Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Give me an example of a manufacturer who actually made false claims. You people are constantly accusing manufacturers of all manner of things. Such little gossips!! Ha Ha Ha
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff, Is'nt this your "claim"? Taken from your website.

"The Teleportation Tweak will also improve any video systems in the house, including plasma, HDTV and high end projection systems - better contrast, color saturation and resolution."

I admire your persistence, but it's not a false claim. It might be an outrageous one, maybe an unbelievable one, but not a false one.

Ta, ta

Quote:
I admire your persistence, but it's not a false claim. It might be an outrageous one, maybe an unbelievable one, but not a false one.

Would I kid you?

Ta, ta

O.K. Geoff, I'll bite. Why is it not false?

"O.K. Geoff, I'll bite. Why is it not false?"

Is this a multiple choice test?

Quote:
"O.K. Geoff, I'll bite. Why is it not false?"

Is this a multiple choice test?

HA, HA, you really do your best to try to be humorous but you failed to answer how the "teleportation tweak" improves what you say it improves and just because people buy it doesn't mean it works. Snake oil to be sure.
Thanks for verifying what I already knew to be true. I also realize I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know. Ta, Ta.

"HA, HA, you really do your best to try to be humorous."

I know. I'm a retired stand-up comedian. Scout's honor.

"But you failed to answer how the "teleportation tweak" improves what you say it improves."

But that wasn't your question. You asked if my claim regarding the Teleportation Tweak that you quoted was TRUE or FALSE. Try to keep the facts straight, tough guy, I tire easily.

"Just because people buy it doesn't mean it works."

TRUE, but it doesn't mean it doesn't work either. No complaints so far.

"Thanks for verifying what I already knew to be TRUE."

You're welcome.

"I also realize I'm not telling you anything you didn't already know."

TRUE.

Quote:

However, the forum is much more pleasant and succinct with him on ignore

Amen to that, brother. It was so exhausting to read tomes upon tomes of complete and utter bullshit that said either absolutely nothing at best and spewing insults and childish tantrums at worst.

Quote:
I notice Geoff and May don't post about what they listen to at home, either.

Hmmmm.

You are full of comments about this topic. So, your own question back at ya: have you ever listened to the gear in question?

If not, then how can YOU comment but not Ethan?

Nobody needs to know what anyone listens to at home. That's not the point here. And whether I have listened to this unit also is not the point, I didn't make any ridiculous comments about the machine. I absolutely didn't say I was certain the machine was or was not defective.

Winer said he was certain the player wasn't designed properly and/or it was defective. It's up to Winer to prove that statement.

He didn't.

It would appear Winer has intentionally misled (most of us will read that as lied) about this since he hasn't owned or tested this unit or else he would have been happy to answer my questions to prove I am the schmuck he wishes I was. If he hasn't owned or tested this specific unit, then there is no way he can be certain of it's condition and his claim is just another in the long list of BS that Winer has posted.

I'm sure that won't make any sense to you, Buddha, and you'll either ignore it or totally misrepresent it since you are dedicated to protecting Winer and decimating me.

(Get a life, guy, it's just an audio forum.)

But it's a fact.

Oh, no! There I go introducing "facts". I know you hate those pesky little buggers.

Oh, well, not much to be done about it now, Winer opened his yap and then couldn't back up what he said. Nothing new here.

So take your post and shove it where it doesn't count.

Quote:
I havent seen Mr. Winer mention your backyard, Jan.

pardon me if I am missing something

You are. The thread you started to intentionally insult May and geoff has been deleted, as it should have been. Don't you even keep up with your own insults?

Quote:

Quote:
I havent seen Mr. Winer mention your backyard, Jan.

pardon me if I am missing something

You are. The thread you started to intentionally insult May and geoff has been deleted, as it should have been. Don't you even keep up with your own insults?

wow..still hostile. Like I said, you need a chill out period, probation maybe. I asked you the question in a respectful manner...yet you respond this way.. Quit being such an asshole, guy...jeesh

and no, I didnt keep up with that thread, but the fact that it was deleted is bullshit. utter effing bullshit.

I was asking a legitimate question, based on a valid theory.

damned heavy handed gestapo moderating....

Why don't we discuss "hostile", ncdrawl. You're the one who started that thread. It was "hostile".

Like I am with Buddha, I'm having a problem believing this "respectfully" thing of your's. I mean, it was a thread you started. Since you keep your nose glued to Winer's behind I am having a hard time thinking you didn't see it. As I recall, you responded to Buddha's post about disapproving of data mining, a position he has apparently recanted, or can't recall or something that supposedly covers his butt.

Does that jog your memory? Are things becoming more like just the other day to you?

Quote:
damned heavy handed gestapo moderating....

Complain to someone else someplace else, ncdrawl.

What does any of this have to do with cables at CES?

Are we just playing games now?

I wouldn't if I were on "your side".

and still, with the insults.. goddamn dude, take a xanax or dalmane.... it doesnt matter that much.

Quote:
Why don't we discuss "hostile", ncdrawl. You're the one who started that thread. It was "hostile".

Like I am with Buddha, I'm having a problem believing this "respectfully" thing of your's. I mean, it was a thread you started. Since you keep your nose glued to Winer's behind I am having a hard time thinking you didn't see it. As I recall, you responded to Buddha's post about disapproving of data mining, a position he has apparently recanted, or can't recall or something that supposedly covers his butt.

Does that jog your memory? Are things becoming more like just the other day to you?

You brought this up. The thread was insulting.

It's after 1 AM here, ncdrawl, and I've been up for 20 hours. I don't have patience for some delicate little flower that gets insulted when I bring up uncomfortable subjects. You responded to Buddha saying the MySpace page was fake.

What does it matter whether Winer looked in my front yard or my back yard? He complained about not being able to see inside my house. The guy is a creep.

So why not answer the question?

Why be evasive at this point? You been caught in your own trap. You remember the post because you commented on the post.

What are you trying to do, ncdrawl? Like I said, I don't have a lot of patience for fools at this point.

And stop calling people assholes, asshole.

Have you been waiting for someone to present you with valid measurement proof or present you with authenticated DB test results BEFORE you would investigate ????????

Your reply Ethan :-
>>> "Yes, exactly. So show me what you have and I'll be glad to give it my consideration." <<<

Surely, as a "professional audio engineer for about 40 years" you are not sincerely waiting around for someone to present you with valid measurement proof or present you with authenticated DB test results BEFORE you would investigate the effect of cryogenic freezing ????? Surely you can't be serious ?? Surely you are saying that with your tongue in your cheek ???

Has no one else told you that cryogenic freezing such things as CDs, components, interconnects, wires etc gives improvements in the sound or have they told you but you have dismissed what they have told you, each time, telling them that it is BS ?

