View Full Version : The limits of credibility
At what point in this hobby do you reach the boundaries of credibility? Like Han Solo I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other and I've seen a lot of crazy stuff but is this sort of thing
http://www.stereotimes.com/post/stein-music-blue-sun/
pushing it a bit too far? I mean If someone turned up at my door with them I would give them a go just out of interest but, really, it has to be nonsense. Doesn't it?
As soon as I read the word "Quantum" in the first sentence as a way of trying to lend credibility to the salesman, my BS radar was activated. An utter load of codswallop of the sort that makes audio enthusiasts a laughing stock in some circles and strips any credibility that the inventor might have had away. Marketing BS, plain and simple.
Only $750.00 each! I want 4!!
750 dollarydoos for a small splat of resin.....time to give up the hifi business i think and take up reading again..quantum reading at that
$750 a pop and he used six !!!!!!!!!
... I'm always looking for new things to make with our jelly molds :lol:
Gordon Steadman
27-05-2015, 13:37
What the word 'bollocks' was invented for.
No surprise that the first three letters of 'fool' are used to describe such rubbish. Crystals already....give me strength. We have some ladies pushing crystals as a way to universal peace and harmony on our local Google group. Mad as hatters the lot of them.
IMO of course:eyebrows:
"There is no right place to put them although Holger has recommended positions for which to start your placement."
I could recommend a place where he might put them.
But if I was to turn up at your door (not unsolicited, obviously) with a bag of these things, would you be amenable to trying them or would you say 'sod off, it's nonsense.'
I think I would have to give them a go out of curiosity, provided I did not have to do anything or hand over any money.
And then what if you tried them and thought 'blow me they do make a difference'. I mean the whole 'quantum' thing is marketing bollocks, obviously, but where do we go from there if we do hear an improvement?
But if I was to turn up at your door (not unsolicited, obviously) with a bag of these things, would you be amenable to trying them or would you say 'sod off, it's nonsense.'
I think I would have to give them a go out of curiosity, provided I did not have to do anything or hand over any money.
And then what if you tried them and thought 'blow me they do make a difference'. I mean the whole 'quantum' thing is marketing bollocks, obviously, but where do we go from there if we do hear an improvement?
psychiatric dept of our local healthcare facility perhaps :eyebrows:
obviously if someone i trusted wanted me to try them for no outlay then i probably would as it might be fun but tbh i dont see how it would be an instant upgrade or we'd be hearing much more about them...a bit like the water powered car
psychiatric dept of our local healthcare facility perhaps :eyebrows:
This reminds me of the man who went to the doctors and complained about how he had been doing silent farts constantly for weeks and it was really getting him down.
"All the while I have been talking to you doctor, I have been farting away, but they are totally silent so it is only I who notices, please help me it's driving me to distraction"
And so the doctor gets out his pad and says:
"Well, I think the first thing we should do is send you for a hearing test"
are you criticizing from a position of knowledge or ignorance ? just a simple question ........coz if its ignorance you could make yourself look really rather stupid. Personally if they work as suggested in the article then the cost maybe ok .....if they don't then there pricey ornaments. But to make fun of something that I doubt any of you have heard is taking it a bit far and I remind you to read the aims of the forum... you know the one about keeping an open mind etc or denigrating someone sincerely held belief, just because its out of your comfort zone.
Gordon Steadman
27-05-2015, 14:50
are you criticizing from a position of knowledge or ignorance ? just a simple question ........coz if its ignorance you could make yourself look really rather stupid. Personally if they work as suggested in the article then the cost maybe ok .....if they don't then there pricey ornaments. But to make fun of something that I doubt any of you have heard is taking it a bit far and I remind you to read the aims of the forum... you know the one about keeping an open mind etc or denigrating someone sincerely held belief, just because its out of your comfort zone.
I know bollocks when I see it. Anyone that starts talking about quantum anything to do with hi-fi is immediately dismissed. I've been listening - with an open mind and ears - for fifty years, to all sorts of systems and never once has any of this sort of stuff made a blind bit of difference. That sort of experience tends to have an effect.
are you criticizing from a position of knowledge or ignorance ? just a simple question ........coz if its ignorance you could make yourself look really rather stupid. Personally if they work as suggested in the article then the cost maybe ok .....if they don't then there pricey ornaments. But to make fun of something that I doubt any of you have heard is taking it a bit far and I remind you to read the aims of the forum... you know the one about keeping an open mind etc or denigrating someone sincerely held belief, just because its out of your comfort zone.
No one has denigrated anyone's sincerely held beliefs so far.
Rothchild
27-05-2015, 15:09
If they work at a quantum level why does it matter if they are in our out of the box, indeed surely the simple fact that they exist could mean my audio is improved - happy days!
The intent of this thread is not to denigrate anyone or anything.
Personally I was interested in how many people would give them a go despite thinking that it is nonsense. (Asuming no outlay; just like in the review I linked to in the o/p a bloke turns up with them and sets them up for you. You need do nothing but sit and listen).
Personally I would give them a go in those circumstances but it would concern me greatly if I thought they improved the sound.
Gordon Steadman
27-05-2015, 15:31
If they work at a quantum level why does it matter if they are in our out of the box, indeed surely the simple fact that they exist could mean my audio is improved - happy days!
:youtheman:
awkwardbydesign
27-05-2015, 15:36
As soon as I read the word "Quantum" in the first sentence as a way of trying to lend credibility to the salesman, my BS radar was activated. An utter load of codswallop of the sort that makes audio enthusiasts a laughing stock in some circles and strips any credibility that the inventor might have had away. Marketing BS, plain and simple.
You don't need those, just paying more than £100 for a stereo will do it. It's just a matter of degree.
awkwardbydesign
27-05-2015, 15:38
If they work at a quantum level why does it matter if they are in our out of the box, indeed surely the simple fact that they exist could mean my audio is improved - happy days!
I like that! But I would give them a go for free.
Rothchild
27-05-2015, 15:48
And to answer Macca's more serious point; if a mate brought them over and we could listen to some tracks then that would be fine, but I fear my expectation bias may hamper their abilities.
If, on the other hand, we're talking about a salesman visiting for a free, no strings attached (etc etc) demo I'm not sure I could be bothered to put up the necessary hospitality (I suppose that could simply be the fear that I might like them and have to part with £3k)
And to answer Macca's more serious point; if a mate brought them over and we could listen to some tracks then that would be fine, but I fear my expectation bias may hamper their abilities.
If, on the other hand, we're talking about a salesman visiting for a free, no strings attached (etc etc) demo I'm not sure I could be bothered to put up the necessary hospitality (I suppose that could simply be the fear that I might like them and have to part with £3k)
Yes that''s what I'm getting at. They *shouldn't* work so if they do is it expectation bias or is it actually quantum tunneling (or whatever) at work?
If it is expectation bias then shouldn't any bizarre artifact work? if I come round your place and put, say, inflatable bananas at strategic positions around the room then tell you 'now listen again' (possibly with an eyebrow wriggle thrown in) shouldn't that be just as effective? Or is the high price tag and the pseudo-science actually essential to make the expectation bias work?
If you hear an improvement it doesn't matter what the cause it is an improvement. Fact. And if the expectation bias argument is correct then surely it should be possible to fake expectation bias - and for less than £750 a pop as well.
I might try glueing a walnut whip to my chimney breast
Rothchild
27-05-2015, 16:15
Yes that''s what I'm getting at. They *shouldn't* work so if they do is it expectation bias or is it actually quantum tunneling (or whatever) at work?
If it is expectation bias then shouldn't any bizarre artifact work? if I come round your place and put, say, inflatable bananas at strategic positions around the room then tell you 'now listen again' (possibly with an eyebrow wriggle thrown in) shouldn't that be just as effective? Or is the high price tag and the pseudo-science actually essential to make the expectation bias work?
If you hear an improvement it doesn't matter what the cause it is an improvement. Fact. And if the expectation bias argument is correct then surely it should be possible to fake expectation bias - and for less than £750 a pop as well.
Except my expectation is that it won't work, so I'm likely to bias my results such that I wont hear anything.
I'm afraid I'm generally too rational to be anything but a subjectivist sympathiser, I've been caught out too many times hearing things that demonstrably weren't there (like tweaking an EQ that wasn't patched in in the studio) to be convinced to part with any money unless it's cause and effect can be described to me in simple and plausible terms relating to physics, chemistry or psychology - sound is not mystical and whilst hearing and perception still have new areas of discovery available in the main they're pretty functional and repeatable metrics, so, for me, claims need to be backed with proper engineering before I'm likely to be swayed (as I was to a certain degree in our Hi-rez discussion).
Firebottle
27-05-2015, 16:31
'He also creates interesting devices that alter the way sound waves interact with the oxygen'
'He uses precision cut crystals arranged in exact configurations putting out fields that allow these sound waves from our loudspeakers and through air molecules with less resistance'
What an utter load of bollocks :mental:
Anyone got any idea why this shit needs a CE mark? I might just have to ask for a copy of the certificate of conformity and the particular directive involved.
:rolleyes: Alan
OK I've asked the question, let's see if I get a reply.
I might try glueing a walnut whip to my chimney breast
Tried that (last Tuesday)... Trouble is, it's directional.
Marco.
I might try glueing a walnut whip to my chimney breast
Are you telling us that you are going to stick a walnut whip up yourself?
:stalks:
Haselsh1
27-05-2015, 17:02
You know, the finest scientific minds on the planet don't fully understand anything related to 'Quantum' so why is this dogshite any different...? Maybe he hails from Krypton :eyebrows:
Haselsh1
27-05-2015, 17:03
Tried that (last Tuesday)... Trouble is, it's directional.
