The Snake Oil Machine

[Marco]

I hadn't been following this thread either, but let's just quote Hugo's post again, as it hits the nail on the head:

I thought that ‘science’ was supposed to be all about things that are known, and being open-minded and inquisistive about things that are not yet fully understood, or indeed known. That comes across a bit ‘Donald Rumsfeld’ but if science and scientists never moved forward, we would still be talking about phlogiston, rather than quantum physics which most definitely challenges most accepted wisdoms, yet already has real world uses and applications.

So, when some people hear things that cannot be explained with ohm’s law and Joseph Fourier, maybe these people are correct and entrenched ‘scientific’ dogma is not. Real science comes with curiosity and humility, so I’m with Neil on this one.

Marco.

[Stratmangler]

I hadn't been following this thread either, but let's just quote Hugo's post again, as it hits the nail on the head:





Marco.

The thing to bear in mind is that there's nothing mystical going on with the product brought to light in the OP.
The majority of audio equipment complies with class 2 electrical regs, and doesn't have a protective ground on it.
Using one of the leads in question directly connects the signal ground to mains ground, which may or may not have audible effects. You could knock up a lead for less than £5.00 that may not look as pretty, but it'll do the same job.

There is one thing that isn't considered, and that's induced RFI on the ground connection.
Oh, and under fault conditions your equipment becomes toast

[Barry]

A scientific theory only holds for as long as it can explain known phenomena. If a phenomenon or effect is discovered, one which is independantly observable and repeatable, then the current theory has to be revised or even replaced. The new theory not only has to explain the newly discovered phenomenon but must continue to explain the previously known phenomena. And ideally it should predict new results which are then looked for to test the theory. Karl Popper showed that theories can only be falsifiable: that is, you can't prove them to be correct, you can only show them to be false, by finding a phenomenon which the theory can't explain.

With respect to 'snake oil' or other contentious devices, tweaks, or treatments, the problem is that the effects reported are not universally agreed upon: some will hear them, others will not. Thus there is little incentive to try and explain them, as some will claim there is nothing to explain.

[narabdela]

I notice that no-one has commented on Hugo's excellent post earlier, which certainly sums up things from my point of view... That's usually the case on these threads when someone says something sensible

Marco.

...or maybe some of us thought it was pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and decided to maintain a discrete silence, rather than get involved in pointless cyclical argument? We all have a point of view.

[Macca]

...or maybe some of us thought it was pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo and decided to maintain a discrete silence, rather than get involved in pointless cyclical argument? We all have a point of view.

He's suggesting that there are physical properties to audio systems that science does not know about or cannot explain but which are in fact real. The probability of this being true is very small. So suggesting it as a mechanism for how fantastic tweaks work is not especially useful. It also does not explain how manufacturers invent and develop these products when they don't have any science to work with. Is it just trial and error? Do they just throw different materials together randomly in the hope that something clicks?


We all know that they don't do that. What they do is make it look fancy, make a load of completely unsubstantiated claims for what it does, and then charge as much as the market will bear. You'd think that would be obvious to everyone. Possibly a more interesting question/topic is why it isn't.

[Joe]

He's suggesting that there are physical properties to audio systems that science does not know about or cannot explain but which are in fact real. The probability of this being true is very small. So suggesting it as a mechanism for how fantastic tweaks work is not especially useful. It also does not explain how manufacturers invent and develop these products when they don't have any science to work with. Is it just trial and error? Do they just throw different materials together randomly in the hope that something clicks?


We all know that they don't do that. What they do is make it look fancy, make a load of completely unsubstantiated claims for what it does, and then charge as much as the market will bear. You'd think that would be obvious to everyone. Possibly a more interesting question/topic is why it isn't.

It's a combination of the power of advertising and human gullibility. It's evident not just in hifi, but in such things as 'designer' labels, which carry a price premium not because of any intrinsic value, but because of the cachet associated with a certain name.

The key point, which Barry raised above, but which the 'believers' won't answer, is where do you draw the line? At what point does a tweak, even if free or very cheap, cross the line between 'worth a try' and 'sheer nutjobbery'? People got cross with Peter Belt because his ideas seemed ludicrous, yet they were no more ludicrous than some stuff sold by reputable dealers which cannot have the effect claimed, or which is crazily over-priced even if it does have a (minor) effect.

[hifi_dave]

I have no problems with the 'snake oil' products. If people believe they work, that is all well and good. What I object to is the grossly inflated prices of most of these items, which could be sold for a fraction of the cost and still do the job.

[Macca]

It's a combination of the power of advertising and human gullibility. It's evident not just in hifi, but in such things as 'designer' labels, which carry a price premium not because of any intrinsic value, but because of the cachet associated with a certain name.

The key point, which Barry raised above, but which the 'believers' won't answer, is where do you draw the line? At what point does a tweak, even if free or very cheap, cross the line between 'worth a try' and 'sheer nutjobbery'?

I have also asked that question on this thread a couple of times but as you say, no-one wants to answer it because there is no answer they can give. The logic of irrational tweakery falls at that fence every time.

[Gazjam]

To badly paraphrase Frank Zappa...
Discussing audio tweaks without trying them for yourself (for free or very cheaply) is like dancing about Architecture.

A lot of "absolutes" getting thrown around here, just make up a DIY version see for yourself if the theory is bullshit.
Some say it is, some say there's at least SOME theory to it...just try it and find out for yourself.

No-one else curious?

[Marco]

To badly paraphrase Frank Zappa...
Discussing audio tweaks without trying them for yourself (for free or very cheaply) is like dancing about Architecture.

A lot of "absolutes" getting thrown around here...

Precisely, Gaz. I abhor absolutism with a passion, and indeed it has NO place on this forum, so some folks here need to re-familiarise themselves with the AoS ethos, and that this is, let me outline for clarity: a staunchly subjectivist 'ears first' forum, where the subjectivist mindset will *always* be given priority.

Staunchly objectivist opinions will only be permitted if they show due respect for the subjectivist mindset, don't descend into personal remarks, such as "nutjobbery" and the like, and most importantly also don't descend into blinkered absolutism.

If I see any more of that type of input here, it'll be removed without further warning and the thread closed. Bans will also be handed out for repeated offenders.

I can see why Neil gets so frustrated trying to have these types of discussions with folk with such deeply-entrenched views, and who are unable to express their (undoubtedly legitimate) opinions without simultaneously deriding those of others, and insulting them personally.

It also flies in the face of the healthy (sceptical when necessary) open-mindedness I value and seek to promote on this forum, as I have little time for eternal cynics (with scant respect for others of a different mindset) and who, in reality, do nothing to advance our further learning in this hobby.

I hope that this message is crystal clear!

Marco.