I wasn't saying you should BELIEVE before investigating but I would expect a 'professional in audio' (especially of a claimed 40 years standing) to investigate without the need for PROOF first !!!!!!!!!

Regards,
May Belt.

Just 'cause May forgot to add her own.

(You have to do that, May, or else they think you're insulting them. Haven't you noticed Winer ends all of his posts with a big cheesy grin? That means he wasn't actually insulting you when you he called you a snake oil salesperson or a charlatan. He was just being good ol' Ethan, a forty year professional in the audio business who wouldn't dream of using his free advertising power on forums to disparage a competitor.)

>>> "(You have to do that, May, or else they think you're insulting them.) Haven't you noticed Winer ends all of his posts with a big cheesy grin?" <<<

Yes, I will have to figure out what all those symbols mean !! I KNOW one SHOULD NOT use CAPITAL letters because it could be interpreted as aggressive - but on our computer system here we use Word Pro and not Microsoft Word and every time I emphasise something in italics, when I then send it out, the italics are missing - so I have taken to using Capital letters as MY emphasis. Nor have I yet learnt how to do other people's quotes like they do.

My typing speeds and skills, however, get better by the hour !!!! Now, where is that smiley face.

Regards,
May Belt.

Quote:
Surely, as a "professional audio engineer for about 40 years" you are not sincerely waiting around for someone to present you with valid measurement proof or present you with authenticated DB test results BEFORE you would investigate the effect of cryogenic freezing ?????

Surely I would, because the notion that freezing CDs will improve their sound is preposterous. Now, if someone suggested that some new type of power amp output stage was better than previous designs, and had data to back up the claim, of course I'd be interested.

May, if I suggested that milk left out of the fridge for 20 days improves the taste, would you accept that as possible? Or would you reject it out of hand as preposterous? Once you know the answer to that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Quote:
Has no one else told you that cryogenic freezing such things as CDs, components, interconnects, wires etc gives improvements in the sound

Yes, I've heard that many times. I've also heard that the moon landing was faked, aliens would like to probe my anus, and the holocaust never happened. Yawn.

--Ethan

Quote:
>>> "(You have to do that, May, or else they think you're insulting them.) Haven't you noticed Winer ends all of his posts with a big cheesy grin?" <<<

Yes, I will have to figure out what all those symbols mean !! I KNOW one SHOULD NOT use CAPITAL letters because it could be interpreted as aggressive - but on our computer system here we use Word Pro and not Microsoft Word and every time I emphasise something in italics, when I then send it out, the italics are missing - so I have taken to using Capital letters as MY emphasis. Nor have I yet learnt how to do other people's quotes like they do.

My typing speeds and skills, however, get better by the hour !!!! Now, where is that smiley face.

Regards,
May Belt.

May,

If you cryogenically treat your computer AND put a Photo of the italicized alphabet in the freezer it will fix your word program.

I did a DBT with conclusive results.

Sorry, May, couldn't resist, this is really meant as a good natured joke (although I am sure JV will rant for several pages about it)

>>> "May,
If you cryogenically treat your computer AND put a Photo of the italicized alphabet in the freezer it will fix your word program.

I did a DBT with conclusive results." <<<

Of course it will. Why didn't I think of that earlier ??? All these years and I didn't think it out properly !!

>>> "Sorry, May, couldn't resist, this is really meant as a good natured joke (although I am sure JV will rant for several pages about it)." <<<

I don't think he will. I am sure he (as well as I ) can spot a good natured joke at ten paces.

Good to see, though, tomjtx, that you have been reading up and doing your homework on what is important !!

Again, just where is that smiley face ?

Regards,
May Belt.

I DID IT - but put it in the wrong place !!!!!!

May

Quote:
May, if I suggested that milk left out of the fridge for 20 days improves the taste, would you accept that as possible? Or would you reject it out of hand as preposterous? Once you know the answer to that, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

Exactly what sort of logic is that? Has someone told you 20 day old unrefrigerated milk is improved?

How about we stick to things that follow a logical pattern? If someone told you adding sugar to cream and stirring it in an ice bath made something better, would you wait for proof before you tried it? What sort of proof would you require? If someone told you adding basil, onion and garlic to tomato sauce made it better, would you wait for proof before you tried it? What sort of proof?

I do think you've picked a good example of why your methodolgy for proof is poorly thought out.

How would you say the first cooked meat came about? Did someone wait for measurements to tell them cooked meat was better than raw meat?

Probably not.

(Whoops, that one got away from me.)

They used empirical observation. When they had observed that cooked meat tasted better and was easier to chew and lasted longer than raw meat, they experimented out of curiousity. Not even a thermometer was used, just their own senses.

When the first person pushed the pig out of the way and brushed the dirt off the truffle, do you suppose they waited for measurements before they tried it? Before they tried it on their eggs (that they had pulled out from under the hen's butt) with curdled and two year old (unrefrigerated) aged sheep's milk? Or did they try it because the pig seemed so happy when it got to the truffle first? How do you suppose someone figured out how to make unrefrigerated milk last longer and taste better?

When the first or second - or even the third for the Germans - guy tried twenty day old unrefrigerated milk and dropped over dead, do you think they took measurements?

Getting back to the cable thing briefly, has anyone here tried cryoing them, degaussing them, de-staticizing (is that a word?) or ionizing them, freezing them, breaking them in with a break-in device or burn-in disc, contact enhancer, suspending them, foils, Shun Mook Original Cable Jackets, Shakti On-Lines, shining light on them, experimenting with different lengths of cables and last but not least, brilliant pebbles or other crystal devices on them?

If so, any luck?

"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance."

Quote:
........., has anyone here tried cryoing them, degaussing them, de-staticizing (is that a word?) or ionizing them, freezing them, breaking them in with a break-in device or burn-in disc, contact enhancer, suspending them, foils, Shun Mook Original Cable Jackets, Shakti On-Lines, shining light on them, experimenting with different lengths of cables and last but not least, brilliant pebbles or other crystal devices on them?

I've never used any of those 'add-on' methods other than ferrite chokes to suppress RFI. I've only experienced burn in with two cables. Kimber's (8TC?) and Van den Hull interconnects. The Kimber cable simply became 'smoother' after 10 or so hours. Somewhere I read this is not the cable burning in but the dielectric coefficient of the insulation changing. I did notice a difference after time with the Van den Hull's hybrid 'The Well' interconnects. Having an anaemic bottom end as new, after a few days they were not quite as bad but still, to my ears on my system, not at all to my liking. They were however excellent at suppressing hum on ultra low voltage signals from low output moving coils. Problem was you threw out the baby with the bath water. If anyone wants to try them they can have mine for the cost of postage & a promise to report back here what they make of them.
(They're RCA terminated) - - - - - offer accepted as at 4.18pm EST Australia.