Marco.
I suppose it will be if you insert it sideways :eyebrows:
Are you telling us that you are going to stick a walnut whip up yourself?
:stalks:
If it was a peanut it would come out a treat
Gordon Steadman
27-05-2015, 17:22
I don't think people are taking this audio breakthrough very seriously:(
Firebottle
27-05-2015, 17:59
Well I've had a reply to my request:
Dear Alan,
We are just in California for the Newport Beach show, and I do not have these details at hand right now.
For me CE conformity is a necessity, which however does not say anything about its sonic properties nor about their influence on the atmosphere in the living room.
Regarding the first aspect this one becomes obvious while listening, regarding the second we are working with the tool of aura photography.
Any further questions please let me know.
Best regards,
Holger Stein
Make of that what you will.
:) Alan
You clearly all have short memory's (Yawn emoticon here)
http://www.shunmook.com/text1.htm
"sympathetic resonance".....er just forget the sym?
WTF is Mpingo wood anyway... I know someone will be along shortly to put me right:rolleyes:
Spectral Morn
27-05-2015, 18:08
Unless you have tried one, how can anyone make any comment about what it does or doesn't do? Simple answer you can't. Yes it looks dubious but unless one tries, one can't comment.
Regards Neil
Rothchild
27-05-2015, 18:11
Unless you have tried one, how can anyone make any comment about what it does or doesn't do? Simple answer you can't. Yes it looks dubious but unless one tries, one can't comment.
Regards Neil
Absolutely, until you've given me all your money you won't know whether I'm going to give it back to you with tidy profit or not, so you might as well give me all your money, I have some knowledge of quantum theory.
Spectral Morn
27-05-2015, 18:12
The intent of this thread is not to denigrate anyone or anything.
Personally I was interested in how many people would give them a go despite thinking that it is nonsense. (Asuming no outlay; just like in the review I linked to in the o/p a bloke turns up with them and sets them up for you. You need do nothing but sit and listen).
Personally I would give them a go in those circumstances but it would concern me greatly if I thought they improved the sound.
Yes I would.
Interestingly I have been offered an opportunity to try something equally new age and weird and with an open mind I said what the heck. Its on its way too me to write about and yes there are crystals involved.
Regards Neil
Interestingly I have been offered an opportunity to try something equally new age and weird and with an open mind I said what the heck ...... and yes there are crystals involved.
Just don't smoke it. That crystal stuff can be terribly addictive.
Its on its way too me to write about and yes there are crystals involved.
AsnewgLyla8
Marco.
Haselsh1
27-05-2015, 19:06
In a similar light I remember Peter W Belt's little graphite triangular foils which I tried out back around 1988 and which myself and a few friends swore blind made quite a significant difference when listening via a Cambridge CD2. As has already been said here, you have to try them to know fully :eyebrows:
This is like God or religion. Belief makes it real.
In a similar light I remember Peter W Belt's little graphite triangular foils which I tried out back around 1988 and which myself and a few friends swore blind made quite a significant difference when listening via a Cambridge CD2. As has already been said here, you have to try them to know fully :eyebrows:
Why is it that it is only the reproduction of music that attracts these 'interesting' products - there doesn't seem to be the equivalent in photograpy or the visual arts?
Apropos the use of crystals - my gear is full of them: teeny weeny pieces of silicon! :)
Anyway there is no need to worry about all these products. Just arrange for your listening room to aligned along a ley-line and you will have no need for them. :lol:
Why is it that it is only the reproduction of music that attracts these 'interesting' products - there doesn't seem to be the equivalent in photograpy or the visual arts?
Because there are enthusiasts out there with plenty of cash to splash who are vulnerable (or gullible) to the power of suggestion that their kit can be tweaked an improved ad infinitum by miraculous new products. As for all the "you can't comment until you've tried it" , sorry but yes we can. Had science discovered a "quantum" breakthrough or otherwise about making air molecules more slippery or whatever the jargonistic marketing BS explanation was, it is a complete insult to intelligence, that simple, plus I think that many recording studios and "hi end" emporiums would have bought these magic panaceas by the bucket load if there was even a shred of truth in the claimed benefits.
The old chestnut about passive "objects" doing something to make the sound waves from a loudspeaker behave more linearly, or accurately is utter bunkum. People have been selling these things ever since the term "high End" was coined back in the 1980's because it was simply another marketing stream to make a name for yourself (we all know who they are) and to make money. The loudspeaker design, what's driving it, the recording and the room the speakers are in determine what you hear, so if you are convinced that a few inanimate objects the size of a match box placed around the listening room plays any part whatsoever in measurably improving SQ, go knock yourself out ;)
Gordon Steadman
27-05-2015, 19:46
Why is it that it is only the reproduction of music that attracts these 'interesting' products - there doesn't seem to be the equivalent in photograpy or the visual arts?
Because people would see through them:eyebrows:
It may have something to it but it's a world away from my budget for a start.
Because people would see through them :eyebrows:
:lol:
awkwardbydesign
27-05-2015, 20:10
This is like God or religion. Belief makes it real.
God and religion are not the same as each other. Do try to keep up.
prestonchipfryer
27-05-2015, 20:19
Tried that (last Tuesday)... Trouble is, it's directional.
Marco.
You're supposed to eat the walnut and then listen. Guarantee there will be no difference. Unless of course it's a Thursday. ;)
Audio Advent
27-05-2015, 22:13
Air is more complex than I realized, according to Wikipedia air is composed mainly of nitrogen, secondly oxygen and an assortment of about 15 sub-factors.
HAhaha! The "reviewer" is clueless in the first place, no wonder he's impressed by the, err.... science explanation behind them.
Audio Advent
27-05-2015, 22:16
In my conversations with Stein he never attempted to hype or sell his products.
Typical, textbook, conning technique! I guess he just phoned for a chat.
Even two harmonizers did the trick, the combination of the two Harmonizers kit which includes stands or wall mounts and two black stones comes to $2,295 The Blue suns retail for $750 each. Three Blue Suns would cost $4,545 which is a substantial amount of money. If you already own the Harmonizers, adding the Blue Suns is a great addition if you can afford them
... you let the victim think they've made their own choice and spent the money freely without prompting.
Spectral Morn
27-05-2015, 22:52
These Acoustic Resonators by http://www.francktchang.com/ and the similar ones by Synergistic Research http://www.synergisticresearch.com/category/acoustic-art/ stretched credibility and I was very sceptical as frankly I could not explain how they could possibly affect the sound in a room and yet I heard them affect the sound in a room at two hifi shows and I still don't understand how, but they did.
So yes on the face of it these items seem impossible and incredible stretches but until I hear one, I can say nothing about them.
Regards Neil
Spectral Morn
27-05-2015, 22:54
AsnewgLyla8
Marco.
:lol:
Because there are enthusiasts out there with plenty of cash to splash who are vulnerable (or gullible) to the power of suggestion that their kit can be tweaked an improved ad infinitum by miraculous new products. As for all the "you can't comment until you've tried it" , sorry but yes we can. Had science discovered a "quantum" breakthrough or otherwise about making air molecules more slippery or whatever the jargonistic marketing BS explanation was, it is a complete insult to intelligence, that simple, plus I think that many recording studios and "hi end" emporiums would have bought these magic panaceas by the bucket load if there was even a shred of truth in the claimed benefits.
The old chestnut about passive "objects" doing something to make the sound waves from a loudspeaker behave more linearly, or accurately is utter bunkum. People have been selling these things ever since the term "high End" was coined back in the 1980's because it was simply another marketing stream to make a name for yourself (we all know who they are) and to make money. The loudspeaker design, what's driving it, the recording and the room the speakers are in determine what you hear, so if you are convinced that a few inanimate objects the size of a match box placed around the listening room plays any part whatsoever in measurably improving SQ, go knock yourself out ;)
I agree with every word you wrote Paul and would never consider buying any of these devices or other similar miracle devices myself, however, you are missing one element: us Humans.....placebo affects in the medical world have been proven over many studies and I dont there is any reason why these affects could not apply to audio....the human brain is a very complex thing indeed.
Rothchild
28-05-2015, 06:55
Although I'm a hardened sceptic of course I'm willing to try out new stuff.
I think the point that stretches credibility with these products is their pricing, blocks of rubber (quantum or not), little metal bowls and blocks of wood with 'specially drilled holes' in them cost from pennies to maybe tens of pounds - if the argument is that the cost is buried in r&d then let's see the results of that r&d (which should presumably show that they work - either through proper measurement in an anechoic chamber of via a well validated mass subjective study).
Until such time I can only assume that, whilst possibly well meaning, these products are proven with nothing more than wishful thinking.
I think the question of why other hobbyist interests don't succomb so readily to such mystically charged items is an interesting one, it's not as if the photography gang aren't always upgrading, swapping and generally willy waving too, but I've never seen any reference to the equivalent of 'crystals that make your pictures sharper through the quantum manipulation of light' etc. I suspect because it's much easier to share a photo than it is the sound in a room (which is different in every room) and that margin of error allows scope for some of these more 'out there' products.
Gordon Steadman
28-05-2015, 07:26
Although I'm a hardened sceptic of course I'm willing to try out new stuff.
I think the point that stretches credibility with these products is their pricing, blocks of rubber (quantum or not), little metal bowls and blocks of wood with 'specially drilled holes' in them cost from pennies to maybe tens of pounds - if the argument is that the cost is buried in r&d then let's see the results of that r&d (which should presumably show that they work - either through proper measurement in an anechoic chamber of via a well validated mass subjective study).
