as Mr. Winer said, once one knows the facts, the perception follows accordingly, and much of this stuff is banished to whence it came.

But for the Placebo efect to have its effect, the person receiving the placebo has to first think the placebo is genuine and then expect a specific change. I went into power cables thinking the idea was silly as no one fixes the cable from the pole to the outlet in my room. Under no circumstance was I expecting a change in the highs of my system. Nothing I had read noted any change in instrument location but both appeared.

As I said, I cannot explain it but the change is real in my system.

Quote:
as Mr. Winer said, once one knows the facts, the perception follows accordingly, and much of this stuff is banished to whence it came.

No, what Winer said was ...

Quote:
The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.

Closing your eyes doesn't make things go away. Not listening doesn't change the sound of a bad system.

If you truly, truly believe that only those few simple measurements are all that you need, you're welcome to purchase your system based on those measurements alone, no need to listen. Just do not pretend that what you hear is what I hear because I prefer to listen to music rather than read about how good it will sound.

ncdrawl, if that is your only point, you have made it more than once. How many times will you repeat it? Everything sounds the same to you. Fine. I am at the other end of the discussion and someone standing down at your end of the field shouting "It's all the same" isn't getting through. My experience just today tells me that isn't how I hear. It may be how you hear. It isn't how I hear. And I wonder why anyone who truly feels everything sounds the same would be on a subjective review magazine's forum. I know why Ethan is here but I don't understand the rest. It's like going into someone's home and telling them their furniture is ugly and their dog smells bad. Why? Why come to a forum such as this just to insist the entire premise of the magazine is wrong?

Ethan also posted this ...

Quote:

Quote:
How does one measure perception?

You don't, but you don't need to. Perception is outside of the physical world, entirely in the mind of the listener. How someone perceives sound is unrelated to the actual properties of the sound. So don't even bother with that. Just measure what is real, and you'll have The Truth. Perception will always follow.

Perception is outside of the physical world?!!!

Perception is the physical world! If you aren't perceiving the physical world there's a good chance you might be dead. Not that I know what happens when you die but ...

I could not disagree more with anything that I've seen from Ethan than I do that ridiculous statement. Perception doesn't matter?! Perception will follow what the measurements tell you?! PUH-LEEEEASE! That is "HiFi for Dummies" and I mean dummies! Presenting that as "The Truth" is like bringing religion into the discussion - Jim Jones style religion. Don't think - just do as you're told. Don't listen - just buy what you're told to buy. The measurements won't hurt you - the measurements are your friend.

If you can name one high end amplifier, speaker, cartridge, turntable, digital player, etc. manufacturer who releases a product without listening to it, based solely on the measurements they take, then there's room for discussion of this approach. If not, then I would think the discussion would be over. I know of no one who even pretends to be a high end company who does this other than Ethan. Who do you know? We are right back to only publishing the "Measurements" section of Stereophile once a year. What is the purpose of the magazine if all you need are frequency response, distortion and noise?

Tell me this, ncdrawl, what sort of distortion? JGH began this magazine with the idea that THD was not sufficient. Now, after almost fifty years Ethan wants to drive the entire industry back to Hirsch-Houk Labs and you're standing on the curbing with a bus pass in your hand. Good Grief!!!

ncdrawl, tell me what distortion spec you would consider sufficient to describe the performance of a transformer coupled, tube type power amplifier? Which measurement tells you how a speaker will sound?

Quote:

Quote:
Stereophile reviewer Bob Deutsch writes about this topic in the February issue. Bob, who taught experimental psychology at York University in Toronto until his recent retirement, points out that people divide into "Levelers" and "Sharpeners" when it comes to perception. Levelers tend to diminish the perceptual effect of real differences whereas Sharpeners tend to exaggerate them. Each is right _for them_. From this dialog it looks as if Jan is a Sharpener and Ncdrawl a Leveler, thus agreement will never be reached.

now that is interesting, JA... I need to look through the archives and reread that one.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Bob's essay is in the February 2009 issue, scheduled to hit newsstands around January 15th and to be be posted in our on-line archives in early February.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Well, hi, May.

In addition to my accusatory post, did you catch this part?

And I quote, me: "As I said, I believe you when you say you heard something. I do not believe you when you make a claim as to certainty with regard to it being a magnetic phenomenon."

May. There is a difference between doubting that the party in question 'heard' something vs. buying into the sales line as to why it occurred.

____

As to the snake oil line of the thread, I've come up with a perfectly circular argument/explanation a la someone I know:

As we know, humans evolved in a world in which they had to be constantly on the look out for threats.

This

Buddha

Thats not going to go down well.

Suggesting that people have the right to dismiss things as bullshit ( demagnetizers ) without having had extensive exposure is just revolutionary.

Its clear certain of the politburo do not want their authority challanged in any way and they will defend bullshit to the death, once one person sees through it the flood gates open and next thing you know everyone is demanding actual proof things work.

In a blind mans world the one eyed man is king, this is very similar to hifi. Certain people ( JV, MF etc ) are very much in favor of the party line others ( Ethan ) are willing to challange the party line at every turn. In my world if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then im going to say its a duck, others will want to do a full comparison test with every other species because they do not have enough conviction in themselves to know its a duck !! they have to be told to believe it. JV will no doubt say im wrong because I will not enter into a discussion about hypothetical benefits of demagentizers, well ive decided its a duck and im not going to be convinced otherwise without hard evidence.

It will be interesting in these upcoming dark economic times, I just cant see people spending $2000 of mortgage money to demagnetize a plastic disc just because MF says it sounds better with absolutley no demonstrable evidence except a DBT where he was badgering the audience !!

Is there any way to put up a simple vote ? believe in demagnetizers or not ?
Alan

Quote:
Buddha

Thats not going to go down well.

Suggesting that people have the right to dismiss things as bullshit ( demagnetizers ) without having had extensive exposure is just revolutionary.

Its clear certain of the politburo do not want their authority challanged in any way and they will defend bullshit to the death, once one person sees through it the flood gates open and next thing you know everyone is demanding actual proof things work.

In a blind mans world the one eyed man is king, this is very similar to hifi. Certain people ( JV, MF etc ) are very much in favor of the party line others ( Ethan ) are willing to challange the party line at every turn. In my world if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then im going to say its a duck, others will want to do a full comparison test with every other species because they do not have enough conviction in themselves to know its a duck !! they have to be told to believe it. JV will no doubt say im wrong because I will not enter into a discussion about hypothetical benefits of demagentizers, well ive decided its a duck and im not going to be convinced otherwise without hard evidence.