I have frozen cables, suspended them and used contact enhancers. All to good effect. I've used a few of Belt's and Frog's freebies and most of those have made improvements, a few rather obvious effects. Minimizing the material of the RCA plug has done more than I would have thought.

"If this is an entirely subjective experience, then any product is as good as any other product." Huh? Not with my subjectivity, since it is all I have. If/then, with no logic. Subjective or objective stances, from the point of the listener, have nothing to do with whether or not all products sound the same.

Actually, you have it backwards. It is the "objective" abstractions, from the music to the test bench, that render all products the same. Do you remember Julian Hirsche (the late Julian Hirsche, of Stereo Review, who is now beyond all arguments over subjective vs. objective "truth"...), who claimed that all electronics (I believe he said this in the context of measuring a power amplifier) that measured below a certain distortion point, and provided enough power, sounded exactly the same? DO they? And why not?

It is science (and pseudo-science) that is the great leveler of "experience." If you get general enough in your scientific criteria for measuring, then, indeed, the subjective elements will be eliminated.

Surely, you wouldn't argue that Wilson, Triangle, Aeriel, Klipsche, JBL, Acoustic Research (and I could go on and on, obviously) all sound the same. Yet all these designers use the same (or similar) measuring instruments and all want low distortion. It is the subjective element that makes them all sound different. Different designers hear with different ears, and, more importantly, they PROCESS their musical experiences with different memories, different preferences, different aural sensitivities, and different muses sitting in PERSONAL judgment over their endeavors.

And, perhaps more important, they process with different brains. And they do what no machine can do -- they evaluate. They make design decisions based on their subjective judgments, especially in their cost-no-object designs. Why do you think some designers choose cones, while others use electrostatics? Or bass reflex instead of sealed enclosures? Each designer, especially in his/her no-holds-barred "dream" design, is seeking imagined truth, not blips on an oscilloscope or decibels measured on some kind of meter.

Do you think you (that would be "you," not everyone...) like speaker system A more than speaker system B, simply because one of them uses bad science ?

There is no ONE "science." There is good science and bad science, and every other degree in between. In music, you pick the one based on the methodology you "judge" (SUBJECTIVELY) to be, somehow, the "best."

Alex, you aren't really naive enough to believe that "science" is somehow "objective," are you? Scientists make more subjective choices than poets and musical conductors do, for crissakes!

Quote:
I have frozen cables, suspended them and used contact enhancers. All to good effect. I've used a few of Belt's and Frog's freebies and most of those have made improvements, a few rather obvious effects. Minimizing the material of the RCA plug has done more than I would have thought.

where is Frog's page?

Put in "the advanced audiophile".

Alex, I apologize. I didn't answer your question about why I regarded Winer's "conclusions" as "pseudo science."

Winer is a "pseudo scientist" because he is a pretender. He doesn't understand the subjective elements in his own arguments. Winer is a false "scientist." A, well, pseudo scientist. He claims to speak/write for an "objective" truth that doesn't exist, yet (or never? I should live so long...) now, when the assumptions behind the evaluation of sonic values must be posited subjectively. He subjectively chose JBL speakers, driven by Crown amplifiers. God only knows what other measuring equipment and listening components he subjectively chose, to lead him to an all-encompassing "scientific" objectivity.

If this isn't "pseudo," what IS?

"Pseudo" means pretense. Ethan's arguments are fraught with pretense.
Now, what else would you expect out of a salesman? The "truth"? An "objective" pursuit of the truth, using subjective criteria and hypotheses? All scientists select. Only the delusional select with no sense of self-parody.

I give you this. A DBT situation. Test subjects are gathered around a pre-rigged set-up. Nothing but the "objective truth," folks. They are put through the binary alternative clicks. Then, comes the magic question. "Which did you think was better?" "How did you (feel, perceive, sense, intuit, evaluate, judge, arrive at, reason out, decide...take your choice) your evaluation"?

Okay. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Substitute your own verb. Can you give me a NON-"subjective" verb?? Let me get this straight. DBT is "objective science." "Scientific." "Objective." How do you close the deal?

Ah. "I couldn't hear any difference." Now, tell me THAT is a non-subjective, "scientific" judgment.

Remember, Alex. We are all trapped in language. That is our lot. If you are dissatisfied with this, invent a new language. Without judgement. Purified of the equivocating "subjective" element. Good luck.

We all clash at the point where signing over submission to universal agreement closes the deal. The deal is never closed. Thankfully, from my perspective.

Wittgenstein said it better.

Meanwhile, listen and enjoy. Listen to what you subjectively love to listen to, and enjoy it against the judgments of your own, private, necessary angel.

If you don't measure, if you don't have specifications, if you don't have "science" in your designs, then your designs won't be repeatable, they won't be consistent.

Ethan may have chosen his recording and playback equipment for subjective reasons (price may be one of them, feature set may be another), but that doesn't negate his main premise that if it can be heard, it can be measured.

A calculator cannot be subjective. A rocket cannot be subjective and neither can be a computer or a GPS or a gun. These products are spec'ed, measured to ensure compliance with specs. Why does audio equipment have to be any different?

>>> "his (Ethan's) main premise that if it can be heard, it can be measured." <<<

THAT main premise is wrong. If it can be heard, it cannot ALWAYS be measured. THAT is what is causing all the problems we have with Ethan (and, it seems) you also. THAT is what is causing all the disagreements we are having with him. Because ONCE you (he, anyone !!) believes his premise, you then have to deliberately BLOCK OUT all other ideas, experiences, experiments, as not worth even considering, let alone investigating !!!

We are back again to the example of 140 years ago in the world of medicine, to:-

1869 & 1870. The Lancet published a large number of letters and articles devoted to 'Listerism'.

Dr. J. Hughes Bennett, Professor of Physiology asked "Where are the germs ?, Show them to us and we will believe . Has anybody seen these germs ?"

Dr. J.R. Wolfe questioned the "panspematism hypothesis of Mr. Pasteur".

Some doctors often used a silly catch-phrase when they came into a sick room, "Shut the door quickly, or Professor Lister's germs will get in".

There WERE NO MEASUREMENTS of the proposed "germs in the air". What would you (and Ethan) have suggested 140 years ago, Alexo ? "Don't bother to investigate UNTIL you have measurement proof or authenticated DB tests ?"

