2013 best audio marketing of pseudo-science or fictional science...taking nominations now.

[crisnee]

Actually a separate thread wouldn’t work as the comments have to go after the offending post to show why it was offensive.

 

There is nothing to hash out, if people start respecting other people then I would have no need to post, I prefer to just read the posts. But when the line of decency is crossed to such a severe extent I have to say something. So if you want me to post less start behaving in a civil manner to those who you disagree with.

 

People notice when/if things are offensive; we don't need a watch dog to tell us, thanks. You, Teresa, are becoming quite sanctimonious and tiresome.

 

Chris

[Audio_ELF]

Teresa... Why do those with an objective point of view have to have respect and accept anything listening tests claim without questioning the conclusions (yes the conclusions are questioned not what is heard - this is different) while you and others don't respect that some people like to discuss scientific points of view?

 

I find your attitudes as offensive at times as you find esldude and others!

 

Eloise

 

PS. I don't claim I am always 100% inoffensive in my postings! Sometimes I write exactly what I think and end up being overly blunt. Sometimes an elephant is just an elephant taking up space in the room!

Actually a separate thread wouldn’t work as the comments have to go after the offending post to show why it was offensive.

 

There is nothing to hash out, if people start respecting other people then I would have no need to post, I prefer to just read the posts. But when the line of decency is crossed to such a severe extent I have to say something. So if you want me to post less start behaving in a civil manner to those who you disagree with.

[Teresa]

Teresa... Why do those with an objective point of view have to have respect and accept anything listening tests claim without questioning the conclusions (yes the conclusions are questioned not what is heard - this is different) while you and others don't respect that some people like to discuss scientific points of view?

 

Because it's the right thing to do to respect (not necessarily accept or agree with) other people's listening impressions instead of belittling them, insulting them or calling them liars. Subjectivists never require anyone to agree with them, that's one of the reasons we are subjectivists. We are open to all opinions and all listening impressions and never insult anyone's listening impressions.

 

I can't speak for others but I have no problem with objectivists discussing scientific points of view among themselves as long they don't insult or belittle subjectivists while doing so. Or try to involve us in any way, such as demanding we to do tests or redo tests for them that we don't want to do, or demand proof that we don't want to provide because we would rather enjoy listening to music instead. It's all about acceptable human decency.

 

I find your attitudes as offensive at times as you find esldude and others!

 

Eloise

 

I am sorry if I have ever done that as I try to carefully word my posts so they offend no one. I am all about love and peace. If you can find examples where I have offended anyone I would like to see them.

[Allan F]

And what evidence do you have that it is a bad meme? Because I assure you, I can bury you with evidence it is for real.

 

Winner of the Nikita Khruschev award for diplomacy!

[4est]

I'd vote for that. The "Dennis Show" is really getting boring, and as we have all seen, not very fruitful.

I nominate "Expectation Bias". A bad meme that has been marketed pretty heavily in this forum in 2013

[Audio_ELF]

Because it's the right thing to do to respect (not necessarily accept or agree with) other people's listening impressions instead of belittling them, insulting them or calling them liars. Subjectivists never require anyone to agree with them, that's one of the reasons we are subjectivists. We are open to all opinions and all listening impressions and never insult anyone's listening impressions.

As I say ... it is very rare anyone is "belittled, insulted (though that in itself is subjective) or called a liar". What is questioned is when someone from a subjective point of view makes an absolute statement which usually goes along the lines of "I changed X and heard a difference therefore X must be true". If those offering a subjective view point did as you suggested said "I changed X and heard a difference and I am happy that it is something I enjoy" then that is a different thing.

 

I can't speak for others but I have no problem with objectivists discussing scientific points of view among themselves as long they don't insult or belittle subjectivists while doing so. Or try to involve us in any way, such as demanding we to do tests or redo tests for them that we don't want to do, or demand proof that we don't want to provide because we would rather enjoy listening to music instead. It's all about acceptable human decency.

With respect Teressa, the first sentence you wrote there doesn't ring true with the face that you regularly post in threads asking for objective evidence and belittle those asking for such evidence as not being music lovers.