It will be interesting in these upcoming dark economic times, I just cant see people spending $2000 of mortgage money to demagnetize a plastic disc just because MF says it sounds better with absolutley no demonstrable evidence except a DBT where he was badgering the audience !!

Is there any way to put up a simple vote ? believe in demagnetizers or not ?
Alan

No!

I have spent years listening to discs that have been "Bedini Clarified." My neighbor has one. Does no harm.

I did not mean to call BS ipso facto. I just meant to defend those who are able to see a con coming, perhaps better than I!

I use aftermarket cables and Hi Fi speaker cable and, as I mentioned, I believe Fremer when he says he heard that difference. I just don't buy the marketing 'reason.'

On the other hand, I tried to offer other audiophiles specially treated motes of dust from a day my Hi Fi rig sounded really good, and even the furthest out of us wouldn't buy into it.

Perhaps I should have charged more.

Sorry, Welsh. A "simple vote" won't help. There is no such thing. We all hear differently, in different rooms, on different recordings, and against different mental constructs for comparison.

Over the past 5 or so years, I have read posts defending live music and posts denigrating it as a standard for comparison. I have read posts that can't stand vinyl and/or tubes and other posts that swear by both, as standards.

I have read many posts that vehemently assert that anything beyond a $200 boom box is a rip-off. I have read many other posts that vehemently assert (vaguely, always vaguely...) that anybody who spends more than 50 bucks for a cable or buys anything that claims to be able to improve software (demagnetizers, cleaners, "snake oil" in general) is a sucker perpetrating a hoax. I have read other posts that vehemently assert that $20,000 pre-amps sound exactly like $200 pre-amps. Ditto power amps. Ditto speakers, CD players, cartridges, or turntable/arm combinations. The operant word is "vehemently."

Draw your own conclusions.

You either trust the poster (or, in this case, the Stereophile writer), or you don't. Or, if you aren't sure, you try to duplicate the claims in your own listening environment as best as you can.

That's the only sense I can make out of it all. All I can do, personally, is listen and report, and describe my standard for comparison (the memory of the live acoustic event against the best, worst, and middling of my software).

All any Stereophile writer can do is the same. What did I listen to in my home? If I go to live concerts, what did I remember for points of comparison? What kind of music do I love most? How large is my home listening space (the smaller it is, the less you have to spend... BUT, the more the comparison between memory and home listening pales at the expense of the latter -- unless you like headphones)?

Occasionally, posters flog absolute cures, without considering any of the above. Comb filters. Transistors. Tubes. Digital. Analog. SACD. Electrostatics. Cones. Efficient speakers with minimal crossover interference (they go together).

Most often, though, posters flog away in the abstract. The reason I have subscribed to Stereophile for 30 years or so is that the writers are always concrete.

Michael Fremer included.

This, at least, gives me something concrete to go on. And, as I listen to the various revisions of my systems' components, this has given me progress. I now have listening experiences, in my 2 homes, that are FAR closer to what I remember as "live," basis last Monday's concert, than ANYTHING I could have achieved at ANY price 5, 10,15, 20, or 30 years ago. Now, to me, that is progress. And, yes, I DO de-magnetize (I really don't care whether you do or not...), and, yes, I do pay attention to cables.

I can get by with less than $15,000 for a total system price in my apartment, a 14' X 25' space, with standard 8' ceilings, with today's weak (relative to the past) US dollar. But in my 34' X 41' room in my cabin (with its sloping ceilings, from about 9' to about 14'), it takes around 75 large to fill it with sound comparable to what I get in my apartment. Those, as far as I am concerned, are the facts you have to live with, if you love music and demand the best you can get in your home.

At the Stereophile show about 3 years ago (in LA, where I met Buddha), there was a cheapo room (about 12' X 18', near as I could tell) that sounded superbly real, playing a system that (analog and digital included) cost around 9 grand. This would be the Roy Hall room. Music Hall components. Across the hall, there was a $200,000 system, in a huge room, that was pumping out sonic misery. Total, miserable shit.

Happy listening, all.

quote]In a blind mans world the one eyed man is king, this is very similar to hifi. Certain people ( JV, MF etc ) are very much in favor of the party line others ( Ethan ) are willing to challange the party line at every turn. In my world if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then im going to say its a duck, others will want to do a full comparison test with every other species because they do not have enough conviction in themselves to know its a duck !! they have to be told to believe it. JV will no doubt say im wrong because I will not enter into a discussion about hypothetical benefits of demagentizers, well ive decided its a duck and im not going to be convinced otherwise without hard evidence.

Yes, I'll say you are wrong simply because you are wrong. First of all, old proverbs are wrong just as often as they are right. Second, hifi is not a blind man's sport. It is practiced by many who choose to not see but they are hardly blind. Third, you still cannot let go of the demagnetizer to see what I am actually discussing.

If you begin a journey by walking in the wrong direction, only a fool would tell you to proceed along the same course. If you are intelligent, you should be aware there are people who will not only join you on that journey, there are a few who would gladly have you follow their lead because they claim to know in what direction you should walk. If you do not think for yourself, they will just as likely lead you right off the cliff all the while telling you how smart you are to follow them. Then they'll find someone else who will follow them because having followers is all that's important to them.

It's easier to follow than to lead. It's easier to follow than to think for yourself.

It's dumb to walk off a cliff.

You simplistically state that if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then you can draw a conclusion. With that limited amount of information you could easily reach the wrong conclusion. To reach the correct conclusion you would need some experience with a real duck and some experience with the item being described as a duck.

Until you have both, you have nothing.

It's easier to make a leap of faith right off the cliff than it is to take some time to gather the facts.

What if your experience with a duck is only with a white duck? If someone says he has a brown duck, is that then still a duck if it doesn't look like your duck? If you have no experience with a brown duck but the person tells you it sounds like a duck, does that make it a duck? How do you know the person with the brown something knows what a duck is? Maybe what that person has is an animal that brays but he's never heard a duck quack so he thinks all animals that bray are actually quacking? Unless you can see the animal and compare that to your duck, how do you know what it really is?

You don't.

Do you call that man a fool because he thinks he has a duck and you don't think so? What if he does have a duck and you could use a duck? His "duck" is brown and you've never seen a brown duck. You've never heard his animal make a sound, he's just told you it quacks.

But you could use a duck.

What do you do? If you dismiss him, you loose. If you accept his offer, you can do what?

