In John's world of fashion audio, "trust your ears" means "don't trust your ears, peek!" "Scientific" means "accept risible claims unquestioningly and don't investigate." "Progress" means "relying on 40 year old ideas without moving on."
It's like Bizarro Universe, but populated by con-men and hucksters. In any case, if this gizmo does anything, actual documented testing (which the peddlers don't deign to do) will reveal it. If not, then it's a useful means of determining who's terminally gullible and provides John and his cohorts with a pond to fish in.
It's like Bizarro Universe, but populated by con-men and hucksters. In any case, if this gizmo does anything, actual documented testing (which the peddlers don't deign to do) will reveal it. If not, then it's a useful means of determining who's terminally gullible and provides John and his cohorts with a pond to fish in.
Scott, you didn't specify an amount. Were you going to do $50 same as Jan? Gpauk I think assumed that when he offered up to complete this with $19.
So here's what I have so far unless Scott intended something different.
Jan Didden: $50
Scott Wurcer: $50
Billshurv: $20
Gpauk: $19
Everyone ok with that?
se
So here's what I have so far unless Scott intended something different.
Jan Didden: $50
Scott Wurcer: $50
Billshurv: $20
Gpauk: $19
Everyone ok with that?
se
"Trust your ears."
This is exactly the point where these discussions break down, every single time. Regardless of the myriad, proven examples of how and why our ears are simply not to be trusted. "Well, maybe your ears, but not mine!" some say. "How do you know if you haven't tried it?" say others. To which the obvious answer is - see above!
I guess "Trust your ears as little as possible" just doesn't have the same zen, or something.
Anyway - sorry for the navel-gazing (again). Time for a bike ride, followed by a sit in the park with the ducks (and wonderful Etymotic earbuds). Happy holiday weekend to all my fellow US audio addicts.
-- Jim
This is exactly the point where these discussions break down, every single time. Regardless of the myriad, proven examples of how and why our ears are simply not to be trusted. "Well, maybe your ears, but not mine!" some say. "How do you know if you haven't tried it?" say others. To which the obvious answer is - see above!
I guess "Trust your ears as little as possible" just doesn't have the same zen, or something.
Anyway - sorry for the navel-gazing (again). Time for a bike ride, followed by a sit in the park with the ducks (and wonderful Etymotic earbuds). Happy holiday weekend to all my fellow US audio addicts.
-- Jim
Yes. Some people's vanity and ego will simply not allow them to acknowledge their own humanity.
se
Well, ears are pretty good at judging I think, but they aren't often used for that without assistance from eyes, memory, previous judgement, imagination, even smell (tube amps often have a characteristic odor!). Getting ears to judge well entirely on their own doesn't seem to work all that well. Is it because they really aren't that good (evidence often seems to point that way) or is it because the brain they use for the interpretation gets wacked out without the rest going on? That seems to be the big point of argument.
Or both?
Ears actually are very good at many things- level, frequency response, localization, for instance. They're not so good at distortion, phase, buried signals, and magical unmeasureable effects.
If Scott's not in for the full 50 Washingtons I will happily throw in some loonies or twoonies to make up the difference. Let me know if needed.
Thanks, nezbleu! Jim wanted to contribute as well so let's see what Scott has to say and then we'll sort it all out.
se
Yes, that's good, bring it on.
With proper step by step documentation this ought to be a fruitful investigation.
Before the item is altered in any way including opening the device, I suggest that at least several people take a very close listen and their subjective appraisals recorded.
This gives opportunity to test a range of non technical listeners, including wives in the kitchens, and kids in the bedrooms.
I find a useful strategy when presenting a test is to say things like.....
For measurement test purposes, a protocol needs to be decided on.
Resistive dummy load is not a suitable test, and especially so as it is claimed that the Rev33 is optimised to particular headphone models.
Test signals need to be decided too...we have many good minds here to collaborate on a comprehensive test strategy.
Dan.
No it doesn't and is more likely to cause harm as people tank things up thinking they are protected. Hearing protection is a complex subject, the USA military has spent a lot of money looking into the problem and coming up with solutions, the best ones being active noise reduction... which this is not.
REV33 | A look inside the REV33
A simple filter, the hearing protection stuff I have seen requires more than a few passive components.......
A simple filter, the hearing protection stuff I have seen requires more than a few passive components.......
- Status
- Not open for further replies.