Until such time I can only assume that, whilst possibly well meaning, these products are proven with nothing more than wishful thinking.
I think the question of why other hobbyist interests don't succomb so readily to such mystically charged items is an interesting one, it's not as if the photography gang aren't always upgrading, swapping and generally willy waving too, but I've never seen any reference to the equivalent of 'crystals that make your pictures sharper through the quantum manipulation of light' etc. I suspect because it's much easier to share a photo than it is the sound in a room (which is different in every room) and that margin of error allows scope for some of these more 'out there' products.
To me, it's just another example of humans wanting there to be something 'out there' rather than the boring, mundane facts of existence. I am willing to bet that the people who believe this nonsense also believe in ghosts, the power of crystals to heal and other stuff which I had better not get into here.
Why is it that it is only the reproduction of music that attracts these 'interesting' products - there doesn't seem to be the equivalent in photograpy or the visual arts?
There are lots of similar things in the world of medicine though - copper bracelets, crystals etc.
It's a religion replacement, God for the godless.
Unless you have tried one, how can anyone make any comment about what it does or doesn't do? Simple answer you can't. Yes it looks dubious but unless one tries, one can't comment.
Of course we can, why ever not? I know plenty of people who 'know' that God exists, but I also know that not one of them has ever met him, but they comment about it all the time?
Thomas Edison has been there, done that and got the 'T' shirt. It's just nonsense and marketing BS which some gullible people are taken in by. Placebo and bias expectation is a lot more powerful than most people realise or can comprehend. If you can afford it and you think it works, then work away and enjoy your Quantum audio. I'll stick with what I know and believe (as I'm entitled to do), which is what a load of utter twaddle.
To me, it's just another example of humans wanting there to be something 'out there' rather than the boring, mundane facts of existence. I am willing to bet that the people who believe this nonsense also believe in ghosts, the power of crystals to heal and other stuff which I had better not get into here.
Let's keep this discussion *strictly* about audio though, Gordon, and not an attack on anyone's faith/beliefs in any matters out with of that subject, otherwise it could start getting personal :)
That applies to everyone else here, too!
Marco.
My view of the 'Stein Music Blue Sun'? If something is not physically connected to your system, then it can't possibly have any genuine sonic effect. Therefore, this stuff is bullshit and gives 'audiophiles' (and high-end audio) a bad name.
However, that said, each to his or her own. If you can hear some benefit from using these things, then fill yer boots! :cool:
Marco.
audioglow
28-05-2015, 08:48
Have just filled a couple of molds with blue jelly and stuck to the wall - amazing -$2000 for the pair PM me, seriously though there are "other" products out there that are supposed to do similar things and I have listened to them with an open mind - cant say that I heard any difference though. But some people did so maybe its the power of suggestion
I can only add that the main thing for me is to make the listening environment at home as relaxing as possible - a great place to chill. If this can be achieved, the sound system has a far easier job to do to help us 'suspend disbelief' in the 'mechanics' of the music reproduction. Sorry, I can't explain it any better. So, if these passive add-ons help you relax into the listening environment better, maybe they do work? I don't trust my ears at all unless there's some sort of reference, because the 'mind' behind them changes so much according to mood/circumstances, if you see what I mean.
Rothchild
28-05-2015, 08:55
My view of the 'Stein Music Blue Sun'? If something is not physically connected to your system, then it can't possibly have any genuine sonic effect. Therefore, this stuff is bullshit and gives 'audiophiles' (and high-end audio) a bad name.
Marco.
Everything in your room is physically connected to your system, via the air in the room. That's why acoustic treatment (proper stuff with real mass and calculated dimensions) or adjusting your speaker placement works, even though you don't plug it in to your amp.
But what about the pebbles and other such ornaments which claim to make so much 'difference.'
there is no doubt that secondary reflected soundwaves make a huge difference to what we hear and if something can alter fir the better those reflections then yoy may get some improvements in percieved sq. equally something a whole. it cheaper may well do a similar or better job.
As i say if someone sent them to me to try then i would, and try to be open minded about it. might not succeed but you can only try. I have some eichman toppers that i use. they probably do vrry little but those things are oft hard to quantify. but they never fail to get a comment like...what are they? do they work? etc...imo they cvst me very little and were worth a shot. if nothing else they look cool.
I also have a Densen cd magic disc which i believe does work but most would likely say it to be foo. Me, I say, its your loss! and keep the disc safely tucked away.
I believe that the addition of these things can alter the sound but so can moving furniture around which would be cheaper.
I wonder how many people would buy things like these but live with a hardwood floor, bare walls, large glass windows or minimalist furniture.
They'd be better off spending their money on a nice rug, some curtains and a bunch of scatter cushions I say....
https://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lu3zlc8vvx1qi3exc.jpg
If I listen to my system holding a can (of tasty beverage) I can feel the can vibrating in my hand when it is empty - it is therefore manipulating the sound in the room - but my a tiny, tiny amount - so tiny that it is completely swamped by the contribution of the speakers; these things (and many like them) aren't even resonant as they are solid lumps of resin with crystal bits in it - their contribution will therefore be significantly less than even an empty can.
If I listen to my system holding a can (of tasty beverage) I can feel the can vibrating in my hand when it is empty - it is therefore manipulating the sound in the room - but my a tiny, tiny amount - so tiny that it is completely swamped by the contribution of the speakers; these things (and many like them) aren't even resonant as they are solid lumps of resin with crystal bits in it - their contribution will therefore be significantly less than even an empty can.
Your empty (or partially empty) can could act as a Helmholtz resonator (similar in principle to the 'sound traps' used to ameliorate room modes), however given the size of the can, the effective resonant frequency would be quite high. I'll calculate after iI have consumed a can of lager. 330ml or 500ml? It makes a difference!
Objects don't have to be resonant to have an effect on sound quality; sound absorbing materials are an obvious example.
awkwardbydesign
28-05-2015, 10:31
Our leather sofa can be felt to vibrate, presumably the foam, and the leather doesn't damp the vibrations. And moving the furniture around would NOT be cheaper than room treatments, etc. Divorce is SO expensive.
awkwardbydesign
28-05-2015, 10:32
If I listen to my system holding a can
Peasant. :lol:
I agree with every word you wrote Paul and would never consider buying any of these devices or other similar miracle devices myself, however, you are missing one element: us Humans.....placebo affects in the medical world have been proven over many studies and I dont there is any reason why these affects could not apply to audio....the human brain is a very complex thing indeed.
Hmmm. I don't think that I am missing the point, as the point was a claim that these objects change things physically and not in a placebo effect, so yes, I'd say it's utter bunkum. However, you are spot with your observation that placebo affects audiophiles in many ways. The most obvious example being sighted verses blind tests where it has been demonstrated time after time in controlled experiments that sighted tests give very different results to unsighted tests. There's also the cable tests where sighted, if cable A is a fancy £3K interconnect and cable B is a coat hanger, sighted, most of us would probably land on the side of the £3K interconnect whereas unsighted, I'm willing to bet the results would show some votes for the coat hanger. Yes, the mind is a powerful thing which is why subjective assessment of anything to do with audio must remain a personal thing and not a reliable means of proof.
Your empty (or partially empty) can could act as a Helmholtz resonator (similar in principle to the 'sound traps' used to ameliorate room modes), however given the size of the can, the effective resonant frequency would be quite high. I'll calculate after iI have consumed a can of lager. 330ml or 500ml? It makes a difference!
Objects don't have to be resonant to have an effect on sound quality; sound absorbing materials are an obvious example.
Except that sound absorbing materials Barry do resonate, it's just that they transfer sound energy to heat energy; ie acoustic panels containing rockwool or similar work by the sound waves causing the fibres to vibrate (randomly) and the movement of the fibres is converted mechanically to heat energy. It's all at a very small scale, but it's how it works. Conservation of energy applies in other words. Things like diffuser panels, or book cases containing books come to that, scatter sound so reducing the sum of reflected sound to a particular spot. The room's total sound energy remains the same (or minutely slightly less) but measured at one spot, the room power curve (the sum of direct to reflected sound at a particular frequency) alters. It's a fascinating subject to get into in more detail and the likes of Peter Snell and laterly, Floyde Toole have built careers based on how sound is transmitted in rooms for the purposes of good loudspeaker design.
Except that sound absorbing materials Barry do resonate, it's just that they transfer sound energy to heat energy; ie acoustic panels containing rockwool or similar work by the sound waves causing the fibres to vibrate (randomly) and the movement of the fibres is converted mechanically to heat energy. It's all at a very small scale, but it's how it works. Conservation of energy applies in other words. Things like diffuser panels, or book cases containing books come to that, scatter sound so reducing the sum of reflected sound to a particular spot. The room's total sound energy remains the same (or minutely slightly less) but measured at one spot, the room power curve (the sum of direct to reflected sound at a particular frequency) alters. It's a fascinating subject to get into in more detail and the likes of Peter Snell and laterly, Floyde Toole have built careers based on how sound is transmitted in rooms for the purposes of good loudspeaker design.
I disagree - sound absorbing materials absorb sound by causing, as you say, the fibres or particulate filling to vibrate and the friction of these rubbing together converts the mechanical vibration energy into heat, which in turn is dissipated. There is no resonance involved - if it were, the sound absoption would be an extrinsic property of the material and would depend on the dimensions. Material sound absorption coefficients are an intrinsic property of the material and do not depend on the size or dimensions of the material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(acoustics)
Your empty (or partially empty) can could act as a Helmholtz resonator (similar in principle to the 'sound traps' used to ameliorate room modes), however given the size of the can, the effective resonant frequency would be quite high. I'll calculate after iI have consumed a can of lager. 330ml or 500ml? It makes a difference!