You can decide for yourself.

What if you accept his offer but what he has is not a duck? Do you think he's a fool? Do you not buy what he has to sell? What if someone comes along and tells you what he has is a goose? If you don't know what a goose is, do you tell that man he's a fool just because you don't know what a goose is? What if it turns out what the first man has is the goose that lays golden eggs? You could really, really use some golden eggs!

But what you know about are white ducks.

Do you send everyone off calling them all fools because you know what a duck should look like, walk like and quack like?

Or do you talk?

Do you remain open to the possibility you might find some value in what is being offered?

Who is the fool if you are offered a brown goose that lays golden eggs but you will only take a white duck?

No one wishes to be the fool in that story. But there are quite a few people who also only know white ducks and they don't want to know about geese or golden eggs. And they particularly don't want you to know about geese or golden eggs.

But maybe you've seen something that isn't a duck lay something that isn't just an egg. Do you continue to believe them when they say there are no golden eggs and there are only white ducks or do you believe what you've experienced? If they're wrong about the ducks and the eggs, what else might they have wrong?

No one wishes to be the dumb guy. But there are a few who would prefer you were dumb. They would prefer you stayed dumb. They like it when no one is smarter than they is.

It's easier that way.

Now, if you'd care to answer my earlier questions, we might be able to decide just what sort of sound this creature makes and what sort of eggs it lays.

"No one wishes to be the dumb guy. But there are a few who would prefer you were dumb. They would prefer you stayed dumb. They like it when no one is smarter than they is."

Hola, Jan!

I like your quote because it works on both sides of this issue!

Similar to: "Nobody wanted to be the one who called the Emperor a naked guy."

This part, where you say, "But there are a few who would prefer you were dumb. They would prefer you stayed dumb," can equally apply to both audiophiles and manufacturers of audiophile products!

I also disagree a bit with JA about 'sharpeners' and 'levellers.' We are a hobby based on being 'sharpeners,' and the market for audio publications is dominated by a 'sharpener' mentality. Look at how well Stereo Review did after it bacame home base for 'audio levellers.'

We all just sharpen in our own ways!

Cheers, man. None of that was meant interpersonally.

Cheers, Buddha.

What you say is true, Buddha, it does work both ways. But until you have seen the nekked King's ass for yourself - and you have the facilties to know what an ass is, you shouldn't believe it when someone tells you he had on clothes or he didn't. Measuring the width of the King's backside is no proof of clothes or no clothes.

How many of the things we were told in grade school during those innocent Eisenhower years have been proven not to be totally true? Or even close to true? How many of us trust everything we've been told since November '63?

What you think you know and what is true are often not the same.

That's still pretty much all I'm saying.

Check out what's in the new box before you decide where to put it.

I can't believe you guys are still going on about this....

This goes on endlessly here.

Hi Buddha.
Yes I did get your "As I said, I believe you when you say you heard something. I do not believe you when you make a claim as to certainty with regard to it being a magnetic phenomenon."

What I reacted to, Buddha, was your specific responses to MF "Did you do anything other than memorize what Furutech told you?" and your "specific bullshit that you parrot courtesy of a marketing firm?" comment.

Just being prepared to appreciate that someone 'heard' something is one thing. Accusing someone of being a 'parrot courtesy of a marketing firm' because they give the only explanation they know is another thing.

In exactly the same way that if Welsh Hi Fi reacted to your:-
"I have spent years listening to discs that have been "Bedini Clarified." by not merely appreciating that you had 'heard' something but actually accusing you of being a 'parrot courtesy of a marketing firm' of doing what Ethan Winer did which was to start his letter to the CEA with the sentence containing the emotive word 'fraud' :-
"I'm working on an article for a major audio magazine about fraud in marketing for audio products." Followed by him asking the CEA "how much they were paid for giving such an award (to the demagnetiser) ?" !!!

Nothing moves forward with such responses. We now have Ethan with the comment "Just measure what is real, and you'll have The Truth. Very simple! The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise."

Truth ???? Such an arrogant comment - as though the Truth can be known by those simple measurements. How does that get us any further forward ?

I don't challenge Ethan's technical knowledge. I challenge the way Ethan USES that technical knowledge.

Welsh Hi Fi says that he got "huge differences" when changing his existing speaker cables for new ones.
Supposing measurements were taken ? Supposing the measurements were identical for both the previous speaker cables and the new (preferred) ones ? Presumably therefore, Ethan's 'Truth" would be :-
1) That there were no differences in the measurements therefore Welsh Hi Fi was mistaken in 'hearing' "huge differences" where none (technically) existed !!!

If the measurements for both sets of cables were identical then presumably Welsh Hi Fi's "Truth" would be a different Truth :-
2) That there were no technical differences in the measurements BUT the fact that he actually HEARD "huge differences" would still exist and there was no way he wanted to go back to listening to the previous cables - whatever the measurements said !!!

Now to your quote :-
>>> "This 'threat assessment' state we live in is even claimed to affect our ability to enjoy Hi Fi.
In fact, given our evolutionary state, some more primitive audiophiles are unable to sit and relax and really 'hear' their systems without the aid of certain potions and elixirs that bring a 'release' from this state of audio inhibition.
Further, as we look more into this phenomenon, we are also unable to sonically identify the presence of these elixirs unless we know they are there, etc..." <<<

Here we are, back again with the dismissive words 'some more primitive audiophiles' needing 'certain potions and elixirs' !!! What disdain you have for your fellow audiophiles !! They HAVE TO BE primitive, they HAVE to NEED 'certain potions and elixirs', don't they ?

And,

>>> "and we have evolved many subtle tools that allow some of us to be able to discern from our environment certain 'clues' with regard to being able to tell when other humans are trying to prey upon us...I shall call these mechanisms, cumulatively, our 'bullshit filter.'

Some audiophiles have bullshit filters, some do not. " <<<

Of course we have evolved 'bullshit filters' but why do you always presume that so many 'audiophiles' do NOT have those SAME 'bullshit filters' EQUALLY as effective and as well honed as you claim yours is ????

Even on this Stereophile Forum we have one after another 'poster' stating that they TOO believed some things were 'bullshit' until they ACTUALLY TRIED them and 'heard' them improve their sound!!! Did those same people (audiophiles !!) previously have well honed 'bullshit filters' but then suddenly change to being "primitive audiophiles" as soon as they say they can 'hear' certain devices or techniques improve their sound ??

