Bullsh** claims by manufacturers? - share your best ones.....

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

Not yet in the UK, but regulation is in place or being prepared in other countries. And then we have stuff like Ban homeopathy from NHS, say doctors

‘Regulation ‘ or banning?

And not making homeopathic treatments available under a publicly funded health scheme is not banning, it is rather ensuring consistency with other standards of evidence required by, eg, NIHCE.

The point remains, broadly, that banning something because you don’t see the point is the act of a tyrant. If you can’t point to actual harm, exploitation or malign intent that people have the right to expect the state to protect them from, then the state should butt out.

 

[Julf]

The point remains, broadly, that banning something because you don’t see the point is the act of a tyrant. If you can’t point to actual harm, exploitation or malign intent that people have the right to expect the state to protect them from, then the state should butt out.

People have very different standards for what the state should protect them from. Just some data points: Forbes - 24 Stunningly Dumb Warning Labels

BTW, I am not arguing for or against, I am simply trying to point out different viewpoints.

 

[Buntobox]

Unfortunately, you are not right. Digital cables do sound different. And, believe, for many years I was exactly like you - digital is digital and bit is bit. And, I had two cables Oyaide and Chord, both proper 75ohm COAX. and sound delivered by them is different. Couldn't believe until I Heard it by myself in my system. I just borów the Chord from my friend just to make a test whether it will make any change.

Given the nature of digital transmission, can you give a scientific explanation of how you regard this as being possible, or is it simply a subjective assessment?

 

[Yomanze]

Unfortunately, you are not right. Digital cables do sound different. And, believe, for many years I was exactly like you - digital is digital and bit is bit. And, I had two cables Oyaide and Chord, both proper 75ohm COAX. and sound delivered by them is different. Couldn't believe until I Heard it by myself in my system. I just borów the Chord from my friend just to make a test whether it will make any change.

...so you are using BNC connectors for your cable, and BNC sockets for the transport & DAC side? This is the only way to get a proper 75R connection.

 

[Yomanze]

Given the nature of digital transmission, can you give a scientific explanation of how you regard this as being possible, or is it simply a subjective assessment?

Scientific explanation is pretty simple; impedance mismatches can cause signal reflections, which can alter the transition point of a signal (the clock) if a reflection arrives during the transition point.

Having said this, there are many systems and recovery schemes in place that pretty much make this a non-issue.

 

[Julf]

Scientific explanation is pretty simple; impedance mismatches can cause signal reflections, which can alter the transition point of a signal (the clock) if a reflection arrives during the transition point. The data side is extremely easy to recover, but the clock side is in fact an analogue signal.

Only applies to old-fashioned DACs that derive their master clock from the incoming data. Even they use a phase-locked loop with a filter to minimize the effect of incoming jitter.

 

[Yomanze]

Only applies to old-fashioned DACs that derive their master clock from the incoming data. Even they use a phase-locked loop with a filter to minimize the effect of incoming jitter.

Agreed, see my second line that I must had added just before your post.

 

[mrkaramba]

...so you are using BNC connectors for your cable, and BNC sockets for the transport & DAC side? This is the only way to get a proper 75R connection.

Both cables were RCA. I have RCA output in my player and BNC input in DAC, so I use RCA to BNC adapter.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

People have very different standards for what the state should protect them from. Just some data points: Forbes - 24 Stunningly Dumb Warning Labels

BTW, I am not arguing for or against, I am simply trying to point out different viewpoints.

Fair enough. But my take on all this is that the general tenor of the argument against 'foo' runs something like this:

'I don't believe this works. I am outraged that some shyster will be making money from marks who don't know better. It should not be allowed and they should ban it, for the marks' own protection'.

My view is that banning stuff because it offends you is not smart. It is the thin end of the wedge, the start of a slippery slope. The act of a tyrant, if you like. This week, we ban foo. Next week, maybe we ban homeopathy. Then alcohol because, well obvious really. The week after, maybe we ban immodest dress for women, because lots of people get offended at that too.

My further view is that perception is a funny thing. As we are often told on here. So if a product achieves its aim not by technical means but by messing with our heads, if the aim is nevertheless achieved, is it not an effective product? So why would you ban it?

Once you get past the outrage, the ethics and morals are really quite interesting, don't you think?

 

[Purité Audio]

You can buy that sort of stuff Sue just makes you look really, really gullible.
Keith

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

You can buy that sort of stuff Sue just makes you look really, really gullible.
Keith

OK, taking your post at face value (not sure it deserves it, but hey), we know that, ahem, certain people on here advocate blind testing on the grounds that the brain is easily fooled by the eyes. What this seems to mean is that if you know what you are listening to, you may perceive its performance differently than if you don't know. That seems to suggest quite strongly that perception can be influenced by external factors. It is, indeed, the very cornerstone of your blind testing ethos.

So, what you are arguing is that a person may perceive a product's performance differently, if they are aware of things which may not necessarily be reflected in the technical design.

We also know that stereo is itself a way to fool our perceptions and that various lossy codecs use models of human perception to fool the brain into hearing what isn't always there; and that hearing, like taste, is relative, ie can be affected by other factors such as background noise. So, we don't have any objection, in principle, to manipulating our perception to get the desired result.

