Quote:
Anyone ever heard of these? If so, how do they exactly work?
Any help will be appreciated.

http://www.tweekgeek.com/_e/dept/03-027/SteinMusic.htm

Mark

From Stereophile article coupla months ago:

"Attempting to describe what the electric cube does, Mundorf said that it alters the molecular structure of the air. "There is something in the air," he told me in the best English he could summon up on jet lag. "We were really surprised and satisfied with the performance of these products. They affect airwaves, clearing up and removing echoes and distractions caused by reflections. If, for example, you put it next to a window in a reflective kitchen, it will affect your ability to hear things clearly."

Stein's literature, whose awkward English suggests that Stein values clear music over coherent translation, says, "The air molecules inside of the listening room are 'jogged' trough [sic] the loudspeaker and thus transmit the sound information." It goes on to hypothesize that the Harmonizer works at the etheric level, charging airwaves to enable them to transport sound more effectively.

Stein calls this a working hypothesis. In other words, he hears it working, and is trying to figure out exactly what it does. To my mind, that's a legitimate approach. Did people hold off eating until they could figure out exactly how food was transformed into energy?"

Did people hold off pouring lighter fluid on themself and lighting a match until they figured out how Bar-B-Que works?

I agree with your conclusion, geoff, but find your example suspect.

Quote:
Did people hold off pouring lighter fluid on themself and lighting a match until they figured out how Bar-B-Que works?

I agree with your conclusion, geoff, but find your example suspect.

Ac-shew-ily, it isn't my conclusion but the author of the Stereophile article. My bad, I should have put all 3 paragraphs in quotes. I will pass along your complaint. heheheh

Whoosh!!

What kind of explanation does a guy have to submit to get a rise out of anyone? Charging airwaves, indeed!

Quote:

Quote:
Anyone ever heard of these? If so, how do they exactly work?
Any help will be appreciated.

http://www.tweekgeek.com/_e/dept/03-027/SteinMusic.htm

Mark

From Stereophile article coupla months ago:

"Attempting to describe what the electric cube does, Mundorf said that it alters the molecular structure of the air. "There is something in the air," he told me in the best English he could summon up on jet lag. "We were really surprised and satisfied with the performance of these products. They affect airwaves, clearing up and removing echoes and distractions caused by reflections. If, for example, you put it next to a window in a reflective kitchen, it will affect your ability to hear things clearly."

Stein's literature, whose awkward English suggests that Stein values clear music over coherent translation, says, "The air molecules inside of the listening room are 'jogged' trough [sic] the loudspeaker and thus transmit the sound information." It goes on to hypothesize that the Harmonizer works at the etheric level, charging airwaves to enable them to transport sound more effectively.

Stein calls this a working hypothesis. In other words, he hears it working, and is trying to figure out exactly what it does. To my mind, that's a legitimate approach. Did people hold off eating until they could figure out exactly how food was transformed into energy?"

Thank you for the information. Much appreciated!

Mark

Quote:
What kind of explanation does a guy have to submit to get a rise out of anyone?

Some of us remember the history of science.

The claimed existence of luminiferous ether ("etheric level") was disproved in the late 1800's by Michelson and Morley.

Then again, perhaps by stating the changes are "etheric" he is referring to a listener under the influence of diethyl ether. This may well change one's perception of sound.

Or to express it in pictorial terms for those who need images:

Quote:

Quote:
What kind of explanation does a guy have to submit to get a rise out of anyone?

Some of us remember the history of science.

The claimed existence of luminiferous ether ("etheric level") was disproved in the late 1800's by Michelson and Morley.

Then again, perhaps by stating the changes are "etheric" he is referring to a listener under the influence of diethyl ether. This may well change one's perception of sound.

No need to get all technical like. Ether is also just another word for air.

Amusing how its science, using technical terminology, until someone points out the science makes no sense.

Then it is some mystical force for which we have no evidence or explanation - but it's out there because it is.

It's not "charging" ether, air, pressure waves or your cell phone.

Sorry.

Quote:
Amusing how its science, using technical terminology, until someone points out the science makes no sense.

Then it is some mystical force for which we have no evidence or explanation - but it's out there because it is.

It's not "charging" ether, air, pressure waves or your cell phone.

Sorry.

Oh, dear, looks like we'll have to add the SteinMusic Harmonizer to the list of audio devices Science can't explain - Mpingo disc, Silver Rainbow Foil, Schumann Frequency Generator, clever clocks, Teleportation Tweak, crystals, tiny acoustic bowls, various CD liquids, ionizers, demagnetizers, uh, not to mention GHz Ultra Tweeters.