 

If *you* (meaning those posting subjective points of view) don't want to provide evidence, then fine. But you have to accept that a sighted listening test is subject to so many variables that in itself it can never provide evidence. Evidence is only "demanded" (as you put it) when suspect claims and conclusions are presented as evidence.

 

Oh and the point is that in many cases the people who evidence is being "demanded" of aren't listening to music, they are messing around with fuses and cables and so on.

 

I find your attitudes as offensive at times as you find esldude and others!

I am sorry if I have ever done that as I try to carefully word my posts so they offend no one. I am all about love and peace. If you can find examples where I have offended anyone I would like to see them.

I am not going to trawl for links - but your main statement I find offensive is when you belittle objectives as not being music lovers.

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

I nominate "Expectation Bias". A bad meme that has been marketed pretty heavily in this forum in 2013

I'd vote for that. The "Dennis Show" is really getting boring, and as we have all seen, not very fruitful.

I may be wrong, but I do not think Dennis is suggesting Expectation Bias is the answer to every difference heard, all he is saying is that it is impossible to ignore it as a element.

 

Eloise

[Allan F]

As I say ... it is very rare anyone is "belittled, insulted...

 

You've got to be kidding! Or you must be reading a different forum.

[Teresa]

...I am not going to trawl for links - but your main statement I find offensive is when you belittle objectives as not being music lovers.

 

Eloise

 

I try not to belittle anyone, I am just confused how someone can claim not to trust their ears and to love music, when listening to music means you have to trust your ears because it is ears you use to listen to music with. I am still very confused how someone who does not trust their ears can enjoy music which requires the use of ears. I have asked nicely how this is possible and no one has given a logical answer yet. Could you attempt to answer that.

 

I just want to know how that is possible. I can't imagine enjoying "recorded" or "live" music without ears. The only other way I know is to learn to read music scores. I personally prefer to listen to music with my ears.

 

In my opinion one either loves their ears or not. This is the biggest thing I don't understand about objectivists. I just can't imagine anything being more important than one's ears if they truly love music.

[Audio_ELF]

I try not to belittle anyone, I am just confused how someone can claim not to trust their ears and to love music, when listening to music means you have to trust your ears because it is ears you use to listen to music with. I am still very confused how someone who does not trust their ears can enjoy music which requires the use of ears. I have asked nicely how this is possible and no one has given a logical answer yet. Could you attempt to answer that.

You can trust your ears to choose what gives you enjoyment; you cannot trust your ears (especially when also influenced by other senses and your mind) to provide precise and accurate comparisons.

 

The two things are independent of each other.

 

As a bad analogy: to say someone who is discussing the objective side of audio is not a music lover; is like saying a painter and decorator can't appreciate Manet and Van Gough...

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

You've got to be kidding! Or you must be reading a different forum.

No, I just read the posts rather than assuming people mean things they aren't saying!

[Teresa]

You can trust your ears to choose what gives you enjoyment; you cannot trust your ears (especially when also influenced by other senses and your mind) to provide precise and accurate comparisons.

 

The two things are independent of each other.

 

As a bad analogy: to say someone who is discussing the objective side of audio is not a music lover; is like saying a painter and decorator can't appreciate Manet and Van Gough...

 

Eloise

 

I'm sorry that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I find it truly bizarre. I don't find them independent in real life, my ears can take me to a close recreation of a live event with eyes closed. That means they are good enough for all kinds of comparisons. Sorry I need a better answer for mistrusting one's ears than that. I believe you have been fooled into mistrusting your ears by anti-audiophile types.

[Jud]

Have you ever read quantum theory? It is more bizarre than anything you will find in audio. So I find it best to not comment.

 

As Bill Scott has pointed out, Teresa, quantum theory is quite strange, but it is strange in ways that are now, after nearly a century, very well understood. The experiments that have been done confirming quantum theory are probably the most exact and exacting in history, reaching results that are spot on to as many decimal points as you might care to go. I have not yet read an audio equipment claim with the word "quantum" that is not out-and-out demonstrably wrong on a very elementary level.

 

It doesn't have to be that way. Resonessence Audio has a very nice layperson-level explanation of digital audio filters that uses quantum theory to illustrate a particular point in a factually correct fashion. (See Digital Filters | Resonessence .) But other than this single example, again as Bill says, the claims I've seen have just been of the empty "Quantum! Ooh, science-y word. Be impressed!" variety.