Of course it does not make (technical) sense being able to improve the sound from a CD by applying a demagnetiser to it.
Of course it does not make (technical) sense being able to improve the sound from a CD by colouring the edge of the disc.
Of course it does not make (technical) sense being able to improve the sound from a CD by applying a chemical to the LABEL side of a disc.
Of course it does not make (technical) sense being able to improve the sound from a CD by cryogenically freezing a disc.

Everyone and his uncle knows THAT !!! If it all made sense, then there would be no controversy. In exactly the same way that if all the different cables which are claimed to change the sound could be shown to measure differently 'a la' Ethan Winer's "The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.", then there would have been no Cable Controversy raging for these past 30 years !!

But it happens !! Granted, not every 'audiophile' may 'hear' it but it happens and, if you are a 'professional in audio', then you have to deal with WHAT is happening - not what you would PREFER to be happening - i.e NO changes in the sound !!!!!

KBK has just summed it up nicely.:-
>>> "Some people hear the differences and can also go forward and explore such things, like demagnetizers and Schumann resonance generators.

This is a result of their personally developed intellect, and developed emotionalism, and their physical capacity to hear such things and mentally sort out such considerations within the scope of their listening skills." <<<

Followed further by KBK :-

>>> "As for schooling, University degrees and doctorates do not count here, in this arena. (Some) people can easily hear these differences and do. No schooling of any sort is required. Like many audiophiles wives, for example. They have no involvement in the hobby and no emotional investment -- so they hear it, and easier than most." <<<

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Demagnetizing a CD. The metallic aluminum material is non-ferous and thus non-magnetic. The plastic in the disk is not magnetic but is subject to the storage of a static charge. I see no way that any of this could affect the method that a CD uses to retrieve data, reflection of a beam of light.
And to not dismiss any product that one hasn't tried is not realistic. Should we all go out and buy every product and try it? Great for the manufacturers but not going to happen. In this real world we have to make decisions based on our best knowledge (belief).

Let me just say, I am not here to defend the Furutech CD Demagnitizer, per se. Because I don't know everything about it (neither does anyone else arguing against it), nor do I care much about it to spend 2 months researching it. Despite the fact that I seem to recall having put it on my website a long time ago (which would only be because it falls into what I call "advanced audio tweaks", which is what my site is about). Like Jan, the issue that's attracted me to this debate, is that of people dismissing things they don't understand. (I was particularly prompted to respond after reading someone criticizing Jan merely for arguing contrary positions to others! I thought that was the basis for an audio debate forum?! Silly me for not knowing that the accepted way to engage in a debate forum is to agree with everyone around you. No matter how wrong you know them to be!).

Having said that, how about we take a look at what Furutech is actually claiming? Because amid the tired and bogus logical fallacies of appeals to authority in this thread, I didn't see anyone doing that. Unless I missed it while quickly trying to play catch up, if the Furutech's critics are basing their arguments on the fact that it is supposed to demganitize CD's and that there is no magnetic material used in a CD, then you've got a strawman on your hands. IOW, if you're arguing on a point that even the makers of the tweak aren't making, and patting yourself on the back for being successful in doing so, then you've definitely got some learning to do.

Furutech claims that trace amounts of ferrous materials are creating a magnetic field (albeit a small one), when the disc is spinning. So this alone dismisses the rationalists, who are arguing that aluminum and plastic are not magnetic materials, so the Furutech device can not possibly have any effect other than "placeboic". Moreover, Furutech is not alone in marketing such a (CD demagnitizing) device, and there can be traces of magnetic material in a CD. There are iron ingredients contained in the printing ink of CD's. e.g. iron oxide is used for red, yellow or brown ink, cobalt is used for blue or green ink and nickel is used for silver ink. Iron, cobalt, nickel, are ferromagnetic substances, and are relatively easy to magnetize. Then there's the aluminum substrate itself. Even among the highest standards of CD production (Japan), the purity of aluminum used in the substrate is at most 99%. The other 1% contains ferromagnetic substances; ie. iron, nickel and cobalt. Aluminum is a weak magnetic material, so it's easily influenced by magnetism.

The CD players themselves contain magnetic substances. When a disc is played, the rotation of the mechanism, magnet and motor generates a flux which quickly causes discs to become magnetized. (BTW, the same problem occurs in CD-R, DVD and MD. In particular MD uses an iron ingredient for the catch, so the influence of magnetism is increased. In the worst cases, it is impossible to read signals). Jan was right to insist that it was more significant to have a metallurgy expert weighing in on the issue, rather than someone just claiming to be a digital expert!

As to whether the CD Demagnitizers are effective (as it seems many who have heard them claim), and whether they are effective because of the magnetism issue, is yet another matter. In any case, as with any audio product, it is wrong-headed and short-sighted to dismiss CD demags on the basis that despite the claims of reviewers saying otherwise and you having never tried one, they can't do what you think they are supposed to do; if you're wrong about what you think they are supposed to do. That sort of thinking might end up leading you to wiring your system with zip cord, and reading your liner notes by candlelight, while the most god-awful excuse for simulated music shrieks out of what you dare to call a hifi system, and its even giving your dog a headache.

Quote:
as Mr. Winer said, once one knows the facts, the perception follows accordingly, and much of this stuff is banished to whence it came.

aka "The Reverse Placebo Effect".

Anyone ever tried a magnetizer to see if they could make a CD or LP sound worse? I'm not being sarcastic - it would be interesting.

Quote:
No, what Winer said was ...

Quote:
The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.

Yes, and that's the truth. That's all there is folks. Jan, if you think you know of some magical new property, I'd love to hear about it. Please be as detailed and specific as possible! Since this is such an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof is clearly on you. And none of that "musical" or "revealing" or PRT crap that means nothing and cannot be defined in plain English meaning the same thing for everyone. I need very specific details on this new parameter. Extra points if you can find some meaningful math to throw in.

Hint: don't bother because for amps and preamps those three are all there is.

--Ethan

Quote:
The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.

Yes, and that's the truth. That's all there is folks. Jan, if you think you know of some magical new property, I'd love to hear about it....
Hint: don't bother because for amps and preamps those three are all there is.

--Ethan

As one example, remember DA (dielectric absorbtion) in capacitors we discussed in another string? Remember you mentioned that audio test instruments were not able to measure DA, yet I could easily measure it with a simple volt meter (which is not nearly as sensitive as you claim "your" test instruments are). And it is well established DA has influence in the RF regions. So according to you DA magically bypasses the audio frequency regions. Looks like this is but one demonstration that instruments do not measuring everything.

