Alex of Uptone hypocrisy unbounded.

[Jinjuku]

Speak for yourself. My ears are just fine. Can tell the difference between an average clock and a low phase-noise one, a good or great power supply, and different film types in a capacitor--among a few hundred other things that are claimed to be irrelevant or inaudible.


But if one has no sense of music (or any natural, acoustic recordings), and no ability to close eyes, breath, and experience differences, then sure, such things don't matter.

You can't make this stuff up... I love the last sentence.

 

[amirm]

No one said he has common sense.

 

[Sal1950]

A top 10er in the run for Audiophool Of The Decade

 

[Blumlein 88]

A top 10er in the run for Audiophool Of The Decade

Beg to differ Sal. That might go to his customers. You have to hand it to him. He popularized the polluted USB that we can't measure, but we can hear idea. Once it was proven (I refer to the market was proven), everyone else is jumping in because it's free money.

 

[Cosmik]

Someone has already described this person's delusions and/or marketing tactics.

The emperor's ministers cannot see the clothes themselves, but pretend that they can for fear of appearing unfit for their positions, and the emperor does the same. Finally, the weavers report that the suit is finished, they mime dressing him, and the emperor marches in procession before his subjects. The townsfolk play along with the pretense, not wanting to appear unfit for their positions or stupid. Then, a child in the crowd, too young to understand the desirability of keeping up the pretense, blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all, and the cry is taken up by others. The emperor suspects the assertion is true but continues the procession.

 

[Nightlord]

Someone has already described this person's delusions and/or marketing tactics.

That's foresight... not many hifi dealers around in 1837...

 

[Sal1950]

Beg to differ Sal. That might go to his customers. You have to hand it to him. He popularized the polluted USB that we can't measure, but we can hear idea. Once it was proven (I refer to the market was proven), everyone else is jumping in because it's free money.

Yes you are correct. The more appropriate place would be in the "Top 10 Audio Snake Oil Salespersons Of The Year".

 

[Fitzcaraldo215]

Yes you are correct. The more appropriate place would be in the "Top 10 Audio Snake Oil Salespersons Of The Year".

Oh, Alex is up there, supported by his engineering buddy Swenson (of Lowthers in paper tubes fame). They do make a formidable new combination of snake oil seemingly blessed by Swenson's technical, but, alas, unmeasurable, expertise. You just have to trust him.

But, Alex is still bush league and he has a long way to go to catch up to such long established masters of the game, like Ted Denny III of Synergistic, Bill Low of AudioQuest, those Shunyata guys, and so many more.

 

[Purité Audio]

That's what I call snake oil, thankfully there are some genuine , innovative engineers working in the field of sound reproduction .
Keith

 

[Deleted member 65]

I have to give him his business invention idea, having one of the bigger computer audio sites supporting him and assembling crowds supporting his product. Embarrased to say I bought his product, in sort of favour of me I evaluated it and sold it on ... Sorry all, I should have known better.

 

[Thomas savage]

I have to give him his business invention idea, having one of the bigger computer audio sites supporting him and assembling crowds supporting his product. Embarrased to say I bought his product, in sort of favour of me I evaluated it and sold it on ... Sorry all, I should have known better.

It's good to try stuff, we are meant to investigate.

 

[Jakob1863]

Speak for yourself. My ears are just fine. Can tell the difference between an average clock and a low phase-noise one, a good or great power supply, and different film types in a capacitor--among a few hundred other things that are claimed to be irrelevant or inaudible.


But if one has no sense of music (or any natural, acoustic recordings), and no ability to close eyes, breath, and experience differences, then sure, such things don't matter.

You can't make this stuff up... I love the last sentence.

well, i can´t say, if he hears what he claims, but at least in the case of the different film types in capacitors he probably has a point, as that was indeed the very first controlled listening test, that we´ve done in the beginning of the 1980s. :=)
And we could confirm some other things claimed to be irrelevant or inaudible as well.

Beside that, should this sort of crossover bashing really take place in a forum named "audiosciencereview" ?

To point out that the attribution of (maybe existent) sonic differences to technical/physical properties without further experimental confirmation isn´t appropriate - especially if presented as fact - is a good thing, but everything else ?

 

[The Smokester]

...
To point out that the attribution of (maybe existent) sonic differences to technical/physical properties without further experimental confirmation isn´t appropriate - especially if presented as fact - is a good thing, but everything else ?

I think it would be reasonable to present such attributions if they were clearly represented as hypotheses, that technical reasons were shown and a clear path to measurements and validation was given.

 

[Jakob1863]

I think it would be reasonable to present such attributions if they were clearly represented as hypotheses, that technical reasons were shown and a clear path to measurements and validation was given.

Thanks, the first part is what i wanted to express....
Wrt to the second part, i do not agree as a manufacturer not necessarily has to know which specific technical cause explains a (maybe existent) effect.

 

[The Smokester]

Thanks, the first part is what i wanted to express....
Wrt to the second part, i do not agree as a manufacturer not necessarily has to know which specific technical cause explains a (maybe existent) effect.