As jj already noted in a separate thread, the claimed influence of such objects lacks falsifiability, placing them in the same category as religious belief.

Quote:

Oh, dear, looks like we'll have to add the SteinMusic Harmonizer to the list of audio devices Science can't explain - Mpingo disc, Silver Rainbow Foil, Schumann Frequency Generator, clever clocks, Teleportation Tweak, crystals, tiny acoustic bowls, various CD liquids, ionizers, demagnetizers, uh, not to mention GHz Ultra Tweeters.

I think science has already explained all of the above with the very precise term of BULLSHIT

Quote:
As jj already noted in a separate thread, the claimed influence of such objects lacks falsifiability, placing them in the same category as religious belief.

It lacks snackability, too. I guess that places them in the same category as leather handbags.

Quote:
It lacks snackability, too. I guess that places them in the same category as leather handbags.

Clever.

Irrelevant, but clever.

Quote:

Quote:
It lacks snackability, too. I guess that places them in the same category as leather handbags.

Clever.

Irrelevant, but clever.

You catch on quick.

As irrelevant as what you said earlier:

"As jj already noted in a separate thread, the claimed influence of such objects lacks falsifiability, placing them in the same category as religious belief."

That Science Education board member thing seems to be hanging you up.

Sorry, Geoff, but you are wrong.

Unless you want to rely on magic and superstition as the explanation, falsifiability is more than simply relevant; it is necessary and required.

Airwaves "charged" on an "etheric level" is unmitigated nonsense.

Of course, if magic is the explanation - embrace it!

Quote:
Sorry, Geoff, but you are wrong.

Unless you want to rely on magic and superstition as the explanation, falsifiability is more than simply relevant; it is necessary and required.

Airwaves "charged" on an "etheric level" is unmitigated nonsense.

Of course, if magic is the explanation - embrace it!

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future," 1961 (Clarke's third law)

Hey Elk, I think I see your problem.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So is Santa Claus

Quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

So is Santa Claus

I concur. >hic<

Quote:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

If it was a technology it could easily be explained, repeatable and, falsifiable.

It is none of these things.

(You make it too easy when you put your own straw men up.)

As Buddha has observed, it is sad that these brilliant creators of audio devices that suspend the laws of physics do not devote their efforts to perpetual world energy, in exhaustible food resources, a better microwave pizza.

The difficulty is that they would need to create things that actually work - universally and without the benefit of expectation bias.

A plane flies regardless of one's wishes. It flies because <gasp> it actually is able to fly. Fully explainable - No mystery, no magic, not just for some of the people under unique conditions.

Quote:
As Buddha has observed, it is sad that these brilliant creators of audio devices that suspend the laws of physics do not devote their efforts to perpetual world energy, in exhaustible food resources, a better microwave pizza.

Perpetual world energy? Huh, did Buddha really say that? Was it before or after the sun was over the yardarm?

Quote:
The difficulty is that they would need to create things that actually work - universally and without the benefit of expectation bias.

Oh, boy, that's a good one! And with liberty and justice for all. Your entertainment value increaseth.

Quote:
A plane flies regardless of one's wishes. It flies because <gasp> it actually is able to fly. Fully explainable - No mystery, no magic, not just for some of the people under unique conditions.

Yeah, I guess you're right. Except of course when it doesn't fly.

From Stereo Times' first public review of the SteinMusic Harmonizer:

"But what about the H2 Harmonizer combined with the Magic Stones? In a word, ASTONISHING! I've a single H2B and two H2As (set at an Intensity level of 11 o'clock as recommended) and ten Magic Stones. And it took me all of 30 seconds to detect something unusually sweet about the top end. And there's a much more obvious sense of bloom around instruments as well. I haven't changed any of my electronic components upstairs in years and am so satisfied with their sonic performance I don't plan to, yet this stable environment began to sound very unfamiliar - and incredibly for the better. High frequency decay and shimmer to instruments like cymbals and strings sounded freer, faster and clearer - unlike anything I've heard before in this room. Experimenting with the Intensity knob to 12 o'clock exaggerated the effect and thus destroyed the illusion of real instruments playing in front of me. Returning back to the recommended 11 o'clock position snapped everything back into focus and once again the top-end turned ultra-liquid. In no time, I found myself once again scratching my head in amazement."

I'm sure the reviewer must be mistaken. How can the Harmonizer be ASTONISHING when it's not freeping falsifiable!

NB: Disregard the word Magic in the review.

Full review at:

Stereo Times Review of SteinMusic Harmonizer

Of course it's "astonishing." There are always a few that buy into any product offered for sale. Late night TV Infomercials make sales. Lots of them. A tax on gullibility.