[Jud]

I may be wrong, but I do not think Dennis is suggesting Expectation Bias is the answer to every difference heard, all he is saying is that it is impossible to ignore it as a element.

 

Eloise

 

I agree. I do also, however, think it tends to be overused generally (not by Dennis in particular - I think I would have your agreement, Eloise, when I say it would be nice to get away from attacking and defending personalities and back to discussing audio) as a sort of "universal solvent" to explain phenomena people don't otherwise understand. It may eventually prove correct that some of what we think we're hearing is better attributed to expectation bias or other psychological causes, though I personally would be happier if more folks simply checked the "We don't know yet" box, or better still the "I don't understand yet" box (thus leaving room for the possibility that others understand perfectly well what I do not).

[Teresa]

You've got to be kidding! Or you must be reading a different forum.

 

I agree, I think the problem is that Audio ELF is blind to all the mistreatment of subjectivists by objectivists because she is an objectivist. I didn't post for a very long time because of their abuse which includes belittling, insulting and demeaning subjectivists and calling them misinformed, liars and stupid. I keep hoping that objectivists improve their offensive attitudes towards subjectivists. I am starting to give hope that they can behave as human beings and am thinking about leaving this forum because objectivists are so rude to people who they don't agree with. It makes me sick!

[Jud]

On top of that it their relationship with Spectral appears to be an illegal tying relationship as defined by the antitrust laws.

 

Do tell us about your extensive background in the very specialized field of illegal tying relationships within the very specialized field of antitrust law.

[mav52]

Not something I would try, however they do have a 30 day money back guarantee for more adventurous souls.

 

I have no comment as I personally believe it is rude to comment on something I personally have not heard or to pass scientific judgement on something whose principles I don't understand. So-called science fact changes as new theories replace old ones, so science is not written in stone. Also thats why I find this thread offensive and a veiled attack on audiophiles.[/QUOT

 

So you are now the self appointed thread watcher. I personally find your opinionated demands for some people to only trust their ears instead of enjoying the "science/technology" behind what they believe is very insulting. You find that you can't comment on something you have not heard, rude, so why did you even comment at all.

 

We all know as you keep on telling us over and over and over, you like to enjoy music with your ears. I say good for you and I admire that you like to listen to music with your ears. Well in case you forgot 99.9% of the people on this forum are not you, but I would bet we all have ears. You note you don't understand, so maybe it's time you just let people enjoy music their way and not be so condescending. It's not all your way or the highway, or is it.

 

And yes, I do use my ears and my mind to listen and enjoy music, but I also except the free will of others to enjoy music the way they want.

[Jud]

 

Its not very specialized at all. Tying is when buying one product you have to buy another product.

 

Gosh, that's all there is to it then. Well so much for all those clueless court opinions, law review articles and textbooks suggesting it might be a touch more complicated.

 

House paint and paint brushes would meet your simple definition then? If not, why not?

[Audio_ELF]

I'm sorry that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. I find it truly bizarre. I don't find them independent in real life, my ears can take me to a close recreation of a live event with eyes closed. That means they are good enough for all kinds of comparisons. Sorry I need a better answer for mistrusting one's ears than that. I believe you have been fooled into mistrusting your ears by anti-audiophile types.

No, I've not been fooled into mistrusting my ears by anti-audiophile types. I have however been shown that sometimes things are not what I expect.

 

An example and maybe this will just prove to everyone my opinions are to be ignored: I used to have a system set up where I had an integrated amplifier and a AV Receiver (I love movies as well as music). The front channels of the AV Receiver were fed into the integrated so for watching surround movies you had to ensure the correct input was selected. Well one evening I sat and enjoyed 2 or 3 movies - it was only when I went to switch everything off did I realise there had been nothing from the front speakers (only the center) as the amplifier was set right.

 

If I switched back and forward yes I could notice a difference and felt it was "night and day obvious"; but listening blind with the frame of mind I was in I didn't notice anything.

 

Deafness or being fooled by my eyes filling in the details?

 

I think I would have your agreement, Eloise, when I say it would be nice to get away from attacking and defending personalities and back to discussing audio

Yes I will agree there Jud ... I've been deliberately avoiding posting in some contentious threads. I would say there is definitely a 6 of one, half a dozen of the other situation. I do agree that some of Dennis' posts can read quite inflammatory.