So when one purchases electronic equipment DA influence is not included in those specs.

Quote:
Anyone ever tried a magnetizer to see if they could make a CD or LP sound worse? I'm not being sarcastic - it would be interesting.

I've made them sound better. But I had a special magnetizer. I can also make them sound worse, with the same magnetic device. It's all in the magic wrist action.

Quote:

I've made them sound better. But I had a special magnetizer. I can also make them sound worse, with the same magnetic device. It's all in the magic wrist action.

Ah, reminds me of when I was single.

Good to see you, Michigan!

Sorry, Ethan, the burden is not on me to defend blatant stupidity committed by someone else. My job is to call it what it is - Bullshit!

You made the statement. I called it ridiculous - because it is.

If you want an explanation, explain yourself. I've listed a few questions in my response to ncdrawl that you can start with. As is, I honestly don't even know what you mean by "The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise" as that seems too simplistic even for someone like you who simply refuses to acknowledge the last fifty years of audio have happened.

So explain yourself, Ethan. Explain why JGH was wrong when he started Stereophile. Explain how we pick an audio product without listening. Explain why the measurements JA includes in each review are for the most part worthless. And give us the information to prove you know of a designer/manufacturer of high end equipment who does not listen to their designs but simply measures and approves.

P.S. - Just to set the record straight, I too believe the requirements of specifications are extremely simple. Four items are all you need to know, height, width, and depth to make ceratin it will fit on your shelf and weight to know if you need to borrow your neighbor's pick'em up to get it home.

Then you listen. Listen, that is, with perception that comes from your knowledge of music and doesn't come from what a machine tells you will occur. It's called being a sentient human being - not dead and not a machine.

It is up to the person making a claim to prove it, not the skeptics to disprove.

Quote:
This goes on endlessly here.

Ha! Yeah, I figured that out!

Quote:
It is up to the person making a claim to prove it, not the skeptics to disprove.

Actually, what Jan has commented on has been known by companies and entities such as Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, McIntosh, Maranz, Atmasphere, Dr. Bruce Edgar and other PHDs, etc for decades and is the accepted norm. Back in the 60s, solid state was in its infancy and even though the specs were excellent, the sound was quite poor.

I think anyone can claim to be a skeptic. I can claim the moon is made of green cheese because I have not seen the evidence with my own eyes. The flat earth society still exists to this day. But reasonability has to come into play.

And one has to remember that conflicts of interest such as marketing strategy and even lack of education can dictate what one will accept. Afterall, if virtually nothing makes a difference, then the playing field is leveled by those who could not otherwise successfully compete. It is only a few who disagree with what is the accepted norm.

And if one reads my previous post, one sees that DA in capacitors (read with a simple volt meter) is not measured and included in the specs, based on Ethan's own previous comments in another string. This alone disproves that measuring specs includes everything, as some erroneously claim.

Hope this helps.

Quote:
remember DA (dielectric absorbtion) in capacitors we discussed in another string? Remember you mentioned that audio test instruments were not able to measure DA, yet I could easily measure it with a simple volt meter

If you could measure DA then it can be measured with audio test gear. And what do you measure? Distortion! I rest my case. Not that distortion 100+ dB below the music is ever audible. But if it's real and is audible, then it can be measured. And it also falls under the three parameters I listed.

--Ethan

Quote:
I honestly don't even know what you mean by "The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise"

I appreciate that you don't understand why these are the only audio parameters that matter. This is your problem, not mine!

Again, if you believe there's more to amps and preamps than just those three parameters (four including phase shift), then please tell us what more there is. If you really are in the know as you claim, then why is it so difficult for you to explain how and why I'm wrong?

--Ethan

Nice try, Ethan, twisted logic such as your's produces even more twisted logic when you try to put someone on the spot for your statements.

I never said there were more measurements to consider other than the four I mentioned. So what do I have to explain about your items? I didn't bring them up. You did. But it seems you are unable or unwilling to support your statements.

You just want to be the guy who knows it all and pretends everyone else is not at your level of understanding. Who do you believe you're fooling here, Ethan? Is this how you gather your little followers?

Do us all a favor here, guy, and don't explain what you meant. It has nothing to do with this thread and you are not going to contribute anything to this thread by injecting those items into the discussion. They are meaningless to this thread. So don't say any more about them. We don't want to hear it. We prefer to stay on topic and not get dragged into the bushes by your ridiculous Uber-cynicism.

The topic here is why someone dismisses a product or idea without complete knowledge of that item or idea. Your measurements have nothing to do with that. So, please, don't explain them, they are meaningless in every sense of the word.

As to how you dismiss items and ideas without any knowledge, we understand that already. It's easy to be the cynic but only the Uber-cynic gets the followers and the little, tiny mini-cycnics group around you and wait for your next proclamation of BS. So you play your role and you make a mockery of everything. You are the diminisher in extremis. For those who do not wish to think, you are the Pied Piper of diminishment. For those who do not wish to hear well, you are the Sarah Palin of audio. You preach that the big, bad audio companies see a world so different than what you and your followers see that they pal around with people who would take other's wealth and "spread it around". You work on fear, ignorance and prejudice just like a bad politician.

"Can you explain 'frequency response, distortion and noise'?"

"In what way, Charlie?"

So for goodness sake, Ethan, don't explain anything ever again. Your "opinions" run so far to the extreme that you make a living off them. You're no more than someone who sells snake oil to the unwitting masses. You ride your wagon into the Stereophile forum and hope to pick up a few bucks by preaching your Uber-BS. You are dup with a spell check and a tax number.

So, please, do not explain anything. It doesn't matter. You don't want to participate here, you want to be the Uber-cynic leader and I'm not interested in following you or playing your games.

Now, I do hope you understood that. I tried to make it plain enough for you. And I hope you won't be so silly as to ask me to explain anything else you have said.

Quote:
I never said there were more measurements to consider other than the four I mentioned.

So what's the disagreement then?

--Ethan

Disagreement?

Are you trying to start an argument?

We were carrying on a discussion.

Quote:

If you could measure DA then it can be measured with audio test gear. And what do you measure? Distortion! I rest my case. Not that distortion 100+ dB below the music is ever audible. But if it's real and is audible, then it can be measured. And it also falls under the three parameters I listed.

--Ethan

Sorry, but You are the one who stated it could not be measured with audio test gear in your post, 120db down, Remember. You are the one who stated it, not me. It can easily be measured with a simple voltmeter.