Objects don't have to be resonant to have an effect on sound quality; sound absorbing materials are an obvious example.
I probably didn't make my point very clearly (or used a poor analogy) - yes, I quite agree regarding the can acting as a mini Helmholtz resonator. I didn't mean to draw an absolutely direct parallel between the way the can vibrates and this crystal accessory. I was just pointing out that the can is definitely doing something although it's effect cannot be heard - yet the crystal accessory is effectively inert. What effect it is having is likely as a reflective surface - a chaotic surface - but also a very, very small one :).
Edit: it's not canned beer by the way - I don't like canned beer.
You are trying to ascribe soem sort of physical effect to these devices along conventional lines - it resonates, it reflects etc but common sense and science says this is clearly not how it works if indeed it does work.
The only explainations are that the designer has accidentally stumbled upon some physical effect previously unknown to science and rather than give away his secret puts up a smokescreen about quantum physics. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
Or - they work entirely on a placebo/psycological basis and the price, the construction and the quantum physics blurb is all a part of constructing the necessary profile to make this work.
I don't see a third option but open to suggestions.
Gordon Steadman
28-05-2015, 13:54
You are trying to ascribe soem sort of physical effect to these devices along conventional lines - it resonates, it reflects etc but common sense and science says this is clearly not how it works if indeed it does work.
The only explainations are that the designer has accidentally stumbled upon some physical effect previously unknown to science and rather than give away his secret puts up a smokescreen about quantum physics. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
Or - they work entirely on a placebo/psycological basis and the price, the construction and the quantum physics blurb is all a part of constructing the necessary profile to make this work.
I don't see a third option but open to suggestions.
The guy is a con artist who is trying to fleece the gullible?
I disagree - sound absorbing materials absorb sound by causing, as you say, the fibres or particulate filling to vibrate and the friction of these rubbing together converts the mechanical vibration energy into heat, which in turn is dissipated. There is no resonance involved - if it were, the sound absoption would be an extrinsic property of the material and would depend on the dimensions. Material sound absorption coefficients are an intrinsic property of the material and do not depend on the size or dimensions of the material.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(acoustics)
I think we're on the same page Barry. It's about the conversion of vibrational energy into heat energy. How well a material can do that at specific frequencies is a function of both its coefficient of absorption and it's thickness.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 14:08
These Acoustic Resonators by http://www.francktchang.com/ and the similar ones by Synergistic Research http://www.synergisticresearch.com/category/acoustic-art/ stretched credibility and I was very sceptical as frankly I could not explain how they could possibly affect the sound in a room and yet I heard them affect the sound in a room at two hifi shows and I still don't understand how, but they did.
So yes on the face of it these items seem impossible and incredible stretches but until I hear one, I can say nothing about them.
Regards Neil
In both shows they removed them and put them back for everyone to hear the difference?
You are trying to ascribe soem sort of physical effect to these devices along conventional lines - it resonates, it reflects etc but common sense and science says this is clearly not how it works if indeed it does work.
The only explainations are that the designer has accidentally stumbled upon some physical effect previously unknown to science and rather than give away his secret puts up a smokescreen about quantum physics. Highly unlikely, but not impossible.
Or - they work entirely on a placebo/psycological basis and the price, the construction and the quantum physics blurb is all a part of constructing the necessary profile to make this work.
I don't see a third option but open to suggestions.
This I think Martin. It isn't anything new in terms of marketing similar devices. Audio enthusiasts appear to be unique in their ability to spend many hours/thread pages discussing the relative merits or otherwise of such gizmos designed primarily to relieve the gullible from their hard earned.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 14:13
I believe that the addition of these things can alter the sound but so can moving furniture around which would be cheaper.
I don't. They are too bloody small! Perhaps I didn't read the instructions and they have to hang infront of your ears like corks off the rim of a hat?
The way they claim they change the sound is by producing a field of some kind (doesn't even say what kind of field as there's no mention of magnetism etc) which then effects the oxygen molecules and therefore the accoustic properties of the ALL the air in the whole room!
I suggest this guy sits in a room filled with nothing but oxygen to hear the improvements better... and ecourage him to smoke a cigar.
You are trying to ascribe soem sort of physical effect to these devices along conventional lines - it resonates, ...
Sorry, I'm not trying to justify these things - I think they are rubbish too.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 14:25
If I listen to my system holding a can (of tasty beverage) I can feel the can vibrating in my hand when it is empty
:lol: It's calling to be refilled !! Getting the shakes when you've finished a can.. dear me you need some help. Stop blaming it on the hifi.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 14:36
I disagree - sound absorbing materials absorb sound by causing, as you say, the fibres or particulate filling to vibrate
i.e. those fibres or particulates resonate. If they didn't resonate, the sound would pass through them and not move. That resonation, movement is turned into heat via friction and bending properties of the material and it's terminations (were it connects to the next particle etc).
It might not be at their peak mode of resonance but each object of every size will have multiple modes of resonance and associated harmonics (and therefore pretty much resonates all the time because sound will interact with one of those at some frequency or other). Things which resonate at only one frequency, or at least have a massively pronounced resonance at one frequency are tuned like bells. Most everyday objects aren't tuned and so resonate, move all over the spectrum.
You were both agreeing but you have a different understanding of what is meant by "resonance", perhaps you thinking only of large scale resonances of panels etc
prestonchipfryer
28-05-2015, 14:39
Perhaps if we all had more humility the world would be a better place and not of full of shysters trying to pretend a piece of (you fill this in) makes things sound better.
Well, we have the reviewer plus one contributor here who have heard these things (or similar) and reckon that, from a purely subjective point of view, that they work.
Just because you expect them not to work for you does not mean that they will not work for you. That is not how expectation bias (if that is what the mechanism is) works. Just like everyone thinks that advertising has no effect on them but does work on others.
If we accept at face value the first-hand accounts that say 'they worked for me' and at the same time dismiss the 'scientific' explanations for how they work we are only left with the psychological reasons for why they work. So my question is how can we harness this psychological effect to make all our systems better without giving some chancer $750 for the priviilge?
Incidentally my mother suffered terribly from arthritis to the point were she could not raise her arms above the vertical. On someone's advice she bought a copper bracelet from Boots the Chemist. Not cheap, about £40 I think.
Arthritis gone immediatley. That was ten years ago it and it has not returned. My mother is in her seventies and cannot distinguish science from magic but this is still very powerful placebo effect. These things should not be taken lightly.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 14:57
Perhaps if we all had more humility the world would be a better place and not of full of shysters trying to pretend a piece of (you fill this in) makes things sound better.
Cake?
Spectral Morn
28-05-2015, 15:00
In both shows they removed them and put them back for everyone to hear the difference?
Yes, they were moved and removed and the affect was audible.
Only thing ever stopped me trying any at home was having to mount some on the walls and I wasn't keen on doing that.
It was ABC Audio (distribution company demo) and it was the Synergistic Research versions, Paul Benge (HiFi Guy on other forums) did the demo.
I can't explain how small metal cups mounted on wood can affect the sound. There was no placebo effect as I was anti the idea these could work, to my mind this is akin to witchcraft, new age weirdo stuff and I normally want no part of that sort of stuff.
By the way for those of us on here who have religious faith I don't take kindly to having that poked and comments made re people of faith being gullible.
I really don't like the tone/vibe of this thread as its progressing so I will bow out of it now.
a post was removed as per instructions to keep religion out of this. please try to stop insulting people with religeos beliefs ...ta!
Well, we have the reviewer plus one contributor here who have heard these things (or similar) and reckon that, from a purely subjective point of view, that they work.
Just because you expect them not to work for you does not mean that they will not work for you. That is not how expectation bias (if that is what the mechanism is) works. Just like everyone thinks that advertising has no effect on them but does work on others.
If we accept at face value the first-hand accounts that say 'they worked for me' and at the same time dismiss the 'scientific' explanations for how they work we are only left with the psychological reasons for why they work. So my question is how can we harness this psychological effect to make all our systems better without giving some chancer $750 for the priviilge?
Incidentally my mother suffered terribly from arthritis to the point were she could not raise her arms above the vertical. On someone's advice she bought a copper bracelet from Boots the Chemist. Not cheap, about £40 I think.
Arthritis gone immediatley. That was ten years ago it and it has not returned. My mother is in her seventies and cannot distinguish science from magic but this is still very powerful placebo effect. These things should not be taken lightly.
I think Martin that the nub of your argument isn't so much about "making things better" as that is a purely objective goal (ie A is measurably "better" than "B"), but a subjective goal instead. I would agree that if we are certain that we hear differences, then to us, no-matter what our understanding, that those differences may well exist to us. I think here that the key words are "Better" and "Different".
Therefore, I personally cannot accept any argument from anyone that claims putting any object into a room makes the sound "Better" without objective evidence, but perhaps I can understand and in some cases even accept "Different". On this occasion I do think that even "Different" is pushing things a little too far and that perhaps expectation bias and placebo are the key motivators, as there is no actual evidence to the contrary and likely will never will be.
Having visited Mr Hein's webshop I found no real attempt to explain in any rational or cogent way the 'Quantum Physics' underpinning his claims.
What I did notice was that with all his products, including the tiny pieces of sticky tape to cancel out glass vibrations, if buying 1 or 2 doesn't have the desired effect the answer is to simply buy more.