If Ethan was a 'lay person' in audio, (or a lay person in medicine in 1869) I would not be so dismayed at him not being prepared to investigate. It is BECAUSE the people quoted from 1869 were 'professionals in medicine' that we shake our head in dismay at their reluctance to even 'try' antiseptic techniques for themselves. And it is exactly BECAUSE Ethan, in claiming to be a 'professional in audio', fills us with such dismay at his reluctance to investigate what people are reporting. Nor are the people reporting 'lay people in audio' - many of them are as 'professional' (or even more 'professional') than Ethan and yet HAVE been prepared to investigate!!!!!!!!!!
THAT is science !!!!!!!!!!!!

How on earth would Dr Joseph Lister have known which antiseptic gauze was the most effective if he had not experimented so :-

Lister's trials of the various antiseptic gauzes,

Early 'antiseptic' pads were - a piece of calico dipped in a solution of one part carbolic acid in four parts of Linseed oil.

then a mixture of carbolic acid, linseed oil and common whitening - antiseptic putty, spread on tinfoil.

then oiled silk, coated with copal varnish.

In 1868, he tried a mixture of carbolic acid and shellac, spread on calico and coated with a solution of gutta-percha.

then he tried a complex combination of paraffin, wax, olive oil and carbolic acid.

then he tried Chloride of Zinc, Boracic acid and salicylic acid.

In 1878, Charles Darwin suggested Benzoic acid.

In 1881, Lister became interested in oil of eucalyptus and also tested oxidized oil of turpentine.

In 1882, he tried iodoform.

In 1883, he tried gauze containing corrosive sublimate beneath which he used a rubber protective.

In 1885, he used gauze impregnated by Sal Alembroth, the double cyanide of mercury and zinc.

then he tried various zinc and mercury compounds, often in combination with the new aniline dyes.

In 1887, Lister dropped the carbolic spray and experimented with various dressings to replace carbolic acid. All these experimental dressings were coloured with different dyes as a King's student put it :-

in a Ditty "There is a worthy Baronet who once took up the cause
Of Antiseptic surgery and Antiseptic Gauze.
First there was a yellow one, then there was a blue,
then there was a red one, and a white one too.
Next there was a violet one, so we thought he'd go
Right through all the colours of the bright rainbow."

The Violet gauze was the last one to be produced. It was muslin gauze covered with a fine white powder, the double cyanide of zinc and mercury. Lister found that this powder would not stay on the gauze unless it was moistened. He first tried a solution of chloride of mercury, but it proved too irritating to the skin. Then he found a dye called "rosanilin" would fix the powder, so he had a very satisfactory dressing which was coloured a beautiful shade of heliotrope. This cyanide gauze was used as a dressing for many years.

STILL with NO MEASUREMENTS - for years and years and years and years !!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is how science progresses.
Observation, investigation, experimentation, followed by observation, followed by investigation, followed by experimentation, followed by.........

Regards,
May Belt.

Clifton makes a very good point that you cannot remove the subjective from the objective. We make subjective judgments constantly on a daily basis without asking for DBT's. I don't harrangue anyone if they buy "X" brand gasoline because they feel it gives them better milegage though their methodology for proving such isn't scientific. Why don't I explain to them why their methods are not scientific and hold them to a higher standard? Because it doesn't matter to me. It's their money and they have the right to choose whatever they care to choose. It doesn't hurt me, the market will eliminate whatever brand of gasoline makes cars burst into flames or stop in mid-traffic.

In most cases of subjective choice we make the science after we make the decision. We look for objective reasons why we are right to make ourself feel better. How many of the members here have expressed a disagreement with the uber-cynic's opinion on interconnects, speaker cables, power cables, power conditioners, Shakti Stones, this that or the other. And the argument for the exception is always the same, the person tried the item in question and subjectively heard an improvement.

Then, to quickly scamper back into their comfort zone, they insist no other such alternative item could have a positive effect.

Do none on the "other side" see the disconnect here?

Bricks get pulled out of the wall of the uber-cynic one by one. The argument becomes more absurd with each new post. Now, with good reason to not build a wall, the wall must be built before we have a reason for the wall. LOL!

These are the same fear tactics that built a wall on the Southern border of the US. Fear as a motivator. Fear the snake oil salesman. Fear the charlatan. Fear the fear.

For what reason?

I've asked the question before and no one on "that side" has ever given an answer.

Why? Why fear all that you don't understand? Why insist everyone else must fear what you don't understand?

If your logic is so lame that you insist there must be proof before you will investigate, then you are living in fear. Fine, stay there. I don't want to be there anyway.

But why must "one side" constantly insist I must be there with you, living in fear? Are you that afraid to be there by yourself?

Quote:

>>> "his (Ethan's) main premise that if it can be heard, it can be measured." <<<

THAT main premise is wrong. If it can be heard, it cannot ALWAYS be measured. THAT is what is causing all the problems we have with Ethan (and, it seems) you also. THAT is what is causing all the disagreements we are having with him. Because ONCE you (he, anyone !!) believes his premise, you then have to deliberately BLOCK OUT all other ideas, experiences, experiments, as not worth even considering, let alone investigating !!!

We are back again to the example of 140 years ago in the world of medicine, to:-

1869 & 1870. The Lancet published a large number of letters and articles devoted to 'Listerism'.

Dr. J. Hughes Bennett, Professor of Physiology asked "Where are the germs ?, Show them to us and we will believe . Has anybody seen these germs ?"

Dr. J.R. Wolfe questioned the "panspematism hypothesis of Mr. Pasteur".

Some doctors often used a silly catch-phrase when they came into a sick room, "Shut the door quickly, or Professor Lister's germs will get in".

There WERE NO MEASUREMENTS of the proposed "germs in the air". What would you (and Ethan) have suggested 140 years ago, Alexo ? "Don't bother to investigate UNTIL you have measurement proof or authenticated DB tests ?"

If Ethan was a 'lay person' in audio, (or a lay person in medicine in 1869) I would not be so dismayed at him not being prepared to investigate. It is BECAUSE the people quoted from 1869 were 'professionals in medicine' that we shake our head in dismay at their reluctance to even 'try' antiseptic techniques for themselves. And it is exactly BECAUSE Ethan, in claiming to be a 'professional in audio', fills us with such dismay at his reluctance to investigate what people are reporting. Nor are the people reporting 'lay people in audio' - many of them are as 'professional' (or even more 'professional') than Ethan and yet HAVE been prepared to investigate!!!!!!!!!!
THAT is science !!!!!!!!!!!!

How on earth would Dr Joseph Lister have known which antiseptic gauze was the most effective if he had not experimented so :-

Lister's trials of the various antiseptic gauzes,

Early 'antiseptic' pads were - a piece of calico dipped in a solution of one part carbolic acid in four parts of Linseed oil.

then a mixture of carbolic acid, linseed oil and common whitening - antiseptic putty, spread on tinfoil.

then oiled silk, coated with copal varnish.