Interesting how you switch your comments around when proof has been provided.

I rest my case.

Quote:
The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.

Hiya Ethan! Member me? I appreciate your tireless efforts here to bring us all back to the decade of the 70's; with its airbrushed vans, and where the state of the art in audio was "muscle amps", and people were made to believe that the more watts you had, the better your sound. And if it spec'ed well but didn't sound anything like real music, then buddy, you just weren't reading the spec sheet hard enough. Or maybe you were confusing your A-weighted with your C-weighted or your unweighted. As it always came down to: "Who you gonna trust? Julian Hirsch, or your lying ears?"

Yeah, you must have really shone in that decade, I think. Perhaps your goal here, is to have us all enjoy the atrocious sound that you come home to, after a long day of writing on the forums, and angry letters to the CES, containing your conspiracy theories about the role you believe they are playing in all the "fraud perpetrated on audiofools" this industry perpetuates, that God himself must have ordained you to save us from. You may disagree with the numbers, but I've actually sat down and calculated this. I found that if audio progressed at the rate that your knowledge of audio progresses, barring any unforseen epiphanies you may have in the future, that in about 15,667 years, we would just be starting to discover the wonders of cranking phonographs and "talking sound". At least that's something to look forward to, I guess.

So anyway, while there may be a hint of nostalgia for some to argue with you issues that were argued and resolved over 30 years ago (and as such are no longer in practice today), like the idea that 3 or 4 specs you name tells us everything we can know about the sound of an amp, I would like to bring you back to the fact that that is not what this thread is about. Hint: remember the thing about "CD demagnitization"? That's what you should be discussing, if you insist on contributing to this thread. Here is where you can start: In my first contribution to this thread, I put forward Furutech's claims, which contradicted the erroneous assumptions I saw you and others making about its product throughout this discussion. Oddly, nobody commented on it. Especially you. I say "oddly", because you were one of those who called the Furutech "BS snake oil" and wrote "They prey on consumer's lack of science education."

Why no comment Ethan? Out of your technical comfort zone, is it? Your lack of science education? You feel safer talking about amplifier slew rate? Perhaps you don't know everything there is to know about magnetism or metallurgy? You see, that's the part I find too difficult to even imagine, because I have so much respect for your superior knowledge of the world of science and technology, that the rest of us can only be envious of. Which is why, in keeping with the subject of this thread, I feel compelled to ask you Ethan, something that I have always wondered: what is magnetism? How does it work, and what causes it? How can a magnet move a piece of metal without touching it? Why do some alloys make good magnets and not others? Since you know so much about "science education", can you answer these questions for us Ethan? (Important: **Ethan only please!** I will not accept answers on this from anyone else. I uh, only trust him as a source of information. <---).

sorry to that see you, sas and jan have such a chip on your shoulder(s).. the ultrafidelista that buy into this "magick" are way too defensive.

Ethan Winer is a well respected member of the pro audio community. It would be nice to see some respect shown.

Quote:

Quote:
The only things that matter are frequency response, distortion, and noise.

Hiya Ethan! Member me? I appreciate your tireless efforts here to bring us all back to the decade of the 70's; with its airbrushed vans, and where the state of the art in audio was "muscle amps", and people were made to believe that the more watts you had, the better your sound. And if it spec'ed well but didn't sound anything like real music, then buddy, you just weren't reading the spec sheet hard enough. Or maybe you were confusing your A-weighted with your C-weighted or your unweighted. As it always came down to: "Who you gonna trust? Julian Hirsch, or your lying ears?"

Yeah, you must have really shone in that decade, I think. Perhaps your goal here, is to have us all enjoy the atrocious sound that you come home to, after a long day of writing on the forums, and angry letters to the CES, containing your conspiracy theories about the role you believe they are playing in all the "fraud perpetrated on audiofools" this industry perpetuates, that God himself must have ordained you to save us from. You may disagree with the numbers, but I've actually sat down and calculated this. I found that if audio progressed at the rate that your knowledge of audio progresses, barring any unforseen epiphanies you may have in the future, that in about 15,667 years, we would just be starting to discover the wonders of cranking phonographs and "talking sound". At least that's something to look forward to, I guess.

So anyway, while there may be a hint of nostalgia for some to argue with you issues that were argued and resolved over 30 years ago (and as such are no longer in practice today), like the idea that 3 or 4 specs you name tells us everything we can know about the sound of an amp, I would like to bring you back to the fact that that is not what this thread is about. Hint: remember the thing about "CD demagnitization"? That's what you should be discussing, if you insist on contributing to this thread. Here is where you can start: In my first contribution to this thread, I put forward Furutech's claims, which contradicted the erroneous assumptions I saw you and others making about its product throughout this discussion. Oddly, nobody commented on it. Especially you. I say "oddly", because you were one of those who called the Furutech "BS snake oil" and wrote "They prey on consumer's lack of science education."

Why no comment Ethan? Out of your technical comfort zone, is it? Your lack of science education? You feel safer talking about amplifier slew rate? Perhaps you don't know everything there is to know about magnetism or metallurgy? You see, that's the part I find too difficult to even imagine, because I have so much respect for your superior knowledge of the world of science and technology, that the rest of us can only be envious of. Which is why, in keeping with the subject of this thread, I feel compelled to ask you Ethan, something that I have always wondered: what is magnetism? How does it work, and what causes it? How can a magnet move a piece of metal without touching it? Why do some alloys make good magnets and not others? Since you know so much about "science education", can you answer these questions for us Ethan? (Important: **Ethan only please!** I will not accept answers on this from anyone else. I uh, only trust him as a source of information. <---).

Quote:
Sorry, but You are the one who stated it could not be measured with audio test gear in your post, 120db down, Remember.

As far as I know, artifacts can be measured down to around -130 dB where thermal noise takes over. But nothing that soft can be heard. Especially not on a CD where the noise floor is just below -90, and certainly not on vinyl or analog tape where the noise floor is even higher. Anyone who thinks they can "hear a capacitor" is seriously deluded.

--Ethan

You had to edit that?

ncdrawl, you respect who you wish to respect and I'll respect someone who earns my respect. Besides, who told you Ethan was a "well respected member of the pro audio community"? Ethan?

Be careful, ncdrawl, what Ethan is good at is self promotion.

You're a follower, ncdrwawl, a follower. Right off the cliff. It's easy that way.