There also is a flat earth society that seriously asserts the world is flat.

This is not "sufficiently advanced technology" which appears as magic to an unsophisticated audience. It is a bauble sold as magic.

If all of these amazing devices truly universally produced the results claimed they would be simple to patent; easily meeting the novelty requirement.

Think of all the dreadful acoustic environments that could be inexpensively fixed - school gyms, noisy restaurants. The wonderful new concert halls, churches, other spaces meant for communication.

Then license the technology, make lots of money and develop the 200 mpg/300 BHP carburetor in one's spare time - a product that we could really use.

The problem is that there is no invention, no technology to patent. Nothing that an investor would care to license.

This is why the "inventor" has absolutely no idea whatsoever why it "works." He can't point to anything - there is nothing there.

Quote:
Of course it's "astonishing." There are always a few that buy into any product offered for sale. Late night TV Infomercials make sales. Lots of them. A tax on gullibility.

Uh, Elk, I think you might've missed the fact that the reviewer is a very experienced listener. You know, someone who is not easily fooled. There are such people, trust me. It only seems fair to give his review some credence, not dismiss it entirely out of hand. Do you think it's possible you're being a little overly suspcious?

Quote:
There also is a flat earth society that seriously asserts the world is flat.

If there is such a society I'm pretty sure they're just pulling your leg or are constructing well-crafted "arguments" to "prove" their case. Kinda like you are, now that I think about it.

Quote:
This is not "sufficiently advanced technology" which appears as magic to an unsophisticated audience. It is a bauble sold as magic.

And you know this how? Can I rule out scientific reasoning?

Quote:
If all of these amazing devices truly universally produced the results claimed they would be simple to patent; easily meeting the novelty requirement.

It's not nice to clump all of these devices together, Elk. Besides, do you honestly think that none of these devices you refer to, whichever they may be, have been patented? What devices ARE you referring to, by the way. Surely you don't mean ALL DEVICES, so you must mean all of the devices that you are overly suspicious about.

Quote:
Think of all the dreadful acoustic environments that could be inexpensively fixed - school gyms, noisy restaurants. The wonderful new concert halls, churches, other spaces meant for communication.

Good point. One wonders if the folks who own enviroments with lousy acoustics live under rocks or else do not realize how lousy the sound is.

Quote:
Then license the technology, make lots of money and develop the 200 mpg/300 BHP carburetor in one's spare time - a product that we could really use.

Geez, at least you didn't demand a cure for cancer. Anyway, the speed limit's 55; did you forget to add a smiley face?.

Quote:
The problem is that there is no invention, no technology to patent. Nothing that an investor would care to license.

Sez you. Most likely wishful thinking.

Quote:
This is why the "inventor" has absolutely no idea whatsoever why it "works." He can't point to anything - there is nothing there.

Actually, that's not why the inventor demurs regarding the operation of his invention. Like a lot of inventions, the real mechanism of operation may not be known by an inventor (speaking as one myself) or may not be proveable. At least he gave it a shot. Sometimes the proof of the pudding is in the eating, you know, like the atomic bomb. You should know that, you're on the Science Education board. You find out if a device works by listening to it. That's not too revolutionary is it?

Quote:
Uh, Elk, I think you might've missed the fact that the reviewer is a very experienced listener. You know, someone who is not easily fooled.

Actually reviewers are easily fooled. As an example, some experienced reviewers lauded the Lexicon DVD player when it is just an Oppo inside. Fortunately some were not fooled.

Quote:

Quote:
There also is a flat earth society that seriously asserts the world is flat.

If there is such a society I'm pretty sure they're just pulling your leg or are constructing well-crafted "arguments" to "prove" their case. Kinda like you are, now that I think about it.

No, they are serious. They claim the moon landings are a hoax, etc.

We also have the Design Institute and others proclaiming Creationism and Intelligent Design. Just as nutty.

And thanks for recognizing my arguments as "well-crafted."

Quote:

Quote:
Then license the technology, make lots of money and develop the 200 mpg/300 BHP carburetor in one's spare time - a product that we could really use.

Geez, at least you didn't demand a cure for cancer. Anyway, the speed limit's 55; did you forget to add a smiley face?.

MPG, not MPH.

I have a couple of 200 MPH machines. I wish they got 200 mpg. (And fortunately the federally mandated 55 mph limit was rescinded years ago).

And, yes, a cure for cancer would be even better.

Quote:
Actually, that's not why the inventor demurs regarding the operation of his invention. Like a lot of inventions, the real mechanism of operation may not be known by an inventor (speaking as one myself) or may not be proveable.

