I cannot do any of that - it's not something in which I have any expertise and I don't get pleasure from mucking around with computers these days.
Aesthetics and ease of use are also considerations for me when choosing equipment, but not at the expense of sound quality. The basis for a conclusion might be very much flawed but it doesn't necessarily mean the conclusion is incorrect - it simply means that I cannot explain why on a technical basis.
This allows my opinion to be disregarded, which is fine, but many others conclude the same and I cannot recall anyone getting this product and complaining on forums that it did absolutely nothing (I accept that people might be unwilling to say that but you also do not see large numbers of used ones coming up for sale and negative comments about products are usually somewhat elevated these days - more people will usually take the time to post negative comments than positive ones).
As I have mentioned before, the biggest thing for me was transients - particularly in percussion and strings. I'm not sure this is measured but I suspect that this is very important to the feeling that you get from the music. The problem with relating these sort of thing on this type of forum is that these comments are entirely disregarded, which I understand, given the nature of the forum, but it doesn't mean I am wrong. It just results in a circular discussion between those who have heard it and those who have not heard it.
And yes, I am aware that the device in isolation does not produce a sound...
Rather than effects "probably" being imagined it might be more accurate to say "possibly" imagined - I am open to the possibility of possibilities.
That's fine that you can't explain it in detail. But just to make sure, you hold to the claim that just simply the process of resampling is what is bringing to fruition all of these changes VS a system without the M-Scaler for instance?
Do you perhaps have any links I can go to, to perhaps learn about the process itself (be it a company whitepaper, or any other thing like peer reviewed work that contains the information we're looking for on how any of this works?). I don't need to know how it works for the M-Scaler specifically, just how this works AT ALL in any form. Be that a top down explanation, a simple abstract outline, or a specific phase in the change of processing where that phase is the transition point to where now that sound has achieved all those things you spoke of. [No for this request is also fine]
Because I agree with the things you say about the delivery of the claim not having much of anything to do with the level of truth of the claim itself. But you downplay the consequence. You say that this allows your opinion to be disregarded - as if that's the end of the ordeal... But that's not the end of it. Because your opinion/experience isn't novel, it's actually explained by brain phenomena (bias, imprinting, visual connection, and things of that nature that I mentioned before like enjoying music more when you're in a better mood, or hearing things that aren't there in the case of McGurk Effect, which I recommend you Youtube if you really want to see it in action for yourself, to see how linked our audio-visual system actually is).
People aren't disregarding your opinion, (as a complete disregard, would be calling you a liar). Instead we're saying the cause of your experience isn't what you presume it to be (a function of the devices operation, VS the mentally primed expectation bias that it most likely is).
You mention "no one complaining about it, that has purchased it". But I can also complain, no one that has purchased it, has come remotely close to getting material needed to prove it works with the results you claim it is capable of on a technical level.
You also speak in another post where you feel it's proper for folks like us to say: "I assume it does nothing" or "I don't believe it does anything" rather than stating that "it does nothing" as if it were a fact.
But we are saying that, and the longer time passes without anyone to come up with the requirements to prove the claim on some level as I am requesting, it makes our assumption more likely to be the case, rather than the anecdotal claims that you yourself are aware are quite disregard-able. In fact if you are aware of how the mind interpolates and conjures experiences based on multiple factors - you would be actually the one that would need to take on this same position as you advocate for us to take on. You can say "I think I hear a difference", until the day comes where you show the mechanism that accounts for the perception you've had, and can reproduce it. THEN you can say you actually hear it, and that we need to stop saying there isn't a difference, or that even our opinions of cautiously "assuming a difference" (like you advised us to take currently) are also now without standing and the claim needs to be degraded further from our side.
On a more meta level, you also need to think about some things you say. Like about how there's a religous sort of feel about the veracity of our exclamations and perhaps our default stances on things. But that begs questions..
See it from a third person view.
Company selling a product you rarely see anywhere. Claims to do borderline magic. People who buy it, defend it at the pain of disregarding any scientific or objectively verifiable stance. Even though this method of proofs is more logic leaning, than simply the anecdotal defenses of those who defend the device as if it stands on it's own and would benefit the world if it was a standard component of audio chains. Said customers join together on forums telling everyone things like the other poster "just open your mind" and "believe", and "just try it". With not much else.
Now us:
Bunch of people speaking out against the marketing claims of an owner who defies basic human capability, saying he can hear -300dB down (artifacts, let alone a clean signal itself). Want proof or at least explanation how any of these functions would produce these claimed effects in theory. Never get such proof even though it would be trivial for the company or any audio engineer to do. Warn people to be skeptical for the sake of not spending on money to buy things for claims that can't be verified (take note how we're not trying to ward people away from buying pretty things, or expensive things, we're warning against bogus claims usually fueled by marketing departments).
Yet at the end of the day, we're some sort of religion by some accounts? Religion of what? Telling people NOT to spend their money on things? What sort of selfish benefit do you think we're imparting upon ourselves upholding a stance like this?
To me, these sorts of characterizations make no sense. At the end of the day, it doesn't seem you're so far logically lost as some folks that stroll around here. But you can see, from an outsider perspective, one side demanding proof, is hardly in a worse position than those that posit something without said proof. Surely you would agree seeing as how you understand your own position since saying yourself, that your opinion can be disregarded (evidently because you understand like any normal person would, if you don't bring as much proof, it's only logical a position loses thrust)?
One thing I hope though, is you see your opinion isn't disregarded by "all on this forum". Or do you think our religious fanatics (or just me in this case particularly) would be typing this much for someone who is being disregarded?