You still have some questions to answer if you're interested in this thread. You can answer one that Winer ignored if you care. If an amplifier "that is compentent [sic] is probably all one needs" (your words), why was JGH wrong when he began Stereophile with the idea many amplifiers were not "competent" despite their measured performance?

Or, you can stick to the topic of the thread and reply to the other questions I've asked and you've ignored.

Quote:
Hiya Ethan! Member me?

I sure do! You're the guy who chickened out of a blind test after you assured us all you could determine the presence of magic pebbles in a room without looking.

Quote:
like the idea that 3 or 4 specs you name tells us everything we can know about the sound of an amp

Same challenge to you as to Jan. If there's more than that, please describe it in detail. Otherwise, buy a book on basic electronics and come back after you've learned a thing or two. Then we can talk as equals rather than as, well, I don't have to say it do I?

Quote:
that is not what this thread is about. Hint: remember the thing about "CD demagnitization"?

The thread title is Extreme Snake oil, and that encompasses an awful lot of BS.

Quote:
That's what you should be discussing

Deal. Demagnetizing LP records and CDs is total BS. Okay, now that we have that out of the way...

--Ethan

Quote:
Anyone who thinks they can "hear a capacitor" is seriously deluded.

The same could easily be said for anyone who posts, "Just measure what is real, and you'll have The Truth. Perception will always follow."

You've still not said you know of a high end manufacturer who builds products using only three (or four) measurements and never listening. Being wrong about that one thing, what else might you have wrong?

Quote:
Ethan Winer is a well respected member of the pro audio community. It would be nice to see some respect shown.

This is a common problem I see all the time, though usually in political discussions. People that have no idea what they're talking about express strong opinions anyway. The sad part is they don't even know that they're ignorant. There's nothing wrong with not knowing stuff, and there's plenty I don't know. The difference between me versus Jan and The Frog is you won't find me arguing with experts about topics I know nothing about!

--Ethan

Ethan, when we find an expert, we hope to have a discussion, not an argument. That's one of your problems, Winer, you think you can con somebody by arguing louder than they can.

Ethan, when you signed up for this forum did it say it was an "argument" forum or a "discussion" forum?

Quote:
You've still not said you know of a high end manufacturer who builds products using only three (or four) measurements and never listening.

I don't understand your point. When did I ever say a manufacturer shouldn't listen, or that I know of manufacturers that don't listen? Hell, when I've designed and built audio gear I've always listened.

What does that have to do with my core point that only four parameters are needed to define everything that happens in audio?

--Ethan

Quote:
That's one of your problems, Winer, you think you can con somebody by arguing louder than they can.

LOL!!!!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You and the frog are the guys who spew literally thousands of words in one post that basically say nothing. I never get angry at this stuff, and I'm always calm in discussing the science of audio.

I think you and The Frog should team up with SAS and have a contest to see who can use the most words to say the least.

--Ethan

You are amazing, Winer, you make the governor of Illinois look like a stand up guy.

This is an awful lot of attention you're paying to this forum today. What'sa matter? Nobody buying your line of BS or your products?

Yet another eloquently expressed technical post. Jan, you're on a roll!

Quote:
Anyone who thinks they can "hear a capacitor" is seriously deluded.

Hi Ethan,

There's a funny story about hearing capacitors. It turns out that the cheapo ceramic capacitors have a piezoelectric effect. Marshall Leach, the designer of the Leach amp, has reported literally hearing sounds from them when they are excited at their resonant frequency. See his comments here.

Also, many capacitor types have measurable harmonic distortion. I won't point you to the Jung/Marsh article though. That article, although it contained some groundbreaking distortion measurements, was unfortunately spoiled by a bunch of subjectivist audiophile hooey. But there's a guy named Cyril Bateman who has done extensive tests of capacitor distortion. I consider those test results to be the definitive reference material on the subject. His articles from Electronics World are available here. Don't be put off by the "capacitor sounds" title - it's all about measurements. If your download exceeds his metered bandwidth, just wait an hour or so and try again.

I realize that the audibility of these things is a separate issue, but if you're, say, an amp designer wanting to get the best objective performance from a design, his results provide a way to do so with a negligible cost and practicality impact.

I was unaware I had to be technically proficient to satisfy you, Ethan. I don't really care that you're wrong all the time.

There I go again, thinking this is a discussion forum.

Why don't you discuss the topic of the thread, Winer?

Oh, yeah, you said you had nothing else to say.

Well, then, bye-bye, Mr. Man.

Quote:
sorry to that see you, sas and jan have such a chip on your shoulder(s).. the ultrafidelista that buy into this "magick" are way too defensive.

LOL! What "chip" is that? The "chip" that I insisted we should actually seriously debate the relative merits or failings of the Furutech CD Demagnitizer, instead of the mindless ad hominem reactionary attack posts and name calling ("ultrafidelistas") that you, Ethan, Welsh, JIMV, jdm56, JSBach and other critics of the product (and those who won't dismiss it based on ignorance) have been practicing in this thread?

"Way too defensive"? Let's see... Ethan, who more times than I can remember has been proven to not know his ___ from his elbow when it comes to audio tweaks (or anything audio outside of his small frame of reference), dismissively called the product "BS snake oil". Before knowing anything about it, or having tried it. Having strong opinions like that about subjects he's completely ignorant of, while simultaenously claiming to be an expert with superior knowledge of the subject, is nothing new for Ethan. But it certainly qualifies as "defensive". Trying to correct Ethan (and others equally ignorant in the arguments they are making here), or getting him to actually prove his claims based on what the manufacturer states and not what Ethan has (again) wrongfully presumed, is NOT "defensive". That's called "constructive debating to discover the truth of an argument". Understand the difference now? Ignoring any and all critics, who argue against your ignorant assumptionsn of the product you call "snake oil", such as mrlowry, is what's called "avoiding serious debate and failing to support your positions in order to avoid the truth about them, yourself or this subject".

Quote:
Ethan Winer is a well respected member of the pro audio community. It would be nice to see some respect shown.

ROTFL! Too funny! I thought I did? What part of "because I have so much respect for your superior knowledge of the world of science and technology, that the rest of us can only be envious of." did you miss?

But seriously, if Ethan is a "well respected member of the pro audio community", I wouldn't advertise that if I were you. Not unless you want the "pro audio community" to be viewed as a community of blinkered, narrow-minded dogmatic fools, as Ethan himself is, on the internet. Here is just one example of what I mean by that:

Ethan writes in this very thread, about the LP demagnitizer:

"Plastic cannot be magnetized or demagnetized, so a vinyl demagnetizer is BS snake oil by definition."

