently in practice. I think the first two sets of parameters have been intensively examined by engineers, but they've yet really to bite into the third to the same degree. Not surprising, engineers are more trained to to deal with the first two and tend to specialize.
So, the HIfi mags are full of hand waving commentary. The salespeople (who care, and some do) don't know what needs their customers need to fill and t Believe is a big driving force, and while it's working, it doesn't really matter if it's right or wrong. The end result is of most importance.he customers don't know which needs to prioritize. The DIY guy is tweeking the bias because it "sounds better" and doesn't know why the sound itself is better....
There is no objective baseline to refer to which is satisfactory.
Bratislav said:
Fully agree. I like to add that the reason many subscribe to the scientific method is because it has such a fantastic track record of coming up with results. As an example, consider a complex space craft spending several years swinging from one planet to another, thereby picking up or changing momentum and/or direction, then after many years ending up in a accurately predicted orbit around say Saturn, on the way smartly avoiding being blasted by the ring material. All that depends on laws and theories developed about the behaviour of objects, force, gravity and what have you. But by Golly, it works, superbly! "Believe"? My foot.
Jan Didden
PS Don't bother to point out that those pictures from Saturn were actually made in Death Valley, CA, USA. I wouldn't believe you.
Folks, this is my opinion about ABX testing. At present, and probably in the future, it is a waste of time. You can't beat it! It will almost always tell you that two devices sound the same. If you believe this, then get another hobby. You already have good enough electronics, at least for your needs. The problem for me is that I make audio designs for a living. I started off with some darn good circuit topologies, better than many discussed here, 30 years ago. Over time, I have learned to 'improve' these topologies by using better parts, layout, and 'X' factors that I would be laughed at, or at least, hassled by many on this website. I usually do not invent these 'X' factors. I work with others who have a knack for discovering them. Deep down, I really like to measure and understand why things sound like they do, but sometimes I just have to use something without really understanding why, because it sounds better to me, and my associates, than something else or another approach.
This is my position, I use what works for me and the audio public, who use my designs. I don't have to 'prove' anything beyond that.
This is my position, I use what works for me and the audio public, who use my designs. I don't have to 'prove' anything beyond that.
Correction
Quote from Peter was somehow inserted in the middle of penultimate paragraph. This is how it should read (I hope):
So, the HIfi mags are full of hand waving commentary. The salespeople (who care, and some do) don't know what needs their customers need to fill and the customers don't know which needs to prioritize. The DIY guy is tweeking the bias because it "sounds better" and doesn't know why the sound itself is better....
Quote from Peter was somehow inserted in the middle of penultimate paragraph. This is how it should read (I hope):
So, the HIfi mags are full of hand waving commentary. The salespeople (who care, and some do) don't know what needs their customers need to fill and the customers don't know which needs to prioritize. The DIY guy is tweeking the bias because it "sounds better" and doesn't know why the sound itself is better....
Konnichiwa,
Not quite. However modern "Science" has attached itself to a number of fundamental unshakable and orthodox Axioms and a fundamental doctrine that the universe operates mechanistic and anything MUST have a completely natural explanation within the context of what it considers doctrinal orthodox in nature. All the above are clear signs of a religion.
Now individual scientists may follow the orthodox doctrine or not, but as a body and especially in it's academic incarnation modern "science" has very much a closed mind to anything falling outside it's stated axioms and doctrine and will readily set out to defend the orthodox doctrine with whatever means neccesary against any dissenters.
Notre I distinguish between Science, namely the pursuit of Knowledge in itself, without any fundamental doctrine and modern "science" which has made istelf into a religion and in many cases blocks the pursuit of knowledge.
Empirical actually.
No, I prefer Inductors, Resistos and Capacitors.
There is a certain definition of a religion, namely:
(generic definition of Religion): A means of getting in touch with and of attaining at-onement with "ultimate reality." In slightly different words, a religion is a system of symbols (e.g., words and gestures, stories and practices, objects and places) that functions religiously, namely, an ongoing system of symbols that participants use to draw near to, and come into right or appropriate relationship with, what they deem to be ultimate reality.
Modern "science" fits the above pretty well.
True science is clearly not a religion but merely a form of observation and drawing logical conclusions from observations. Now "modern" science has added to this a number of fundamental axioms mand orthodox doctrine which determine what part of science is acceptable and "scientific" and what is considered to be heretical. This is exactly the behaviour of any organised religion, down to the Tee.
