Indeed, Stanley Clark was found to sell mineral oil , not the real snake oil...basically snake oil is full of omega 3/6...so it should be at least an anti inflammatory medicine.If a small percentage of the poison is spread in its body, then the snake oil might indeed have some other properties as snake poison is used to made very effective medicines.
Last edited:
My jokes always fall flat. It's Belgian humor.
(I love your "real snake oil" ;-)
It was second degree. I am tired of these eternal lawsuits of intention.
You're right, it's unfair, but "life is unfair".
Last edited:
Do-you mean that, because you are in the chemistry business, you are allowed to sell snake oil ? ;-)
Never give up on a struggling soul....
Could be you are creating some of the struggle (against certain pre-existing beliefs, and maybe personality type).
Why not "The hifi company" ?
(As Hifi is, anyway a make believe game, OMHO, while we all try (tried) our best, hoping that our clients will be "hifi").
Last edited:
Might be...it's not taken yet, but it's much easier to make high end products than hi-fi products.
))
For some weird reason all the respectable guys here launched their best products the same year i was born...JC, RF, JH...I already feel special.I wonder who launched me
))
You call it nonsense. As you described it, your own judgement, it's your own opinion, a biased one.
Not everyone in audio business does what you do.
Just show the proof that level matched DBT of DACs or other audio electronic components in chain prior to speakers wasn't audibly distinguishable when the stress of DBT plagued the listener but when the stress is gone, it became distinguishable.
Once again, you are just repeating your tried & failed shill tactic.
I recall reading that when it was published. It was the first I'd heard of "The Audio Critic" (I've not read many audio/hifi magazines other than The Audio Amateur). I found the dozen or so issues he had put online, read them, and it makes me want to read the others. From what I read he really was (other than the speaker as mentioned) a no-BS person, and one of the rare few in the audio publishing field.
I found this portion of one comment interesting:
One could easily enough (okay, it would take some time and expense setting it up, but hardly more than a "real time" ABX test) set up two amplifiers with switching equipment (carefully level-matched, etc.) that selected one or the other, and only switched once every (for example - the time period could be something else) 7 to 14 days, and only when there's no signal passing through (perhaps it switches at 3 to 4AM, when no one is in the room so no one hears any relays or such). The date and time is recorded in internal memory, and can be recalled later, but the listener has no idea when the switchover(s) happen during the listening test. Could someone such as the commenter quoted above, after weeks or months of listening, hear the difference and recognize the switchover date(s)? And would this be something that could NOT be reliably heard in a "real time" ABX test?
From my reading of the recording professionals on rec.audio.pro 20 years ago (I learned to trust what they said they could hear, (sometimes I could verify it myself through audio files they posted), those who wrote about audible differences between various amps and preamps COULD tell the difference instantly, or at most in a few seconds. I don't recall anyone discussing differences only heard over the long term.
Jacob, I really admire your inexhaustible energy.
...all over the Internet, entirely dedicated to put down any attempt to rely on ABX for identification or preference tests, disregarding how carefully and throughout they are designed (e.g. there is always the “missing positive control” BS used when everything else fails).
To my long years experience on multiple audio related forums, it is useless to argue about (which, ahem, I’m just doing
); you’ll always get back at best a theoretical word salad, lacking any practical suggestions to improve tests (if possible), if not nitpicking, obfuscating, etc... All while having little to no doubts and an unusual tolerance to casual (read: peeking) listening tests results. And always missing the “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” principle which is at the foundation of each and every experimental science.To quote Jakob(X), “it is kind of sad”.
Vienna puts me in combative mood, I guess
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.