Yes. There is the Edisonian mode of product development where you just try it and see. In science, this can lead to fortuitous and "disruptive" discoveries beyond current theory but counting on "luck" isn't much of a business plan. In practice a manufacturer will want to say "enough is enough" and get the product out the door before he goes bankrupt.

Others may want to know more: Does the product really work or is it snake oil? Is it appropriate to my system? Are there beneficial synergies to make it perform even better! Is it masking other issues in my system? How can I improve the product?

Answering the above questions requires a basic understanding.

 

[Cosmik]

To point out that the attribution of (maybe existent) sonic differences to technical/physical properties without further experimental confirmation isn´t appropriate - especially if presented as fact - is a good thing, but everything else ?

Clearly, it simply isn't possible to obtain experimental confirmation of every audiophile superstition - there isn't enough time even if you were prepared to dedicate your life to the task of disproving other people's fantasies. So it has to be a case of weighing up possibilities: does the person making the claims have a history of claims that logic and rationality tell us are false? Are they claiming to hear something that cannot be measured? Are they claiming to hear something that even if measurable would be physically silent (i.e. way below the threshold of human hearing by a large margin) even if not masked by the main signal? Are they confused over how the technical apsects of audio work? If so, then at least their explanation for what they think they are hearing would take you on a wild goose chase.

Most importantly, any wise audiophile quickly establishes that their own hearing is fallible and that they can be fooled into hearing what they expect to hear. Does this person give the signs of possessing that particular wisdom? If not, you may as well save your time and sanity by leaving them to their delusions.

 

[DonH56]

From an old, old post...

People like to help each other, and do not like it when their help is questioned. Beliefs enter into it, people get riled, conversation degenerates.

Example:

A: I just added a new Pet Rock to my system, the imaging is better, a veil was lifted, bass is better, you have to get one of these!
B. I do not see how a pet rock can do any of that. Have you measured the system?
A: Why would I care about measurements? I can hear it!
B. There's no way a pet rock can do that. Without measurements, you have no proof.
A: What do you mean "no proof"? Didn't I just say I can hear a difference?
B: That is not proof. You need to run a controlled test, have somebody place and remove the pet rock several times and see if you can tell when it is there.
A: I don't need some test, I can tell it works! And I just had my friend over and he heard it too so there!
B: That's ridiculous you are both nuts. I'm just trying to save you money.
A: OK, I found an article by the Pet Rock Sound chief engineer. I don't understand it, but he says it aligns the molecular flow of the universe inside my room and that's why it works.
B: Sounds like marketing. What measurements did they take?
A: There's a graph, it shows ripples in the force without the Pet Rock that are gone when it is added. Happy now?
B: No, that is meaningless. You are all mad.
A: Well, prove it! Measure the molecular flow with and without a Pet Rock and see the difference! Then you can see and show us all why it works.
B: That is nuts and I don't have anything like that kind of equipment.
A: Then you can't prove it doesn't work! You're a geek with no ears!
B: You have so much expectation bias it is running out of your ears. No wonder you think you hear something.
A; Snooty objectivist scumbag.
B: Ignorant gullible subjectivist.
<Thread closed>

THIS IS ONLY AN EXAMPLE! No relation to any actual people, audio systems, or Pet Rocks is implied. No Pet Rocks were harmed in the making of this post.

 

[Jakob1863]

@Cosmik,

usually all our senses are fallible but (in all shortness) that doesn´t prevent people from using successfully their sense to fullfill their tasks; most would be aware that they can be fooled but will also be quite right in thinking that they were not fooled all the time. Working in any of those fields otherwise wouldn´t be possible.

As said before, i can not know what this guy hears, but belittleing in a crossover style imo isn´t appropriate for a forum named audiosciencereview.

 

[Thomas savage]

@Cosmik,

usually all our senses are fallible but (in all shortness) that doesn´t prevent people from using successfully their sense to fullfill their tasks; most would be aware that they can be fooled but will also be quite right in thinking that they were not fooled all the time. Working in any of those fields otherwise wouldn´t be possible.

As said before, i can not know what this guy hears, but belittleing in a crossover style imo isn´t appropriate for a forum named audiosciencereview.

Fair comment

 

[Cosmik]

@Cosmik,

usually all our senses are fallible but (in all shortness) that doesn´t prevent people from using successfully their sense to fullfill their tasks; most would be aware that they can be fooled but will also be quite right in thinking that they were not fooled all the time. Working in any of those fields otherwise wouldn´t be possible.

As said before, i can not know what this guy hears, but belittleing in a crossover style imo isn´t appropriate for a forum named audiosciencereview.

In previous threads I have pointed out that the world is built by people doing what they do "sighted" - so we are obviously not completely deluded all the time.

But there isn't the time in the universe to prove all audiophile superstitions right or wrong. Nor is it actually possible to prove them right or wrong (as I was saying in another thread). All you have left is to weigh up the likelihood of whether a "pet rock" being promoted by a person of dubious technical or philosophical qualifications, will change the sound even though its effects cannot be measured by any test you can devise.