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

[mayhem13]

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?

 

Interesting point......and although off topic, I'll provide an example of a situation that exploded far further than i would have expected.

 

Auto manufacturer A uses a particular oil filter. MAJOR oil company manufactures and sells a compatible oil filter for use in mfgr A's cars. Customer 1 has their oil and filter changed at MAJOR oil company's facility. Customer 1 has a catastophic engine failure. Mfgr A denies warranty repairs stating the failure was due to the incorrect filter being used by customer 1. Customer 1 takes his case to MAJOR oil company. MAJOR oil company then sues mfgr A and wins a SUBSTANTIAL settlement (7 zeros). Customer 1 never sees a dime anyways.

[Jud]

Customer 1 never sees a dime anyways.

 

Along with quantum theory, this is one of the rules by which the universe works.

[Daudio]

And what evidence do you have that it is a bad meme?.

 

Evidence ? we don't need no stinkin' evidence !! Not for this stinkin' thread, no-sir-ree.

 

P.S. (the 'bad' is in the over-application of the meme)

 

 

Because I assure you, I can bury you with evidence it is for real.

 

Troika, Troika, Troika !!!

 

Really, Dennis, you seem to have completely lost your sense of humor, misplaced any sense of balance, and jumped the shark with more and more ugly threads. Perhaps you could find another, more healthy way, to satisfy your need for attention.

 

sigh,

[lazy]

As an alternative (or in addition) to nominating companies in this thread, and to the extent that the firm is located in one of the many countries within direct or indirect reach of the ASA, file a compaint with the ASA (example: ASA Adjudication on Russ Andrews Accessories Ltd - Advertising Standards Authority )

and discussed here: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/advertising-standards-authority-and-high-end-power-cords-18830/

 

Filing an online complaint looks easy, and has more potential to result in change than just posting here.

[Boris75]

Links or quotes would be nice.

 

We all have enjoyed the various quantum explanations, and other fantastical physics used by audio companies to explain how or why their products are better. So taking nominations for the best you have seen in 2013. When we have a good collection there will be a poll later so CA members can vote for their favorite.

What about : "Radically new 24-Conductor DNA Helix™ HDMI cable design (patent pending)" ?

[Boris75]

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

 

The so-called "bad meme" gets 1,280,000 hits in scholar.google.com.

[esldude]

The so-called "bad meme" gets 1,280,000 hits in scholar.google.com.

 

Using google scholar that way would make you possibly:

 

a) a communist or former communist dictator

 

b) satan

 

c) an objectivist

 

d) there is no reason you could not be all three of the above which are roughly equivalent anyway.

 

I might further add you have just attacked Teresa and all subjectively oriented audiophiles.

 

Besides Boris is a common Russian name anyway isn't it? Hmmmm that must make you a very bad man Boris75.

[davidbeinct]

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 can't possibly trust my ears. They regularly fall for the illusion created by my two-channel stereo system.

[Boris75]

d) there is no reason you could not be all three of the above which are roughly equivalent anyway.

 

 

You managed to turn a heavy thread into good fun: congratulations and thanks.

[VandyMan]

Really, Dennis, you seem to have completely lost your sense of humor, misplaced any sense of balance, and jumped the shark with more and more ugly threads

 

Reviews, A+ info, and threads started by Dennis are pretty much all I read here these days. The rest is chock full of pseudo-scientific nonsense, so I stay away. I don't see anything at all "ugly" in this thread other than Teresa's harping that every breath Dennis takes deeply offends her. I don't think there is too much disagreement that there are some audio equipment manufactures who play fast and loose with their marketing claims. A topic to call them out by name seems justified to me and pretty fun taboot.

[wgscott]

Using google scholar that way

 

Uh oh. I have a google scholar profile. That makes me the moral equivalent of a war criminal.

[esldude]

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.

 

Yeah, I believe it is a warranty requirement. And an interesting case. Both Keith Johnson (Spectral), and Bruce Brisson (MIT) at different times talked about and alluded to their desire to have clean first order high frequency roll-offs. Brisson talked more at length about it discussing in rather non-technical ways about how second or higher order roll-offs could cause something like a resonance in the total audio system, and how all systems had these resonances. That high bandwidth and controlled roll off from the MIT cables prevented such resonances. It certainly is true enough the MIT cables will make sure your wide bandwidth amps won't destructively oscillate.

 

However, Demian Martin, who at times posts here, had no idea about either. As he designed the gear at the time at Spectral I would think he would know. He even said initially there was no aim for extra bandwidth. I think he said it was a fast amplifier that also let go of a signal without artifacts that he was after. The high slew rates and wide bandwidth were side effects of making that happen not a primary design goal. I even pointed him to the interview which apparently was news to him. If it was something Keith Johnson had in mind he didn't discuss it when Mr. Martin was working on the design if I recall Mr. Martin's reply correctly.