This is were falsifiability comes in. If it is not provable by its very nature; that is, not falsifiabile - it is a belief structure, not science. It is religion.

You mention "a lot of inventions" with an unknown mechanism of operation. Outside of some audio tweaks, what are these?

Quote:

Quote:
Uh, Elk, I think you might've missed the fact that the reviewer is a very experienced listener. You know, someone who is not easily fooled.

Actually reviewers are easily fooled. As an example, some experienced reviewers lauded the Lexicon DVD player when it is just an Oppo inside. Fortunately some were not fooled.

>>>>>>>>>>Actually, they lauded the Lexicon player because it was better sounding than the stock Oppo. I suspect it's actually you who's being fooled into thinking the chassis/repackaging cannot make such a big difference.

Quote:

Quote:
There also is a flat earth society that seriously asserts the world is flat.

If there is such a society I'm pretty sure they're just pulling your leg or are constructing well-crafted "arguments" to "prove" their case. Kinda like you are, now that I think about it.

No, they are serious. They claim the moon landings are a hoax, etc.

We also have the Design Institute and others proclaiming Creationism and Intelligent Design. Just as nutty.

>>>>>>And I'm sure they have very elaborate arguments and tons evidence to prove their case, right? Like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. And like audio tweak Naysayers -- which is my point!

And thanks for recognizing my arguments as "well-crafted."

Quote:

Quote:
Then license the technology, make lots of money and develop the 200 mpg/300 BHP carburetor in one's spare time - a product that we could really use.

Geez, at least you didn't demand a cure for cancer. Anyway, the speed limit's 55; did you forget to add a smiley face?.

MPG, not MPH.

I have a couple of 200 MPH machines. I wish they got 200 mpg. (And fortunately the federally mandated 55 mph limit was rescinded years ago).

>>>>>>>Are you're calling for more efficient cars and cures for cancer? Sorry, seems a tad hypocritical. Besides there are people trained to do all that, so why should an audio tweak manufacturer have to do it?

And, yes, a cure for cancer would be even better.

Yeah, right. And tweak manufacturers should be working to stamp out crime and poverty, too, I suppose. LOL

Quote:
Actually, that's not why the inventor demurs regarding the operation of his invention. Like a lot of inventions, the real mechanism of operation may not be known by an inventor (speaking as one myself) or may not be proveable.

This is were falsifiability comes in. If it is not provable by its very nature; that is, not falsifiabile - it is a belief structure, not science. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>Who cares? If you cannot hear the benefit of a tweak, don't buy it, whether it's falsifiable or not. The evidence is (according to expert testimony) that there are many devices, like SteinMusic Harmonizer, that work quite well regardless of the label, falsifiability. Linking controversial audio tweaks to religion is a page right out of an Amazing Randi screed. While I'm not surprised to see you use it, it is quite an irrelevant observation.

You mention "a lot of inventions" with an unknown mechanism of operation. Outside of some audio tweaks, what are these?

>>>>>>>>>I was referring strictly to audio tweaks. Methinks if you were more uh experimentally inclined, as it were, you'd probably realize that phenomena are sometimes discovered or observed that cannot be easily explained or cannot be explained to everyone's satisfaction. You know, Schumann Frequency Generator, Intelligent Chips, Red X Coordinate Pen, Mpingo discs, ionizers, demagnetizers....things like that.

Quote:
If it is not provable by its very nature; that is, not falsifiabile - it is a belief structure, not science. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>Who cares?

Everyone should.

There is a substantial, and meaningful distinction, between a product that actually does something and one that "works" only through accepting a belief structure and convincing oneself.

It is telling that inventors of such products often lay claim to obscure sophisticated technology, claim that they have painstakingly refined this technology, and yet - surprise - are wholly unable to explain it.

I agree with you however that if the buyer likes the product and finds it worth what he paid for it no fraud has occurred; as long as the buyer understands the creaky foundation upon which the product rests.

Quote:

Quote:
If it is not provable by its very nature; that is, not falsifiabile - it is a belief structure, not science. It is religion.

>>>>>>>>>>Who cares?

Everyone should.

There is a substantial, and meaningful distinction, between a product that actually does something and one that "works" only through accepting a belief structure and convincing oneself.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Noone here disagrees with that statement. But It seems you have convinced yourself by accepting your particluar belief structure. Most likely it's simply wishful thinking on your part, who the heck knows.

It is telling that inventors of such products often lay claim to obscure sophisticated technology, claim that they have painstakingly refined this technology, and yet - surprise - are wholly unable to explain it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Obscure sophisticated technology? Oh, you mean technology that's more advanced than 10th grade science or the one that really make you mad?