These two observations combined tell me all I need to know and quite frankly if someone offered me a free demo I would politely tell them where to shove it rather than waste a minute more entertaining such codswallop. I would rather spend my time watching Derren Brown perform his real 'magic' ....
The Black Adder
28-05-2015, 15:50
Cosmic radiation... Sponge vibrations.
If you drop some acid, everything makes sense.
I believe... I believe! - Touch the screen!
Rothchild
28-05-2015, 16:33
Having visited Mr Hein's webshop I found no real attempt to explain in any rational or cogent way the 'Quantum Physics' underpinning his claims.
What I did notice was that with all his products, including the tiny pieces of sticky tape to cancel out glass vibrations, if buying 1 or 2 doesn't have the desired effect the answer is to simply buy more.
These two observations combined tell me all I need to know and quite frankly if someone offered me a free demo I would politely tell them where to shove it rather than waste a minute more entertaining such codswallop. I would rather spend my time watching Derren Brown perform his real 'magic' ....
Derren Brown very notably did conduct some real magic that's got a lot to add to the themes emerging from this discussion: http://www.real-memory-improvement.com/derren-brown-the-placebo-effect.html
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 16:43
a post was removed as per instructions to keep religion out of this. please try to stop insulting people with religeos beliefs ...ta!
Was that me? Sorry!
It wasn't at all intended to be an insult to people with religious beliefs. It was genuine personal observation that people I know who are more religious appear to be more accepting of braclets and unusual cancer cures etc. Those people are still few and far between in the people I know - perhaps it's expectation bias on my part to link their religious beliefs to these other things and I'm more blind to them in non-religious people. Who knows.
The rest was about how some non-religious people try to con groups by pretending they are of the same belief and stick to that story when caught (plenty of real-life stories out there so is based on fact).
And of course this guy appears to be abusing a community who believe that such things change the sound significantly. I wonder if we search hard enough, that we will find an off the shelf ornament exactly the same as this for $3 and all he's done is place a sticker on the base along with some tall science-sounding back story.
Personally speaking, I cannot see any correlation between a person's religious beliefs and whether they believe in pixies or magic sound improvement crystals and would even say that I find that notion insulting. I know plenty of people with strong religious beliefs who are also have a strong scientific background or who currently work in the scientific fields (one in advanced chemistry, another a physicist for example). I find the general tone of some of the comments trying to make such correlations a bit off tbh as it implies that those with religious beliefs might be somehow lacking in intellectual credibility. There goes most of the world's population then. Might be better if we kept such things off open threads as it's a subject (along with politics) guaranteed to spread disharmony amongst members?
Religion and Politics are not banned topics on this site, if people wamt to discuss them in a gentlemanly fashion they are welcome to do so in the Abstract Chat section. I don't feel they have any pertinance to this thread, though.
The Black Adder
28-05-2015, 17:37
Aye, I agree... now back to alchemy, sorcery and the Stein lore of madgikioso.
Ask me, I be the wise woman... that I be, I be that I be.
Dunno... lol. I've seen these Stein things before. The thing is, they must sell these things... It doesn't look like a company that's failing. But of course, perceptions can be deceiving.
The problem with my stereo is that it is constantly fighting a huge roomful of un-elongated air.
Everything in your room is physically connected to your system, via the air in the room. That's why acoustic treatment (proper stuff with real mass and calculated dimensions) or adjusting your speaker placement works, even though you don't plug it in to your amp.
Yes of course, my boo-boo! That's what happens when you're in a hurry, typing something quickly before you go out [been away all day with my dad and Del in lovely sunny Anglesey, walking along beautiful beaches and munching fresh lobster] :)
What I meant earlier by "something" was what could be termed as an 'audiophile accessory'. For me, other than anything pertaining to room treatment, if it doesn't connect directly to your system, it can't have any *real* sonic effect, hence why I'd never never entertain using items such as the 'Stein Music Blue Sun' - or any similar nonsense from the likes of Peter Belt.
Marco.
anthonyTD
28-05-2015, 18:18
Excelent post!
To be honest, the only real way anyone could be vaguely confident that any of these items realy do something audible, or work as sound enhancers [or not] is to ask someone to listen to a piece of recorded music they know well, then ask them to leave the room, and place said items in position before then asking that person to re-enter the room, and listen to the same piece of music again,[all without the person knowing anything was physicaly diffrent in the room] if they report an audible diffrence, then it could be argued that they do indeed have some affect, but otherwise, i would be very tempted to say that it is probably akin to a placebo affect! I remember a well known and respected reviewer telling me a story about a paticular experience he had while listening to a piece of music before and after drinking a glass of water, he absolutely believed that he heard a marked diffrence between the before, and after, make of that what you will!
Except that sound absorbing materials Barry do resonate, it's just that they transfer sound energy to heat energy; ie acoustic panels containing rockwool or similar work by the sound waves causing the fibres to vibrate (randomly) and the movement of the fibres is converted mechanically to heat energy. It's all at a very small scale, but it's how it works. Conservation of energy applies in other words. Things like diffuser panels, or book cases containing books come to that, scatter sound so reducing the sum of reflected sound to a particular spot. The room's total sound energy remains the same (or minutely slightly less) but measured at one spot, the room power curve (the sum of direct to reflected sound at a particular frequency) alters. It's a fascinating subject to get into in more detail and the likes of Peter Snell and laterly, Floyde Toole have built careers based on how sound is transmitted in rooms for the purposes of good loudspeaker design.
The Black Adder
28-05-2015, 18:19
you need an air elongerator then. lol
Personally speaking, I cannot see any correlation between a person's religious beliefs and whether they believe in pixies or magic sound improvement crystals and would even say that I find that notion insulting. I know plenty of people with strong religious beliefs who are also have a strong scientific background or who currently work in the scientific fields (one in advanced chemistry, another a physicist for example). I find the general tone of some of the comments trying to make such correlations a bit off tbh as it implies that those with religious beliefs might be somehow lacking in intellectual credibility. There goes most of the world's population then. Might be better if we kept such things off open threads as it's a subject (along with politics) guaranteed to spread disharmony amongst members?
Well said
Haselsh1
28-05-2015, 19:21
Incidentally my mother suffered terribly from arthritis to the point were she could not raise her arms above the vertical. On someone's advice she bought a copper bracelet from Boots the Chemist. Not cheap, about £40 I think.
Arthritis gone immediatley. That was ten years ago it and it has not returned. My mother is in her seventies and cannot distinguish science from magic but this is still very powerful placebo effect. These things should not be taken lightly.
I seriously couldn't agree more.
Why are a lot of humans so unbelievably arrogant that they think they know everything about everything when the truth is that they know very little about very little.
We have just found out about how breast cancer cells manipulate bone via a substance known as LOX to form cavities and lesions so that it can spread more efficiently. Just how much is there to know...? Will we ever truly have a bloody clue about anything...?
Quantum Mechanics...! We know f*ck all...!!
Derren Brown very notably did conduct some real magic that's got a lot to add to the themes emerging from this discussion: http://www.real-memory-improvement.com/derren-brown-the-placebo-effect.html
I saw that programme when it was broadcast (as with most of his TV work) ... and excellent it was to!
And yes, Derren Brown is very relevant to this discussion (which is why I brought him up ;) )
The great thing about his 'magic' is when he lays out in very clear terms how most of it works. Probably the best example alongside the 'Placebo' one was the show in which he got a group of seemingly honest, law-abiding citizens to take part in an armed robbery and showed the process by which he used a whole range of techniques (many commonly used in marketing and advertising) to subvert quite dramatically the ethical and moral convictions of his subjects.
Watching it I recalled the various ways my wife and I were seduced, persuaded, cajoled and eventually threatened into buying some double-glazing products by a team who had carefully worked out their strategies beforehand. Our counter threat of calling in the police was the only way we could eventually get them out the door (and stop the inevitable flood of telesales calls that followed) Fortunately none those half wits had even a remote smidgen of the skills of persuasion Derren has acquired....and needless to say we bought nowt from the scoundrels and never will.
Excelent post!
To be honest, the only real way anyone could be vaguely confident that any of these items realy do something audible, or work as sound enhancers [or not] is to ask someone to listen to a piece of recorded music they know well, then ask them to leave the room, and place said items in position before then asking that person to re-enter the room, and listen to the same piece of music again,[all without the person knowing anything was physicaly diffrent in the room]
I would disagree only in terms of this being 'the only way' (or even a reliable way) - If there really is a demonstrable improvement in sound quality after the gizmos have been installed then this should be susceptible to scientific and objective measurement ... if it is an audible difference then there are plenty of very sensitive and reliable instruments to carry this out and the results made available as repeatable proof of concept.
The key problem in proving anything via the involvement of human 'guinea pigs' is our susceptibility. In the scenario you suggest it would become quickly clear to anyone participating that they were meant to be observing 'something' ... and the context already suggests what that 'something' might be. This is precisely what limits the usefulness of these type of studies and increases the margin of error significantly.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 21:20
I seriously couldn't agree more.
Why are a lot of humans so unbelievably arrogant that they think they know everything about everything when the truth is that they know very little about very little.
We have just found out about how breast cancer cells manipulate bone via a substance known as LOX to form cavities and lesions so that it can spread more efficiently. Just how much is there to know...? Will we ever truly have a bloody clue about anything...?
Quantum Mechanics...! We know f*ck all...!!
I think you may have misunderstood Macca's post - only he can confirm what he means - I took it to mean that the placebo effect is very strong and so these things don't need to work, only convince people they work.
You seem to be saying that these things might well work because it could be something we don't yet understand. This thing has claims of science behind it, not just an "I don't know why it works but try it! " marketing stance.