In 1868, he tried a mixture of carbolic acid and shellac, spread on calico and coated with a solution of gutta-percha.

then he tried a complex combination of paraffin, wax, olive oil and carbolic acid.

then he tried Chloride of Zinc, Boracic acid and salicylic acid.

In 1878, Charles Darwin suggested Benzoic acid.

In 1881, Lister became interested in oil of eucalyptus and also tested oxidized oil of turpentine.

In 1882, he tried iodoform.

In 1883, he tried gauze containing corrosive sublimate beneath which he used a rubber protective.

In 1885, he used gauze impregnated by Sal Alembroth, the double cyanide of mercury and zinc.

then he tried various zinc and mercury compounds, often in combination with the new aniline dyes.

In 1887, Lister dropped the carbolic spray and experimented with various dressings to replace carbolic acid. All these experimental dressings were coloured with different dyes as a King's student put it :-

in a Ditty "There is a worthy Baronet who once took up the cause
Of Antiseptic surgery and Antiseptic Gauze.
First there was a yellow one, then there was a blue,
then there was a red one, and a white one too.
Next there was a violet one, so we thought he'd go
Right through all the colours of the bright rainbow."

The Violet gauze was the last one to be produced. It was muslin gauze covered with a fine white powder, the double cyanide of zinc and mercury. Lister found that this powder would not stay on the gauze unless it was moistened. He first tried a solution of chloride of mercury, but it proved too irritating to the skin. Then he found a dye called "rosanilin" would fix the powder, so he had a very satisfactory dressing which was coloured a beautiful shade of heliotrope. This cyanide gauze was used as a dressing for many years.

STILL with NO MEASUREMENTS - for years and years and years and years !!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is how science progresses.
Observation, investigation, experimentation, followed by observation, followed by investigation, followed by experimentation, followed by.........

Regards,
May Belt.

May, thanks for the great example of the importance of 'objective' observation.

In Lister's trials, how do you think he found which things worked and which didn't? What do you suppose he 'measured,' if not germ counts?

In your list of his failed trials, why was he able to discard certain interventions? Was he measuring results of some kind?

Did his interventions require that the subject know which tretment was in place in order to demonstrate a result?

Lister was quite systematic, requiring repeatable outcomes (results) before discarding or deciding to use certain items in his ongoing trials.

In determining "which gauze is most effective," how did he measure 'effectiveness?'

Did he just ask people what they thought of the gauze, or was there more to it?

May, he 'measured' outcomes over and over and over.

Did he decide subjectively which gauze was most effective, or was there more to it than that?

Lister came up with an hypothesis and tested it. He couldn't directly measure bacteria counts, but he could measure very objective results.

As you say, "THAT is how science progresses.
Observation, investigation, experimentation, followed by observation, followed by investigation, followed by experimentation, followed by........."

He was quite objective if you bother to go and read his data and trials - he was all about measured outcomes. "Lived, didn't live; got and infection, didn't get an infection; irritated skin too much, didn't irritate skin..."

His data were repeatable and his trials could be done in blind fashion without loss of effectiveness.

His patients did not transition from responding to the gauze or not simply because they didn't know which gauze was which.

Lister also came up with a disprovable hypothesis - one of the foundations of science.

Go read a little Karl Popper and it might give you a better insight into what is Lister was actually doing.

Quote:
Why don't I explain to them why their methods are not scientific and hold them to a higher standard?

So, if an automobile manufacturer makes certain mileage, horsepower, or other performance claims, you would never expect said manufacturer to be able to back that up with anything more than subjective testimonials?

Maybe a subjective speedometer and odometer?

A gas gauge designed to reflect how you felt about what should still be in the tank?

Performance claims should be something that can be readily investigated.

Imagine a world in which the FDA allowed someone like May to claim: "This product works, take my word for it. Here are some testimonials. Observational trials? Blind trials? No, thank you. It works because I say it does."

Luckily, we are audiophiles, so no matter which 'side' we are on, it doesn't matter. (Honest smiley)

I think gear and cables can sound 'better' than one another, Ethan thinks they can't. Well, he thinks they can, but if they do, it is because of certain design changes they use compared to other gear - which I also agree with. Ethan, however, thinks these changes degrade his musical experience and I think they can enhance it.

This 'wall of fear' of yours has big doors in it.

Quote:
Did his interventions require that the subject know which tretment was in place in order to demonstrate a result?

His data were repeatable and his trials could be done in blind fashion without loss of effectiveness.

His patients did not transition from responding to the gauze or not simply because they didn't know which gauze was which.

Buddha, when are you going to give this up? This is the most dishonest of all the "arguments" coming from your side. If you truly beleive what you have repeated innumerable times, then do as I asked several pages back.

Name names. Now!

Tell us the names of these audiophiles who can only operate by reading what is on a cold hard piece of equipment before they can make a decison. Tell us their names, use Winer's Google prowess to allow us to search them out, look into their personal properties and any possible connections - real or imagined - to known terrorist groups. Allow us, the proud audiophile left, the priviledge of hauling these pretend subjectivists up on poles running through them and their pretend ideals from stem to stern to twist in the the stinking winds of their rotting flesh.

We do not want and do not need anyone in our ranks who cannot make a decison without prior knowledge, without having to rely on what a machine says on its face, telling them what to believe and what not to believe, without prior proof that things are as they say they are.

We do not need anyone who cannot make a decision based on the evidence collected by responsible individuals!!!

And I'm certain as I can be that your "side" doesn't need anyone like that in your ranks either.

Name names, Buddha, and then we will do the same for you.

Quote:

Quote:
Why don't I explain to them why their methods are not scientific and hold them to a higher standard?

So, if an automobile manufacturer makes certain mileage, horsepower, or other performance claims, you would never expect said manufacturer to be able to back that up with anything more than subjective testimonials?

Maybe a subjective speedometer and odometer?

A gas gauge designed to reflect how you felt about what should still be in the tank?

Performance claims should be something that can be readily investigated.

Buddha, I've told you before, I am not going to get into a discussion of the crap you just make up. It is impossible to deal with someone who has words put in front of them and they choose to interpret those words with the exact opposite intent.

What I posted is not what you read - for the umpteenth time.

However, since you bring up the subject of the "repeatability" of honest scientific methods, why don't we discuss how the EPA was forced to change its measuring techniques to reflect a real world situation?

"Science", as we were told it existed, was not repeatable, was not precise and was not right. It reflected the wishes of the entrenched monied interests.

Pressure from outside groups who saw the flaws in the official "science" forced a change that made for new measuring techniques and the proviso that "YMMV" a necessity. In other words, "We tried, we failed, don't trust us to be right on this one either."