I agree with you however that if the buyer likes the product and finds it worth what he paid for it no fraud has occurred; as long as the buyer understands the creaky foundation upon which the product rests.

>>>>>>>>>>>>Gee, that's mighty white of you. And thanks for letting us off the fraud hook. Get thee to a library, troll!

It's sad that you routinely rely on name calling and dismissive statements, rather than engage in dialog.

As others have observed, you label everyone a "troll" who does not agree with you or when back into a corner. Why so threatened?

The "explanation" for the SteinMusic system is charged ether. This is nonsense.

If it is founded on reproducible technology, tell us what it is, how it works, what it does.

Quote:
Obscure sophisticated technology? Oh, you mean technology that's more advanced than 10th grade science or the one that really make you mad?

You have repeatedly told us that there are many inventions - coincidentally all audio tweaks - for which the inventor has no explanation.

So do you now have an explanation? Perhaps based in science that transcends "10th grade science?"

Can you offer anything other than a belief structure, seasoned with insults and name calling?

In short can you provide any explanation that is falsifiable?

Quote:
"There is a substantial, and meaningful distinction, between a product that actually does something and one that "works" only through accepting a belief structure and convincing oneself"

Just WHO is to be appointed to define 'what actually does something' and 'what works only through a belief structure'.

Are YOU, sir, arrogantly going to define, that Michael Fremer, John Atkinson and others 'heard' the effect of applying a demagnetiser to vinyl and CD discs just 'because of their BELIEF structure' ??? Are YOU, sir, going to define that John Atkinson, Jason Victor Serinus, Paul Messenger and others 'heard' the effect of positioning ART devices in the room just 'because of their BELIEF structure' ?? Are you, sir, going to define that Clement Perry 'heard' the effect of positioning the SteinMusic device just 'because of his BELIEF structure'??

Or that the people who have 'heard' and reported the effect of such as the following :-

Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.

Are only doing so because of THEIR BELIEF structures ??????????

Or that the people who have 'heard' and reported hearing different cables sound different was just 'because of their BELIEF structures'??

I earlier used the description 'arrogantly' because your comment is a 'blanket', simplistic comment - covering so many different people's different experiences and with that 'blanket' comment implying that all those "different" people, with "different" equipment, at "different" times, listening to "different" music must ALL have 'heard' what they describe just 'because of their BELIEF structure.

Quote:
"Actually reviewers are easily fooled."

Yet another 'blanket' comment, Elk !!! Just how dismissive of people can one get ???

You say "Everyone should care". Of course they SHOULD. But 'caring' means that we all have to investigate - which actually includes you, Elk and not just dismissively to say "Oh, it's because of their belief structures".

We have to investigate WHY so many people claim to be able to 'hear' so many things and WHY others can't !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Such as the controversy over different cables sounding different has been going on for over 30 years. It STILL has not been resolved. Could it be because of the 'arrogant' attitude (held by many) that other people who say they CAN hear differences, that it MUST BE just because of their BELIEF structure ???

Martin Colloms was writing on the "Cable Controversy" way back in 1984 !!!! Some 26 years ago !! And STILL nothing has been resolved.

Your comment, Elk, is really no different from Peter Baxendall's comment to the British section of the Audio Engineering Society some 25 years ago !!!
Peter Baxendall had said that "there were a number of things which he was 'simply not inclined to believe in', things that he regarded as 'an awful bore and a waste of time'. And he went on to list such as :-

Quote:
"I do not believe that the use of expensive, special loudspeaker cable, with or without Lead tubes, no matter which way round they are connected - confers any sonic benefit whatever.

I do believe that all this recent business about single-crystal, high purity, oxygen-free connecting cable is just a load of absolute hogwash."

The Editor of the Hi Fi News at that time commented :-

Quote:
"I left the AES meeting saddened that he (Peter Baxendall) apparently is not interested in building bridges. I can but conclude this month's column with two apposite quotes from Arthur C Clarke's 1962 book, Profiles of the Future:
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible."
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist state that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong:"

Even if Blind Trials produced significant results of 75% or over (of 'hearing' improvements in the sound from various devices) BOTH areas have to be investigated equally !!! One has to investigate WHY 75% plus 'heard' improvements in the sound and also WHY 25% did not !!! ALL results (of whatever percentage) just create more questions !!

When someone describes hearing such as one amplifier sounding better than another amplifier with the description of :
>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

You seem prepared to accept that description as REAL, as valid. But when exactly the SAME description is given by many people after 'hearing' improvements in the sound from one, more or all of the devices listed previously, all of a sudden you prefer to imply that those SAME descriptions are because of their BELIEF structures.