That could be true but the likelyhood of someone like this coming up with a specific explanation of how it works and it being true by complete coincidence is absolutely fantastic wishful thinking. If the item was designed after extensive research of a well thought out quantum physics theory then where is evidence of the science? The more you look, the more the science part disipates into the ether like any other smoke screen.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 21:37
I saw that programme when it was broadcast (as with most of his TV work) ... and excellent it was to!
And yes, Derren Brown is very relevant to this discussion (which is why I brought him up ;) )
The great thing about his 'magic' is when he lays out in very clear terms how most of it works. Probably the best example alongside the 'Placebo' one was the show in which he got a group of seemingly honest, law-abiding citizens to take part in an armed robbery and showed the process by which he used a whole range of techniques (many commonly used in marketing and advertising) to subvert quite dramatically the ethical and moral convictions of his subjects.
Watching it I recalled the various ways my wife and I were seduced, persuaded, cajoled and eventually threatened into buying some double-glazing products by a team who had carefully worked out their strategies beforehand. Our counter threat of calling in the police was the only way we could eventually get them out the door (and stop the inevitable flood of telesales calls that followed) Fortunately none those half wits had even a remote smidgen of the skills of persuasion Derren has acquired....and needless to say we bought nowt from the scoundrels and never will.
Derren Brown got interested in this realm of psychological pursuasion from the personal experiences of his upbringing. And yes can in turn be used to give people "real experiences" they attribute to such things as audio tweeks, even if it has been deliberately and knowingly set up as a psychological trick as Brown shows in some of his programmes.
Sadly, many experiencing the trick are then confused by the real experience they had ... and even after being made fully aware it was a psychological trick, still believe that by coincidence it can atributed to the object of the subterfuge, e.g. these Stein things.
Again and again this has been shown - people still believe even when it has been pointed out it was all a trick.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 21:40
I would disagree only in terms of this being 'the only way' (or even a reliable way) - If there really is a demonstrable improvement in sound quality after the gizmos have been installed then this should be susceptible to scientific and objective measurement ... if it is an audible difference then there are plenty of very sensitive and reliable instruments to carry this out and the results made available as repeatable proof of concept.
The key problem in proving anything via the involvement of human 'guinea pigs' is our susceptibility. In the scenario you suggest it would become quickly clear to anyone participating that they were meant to be observing 'something' ... and the context already suggests what that 'something' might be. This is precisely what limits the usefulness of these type of studies and increases the margin of error significantly.
A good test would be to hold these sessions very often but to never ever change a thing. After each one you do a fake reveal of what you changed. Then note how many believers you get in each of the things you pretend you did.
Audio Advent
28-05-2015, 21:53
Personally speaking, I cannot see any correlation between a person's religious beliefs and whether they believe in pixies or magic sound improvement crystals and would even say that I find that notion insulting. I know plenty of people with strong religious beliefs who are also have a strong scientific background or who currently work in the scientific fields (one in advanced chemistry, another a physicist for example). I find the general tone of some of the comments trying to make such correlations a bit off tbh as it implies that those with religious beliefs might be somehow lacking in intellectual credibility. There goes most of the world's population then. Might be better if we kept such things off open threads as it's a subject (along with politics) guaranteed to spread disharmony amongst members?
I only see my posts as mentioning religion and one of them was deleted before you posted so must only be the one post?
"The general tone" of my post was only my personal experience and I also qualified it as potentially being biased. If personal experience and qualifying that experience as possibly mistaken is a general tone you find insulting, then I suggest you are not actually reading the post and instead are choosing to be insulted without really taking the post fully on board. That's verging on emotional blackmail to shut down a discussion you're sensitive to - not great for civilised discussion.
But I take it on board that religion and politics do indeed cause people's backs to get up (that sounds wrong. "Get up" to walk around the room?) without necessarily due cause. The difficulty is that there are parallels in anything for which there is no science, or even science against, yet still people believe must be true because they "experience it" and so many others talk as if it's true too. Feels like an elephant in the room but I'll not mention it again.
walpurgis
28-05-2015, 22:17
My view is that one can take any stance on any subject within reason, as long as no insult or confrontation is intended. And in the case of AOS, as long as the right area of the forum is chosen.
awkwardbydesign
28-05-2015, 22:24
I would disagree only in terms of this being 'the only way' (or even a reliable way) - If there really is a demonstrable improvement in sound quality after the gizmos have been installed then this should be susceptible to scientific and objective measurement ... if it is an audible difference then there are plenty of very sensitive and reliable instruments to carry this out and the results made available as repeatable proof of concept.
Why should quality be susceptible to objective measurement? Quality is subjective, not objective. Louder, quieter, etc, are measurable by mechanical means, but not quality. There is a lot of this muddling of terms going on. And mechanical measurements then have to be interpreted by poor old subjective humans, otherwise they have no value.
Why should quality be susceptible to objective measurement? Quality is subjective, not objective. Louder, quieter, etc, are measurable by mechanical means, but not quality. There is a lot of this muddling of terms going on. And mechanical measurements then have to be interpreted by poor old subjective humans, otherwise they have no value.
If there is a significant audible difference between the two states of music played in the listening room this difference can be measured objectively - period.
Whether one state is 'better' than the other to the observer is indeed qualitative and subjective - but if no difference can be measured objectively then there are clearly other motives at play. ... or the difference is so finite it beggars measurement with the means available to date and with all the amassed knowledge of the qualities of the phenomenon and the mechanics of human hearing - and is therefore not 'significant' within any understanding of what the term implies
All that being said (and open to rational discussion) Hein bases his objects, in his own words. on 'Quantum Physics' and is therefore using existing science to justify his products .. it is therefore perfectly reasonable to expect repeatable proof based on science...... and not speculative and subjective opinion.
walpurgis
28-05-2015, 22:52
If there is a significant audible difference between the two states of music played in the listening room this difference can be measured objectively - period.
No measurements will tell you how we each individually are hearing the music. Much of the interpretation of what we hear is from how our brain 'processes' this. Hence, subjectivity is really the most useful tool. A set of statistics produced from measurements may give you a fair idea of how something may sound, but ears tell the truth as far as preference is concerned (whether 'educated' in Hi-Fi or not).
No measurements will tell you how we each individually are hearing the music.
Agreed - I said as much in the post you replied to. But that doesn't negate the possibility of measuring differences ... in fact being able to measure these differences is how the technology we use progresses and is more able to cater to our (subjective) desires. And incidentally I think you may be referring to is how we interpret what we hear ... not just the physics of hearing
EDITED - to correct 'objective' to 'subjective'
awkwardbydesign
28-05-2015, 23:15
If there is a significant audible difference between the two states of music played in the listening room this difference can be measured objectively - period.
And there we disagree - period. But as to the product under discussion it does sound like bollocks to me, but that's just an unsubstantiated opinion.
Oh, and desires are subjective.
Ninanina
28-05-2015, 23:19
I certainly won't be buying any. They seem really expensive for what they are as well ;)
walpurgis
28-05-2015, 23:20
Agreed - I said as much in the post you replied to. But that doesn't negate the possibility of measuring differences ... in fact being able to measure these differences is how the technology we use progresses and is more able to cater to our (objective) desires.
Of course some sound differences can be measured and no doubt this is a useful design tool. But there is no way (as far as I'm aware) of properly correlating subjective impressions to objective data. Obviously frequency imbalances, distortion and transient response can be quantified, but how does one measure tonality?
Oh, and desires are subjective.
My bad - now edited
... but how does one measure tonality?
If I remember my schooling correctly, aspects like timbre and tonality are the result of differing wave forms (sine, square, sawtooth and combinations thereof) but am willing to be corrected on that ;)
Equally attack, decay, resonance, modulation, etc, etc, etc. are all observable characteristics ... which is why they can be synthesised relatively easily.
Getting back to the subject of Hein's jelly mold artefacts - I have yet to read any substantive ground to his claims other than subjective opinion based of rather dubious circumstance (from an objective PoV) If anyone can link to something more convincing to justify the $3000 price tag please do.
But there is no way (as far as I'm aware) of properly correlating subjective impressions to objective data.
I would think that the billions spent on market research show otherwise - there are extremely effective ways of doing just that (not that they always get it right :lol: )
EVIDENCE: Apple, Amazon, Google and their complete market dominance in the space of a decade (to name but a few)
Rothchild
29-05-2015, 06:14
Good or Bad / Better or worse = Subjectivity (and can be caused by such 'random' things as mood, brand of beer/whiskey etc)
Different = Objective, as explained above all the major aspects of what sound is (a pressure wave moving through air and interacting with surfaces) are fairly well understood. Despite audiophiles desire to wrap them up in comforting words the mechanics are quite simple and differences are measurable - what objective measurement cant tell you is which variety of observable difference sounds 'best' for that you need to apply ears
This means that you can use subjectivity to pick what you like and apply a bit of objectivity to help you understand why you might like it and seek out more of the good stuff.
awkwardbydesign
29-05-2015, 09:54
I would think that the billions spent on market research show otherwise - there are extremely effective ways of doing just that (not that they always get it right :lol: )
EVIDENCE: Apple, Amazon, Google and their complete market dominance in the space of a decade (to name but a few)
That's MARKET research. Followed by clever marketing. Not proof of anything being measurably better, except for profit margins. Again, muddling of disciplines and terms.
awkwardbydesign
29-05-2015, 09:59
Equally attack, decay, resonance, modulation, etc, etc, etc. are all observable characteristics ... which is why they can be synthesised relatively easily.
So why has it taken so long to synthesise a natural sounding* acoustic in recording studios? If indeed it has been achieved.