I do not think I could afford the moral cost of believing anything. That is the one area where my problem with "moral affordability" comes in. If I know something to be fundamentally untrue, I CANNOT believe it, if I know it to be true I do not need believe. Sorry, I cannot morally afford to believe, too expensive for me.
Could that be because I am not acting as propagandist.
Sayonara
andy_c said:
Not quite. However modern "Science" has attached itself to a number of fundamental unshakable and orthodox Axioms and a fundamental doctrine that the universe operates mechanistic and anything MUST have a completely natural explanation within the context of what it considers doctrinal orthodox in nature. All the above are clear signs of a religion.
Now individual scientists may follow the orthodox doctrine or not, but as a body and especially in it's academic incarnation modern "science" has very much a closed mind to anything falling outside it's stated axioms and doctrine and will readily set out to defend the orthodox doctrine with whatever means neccesary against any dissenters.
Notre I distinguish between Science, namely the pursuit of Knowledge in itself, without any fundamental doctrine and modern "science" which has made istelf into a religion and in many cases blocks the pursuit of knowledge.
andy_c said:
Empirical actually.
andy_c said:
No, I prefer Inductors, Resistos and Capacitors.
andy_c said:
There is a certain definition of a religion, namely:
(generic definition of Religion): A means of getting in touch with and of attaining at-onement with "ultimate reality." In slightly different words, a religion is a system of symbols (e.g., words and gestures, stories and practices, objects and places) that functions religiously, namely, an ongoing system of symbols that participants use to draw near to, and come into right or appropriate relationship with, what they deem to be ultimate reality.
Modern "science" fits the above pretty well.
andy_c said:
True science is clearly not a religion but merely a form of observation and drawing logical conclusions from observations. Now "modern" science has added to this a number of fundamental axioms mand orthodox doctrine which determine what part of science is acceptable and "scientific" and what is considered to be heretical. This is exactly the behaviour of any organised religion, down to the Tee.
andy_c said:
I do not think I could afford the moral cost of believing anything. That is the one area where my problem with "moral affordability" comes in. If I know something to be fundamentally untrue, I CANNOT believe it, if I know it to be true I do not need believe. Sorry, I cannot morally afford to believe, too expensive for me.
andy_c said:
Could that be because I am not acting as propagandist.
Sayonara
ABX Testing
Konnichiwa,
ABX Testing is simple statistics. As such ABX is just like any other tool. It can be used in many ways. A simple statement can be made that if it is desired to make a statement with reasonable certainty (.05 significance) about the occurence of the "X-Factor" in a given population (e.g. audiophiles) we require datasets that are inversely proportional to the degree of change our "X-Factor" brings.
This means that very obvious changes can be reliably detetced with the small sample sets used by the Charlatans in the ABX crowd (right in line with the basic tenets of statistiscs as science) and that subtle changes cannot be detetected by these methodes with the usual sample sizes. Now the ABX Charlatans may plead ignorance at the beginning, but the problems in their statistical methode have been the subject of extensive academic coverage. The failure to adjust their statistics in the light of this shows a clear intent to produce null results, as they had been told that their methode would do so with a statistically guranteed reliability where subtle differences are concerned.
I may be forgiven, but given that behaviour, I cannot accept anything coming from that direction as serious science. So, in the hands of those who promote it most the Audio ABX test has been a tool that has been conciously, knowingly and deliberatly used to provide pretended "proof" of the inaudibility of phenomenae that the ABX Eperimenters decided where "not real". By standard defintion such behaviour is fraud, hence the label Charlatan fits to the Tee.
Sayonara
Konnichiwa,
ABX Testing is simple statistics. As such ABX is just like any other tool. It can be used in many ways. A simple statement can be made that if it is desired to make a statement with reasonable certainty (.05 significance) about the occurence of the "X-Factor" in a given population (e.g. audiophiles) we require datasets that are inversely proportional to the degree of change our "X-Factor" brings.
This means that very obvious changes can be reliably detetced with the small sample sets used by the Charlatans in the ABX crowd (right in line with the basic tenets of statistiscs as science) and that subtle changes cannot be detetected by these methodes with the usual sample sizes. Now the ABX Charlatans may plead ignorance at the beginning, but the problems in their statistical methode have been the subject of extensive academic coverage. The failure to adjust their statistics in the light of this shows a clear intent to produce null results, as they had been told that their methode would do so with a statistically guranteed reliability where subtle differences are concerned.