You seem to want it both ways !!!! The descriptions are the SAME but you wish to interpret them completely differently, depending upon whether YOU understand something or not or whether YOU have experienced something or not..

Point to me where there is your "substantial, and meaningful distinction," between the descriptions :-

>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

Regarding different amplifiers and CD players, and

>>> "Improvements such as notably better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, pace and rhythm, not to mention bass improvements." <<<

Regarding the devices previously listed !!!!!!

The reason why I keep referring back to the cable controversy is because it gives the crux of the matter.
People were reporting that they were hearing different cables sound different LONG BEFORE attempts were made to explain why !! In other words, the observations came FIRST !! People were reporting hearing some cables be directional LONG BEFORE attempts to explain why !! Around 25 years ago, such as Bob Stuart of Meridian was reporting that his CD player sounded better when placed on a carpet tile. Again, observations came FIRST !!

The observations are there, Elk, irrespective of what explanations the producers of the devices are giving !!! AND, irrespective of whether you like those explanations or not !!

The observation is where one STARTS. Then one begins to work out what the explanations are.

Quote:
"The "explanation" for the SteinMusic system is charged ether. This is nonsense."

Why don't you start at the observation and then try to work out HOW the device is changing the sound ?

I will quote something from you earlier, Elk.

KBK gave the reply :-
>>> "OBSERVATION.. drives science." <<<

To which you, Elk replied :-

Quote:
"Exactly.
Observe!
Become curious.
Investigate.
Try to quantify.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until the explanation and the measurements correlate with the observations.
Some observations are even contradictory - photons are both waves and particulate. While hard to wrap one's mind around, this is just the way it is.

Additionally, we are still doing it and still learning! We do not know everything. We are not done in any field, including electrical circuits."

You seem to have veered away from that sentiment somewhat, don't you Elk ??

I also rather like the quote from a reply which John Atkinson did to a reader's letter - Stereophile May 1994.

Quote:
"The Shun Mook Mpingo discs divide me straight down the middle: I can't see why they have any effect; yet I have heard them make an improvement. But while I can think of no mechanism by which the Mpingo discs can work their magic, that doesn't mean any effect must be non-existent. I am not so arrogant as to suppose that the only things that can happen are those that I can imagine (Those who declare that, unless they can think of a mechanism for something happening, it can't happen, are presuming knowledge of all that was known, is known, and is still to be known. That they actually possess such knowledge seems unlikely)."

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

Are only doing so because of THEIR BELIEF structures ??????????

Sounds fair.

As plausible as any other explanation.

Interstingly, May....

Your post contained a number of letters and symbols that, when added together, could be factored down to being the product of only prime numbers! Which did what, you think, to the sound in your room?

Quote:

Quote:

Your post contained a number of letters and symbols that, when added together, could be factored down to being the product of only prime numbers! Which did what, you think, to the sound in your room?

Not only that, all those prime numbers, except for 1, 2, and 3, are of the form 6n+1 or 6n-1, where 'n' is a positive integer.

What's more, the same number contains the additive sum of a bunch of squares of integers, and every one of those squares is the sum of a set of successive odd numbers starting with '1'.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Your post contained a number of letters and symbols that, when added together, could be factored down to being the product of only prime numbers! Which did what, you think, to the sound in your room?

Not only that, all those prime numbers, except for 1, 2, and 3, are of the form 6n+1 or 6n-1, where 'n' is a positive integer.

What's more, the same number contains the additive sum of a bunch of squares of integers, and every one of those squares is the sum of a set of successive odd numbers starting with '1'.

Wow!

As soon as you posted that, the sound of May's system changed.

Quote:
In short can you provide any explanation that is falsifiable?

Sure, this is falsifiable:

The sound can be changed by charging the air in the room.

Quote:

As soon as you posted that, the sound of May's system changed.

thats nothing. as I typed that, the background music on my daughters Leapster two system(highly reccomended btw) changed from a happy electronic jingle to slayers REIGN IN BLOOD and my wife's hair changed color.

I guess it was that way all along, in MY ROOM!!, i just didnt percieve it!

Quote:

Quote:
In short can you provide any explanation that is falsifiable?

Sure, this is falsifiable:

The sound can be changed by charging the air in the room.

So the explanation is "charged air."

Now what does this actually mean?

How are we going to test this explanation?

Quote:

Quote:
"There is a substantial, and meaningful distinction, between a product that actually does something and one that "works" only through accepting a belief structure and convincing oneself"

Just WHO is to be appointed to define 'what actually does something' and 'what works only through a belief structure'.

In a sense, we all are.