* sounding being the important word here - a subjective quality.
Rothchild
29-05-2015, 10:31
So why has it taken so long to synthesise a natural sounding* acoustic in recording studios? If indeed it has been achieved.
* sounding being the important word here - a subjective quality.
Because understanding / measuring it and synthesising it are different things, because even if you can get close to a sound with a synthesiser the performance interface may be different to the instrument you're synthesising (causing the performance to have 'tells' in it), because the processing power to model something 'simple' like a string vibrating to anywhere near a convincing level is a relatively recent development, because the effort required to do it via synthesis to 'perfect' levels is often not required, or is such that it's easier to use the 'real thing', because 'sounding' is not the only subjective term here, 'natural' is too.
And therein the nub, subjective answers to subjective questions can only be subjective - if we can't agree that sound has a number of well defined and fixed objective properties (not claiming that there may be as yet to be discovered properties, but these are unlikely to contradict what we know already) we'll just end up stuck here, being sold $750 dollar rubber cubes on the basis of the maker saying we should.
Again, muddling of disciplines and terms.
No at all, it was in response to a post by Walpurgis about combining Qualitative and Quantitive research - so totally relevant
So why has it taken so long to synthesise a natural sounding* acoustic in recording studios?
'So long' relative to what? - the development of the wheel ?
walpurgis
29-05-2015, 11:28
Good or Bad / Better or worse = Subjectivity (and can be caused by such 'random' things as mood, brand of beer/whiskey etc).
Exactly! We surely each have those days when we turn on the music and think 'this sounds crap today'. Then later, put it on again and it sounds wonderful. All down to the individual, not the system I reckon.
A more pertinent example of combining objective and subjective methods - 1976 BBC report on the development of the legendary LS3/5A, note the graphs and comments from page 3 onwards:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1976-29.pdf
Designed by engineers - tested on humans :lol:
i.e. those fibres or particulates resonate. If they didn't resonate, the sound would pass through them and not move. That resonation, movement is turned into heat via friction and bending properties of the material and it's terminations (were it connects to the next particle etc).
It might not be at their peak mode of resonance but each object of every size will have multiple modes of resonance and associated harmonics (and therefore pretty much resonates all the time because sound will interact with one of those at some frequency or other). Things which resonate at only one frequency, or at least have a massively pronounced resonance at one frequency are tuned like bells. Most everyday objects aren't tuned and so resonate, move all over the spectrum.
You were both agreeing but you have a different understanding of what is meant by "resonance", perhaps you thinking only of large scale resonances of panels etc
The fibres or particulates behave as a heavily damped spring - mass system. That means any resonance has a very low Q-value, so low in fact that it a moot point to call it a resonance at all. The damping, due to the fibres/particulates rubbing together, is what causes the dissipation of acoustic energy as heat.
The degree of damping varies with frequency, so the sound absorption coefficient will also vary with frequency; it will also vary with the angle of incidence of the sound. When the sound field is approximately diffuse the sound absorption coefficient is known as the reverberation absorption coefficient.
andrasszamek
03-06-2015, 07:57
i have meth holger stein a few times and he does not seem crazy or like a sharlatan. the products i have tried from him did work and did work impressivley (e-pads, speaker matches and amplifier) although i wont pretend to understand how. i feel if one is interested in a product like this, one should try it out and make an opinion based on that. but to dismiss something sight unseen, just because one _assumes_ its BS (based on nothing empirical, just a preexisting beliefsystem) would probably be a mistake.
to dismiss something sight unseen, just because one _assumes_ its BS (based on nothing empirical, just a preexisting beliefsystem) would probably be a mistake.
At $750 a pop (when you probably need six) then for me to dismiss it as BS makes solid economic sense.
awkwardbydesign
03-06-2015, 15:17
At $750 a pop (when you probably need six) then for me to dismiss it as BS makes solid economic sense.
Better to dismiss it as not worth the money TO YOU. Dismissing it as BS for financial reasons sounds like sour grapes.
It's certainly not worth the money to me, but I wouldn't claim to know whether it's BS or not. I don't, I've never tried it.
The cost is not really relevant until you try it. If it does nothing it does not matter if they are 75p or 7.5 million each.
The Black Adder
03-06-2015, 15:58
I think that the fact of the matter is this. Nobody has heard of this science before... it may be BS science and then again it might just be something we as audionutties don't understand.
For someone to demo this would cost a fortune. This is not something found in your nearest SuperFi (where opinion is based on how loud it goes) But to assume that people would lay out a bonkers amount of green on something that sounds like witchcraft is shy of reality and whoever does needs a healthy slug of common sense administered to the head.
Has anyone heard this kit at a show or anything?
I'm sure it has to do something but whatever it does do it's still up for subjective scrutiny in regards of improving sound. We are all different after all.
awkwardbydesign
03-06-2015, 16:18
I think that the fact of the matter is this. Nobody has heard of this science before... it may be BS science and then again it might just be something we as audionutties don't understand.
For someone to demo this would cost a fortune. This is not something found in your nearest SuperFi (where opinion is based on how loud it goes) But to assume that people would lay out a bonkers amount of green on something that sounds like witchcraft is shy of reality and whoever does needs a healthy slug of common sense administered to the head.
Has anyone heard this kit at a show or anything?
I'm sure it has to do something but whatever it does do it's still up for subjective scrutiny in regards of improving sound. We are all different after all.
I'm not even sure of that! But I won't decide BEFORE I hear it. Or not hear it, of course! That's my objection.
I'm not even sure of that! But I won't decide BEFORE I hear it. Or not hear it, of course! That's my objection.
I'm not going to decide either. I am simply going to dismiss it as B.S.
:cool:
walpurgis
03-06-2015, 17:09
At $750 a pop (when you probably need six) then for me to dismiss it as BS makes solid economic sense.
I'm inclined to agree. I don't know why what you've made clear is your personal point of view has been criticised. These 'jellymoulds' at £500 a piece don't look like economic sense to me either regardless of what seemingly miraculous properties they may have. I wouldn't be surprised if twenty quid's worth of Sorbothane blobs is just as worthy.
Ninanina
03-06-2015, 17:18
Yeah maybe I should just try sticking some Sorbothane feet all over my walls... now that'd look nice wouldn't it.. :D
I may be crazy but I'm not stupid... I just cannot see these things making any difference...;)
Gordon Steadman
03-06-2015, 17:22
As it now appears that the universe only exists when I look at it or acknowledge its existence, maybe these things really do work if you believe they do or don't if you don't.
I wonder if I refuse to acknowledge bullshit, it would cease to exist:scratch:
The Black Adder
03-06-2015, 17:25
I'm not even sure of that! But I won't decide BEFORE I hear it. Or not hear it, of course! That's my objection.
Indeed... but I suppose until that day we have to give the theory the benefit of the doubt. No matter how fanciful it may seem
walpurgis
03-06-2015, 17:28
Indeed... but I suppose until that day we have to give the theory the benefit of the doubt. No matter how fanciful it may seem
No. I certainly won't Jo. I see it as a load of old B****** to be frank.
Gordon Steadman
03-06-2015, 17:40
No. I certainly won't Jo. I see it as a load of old B****** to be frank.
'ere, you use your own adjectives. I already used that one although I admit it didn't have the star quality yours did.
walpurgis
03-06-2015, 17:53
'ere, you use your own adjectives. I already used that one although I admit it didn't have the star quality yours did.
Just a born plagiarist I'm afraid Gordon. There's no cure. :)
Rothchild
03-06-2015, 17:53
I think that the fact of the matter is this. Nobody has heard of this science before... it may be BS science and then again it might just be something we as audionutties don't understand.
I like to follow developments in quantum physics and theory (even though I'm not a scientist). The quantum aspect of this is very questionable largely because even 'proper' science is only just in the foothills - what's really unlikely is that unless these jelly moulds are radioactive they are unlikely to have any quantum effects. Most of the stuff that's going on at the moment is with quantum entanglement (Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'), by my reading entangling quanta requires some sort of energy source (photons, electrons or other particle radiators).
Macca's right that the cost is not relevant to whether it works or not, but I think it is relevant to the OP as to whether it stretches the limits of credibility, because for that money the maker ought to be able to offer some insight as to what it's made of etc (given the quantum mechanics claims and especially if it's potentially radioactive). It also begs the questions why, in a world were very real, very expensive experiments which are only just managing to entangle and measure particle entanglement someone feels so bold as to offer a domestic hifi solutions without those scientists slaving away in research labs picking up on it and developing something more useful out of it?
There's an interesting article here that helps one to get a bit further in to the theories and issues, and it's interesting from our perspective because it uses as an illustrative idea the notion of a sound wave (pressure oscillations in air): http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2015_Jan_1/quantum_theory_completeness/index.html
but to dismiss something sight unseen, just because one _assumes_ its BS (based on nothing empirical, just a preexisting beliefsystem) would probably be a mistake.
Two issues:
!. This has nothing to do with a clash of 'belief systems'. Stein bases his claims for his jelly moulds on 'Quantum Physics' - he gives no further explanation of how this plays a role. It is science that demands proof - not a 'belief system'.
2. It is not a mistake to dismiss something fanciful which is based on claims that are not in any way substantiated by even a brief summary of their intrinsic workings - quite the contrary. I think the majority of sane and rational people would call this 'common sense' where such ludicrously large sums of money are involved.
I have asked repeatedly on this thread for a link to any evidence that might go some way to substantiate the pseudo-scientific claptrap used to justify these blobs - so far nothing has materialised beyond arguments based on mild hysteria. As long as this state prevails, the claims remain commercially oriented BS in my view - no matter how pleasant and reasonable Stein may appear to be.