 

I agree. I do also, however, think [exception bias] tends to be overused generally as a sort of "universal solvent" to explain phenomena people don't otherwise understand. It may eventually prove correct that some of what we think we're hearing is better attributed to expectation bias or other psychological causes, though I personally would be happier if more folks simply checked the "We don't know yet" box, or better still the "I don't understand yet" box (thus leaving room for the possibility that others understand perfectly well what I do not).

I don't disagree with some caveats... There is not a black and white "this is not possible to explain"; "this is true and explainable".

 

Somethings we can say for certain have a logical reason why they would affect the sound quality.

Somethings are possible but really should affect the sound.

Some things are very unlikely to be able to affect sound quality.

 

For the things you can explain logically, then well very little is needed to convince people. If something is unlikely, then as Carl Sagan popularised "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" or as Laplace put it "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

So-called science fact changes as new theories replace old ones, so science is not written in stone.

Just to conclude my "rants" ... very few (established) theories are replaced by new theories; more usually new theories expand and adapt the old theories based on newer evidence.

 

For example just as Quantum Theory does not require Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to be disregarded, neither did relativity need Newtonian Physics to be disregarded.

 

Eloise

[Jud]

If your house paint said it wouldn't work unless you bought a specific brand of brushes, that would be tying. Spectral comes close to saying their products don't work unless you use MIT cables.

 

 

What's your expertise?

 

Let's get more specific with our example. Let's say Aftermarket Auto Paint Company contracts with Ford to be able to use Ford's auto paint formulation. Other auto paint companies may be able to match the initial color, but it is a fact that the precise aging and wear characteristics of the paint won't be the same as Ford's, so these other paints may start to look different than the Ford paint after a year or two. Let's then say your Ford dealer tells you it will not warrant a paint job unless it is done by them using Ford paint or by another shop using the Aftermarket paint.

 

Illegal tying?

[Hiro]

The "explanations" in audio-shyster advertising invoking quantum theory do nothing of this sort. They throw around a bunch of buzzwords to bedazzle those who don't have much of a background in the subject, but the claims are entirely vacuous bullshit that can explain nothing. It really is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

 

It is the height of intellectual dishonesty and the hallmark of all woo-woo/pseudoscience.

[Audio_ELF]

On top of that it their relationship with Spectral appears to be an illegal tying relationship as defined by the antitrust laws.

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that antitrust regulations only apply where a company has a dominant position and that wouldn't define either MIT nor Spectral. There would also be issues if there was an abuse of the system - i.e. if MIT were giving Spectral backhanders on each cable set they sell to Spectral customers.

 

In addition Spectral do not (afaik) say you MUST use MIT cables, only that it is a recommendation. A lot of manufacturers do similar.

 

Eloise

[Jud]

You never told us your qualifications.

 

I'm an attorney with litigation experience that includes antitrust in association with intellectual property matters.

[Jud]

I'm no lawyer, but I believe that antitrust regulations only apply where a company has a dominant position and that wouldn't define either MIT nor Spectral. There would also be issues if there was an abuse of the system - i.e. if MIT were giving Spectral backhanders on each cable set they sell to Spectral customers.

 

In addition Spectral do not (afaik) say you MUST use MIT cables, only that it is a recommendation. A lot of manufacturers do similar.

 

Eloise

 

Hi, Eloise. First, thanks for referring to two more of the numerous factors involved with determining whether something is an illegal tying arrangement under antitrust law - market position, and financial advantage from the arrangement. (There are plenty of others that I don't plan to list to avoid being tiresome.)

 

I think you may be incorrect about the MIT cable requirement being just a recommendation. With particular models of Spectral amps, I believe it's a warranty requirement.

 

The reason I gave the auto paint example first is that what other folks not associated with Spectral and MIT have explained to me is that the network boxen on MIT cables provide very high frequency behavior that avoids possible damaging oscillations that could otherwise occur due to Spectral amps' extremely wide bandwidth, and that therefore there may be an actual technical reason for Spectral's requirement. If Spectral's requirement has a legitimate technical justification, then it would not be illegal tying.