"Science" is not infallible and is constantly reinventing itself to adjust to new findings.

Quote:
Imagine a world in which the FDA allowed someone like May to claim: "This product works, take my word for it. Here are some testimonials. Observational trials? Blind trials? No, thank you. It works because I say it does."

Yes, just imagine.

(OK, Buddha, that means go back to what I just posted and read it very slowly for comprehension, reading what I actually wrote and not just what you care to see. There will be no discussion of more made up crap.)

Quote:
This 'wall of fear' of yours has big doors in it.

And they are being knocked down everyday.

I think you might spend some time examining just why your "wall of fear" forces you to so often misinterpret what is posted.

Now, if you would, answer a few questions. They're right there above this post. A few answers as to why. A few answers as to who.

Most importantly, Buddha, tell us the "who". Because you have relied on this lie for the entirety of your "argument" and it is a lie. Tell us names or stop telling us the same lie.

Quote:

Quote:
Did his interventions require that the subject know which tretment was in place in order to demonstrate a result?

His data were repeatable and his trials could be done in blind fashion without loss of effectiveness.

His patients did not transition from responding to the gauze or not simply because they didn't know which gauze was which.

Buddha, when are you going to give this up? This is the most dishonest of all the "arguments" coming from your side. If you truly beleive what you have repeated innumerable times, then do as I asked several pages back.

Name names. Now!

Tell us the names of these audiophiles who can only operate by reading what is on a cold hard piece of equipment before they can make a decison. Tell us their names, use Winer's Google prowess to allow us to search them out, look into their personal properties and any possible connections - real or imagined - to known terrorist groups. Allow us, the proud audiophile left, the priviledge of hauling these pretend subjectivists up on poles running through them and their pretend ideals from stem to stern to twist in the the stinking winds of their rotting flesh.

We do not want and do not need anyone in our ranks who cannot make a decison without prior knowledge, without having to rely on what a machine says on its face, telling them what to believe and what not to believe, without prior proof that things are as they say they are.

We do not need anyone who cannot make a decision based on the evidence collected by responsible individuals!!!

And I'm certain as I can be that your "side" doesn't need anyone like that in your ranks either.

Name names, Buddha, and then we will do the same for you.

Happy to name names.

Beltians. Got any reviews where Belt tweaks are listened to in blind trials? May can't even do it with her own 'products.' Let's bring her to a show. Let's let her send her product to those hearing aid manufacturers she claims to work with for a trial. She mentiones Lister, so she shouldn't have a problem with that. What do you think will happen?

Name names: Pretty much every reviewer. (They hit ya with, "Wouldn't be practical, wouldn't be 'fun.'")

Name one reviewer who routinely does test himself with blind reviewing.

Not gonna happen.

Cables are easily swapped and hidden, name a blind review that's been done.

Name names - the reviewing industry; subjectivist tweakers who cry about blind deafness knowing they will be found out if they try it, Geoff, you, May, Furutech...

Name one subjectivist tweak manufacturer who doen't run and hide from blind listening trials.

Your turn. Name the reviewers who do conduct blind listening reviews or perform reviews without knowing the product's name, rank, and serial number.

Switching an amp or cable would be easy, but none seem to have that skill set. (Actually, perhaps they do, but we wouldn't know it from the industry.)

_______

Now, tell me more about your take on Lister. Was he purely a subjectivist? Why would May use an example of someone who measured outcomes and did blind testing when she herself doesn't believe in them? Why would she mention a guy who came up with a "testable" hypothesis?

Quote:
Happy to name names.

Beltians. Got any reviews where Belt tweaks are listened to in blind trials? May can't even do it with her own 'products.' Let's bring her to a show. Let's let her send her product to those hearing aid manufacturers she claims to work with for a trial. She mentiones Lister, so she shouldn't have a problem with that. What do you think will happen?

Name names: Pretty much every reviewer. (They hit ya with, "Wouldn't be practical, wouldn't be 'fun.'")

Name one reviewer who routinely does test himself with blind reviewing.

Not gonna happen.

Cables are easily swapped and hidden, name a blind review that's been done.

Name names - the reviewing industry; subjectivist tweakers who cry about blind deafness knowing they will be found out if they try it, Geoff, you, May, Furutech...

Name one subjectivist tweak manufacturer who doen't run and hide from blind listening trials.

Your turn. Name the reviewers who do conduct blind listening reviews or perform reviews without knowing the product's name, rank, and serial number.

Switching an amp or cable would be easy, but none seem to have that skill set. (Actually, perhaps they do, but we wouldn't know it from the industry.)

Well, thank you, I can now resume ROTFLMAO!

Quote:
I have frozen cables, suspended them and used contact enhancers. All to good effect. I've used a few of Belt's and Frog's freebies and most of those have made improvements, a few rather obvious effects. Minimizing the material of the RCA plug has done more than I would have thought.

"Most have made improvements."

Cool.

Which ones did not?

Quote:
Now, tell me more about your take on Lister. Was he purely a subjectivist? Why would May use an example of someone who measured outcomes and did blind testing when she herself doesn't believe in them? Why would she mention a guy who came up with a "testable" hypothesis?

And you also said ...

Quote:
In Lister's trials, how do you think he found which things worked and which didn't? What do you suppose he 'measured,' if not germ counts?

Quote:
Lister came up with an hypothesis and tested it. He couldn't directly measure bacteria counts ...

Why would you ask a question and then provide the answer that negates your own question? Because you only see what you care to see? And you do not see the contradictions you create?

Quote:
His data were repeatable and his trials could be done in blind fashion without loss of effectiveness.

So far you've said nothing that disproves, say, the efficacy of the ART system. Lister knew what he was supposing and he relied on his tests to provide subjective data. It could only be subjective since, as you point out, he could not measure germ count. Whether the patient knew what was being applied to the wound is secondary to the fact Lister knew what was being applied. Without the proper measurement equipment - he couldn't measure germ count - he had to rely on empirical observation.

What you have been arguing for months on end is that an alternative treatment - antiseptics - cannot be effective simply because it cannot be measured. Then you come along and contradict everything you've argued beforehand. Antiseptics were and are effective and the measurements came after the subjective, empirical "proof".

Old school thinking was replaced by a new technique that minimized the damage done by old school thinking (remember "damage the signal less" from the very beginning of this thread?).

That didn't make old school advocates very happy and they, like "one side" of the audio debates, insisted on measurements that only conformed to their old school of thinking, thus ensuring a failed experiment which gave them the opportunity to dismiss and ridicule the effectiveness of Lister's discoveries. Or, like uber-cynic, they simply refused to investigate what might be possible because they already knew it to be preposterous despite the increasing amounts of empirical data showing their beliefs not to be true.