The Black Adder
03-06-2015, 19:02
No. I certainly won't Jo. I see it as a load of old B****** to be frank.
Fair enough... lol
In my opinion the logical doubt of these things changing anything (apart from the balance of bank accounts) is heavily loaded in ones favor of being the truth of the matter.
But... you never know! oooooOoOoOooOOOOH!
The cost is not really relevant until you try it. If it does nothing it does not matter if they are 75p or 7.5 million each.
Of course it matters !!!
$3000 (minimum) is a helluva lot of money - it may be peanuts to you but it would keep me alive for a fair few months :lol:
The Black Adder
03-06-2015, 19:05
I like to follow developments in quantum physics and theory (even though I'm not a scientist). The quantum aspect of this is very questionable largely because even 'proper' science is only just in the foothills - what's really unlikely is that unless these jelly moulds are radioactive they are unlikely to have any quantum effects. Most of the stuff that's going on at the moment is with quantum entanglement (Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance'), by my reading entangling quanta requires some sort of energy source (photons, electrons or other particle radiators).
Macca's right that the cost is not relevant to whether it works or not, but I think it is relevant to the OP as to whether it stretches the limits of credibility, because for that money the maker ought to be able to offer some insight as to what it's made of etc (given the quantum mechanics claims and especially if it's potentially radioactive). It also begs the questions why, in a world were very real, very expensive experiments which are only just managing to entangle and measure particle entanglement someone feels so bold as to offer a domestic hifi solutions without those scientists slaving away in research labs picking up on it and developing something more useful out of it?
There's an interesting article here that helps one to get a bit further in to the theories and issues, and it's interesting from our perspective because it uses as an illustrative idea the notion of a sound wave (pressure oscillations in air): http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters_2015_Jan_1/quantum_theory_completeness/index.html
lol... Maybe we need a quantum scientist to take a look at the claims.. anyone know of one?
lol... Maybe we need a quantum scientist to take a look at the claims.. anyone know of one?
I did my PhD in quantum field theory - but I simply can't be arsed to examine the cited article. Sorry
Ninanina
03-06-2015, 19:21
Two issues:
!. This has nothing to do with a clash of 'belief systems'. Stein bases his claims for his jelly moulds on 'Quantum Physics' - he gives no further explanation of how this plays a role. It is science that demands proof - not a 'belief system'.
2. It is not a mistake to dismiss something fanciful which is based on claims that are not in any way substantiated by even a brief summary of their intrinsic workings - quite the contrary. I think the majority of sane and rational people would call this 'common sense' where such ludicrously large sums of money are involved.
I have asked repeatedly on this thread for a link to any evidence that might go some way to substantiate the pseudo-scientific claptrap used to justify these blobs - so far nothing has materialised beyond arguments based on mild hysteria. As long as this state prevails, the claims remain commercially oriented BS in my view - no matter how pleasant and reasonable Stein may appear to be.
Exactly Mike.. I couldn't have said it better myself.....:D
To coin the Scottish vernacular, basically, it's a load of keech :D
Marco.
Rothchild
03-06-2015, 19:33
I did my PhD in quantum field theory - but I simply can't be arsed to examine the cited article. Sorry
Could you at least comment on the likelihood of a small passive item in a room having a substantial, audible, effect on the (quantum) relationship between the particles in that room, and how such knowledge may have bypassed the entire rest of the scientific community (who seem to be more interested in pulsing lasers at near zero kelvin cylinders of obscure gasses)?
awkwardbydesign
03-06-2015, 20:05
Yeah maybe I should just try sticking some Sorbothane feet all over my walls... now that'd look nice wouldn't it.. :D
I may be crazy but I'm not stupid... I just cannot see these things making any difference...;)
Well of course not. You would have to HEAR them make a difference! :doh:
I think that there is a quantum physicist who lives in my spare room, but he is never there when I look.
Hardly qualifies as scientific peer review I know, but I did ask a qualified Nuclear physicist whom I know for his opinion. I expected a reply which included things along the lines of cats in boxes which might or mighn't be there depending if you looked, but after a lengthy read of the article, he cleared his throat, and declared "Cobblers!". :lol:
Gordon Steadman
04-06-2015, 08:56
Hardly qualifies as scientific peer review I know, but I did ask a qualified Nuclear physicist whom I know for his opinion. I expected a reply which included things along the lines of cats in boxes which might or mighn't be there depending if you looked, but after a lengthy read of the article, he cleared his throat, and declared "Cobblers!". :lol:
Looks like you put your foot in it there:eyebrows:
Of course it matters !!!
$3000 (minimum) is a helluva lot of money - it may be peanuts to you but it would keep me alive for a fair few months :lol:
No it isn't peanuts to me. But I still insist the cost is irrelevant.
Lets say the bloke comes round my place, at his expense, with his gizmos and demonstrates them. I hear an improvement in the sound. He takes them away it doesn't sound as good to me. I thus conclude they work.
Now I still couldn't afford them but then I can't afford to mod my Techy like Marco has done that doesn't mean the mods he has done don't work.
Room treatments do work I am told so hey maybe these do although I doubt it. but at 750 a pop and needing a few then you are looking at a fair amouut of money for anyone bar the rich and a fortune to most. there is no way they cost more than a few quid to make so he is making the price high to produce the exclusive placebo effect and pretty much thats all.
but if folk hear a difference or think they do and can afford to indulge their whim then good on them and to the seller.
walpurgis
04-06-2015, 09:23
I see a parallel with jewellery. Neither (probably) serve a useful purpose, they cost a lot and (likely) get in the way. But if you've got the cash to splash, what the hell.
If you've money to burn, add the Artkustik Audio Animator to your shopping list:
http://i60.tinypic.com/317ffyf.png
andrasszamek
04-06-2015, 09:38
we can discuss this ad nauseam but the fact of the matter is this: none of us have _heard_ it, so none of us _knows_ if it works or not.
i for one also would not understand the science even if it would be explained to me.
and yes, i agree, it costs a lot of money.
Gordon Steadman
04-06-2015, 09:57
we can discuss this ad nauseam but the fact of the matter is this: none of us have _heard_ it, so none of us _knows_ if it works or not.
i for one also would not understand the science even if it would be explained to me.
and yes, i agree, it costs a lot of money.
But we are told that someone who does know the science has called it bollocks!! Maybe the maker doesn't actually know what he is talking about. That doesn't affect if it works or not though. I disbelieve the likelihood so much that I would convince myself it has no effect anyway. This appears to agree with the latest quantum theories, not that I understand what the hell they are talking about.
Looks like you put your foot in it there:eyebrows:
eh???
Another from the tweeker's company: are these guys serious?
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-quantum-signal-enhancer/
better still you can have a bargain priced Bybee Holographic AC Adapter - Bybee AC Purification for Single Components...i will need lot of those
www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/
Yet more crystals! And yet more quantum bollocks! :doh:
Ask Marco about the Bybee - he use one (in his DAC IIRC)....
Gordon Steadman
04-06-2015, 11:46
eh???
Another from the tweeker's company: are these guys serious?
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-quantum-signal-enhancer/
er....'cobblers' I believe has something to do with shoes which most people use to put their feet in!
er....'cobblers' I believe has something to do with shoes which most people use to put their feet in!
Sorry Gordon...went straight over my head first time :lol:
Firebottle
04-06-2015, 12:11
better still you can have a bargain priced Bybee Holographic AC Adapter - Bybee AC Purification for Single Components...i will need lot of those
www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-holographic-ac-adapter/
Cheaper cobblers!
Must get some.
Phil Lawton
04-06-2015, 13:53
Laughable.
Ask Marco about the Bybee - he use one (in his DAC IIRC)....
Yes ONE being the operative word [a small filter on the output stage of my DAC, fitted on the advice of Mark Bartlett, who modded my Sony digital components], which audibly does remove noise, but I certainly wouldn't plaster my whole system with them - or worse - entertain the use of some of their more, shall we say, 'out there' products!
As ever, it's a question of balance :)
Marco.
eh???
Another from the tweeker's company: are these guys serious?
http://www.tweekgeek.com/bybee-quantum-signal-enhancer/
The reviewer they cite start his article with:
"I decided to add these Enhancers one at a time to my system which was already tweaked out with an arsenal of devices like the Stein Harmonizers, Novum Resonators, IPC Energizers, Shakti Stones and Hallographs, Bybee Speaker Bullets and more."
Surely if each one of these different 'enhancers' did their job a point must be reached where the 'grain' he goes on to mention has already been pulverised into oblivion at least 6 times over and the 'transparency' is so transparent you can't even see it ever existed... how on earth do you enhance 'the ultimate enhancement' ????
You have to say if he bought a half decent stereo he maybe could have saved a wad of cash
awkwardbydesign
04-06-2015, 20:51
The reviewer they cite start his article with:
"I decided to add these Enhancers one at a time to my system which was already tweaked out with an arsenal of devices like the Stein Harmonizers, Novum Resonators, IPC Energizers, Shakti Stones and Hallographs, Bybee Speaker Bullets and more."
Surely if each one of these different 'enhancers' did their job a point must be reached where the 'grain' he goes on to mention has already been pulverised into oblivion at least 6 times over and the 'transparency' is so transparent you can't even see it ever existed... how on earth do you enhance 'the ultimate enhancement' ????
You have to say if he bought a half decent stereo he maybe could have saved a wad of cash
Quite. But he would get the quantum doodads free, but have to pay for a decent stereo. Do try to keep up! :doh:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.