So if Ethan speaks for the "pro audio community", and vice versa, then by that definition, the pro audio community are a group of strawmen. Who, as we see above, fail to try to understand what they're arguing against, and must always skewer the facts in order to fit with their pre-determined biases and prejudices about audio, and what may or may not have an effect on the sound we hear. Because what Ethan & the pro audio community he speaks for are ignorant of, is the fact that "vinyl", is not the only ingredient contained in what we call "vinyl" records. If you're going to speak about "vinyl" records, that's a pretty stupid thing to be ignorant of, isn't? Especially if you're making appeals to your authority on audio, and demanding that people believe that you know what you're talking about better than they do, because you're a "perfessionul"! From the "perfessionul audio community". Who apparently don't realize that the carbon used to color vinyl records attracts a magnetic charge. The claim being that this charge can affect the magnetic fields in a phono cartrdge, adding distortion to the signal - not that the device can change the physical properties of plastic.

Truly, it's a mystery to me why people outside of his circle of pro audio friends don't have more respect for what Ethan Winer says!

Finally, you wrote:

ncdrawl:

Quote:
as Mr. Winer said, once one knows the facts, the perception follows accordingly, and much of this stuff is banished to whence it came.

You, Mr. Winer, Welsh and all of those who have dismissed the Furutech demagnitizer based on your collective ignorance of the product, and failed to respond, let alone refute, my FACTS about it, are by your own wish, all banished to whence you came. Which I can only imagine as a dark place where facts don't apply or exist, unless you are already aware of them. LOL! :-)

"Welsh hifi" had a good point in bringing up the subject of the validity of the Furutech CD demagnitizer. But he started off attacking it and dismissing it instead of simply questioning it (ie. "snake oil"), and like his reactionary sympathizers, who went off attacking anyone who didn't attack the allegedly "snake oil" product, all including Welsh failed to even show that they understood how the product works. Let alone that it doesn't! That's pretty sad performance for a bunch of supposedly "pro audio" people, who want us to believe they are rational thinkers and believe in facts! I mean really! How silly can you get? So much for trying to defend the concept of "serious audio debate" on a supposedly serious audio debate forum!

Excellent post Andy, thanks.

Quote:
cheapo ceramic capacitors have a piezoelectric effect.

Yes, and perhaps I could have been clearer that I meant only capacitors of the type normally used in-line with audio. Most designers know not to use ceramic capacitors for signal, and Cyril's excellent page shows the difference between ceramic and more suitable styrene very well. I like that he shows the distortion artifacts as some number of dB below the signal, because this is the correct way to see artifacts in proper perspective.

Quote:
I realize that the audibility of these things is a separate issue, but if you're, say, an amp designer wanting to get the best objective performance from a design, his results provide a way to do so with a negligible cost and practicality impact.

I agree completely, and I'd never use a ceramic cap in an EQ circuit. Aside from any distortion, the tolerance of ceramic caps is much worse than "better" types.

Thanks Andy, +1 for measurements.

--Ethan

Quote:
Hi

Ive just been reading in a UK magazine about demagnetizers.

Now i can at least understanjd how these could be effective on vinyl, after all the cartridge is generating magentic fields and eddy currents that could be affected. But how in the hell can they state that CD's are affected ? improving bass and clarity be magnetizing a plastic disc ? the CD either provide a 1 or 0 full stop, there of course is loads of things happening afterwards that affect the DAC, flutter etc that all could have an effect. But it is just ridiculous that magentizing a plastic disc could affect the sound of a digital signal.

This type of thing gives hifi a bad name.

Alan

Quote:
Hiya Ethan! Member me?

Quote:
I sure do! You're the guy who chickened out of a blind test after you assured us all you could determine the presence of magic pebbles in a room without looking.

Wow! Too funny! Is this your latest game to play, the "revisionism game"? What fun! So is THAT what you've been telling your friends at the "pro audio community retirement home"? Because as we both know, the rest of the world saw you as the guy who chickened out of a blind test (that you obviously had no intention of ever participating in), after you assured us that you could determine the presence of magic liquid in a room without looking. But like I said, you know that already. You're just doing that "face saving" thing you do, when the truth is too embarassing for you to admit to. Here's the part you're not going to like, and will scramble away from like you did with the test:

I request that you prove your phony accusation, with factual evidence supporting it. Else retract it.

Quote:
like the idea that 3 or 4 specs you name tells us everything we can know about the sound of an amp

Quote:
Same challenge to you as to Jan.

Ha! Nice try. Nope, sorry, not taking your bait, because it keeps you in your little audio comfort zone. Once again, try to keep up with the discussion: this thread is about "extreme snake oil". Amplifiers, even by everything-sounds-the-sameists like you, are not considered "extreme snake oil". You extracted less than one third fraction of one part of one sentence from all the questions I asked of you and the statements I made, just so that you could stay in that little comfort zone of yours??! Come on Ethan! Even for you, that's really cowardly, to avoid debating the hard stuff - not to mention the pertinent!

I'll ask you again to stop trying so hard to avoid debating the facts of the Furutech product that started this thread: address my challenges to you before you try to launch one at me. Here is the post you are avoiding:

http://forum.stereophile.com/forum/printthread.php?Board=rants&main=54783&type=post

Here are the questions in my response to you, that you have carefully been hiding from:

Which is why, in keeping with the subject of this thread, I feel compelled to ask you Ethan, something that I have always wondered: what is magnetism? How does it work, and what causes it? How can a magnet move a piece of metal without touching it? Why do some alloys make good magnets and not others? Since you know so much about "science education", can you answer these questions for us Ethan? (Important: **Ethan only please!** I will not accept answers on this from anyone else. I uh, only trust him as a source of information. <---).

Quote:
The thread title is Extreme Snake oil, and that encompasses an awful lot of BS.

Read more slowly. I said for us to discuss the subject of what "this thread is about", not the thread title. This really shouldn't be that difficult for you to follow. The title refers to the subject of the thread, which can be found in the first post in this thread by the thread's author, Welsh hifi, concerning the Furutech CD Demagnitizer. Which both him and you called "snake oil", remember?

Quote:
Deal. Demagnetizing LP records and CDs is total BS. Okay, now that we have that out of the way...

You already said that. Problem is, you don't just run away from my words to you, you run away from your own! Amid all your blather about amplifier measurements that you're trying to distract us from, you have yet to prove your assertion on the CD demagnitizer you called "snake oil", and support your own words.