I'm sure you missed the part where May mentioned the mocking statements made against Lister, you were busy reading what you cared to see that complied to your old school ways.

I know you don't want to read what doesn't conform to your way of seeing this, Buddha, but you're arguing for our "side" with this one. Please, keep up the good work, it makes "our" job so much more simple.

And now, if you would, point out where May has said she doesn't believe in blind testing? Once again, you are arguing something that only exists in your mind, something you made up. Just like you made up the ideas I hate Winer and I hate measurements, neither of which are true but serve your purpose of hating me and hating May and, well, just making up more crap.

You have a vivid imagination for someone so tied to the past and the impossible.

So please, tell us where May has denounced blind tests. And, as the old school saying goes, be a specific as possible.

Quote:
Which ones did not?

I can't tell you that. You would only misread the information to conform to your old school ways. Then you'd make up more crap and then more crap from that crap and on and on and on.

Do you honestly suppose I have to hear each tweak as an improvement? So you don't believe we all have priorities that allow us and prevent us from hearing certain values?

Here's what I posted to judicata many days ago ...

Quote:
One thing I think you are trying to do is take your experience with clinical trials where you are deciding "either A or B" (either the patient reacted to the introduction of a drug/placebo or they didn't) and transfer that to a blind test where the system is an intermediary for the music. I find this similar to the argument often given for disliking "PRaT". Those who distain the presence of pacing, timing and and rhythmic momentum are in the habit of disavowing the capacity for any audio product to "have PRaT".

Well, of course, no component has these qualities. The qualities exist in the music and the issue is whether the audio component correctly portrays their expressive nature or whether it diminishes those qualities and therefore diminishes the emotional appeal and connection to the music. In that context, an audio component does not "have PRAT" but it can definfitely get in the way of the listener feeling an emotional connection with the musical performance.

However, if a test subject has no feeling for emotional connection and listens only for frequency repsonse or "clarity" or some other priority uniquely their own (as we all do), they will take a pass on a difference between two components, one which displays excellent "PRaT" qualities and another that obscures those very elements of the performance. In such an instance for a DBT to be effective, you would need to weed out those listeners who are not listening for "PRaT" or risk a distorted outcome to the test.

That group of listeners might then miss any changes in timbre or tone, spacial improvements or dynamic contrasts, musicality or detail retrieval that are not within their priorities. That each listener brings their own set of priorities to the test makes DBT's most difficult to use when assessing how well an audio component does its most basic job - playing the music. This becomes not an "either/or" situation but a "what if?" situation.

Each of us brings our own set of priorities to the scene, and if we are not sharpeners for "timbre" we won't hear improvements in timbre even when they are real. If we are not sharpeners for PRaT, we won't hear the very real improvements in PRaT. And so on and so on. That's why what JA might pass on as a choice in equipment AD would snatch up and keep forever.

Not so difficult to understand.

Now, Buddha, don't take this post the wrong way.

Quote:

Quote:
Now, tell me more about your take on Lister. Was he purely a subjectivist? Why would May use an example of someone who measured outcomes and did blind testing when she herself doesn't believe in them? Why would she mention a guy who came up with a "testable" hypothesis?

And you also said ...

Quote:
In Lister's trials, how do you think he found which things worked and which didn't? What do you suppose he 'measured,' if not germ counts?

Quote:
Lister came up with an hypothesis and tested it. He couldn't directly measure bacteria counts ...

Why would you ask a question and then provide the answer that negates your own question? Because you only see what you care to see? And you do not see the contradictions you create?

Quote:
His data were repeatable and his trials could be done in blind fashion without loss of effectiveness.

So far you've said nothing that disproves, say, the efficacy of the ART system. Lister knew what he was supposing and he relied on his tests to provide subjective data. It could only be subjective since, as you point out, he could not measure germ count. Whether the patient knew what was being applied to the wound is secondary to the fact Lister knew what was being applied. Without the proper measurement equipment - he couldn't measure germ count - he had to rely on empirical observation.

What you have been arguing for months on end is that an alternative treatment - antiseptics - cannot be effective simply because it cannot be measured. Then you come along and contradict everything you've argued beforehand. Antiseptics were and are effective and the measurements came after the subjective, empirical "proof".

Old school thinking was replaced by a new technique that minimized the damage done by old school thinking (remember "damage the signal less" from the very beginning of this thread?).

That didn't make old school advocates very happy and they, like "one side" of the audio debates, insisted on measurements that only conformed to their old school of thinking, thus ensuring a failed experiment which gave them the opportunity to dismiss and ridicule the effectiveness of Lister's discoveries. Or, like uber-cynic, they simply refused to investigate what might be possible because they already knew it to be preposterous despite the increasing amounts of empirical data showing their beliefs not to be true.

I'm sure you missed the part where May mentioned the mocking statements made against Lister, you were busy reading what you cared to see that complied to your old school ways.

I know you don't want to read what doesn't conform to your way of seeing this, Buddha, but you're arguing for our "side" with this one. Please, keep up the good work, it makes "our" job so much more simple.

And now, if you would, point out where May has said she doesn't believe in blind testing? Once again, you are arguing something that only exists in your mind, something you made up. Just like you made up the ideas I hate Winer and I hate measurements, neither of which are true but serve your purpose of hating me and hating May and, well, just making up more crap.

You have a vivid imagination for someone so tied to the past and the impossible.

So please, tell us where May has denounced blind tests. And, as the old school saying goes, be a specific as possible.

Jan, Lister's results were very objective: Dead, not dead, infection, no infection.

Observational trials can be quite objective.

Just as you brilliantly mention the experiments with the lethality of twenty day old milk. You mentioned them noticing people 'dropping dead.'

That's an objective measurement.

May likes to pull examples of objective repeatable testing as examples of why objective testing doesn't work.

Lister had to make in indirect measurement to test his hypothesis.

In our cable trials, we didn't directly measure anything other than outcome - sound, and did not directly measure the cause.

Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.

Heck, Lister couldn't measure bacterial counts, white blood cell counts, how his measures worked (how they inhibited bacterial growth,) yet he managed to be very objective.

What do you suppose he based his findings on?

Jan, you throw bullshit like spaghetti, hoping to stick something to the wall. As to the ART system, we were originally discussing how it might work, not that it didn't.

Quote:
Observational trials can be quite objective.

Exactly! You're once again making "our side" look good.

Quote:
Just as you brilliantly mention the experiments with the lethality of twenty day old milk. You mentioned them noticing people 'dropping dead.'

That's an objective measurement.

And then someone said, "I can make them stop dropping dead by curdling the milk and injecting it with rennit that I've taken from the lining of a dead cow's stomach."