 

So this is just my opinion, I don't know the facts, but those public interviews in the audiophile press sure look like coming up with a marketing spiel after the fact. Now true enough MIT's design would prevent ultrasonic oscillation by restricting bandwidth. But the implication was the whole idea of a superior more advanced concept in system interaction with wide bandwidth and MIT's design abilities. When it really, in regards to Spectral was nothing more than, this amp can work up to 1 megahertz, so lets roll it off at 200 khz so we will be sure it won't oscillate.

 

When I first owned a Spectral amp I was worried about not having MIT cables. So I hooked it up to an oscope to check for oscillation. I can imagine ways it could happen. But I at different times used quite a number of non-approved cables and got no hint of oscillation with any of them. Their amps in fact appeared no more likely to oscillate than any other. Did they have warranty issues early on? I of course don't know. One could just as easily have said use cables of x-amount of capacitance or limited bandwidth or something else.

[Jud]

When it really, in regards to Spectral was nothing more than, this amp can work up to 1 megahertz, so lets roll it off at 200 khz so we will be sure it won't oscillate.

 

When I first owned a Spectral amp I was worried about not having MIT cables. So I hooked it up to an oscope to check for oscillation. I can imagine ways it could happen. But I at different times used quite a number of non-approved cables and got no hint of oscillation with any of them. Their amps in fact appeared no more likely to oscillate than any other. Did they have warranty issues early on? I of course don't know. One could just as easily have said use cables of x-amount of capacitance or limited bandwidth or something else.

 

Perhaps the requirement came after Demian Martin left the company? There are amps Spectral designates as "universal" which don't have the cable requirement.

 

I don't have MIT cables either. Shh, don't tell anyone! OTOH, both my amp and preamp are nearly 20 years old, so they've both already led long, useful lives to this point. Even if something happened, I certainly wouldn't feel cheated.

[VandyMan]

Aside from if the relationship with Spectral is legal or not, can we agree that calling your company MIT when you have no relationship with MIT is, at best, highly questionable?

[Paul R]

While I think you and Teresa are doing a valuable service, bringing up and discussing behavior here in the open without hostility - I do have to point out that what is often being championed here is the same as evaluating a Van Gogh painting by light sensor and spectrograph, rather than just looking at it.

 

You have to look at a painting to understand and evaluate it. Just the same, you have to listen to a component or production to understand and evaluate it. I think, in theory at least, you could have a boatload of sensors and spectrographic analysis tell you that two paintings are identical, and yet a quick visual inspection would tell you otherwise.

 

The same may hold true in audio, at least in some cases. Nobody would question the evidence of their eyes in the case of two paintings, nor call someone who said they looked different ensnared by insidious expectation bias. Why should a similar case in audio be treated differently? I don't think it should to be honest.

 

In the case of a painting, expectation bias is all to likely to work the other way, making people dismiss the differences they might see. I think that again might be the case sometimes in audio.

 

Unless of course, one is actually Satan or an objectivist - then one gets to ignore any data not relevant to getting the customer to sell his soul. Many Audiophiles would enter that bargain for - the Absolute Sound System From Hell. Perfect reproduction - as long as you don't listen to it.

 

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

[esldude]

Just for Jud.

 

I have a nominee.

 

For 2012 - All New High Definition Speaker Interfaces | Products

 

Featuring Fractional Articulation Technology based upon innovative Fractional Octave Analysis.

 

These speaker cables have an interface box the size of a small amplifier on the end.

 

The result is a cable that......wait for it........yes.......results in:

 

 

 

More defined three dimensional soundstage

Better low level and micro imaging

Authoritative and controlled bass

Crystal clear mids and highs

[esldude]

Aside from if the relationship with Spectral is legal or not, can we agree that calling your company MIT when you have no relationship with MIT is, at best, highly questionable?

 

I wouldn't fault him for that. I don't know if that was in his mind or not. MIT is for Music Interface Technologies.

 

As he has for a long time had interface boxes or elements, and has said it was important using MIT seems reasonable enough for me.

 

Would I be wrong to start a cable company called USC? Unamplified Signal Cables.

 

Now were I call it Harvard that might be too much. I could have the Ivy line of cables, and so on and so forth. The top of the line I could call the Endowment which would cost $72,000 and be an endowment for sending friends and relatives to school. Maybe even Harvard if they gain entrance.

 

Or Caltech. Cables About Livesound Technologies. That might be too much.

[Audio_ELF]

Expanding your painting analogy Paul, I see it slightly differently...