When there is a demonstrable mechanism we have a product. When the item relies solely on non-falifiable explanations of its operation we have a talisman.

"Etherically charged," "charged air," and the like are complete nonsense as "explanations." At most, they are marketing pablum.

The ready willingness for many purveyors of tweaks to rely on such made-up, wholly fictitious hypotheses is astounding.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
In short can you provide any explanation that is falsifiable?

Sure, this is falsifiable:

The sound can be changed by charging the air in the room.

So the explanation is "charged air."

Now what does this actually mean?

How are we going to test this explanation?

At least you admit you're not sure what charging the air actually means. I think that's a start in the right direction. Helpful hint: I'm not saying the SteinMusic device is an ionizer, but an ionizer is certainly an example of a device that's capable of charging the air.

Rejecting the device out of hand seems like a rather poor scientific approach to the subject. Maybe someone should perform the investigation who isn't so predisposed to reject it. Someone more, uh, open minded, without an axe to grind.

Geoff, this is complete nonsense.

You cannot posit that the explanation is "charged air" and then refuse to describe what this is.

It means nothing. There is no such thing as "charged air." Even less "charged air" created by a passive device which then improves sound transmission.

Ether similarly does not exist. This was conclusively demonstrated well over 100 years ago.

Your response conclusively demonstrates my point: there is no proffered explanation which is falsifiable. Thus the product lives in the realm of magic, paranormal, religion.

On the other hand, if you have a real world explanation - offer it up!

Quote:
Geoff, this is complete nonsense.

You cannot posit that the explanation is "charged air" and then refuse to describe what this is.

It means nothing. There is no such thing as "charged air." Even less "charged air" created by a passive device which then improves sound transmission.

Ether similarly does not exist. This was conclusively demonstrated well over 100 years ago.

Your response conclusively demonstrates my point: there is no proffered explanation which is falsifiable. Thus the product lives in the realm of magic, paranormal, religion.

On the other hand, if you have a real world explanation - offer it up!

Pretty obvious which one of the 12 angry men you are. What's with all the hostility? Maybe you can enlist a guy on your Science Education board to explain just what charging the air means.

I like it when you use the word "posit" - it sounds like something an actual scientist would say.

More grist for the mill, Stein's quote from the Stereo Times review of the SteinMusic device:

"How the H2 actually works is proprietary, and Stein insists on keeping its inner workings secret. Stein says, "The H2 stimulates the oxygen's molecules in a way that improves its viscosity thus allowing it act much more effectively." The info that arrived with the H2 reads, in part, "The basic principle is similar to a catalyser. Technically it works with capacitively activated crystals. The air molecules inside of the listening room are jogged through the loudspeaker and thus transmit the sound information. In order to elongate the air molecules from their rest position it is necessary to spend energy first. It is much easier to move them if once moving. This phenomenon is similar to static and dynamic friction. To force a heavy piece of rock to move is not an easy task. But if it is once moving it can be much easier shifted further. The Steinmusic Harmonizer is working very similar, but rather at a level of ethereal states...."

See the full review of the SteinMusic Harmonizer by Stereo Times at:

SteinMusic Harmonizer Review

Pretty funny.....yet another "top secret" tweak effect.

Translation: Top Secret = "PT Barnum Effect."

We know Geoff has never tried the tweak in question, he doesn't have a Hi Fi.

Geoff. Step one in Hi Fi is "First, get a Hi Fi."

Quote:
Pretty obvious which one of the 12 angry men you are. What's with all the hostility?

Geoff, where do you see anger? Unlike others (including yourself unfortunately), I don't engage in name calling, intentional misrepresentations of user names, insulting comments, etc.. I have written nothing inappropriate.

Anger in others is not accepting your thoughts? I have only described your explanation of operation as "charged air' to be "nonsense." This is what it is.

There is no such thing as "charged air" nor luminescent ether. If you believe there is, please at least tell us what this means.

Claiming the device changes O2 viscosity is similar nonsense.

Gas viscosity is primarily dependent on ordinary temperature.

To believe the explanation one has to accept that the device selectively heats O2, while leaving the other 80% of air alone, and does so without caloric output.

Sure it does . . .

Points awarded for creativity in imaginative thought however.

A bit of advice: Don't believe everything you think.

Quote:

Quote:
Pretty obvious which one of the 12 angry men you are. What's with all the hostility?

Geoff, where do you see anger? Unlike others (including yourself unfortunately), I don't engage in name calling, intentional misrepresentations of user names, insulting comments, etc.. I have written nothing inappropriate.

Anger in others is not accepting your thoughts? I have only described your explanation of operation as "charged air' to be "nonsense." This is what it is.