I'll bet the first time the old schooler's heard that, they ROTFLTAO!

Then they found out it was true and they had to stop rolling.

Guy, you are so on "our side"! Why didn't you try this explanation a year ago?

Quote:
May likes to pull examples of objective repeatable testing as examples of why objective testing doesn't work.

Awww, now, there you go, making crap up again. I asked you to be "specific", not to make up crap. If you're not going to play by "our" rules every now and then, take your old, dirty, deflated ball and head on home.

Quote:
In our cable trials, we didn't directly measure anything other than outcome - sound, and did not directly measure the cause.

Indirect measures are quite applicable when looking at outcomes.

Heck, Lister couldn't measure bacterial counts, white blood cell counts, how his measures worked (how they inhibited bacterial growth,) yet he managed to be very objective.

What do you suppose he based his findings on?

You don't realize what you just posted do you?

Keep up the good work.

Quote:
Jan, you throw bullshit like spaghetti, hoping to stick something to the wall. As to the ART system, we were originally discussing how it might work, not that it didn't.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You have go to be kidding?! You really don't remember that thread? Honestly?! That's what you think was going on there?!!!

Guy, just how long have you had this problem? This is getting ridiculous.

Back with the dumb ass ROTFLMAO.

Jan, you don't seem to able to figure out how hypothesis testing works.

That's OK.

Now, you are dodging questions, youself.

The list of Michigan's and Belt tweaks that did not work?

Quote:
The list of Michigan's and Belt tweaks that did not work?

Not possible. They all work! Dood, your ears must be filled with chewing gum. Or you've been listening to Ethan for too long.

--Ethan

Quote:

Quote:
The list of Michigan's and Belt tweaks that did not work?

Not possible. They all work! Dood, your ears must be filled with chewing gum. Or you've been listening to Ethan for too long.

--Ethan

No, Jan said some didn't work, but he won't say which.

Quote:
Back with the dumb ass ROTFLMAO.

Guy, that's all there is to say about your post.

Oh, what fun we had discussing how the ART system worked!

From the ART thread ...

Quote:
Even these fakers wouldn't leave you with just "Tibetan prayer bowls" as a design source. Some pseudo-science has to be involved for credibility.

$3000 for this junk! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Quote:

Other than your personality disorder, the thread has good stuff on it.

Quote:
But in this case the vendors were immoral and vile first just for offering this crap for sale and lying about what improvements one could expect. I imagine they must get a lot of returns anyway, especially at those prices!

Quote:
Either this dude is on to something or he has put the royal mind fuck on quite a few people. You decide for yourself.

Quote:
Those with half a brain and or clue would never do such a thing. those things a replacement for acoustic panels/traps? Step into reality, guy.

Quote:
Here's a Santa resonance bowl for your musical enjoyment.

Quote:
Mr. Weiner,

First let me say that in the 16 years I have been a manufacturer in the High End Audio industry, your conduct here and on other on-line forums is, by far, the least professional I have witnessed from a fellow manufacturer.

Quote:
Of course it's the new physics. It's called Optimal Wallet Extraction Theory

Quote:
This is, of course, a perfect audience for people such as yourself to make fraudulent claims. You should be happy about this. In such an environment, you should be able to maximize sales by taking a more low-key approach. This is the kind of environment where money can fly out of the wallets of others and into yours. By making an acoustics argument, as lame as yours is, you expose yourself to ridicule from people who actually know the subject.

In particular, your repeated references to Schroeder would likely make the guy fucking puke if he were to actually read what you wrote. So why don't you just crawl back into your hole and simply collect the big bucks, as you claim to have been doing already?

Quote:
I hope everyone who believe George's stance on Ethan Winer's "professionalism" will go to Ted's link and read all 23 pages! Please focus on all the Winer cheap shots and one liners,,,,,, there's a lot of them through out that thread,

Quote:
the folks that buy the sensible products with sound scientific principles backing said products will have nothing to do with ART, Machina Dynamica, furutech, mpingo or whoever the hell.

Quote:
I'll be very interested to see how Jan responds, and if he has the cajones to try to prove you wrong.

Quote:
Hey Jan, I have some questions for you, which I sincerely hope you will not dodge:

* How old are you?

* Do you have a job? If so, what is it?

* How much do you weigh?

* Please describe your hi-fi system in detail.

PLEASE ANSWER SOMETHING

--Ethan

Quote:
Syngergistic is in no way shape or form, any competition to legitimate acoustic treatment products. the guys that know about acoustics/treatment, etc have no interest in ART , mpingo, and the ilk.... again... SYNERGISTIC is no threat to the makers of legitimate acoustic treatment products...

Quote:
Jan reminds me of the old computer joke about WOM - Write Only Memory. Jan talk and talks and talks, and shouts, and insults, and complains, and demands answers from everyone he disagrees with. But he never reads or comprehends what others write. And he will never ever describe his hi-fi system because, well, we all know why.

--Ethan

Quote:
Well, consider that we already saw alleged measurements, and I showed how they were BS because the text and graph labels directly contradicted each other. So I can see only two possible outcomes from Ted measuring his devices again:

Quote:
Then to further improve things you could attach a couple of tice clocks and mpingo discs to the dog feces via the quantum clip. The resulting sonics could be overwhelming.

Quote:
If they choose to drink the tweaker's kool aide no one will dissuade them anyway. PT Barnum had a name for these folks and it wasn't rocket scientist.

Quote:
These ART system devices are a similar gimmick with no explanation of how they work or any supporting data. Maybe this will be remedied soon, maybe.... I shan't hold my breath.
But as I have always said, I don't care how you spend your money but I will challenge claims made by people manufacturing stupid, gimmick products. As a true skeptic should.
Many of the links to hokey products I have found on this site have made their way to my network of friends and colleagues who work in professional audio and broadcasting. The cables, the underpowered valve amps, the vinyl demagnetiser, the list goes on. They often write back to me to express their amusement and boggle at the ignoramuses that plunk down their money for such fake audio enhancers.
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! We go in unison

That should do the trick, things got very nasty after that point and until the thread was shut down. The above doesn't include the numerous posts that were deleted by SM nor does it include the posts from those few members I have on ignore.

Still, this should convince anyone that the ART thread was a technical mass-turd-piece of "discussing" how a system worked and not whether it worked.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!

Quote:
No, Jan said some didn't work, but he won't say which.

Nope! Not what I said.

You are making up more crap and I've said I am not going to get into any of the crap you ... "deposit" onto this thread.

Now, here's your chance to show you didn't just make up more crap ...

Quote:
So please, tell us where May has denounced blind tests. And, as the old school saying goes, be a specific as possible.

Answer please!