I may be forgiven, but given that behaviour, I cannot accept anything coming from that direction as serious science. So, in the hands of those who promote it most the Audio ABX test has been a tool that has been conciously, knowingly and deliberatly used to provide pretended "proof" of the inaudibility of phenomenae that the ABX Eperimenters decided where "not real". By standard defintion such behaviour is fraud, hence the label Charlatan fits to the Tee.
Sayonara
john curl said:
John,
I think many would agree to the good sense oprating the way you describe. Sometimes you have to go out on a hunch, based on experience and knowledge. I for one very much respect your capability to come up with elegant and good sounding designs. (You were one of just a few of my hero's when I started to get interested in audio 30+ years ago. You still are).
What people (me included) seem to be critical of is the statement "because it sounds good to me". That's very personal, and not easily transferred to other people. With measurements, it is much easier to say: "built this circuit, these values, connect your scope to these points and you will measure such-and-such". Unfortunately, that doesn't connect to listening experiences. It is easy to see that reasoning along these lines you cannot help but to end up with some proposal of a blind test, where you try to remove those personal influences and just try to look at the sound itself.
I know Thorsten has posted lengthy discourses on how blind testing is flawed (or rather, is manipulated by the unbelievers) but I do not pretend I understand all of it (even if I had the stamina to go through it all). Still, I strongly believe in the scientific method explained earlier, that to accept that something "sounds better" must have some objective foundation. After all, if it sounds better (contrary to perceives better) it must be because the electrical signal going into the speaker system is 'better', and that means the output signal of the amp is 'better', so in principle it is measurable.
Ohh well, I'm just thinking out loud. FWIW.
Jan Didden
I agree - a simple example of such a phenomenon being 'pitch'.
It's well known that perceived pitch is a function of both frequency and amplitude (if you don't believe this, try changing the volume of a steady tone).
Now, both these are objective measurable parameters, but how can pitch itself be measured? Perhaps there are neurological methods of doing so of which I am unaware. If so, isn't this the sort of thing we're looking for to test the Shakti proposition?
Otherwise, if such an obvious and well known effect cannot be directly observed by a third party, how can we hope to measure more subtle effects except by broadly statistical methods, which IMHO imply a degree of 'belief' by their nature. [Ducks]
dnsey said:
I think it is important to distinguish between hearing and perceiving. Pitch is something that is perception-related, not strictly hearing related (although of course it uses inputs from acoustic sensors). There is a standard example where freq and amplitude are manipulated such that the listeners perceives a rising pitch - for hours on end if necessary. Of course, freq doesn't really rise continuously, otherwise we would soon be above the hearing range. So, pitch being a perception phenomen, I think it is futile to try to measure it, as it is not a physical attribute of the signal. It's like trying to measure the temperature of a picture that is perceived as having 'warm colors'. It is not a physical attribute of the painting and is not measureable. It is something that the brain complex puts onto the received sound or vision inputs.
Jan Didden
From: http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/bu/people/berger/spectraltexturing/ :
The Shepard tone is a tone which appears to rise or fall continuously. This is achieved by composing the tone of a sum of sine waves which all increase or decrease in frequency over time. While sine waves which leave an audible frequency range are faded out, new sine waves are faded in at the opposite side of the spectrum. This results in a tone of perceptually continuously rising pitch. Sometimes the pitch seems to 'jump back' to a different pitch, but this is only a perceptual effect and not contained in the sound itself.
Download a Shepard Tone as mp3:
Shepard tone with continuously rising pitch (2.3 MB)
Shepard tone with continuously falling pitch (2.3 MB)
I entirely agree.
Randi's challenge is to show that:
"THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CLAIM THEY CAN DO" (his caps)
Shakti's claim is that:
"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus. The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width and unwavering imaging".
Given Randi's requirement of a double-blind test, I take it that he's not referring directly to their claims regarding RFI absorption, etc. With the possible exception of inter-transient silence, the above claims seem to me to be founded in the realm of perception, and are therefore probably unmeasurable first-hand.
Randi's challenge is to show that:
"THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CLAIM THEY CAN DO" (his caps)
Shakti's claim is that:
"Music reproduction is clearer, with more liquidity, dynamics and focus. The improved inter-transient silence allows the listener to hear ambient cue information essential for accurate perception of stage depth, width and unwavering imaging".
Given Randi's requirement of a double-blind test, I take it that he's not referring directly to their claims regarding RFI absorption, etc. With the possible exception of inter-transient silence, the above claims seem to me to be founded in the realm of perception, and are therefore probably unmeasurable first-hand.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.