There is no such thing as "charged air" nor luminescent ether. If you believe there is, please at least tell us what this means.

Claiming the device changes O2 viscosity is similar nonsense.

Gas viscosity is primarily dependent on ordinary temperature.

To believe the explanation one has to accept that the device selectively heats O2, while leaving the other 80% of air alone, and does so without caloric output.

Sure it does . . .

Points awarded for creativity in imaginative thought however.

A bit of advice: Don't believe everything you think.

Apparently someone besides me disagrees with your contention that there's no such thing as charged air. I suggest you consult with the Science Education board if you require a second opinion.

Charging Air Molecules for High tech Applications

Wow, another billion dollar science app falls into the black hole of hi fi, never to reach a broader application.

You'd think just one fringe tweak convention could finish off so many of the world's broader questions and establish a new dawn of beneficent science and prosperity....but nooooooo.

Or, that same convention might yield a fruitful vice/fraud sweep.

Geez, geoffie, get your little friends and cut social studies one day and make a trillion dollars.

Your redundant trolling on behalf of every less-than-half-assed idea is starting to sound like a broken record.

______

I bet the whole bunch of them don't have one hi fi rig between them.

Quote:
Wow, another billion dollar science app falls into the black hole of hi fi, never to reach a broader application.

You'd think just one fringe tweak convention could finish off so many of the world's broader questions and establish a new dawn of beneficent science and prosperity....but nooooooo.

Or, that same convention might yield a fruitful vice/fraud sweep.

Geez, geoffie, get your little friends and cut social studies one day and make a trillion dollars.

Your redundant trolling on behalf of every less-than-half-assed idea is starting to sound like a broken record.

______

I bet the whole bunch of them don't have one hi fi rig between them.

Dude, that vein in your neck is sticking out again.

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, another billion dollar science app falls into the black hole of hi fi, never to reach a broader application.

You'd think just one fringe tweak convention could finish off so many of the world's broader questions and establish a new dawn of beneficent science and prosperity....but nooooooo.

Or, that same convention might yield a fruitful vice/fraud sweep.

Geez, geoffie, get your little friends and cut social studies one day and make a trillion dollars.

Your redundant trolling on behalf of every less-than-half-assed idea is starting to sound like a broken record.

______

I bet the whole bunch of them don't have one hi fi rig between them.

Dude, that vein in your neck is sticking out again.

Don't flatter yourself, matey.

You are not vein-worthy.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, another billion dollar science app falls into the black hole of hi fi, never to reach a broader application.

You'd think just one fringe tweak convention could finish off so many of the world's broader questions and establish a new dawn of beneficent science and prosperity....but nooooooo.

Or, that same convention might yield a fruitful vice/fraud sweep.

Geez, geoffie, get your little friends and cut social studies one day and make a trillion dollars.

Your redundant trolling on behalf of every less-than-half-assed idea is starting to sound like a broken record.

______

I bet the whole bunch of them don't have one hi fi rig between them.

Dude, that vein in your neck is sticking out again.

Don't flatter yourself, matey.

You are not vein-worthy.

I enjoy the chit chat even though you're kind of a low value target.

I met a Jewish man once who's sole purpose in life appeared to be to engage non-Jews in conversation long enough to accuse them of being anti-semetic. He was a known bore and everyone who knew him would avoid him at all costs. Geoff Kait falls into this classification of bore. He'll post something in the hope that the anti-tweak guys will jump on it and then fill up acres of forum space defending the tweakers turf. What a dud.

Honestly, haven't you got some rocks to put in jars or something Geoff?

Quote:
Your response conclusively demonstrates my point: there is no proffered explanation which is falsifiable. Thus the product lives in the realm of magic, paranormal, religion.

Yes, and that's the reason so many put down their money for such gibberish. And I'll bet London to a brick that they wouldn't invest in a negative ion generator for fear it might give them cancer or ingrown toenails. Go figure.

Quote:
I met a Jewish man once who's sole purpose in life appeared to be to engage non-Jews in conversation long enough to accuse them of being anti-semetic. He was a known bore and everyone who knew him would avoid him at all costs. Geoff Kait falls into this classification of bore. He'll post something in the hope that the anti-tweak guys will jump on it and then fill up acres of forum space defending the tweakers turf. What a dud.

Honestly, haven't you got some rocks to put in jars or something Geoff?

Uh, apparently the dull tactic worked again, another dullard on the line.

Nope, not biting. I've stayed purposely off topic for this one Geoff. Endlessly debating esoteric fluff with you is an activity I can do without.

Have you checked your stock of clocks and stickers today?