 

By sight you can tell a Van Gough from a Manet and choose which you preferred; but if someone put the original Mona Lisa side by side with a copy, depending on how good the artist doing the copying you may not be able to evaluate which is the copy. If you were buying it, would use spectrographic analysis (amongst other measurements) to judge which the original was or would you purely rely on your sight?

 

Eloise

While I think you and Teresa are doing a valuable service, bringing up and discussing behavior here in the open without hostility - I do have to point out that what is often being championed here is the same as evaluating a Van Gogh painting by light sensor and spectrograph, rather than just looking at it.

 

You have to look at a painting to understand and evaluate it. Just the same, you have to listen to a component or production to understand and evaluate it. I think, in theory at least, you could have a boatload of sensors and spectrographic analysis tell you that two paintings are identical, and yet a quick visual inspection would tell you otherwise.

 

The same may hold true in audio, at least in some cases. Nobody would question the evidence of their eyes in the case of two paintings, nor call someone who said they looked different ensnared by insidious expectation bias. Why should a similar case in audio be treated differently? I don't think it should to be honest.

 

In the case of a painting, expectation bias is all to likely to work the other way, making people dismiss the differences they might see. I think that again might be the case sometimes in audio.

 

Unless of course, one is actually Satan or an objectivist - then one gets to ignore any data not relevant to getting the customer to sell his soul. Many Audiophiles would enter that bargain for - the Absolute Sound System From Hell. Perfect reproduction - as long as you don't listen to it.

[4est]

But do you believe that a person could tell from sight alone?

Expanding your painting analogy Paul, I see it slightly differently...

 

By sight you can tell a Van Gough from a Manet and choose which you preferred; but if someone put the original Mona Lisa side by side with a copy, depending on how good the artist doing the copying you may not be able to evaluate which is the copy. If you were buying it, would use spectrographic analysis (amongst other measurements) to judge which the original was or would you purely rely on your sight?

 

Eloise

[Audio_ELF]

But do you believe that a person could tell from sight alone?

If it's a good enough copy no...

 

I'm sure many of Shaun Greenhalgh's "customers" wish they had relied on more than their senses!

[esldude]

But do you believe that a person could tell from sight alone?

 

High dollar art is evaluated by museums using some pretty high tech stuff to detect forgeries these days. And some have found they in the past paid good money for fakes that were approved by some experienced art experts.

[Jud]

I wouldn't fault him for that. I don't know if that was in his mind or not. MIT is for Music Interface Technologies.

 

As he has for a long time had interface boxes or elements, and has said it was important using MIT seems reasonable enough for me.

 

Would I be wrong to start a cable company called USC? Unamplified Signal Cables.

 

Now were I call it Harvard that might be too much. I could have the Ivy line of cables, and so on and so forth. The top of the line I could call the Endowment which would cost $72,000 and be an endowment for sending friends and relatives to school. Maybe even Harvard if they gain entrance.

 

Or Caltech. Cables About Livesound Technologies. That might be too much.

 

People would think the Massachusetts university had a sideline selling audio cables in California?

 

There was a hotel in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada (same latitude as Moscow) called "Fantasyland" that was sued by Disney. At the trial, the hotel's attorney asked a Disney witness if, when Michael Jackson rented out Disney World for his birthday, any of the guests had gone to the hotel in Edmonton by mistake.

 

It's not sufficient for the name to be the same or similar. There actually must be some confusion caused by the similarity.

[4est]

I was not thinking of it that way- I am sure people can be tricked. I was thinking more along the lines of ABX with both paintings on hand and (some)one capable either via direct past experience of that painting or painter.

High dollar art is evaluated by museums using some pretty high tech stuff to detect forgeries these days. And some have found they in the past paid good money for fakes that were approved by some experienced art experts.

[Jud]

Just for Jud.

 

I have a nominee.

 

For 2012 - All New High Definition Speaker Interfaces | Products

 

Featuring Fractional Articulation Technology based upon innovative Fractional Octave Analysis.

 

These speaker cables have an interface box the size of a small amplifier on the end.

 

The result is a cable that......wait for it........yes.......results in:

 

 

 

More defined three dimensional soundstage

Better low level and micro imaging

Authoritative and controlled bass

Crystal clear mids and highs

 

Fractional Articulation Technology - FAT! Gaah, I know.

[esldude]

I was not thinking of it that way- I am sure people can be tricked. I was thinking more along the lines of ABX with both paintings on hand and (some)one capable either via direct past experience of that painting or painter.

 

 

Well, that would be more equivalent to high tech measurements claiming a forgery and an art expert claiming no the measurements are wrong as it isn't a forgery. So you might then test the expert by using known forgeries and the real thing blind. They pass or don't. Now that doesn't occur because even art experts recognize various techniques to evaluate material, paint or scan for things under the surface exceed the human perceptions of those factors.