What you seem to be saying is that the only 'legitimate' way to manipulate our perception is by technological means. Why are psychological means not permissible?

 

[Purité Audio]

I am just saying that spending money on something which cannot possibly bring any gain in sound quality appears rather foolish.
Why not spend the time,effort and resources on something that doesn’t rely on your ‘belief’ that they work.
Improvement that are obvious sighted/unsighted and that can even be measured.

Keith

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

My problem with that is that measured performance doesn't always or necessarily correlate to musical enjoyment. So if I get my musical enjoyment by having my head messed with, and the technical option just doesn't get me going to the same extent, why on Earth would I take the technical option? Would that not make me appear rather fooliosh?

 

[Purité Audio]

Before we can discuss ‘musical enjoyment’ we have to determine whether the new component alters the sound at all, ask a friend to connect/disconnect the cat litter boxes if you can reliably pick their inclusion, only then you can decide whether they are an improvement .
Keith

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

You're just not getting it Keith, and you can't resist the cheap jibes (cat litter boxes), can you? So I'll leave it there. Given your affinity for the ablity to listen, you're simply not hearing my message at all.

 

[Lee T]

Before we can discuss ‘musical enjoyment’ we have to determine whether the new component alters the sound at all, ask a friend to connect/disconnect the cat litter boxes if you can reliably pick their inclusion, only then you can decide whether they are an improvement .
Keith

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

Only way to determine is blind, do it often when trying new equipment, can be lots of fun.

Only caveat is, we then choose on sound alone Keith, measurements matter not when tested blind.
And before you say it......not all who measure well will suit the individual, then we are back to my earlier point, if you like it, nothing else matters.

 

[narabdela]

My view is that banning stuff because it offends you is not smart. It is the thin end of the wedge, the start of a slippery slope. The act of a tyrant, if you like. This week, we ban foo. Next week, maybe we ban homeopathy. Then alcohol because, well obvious really. The week after, maybe we ban immodest dress for women, because lots of people get offended at that too.

I don't think that any sane person could disagree with the above, but I think you're twisting the discussion here. No-one is suggesting banning foo, as long as it stays within the bounds set by Advertising Standards. The Russ Andrews DDE-1 is a perfect example, it carefully avoids claiming to do anything. However there are people out there with a tenuous grasp of Physics/Chemistry/Medicine/whatever, who believe claims made by the snake-oil salesmen. I reserve the right to try and point them in the right direction. It's up to them if they choose to ignore advice, but I feel morally obliged to give it.

We were discussing the ethics and morals of the situation, weren't we?

 

[hc25036]

OK, taking your post at face value (not sure it deserves it, but hey), we know that, ahem, certain people on here advocate blind testing on the grounds that the brain is easily fooled by the eyes. What this seems to mean is that if you know what you are listening to, you may perceive its performance differently than if you don't know. That seems to suggest quite strongly that perception can be influenced by external factors. It is, indeed, the very cornerstone of your blind testing ethos.

So, what you are arguing is that a person may perceive a product's performance differently, if they are aware of things which may not necessarily be reflected in the technical design.

We also know that stereo is itself a way to fool our perceptions and that various lossy codecs use models of human perception to fool the brain into hearing what isn't always there; and that hearing, like taste, is relative, ie can be affected by other factors such as background noise. So, we don't have any objection, in principle, to manipulating our perception to get the desired result.

What you seem to be saying is that the only 'legitimate' way to manipulate our perception is by technological means. Why are psychological means not permissible?

Sue - I really try to stay away from these threads, but your comments here made me pause for thought (in a good way!). My view is deeply objective, based on a long education and career in experimental science where allowing 'bias' to have a significant effect could, literally, be life-threatening for patients. I spent 30-odd years trying to identify where bias may have an effect and setting about trying to remove or at least minimise it. I brought that world view to these threads over the years.

Now I find myself thinking that even though I reckon the only reason for anyone to believe that (eg) cable lifters work is pure expectation bias, what the hell. If they sit down and feel better about the sound with bits of perspex in their eyeline, so what?

But here's the rub. I've performed and taken part in psychology experiments where even 1st year students were able to show that 'subjects' can be manipulated to change behaviour or believe that orange ice cream always tastes of oranges by such daft things as a white coat, or having a well turned out (in those days we said 'pretty'!) girl changing from standing behind the subject during the experiment to sitting on the bench next to them. Even adding a clipboard to the scenario changed the outcome in some cognitive tests. Salesmen know this, sometimes trained, sometimes instinctively. Clever shysters definitely know this. That's why I feel the need to sometimes join in these threads.

 

[Lee T]

I don't think that any sane person could disagree with the above, but I think you're twisting the discussion here. No-one is suggesting banning foo, as long as it stays within the bounds set by Advertising Standards. The Russ Andrews DDE-1 is a perfect example, it carefully avoids claiming to do anything. However there are people out there with a tenuous grasp of Physics/Chemistry/Medicine/whatever, who believe claims made by the snake-oil salesmen. I reserve the right to try and point them in the right direction. It's up to them if they choose to ignore advice, but I feel morally obliged to give it.

We were discussing the ethics and morals of the situation, weren't we?

I suppose the problem is, when someone states their cable improves the sound of their system, when carried out blind in a test of various cables, it's up to the person, claiming this cannot be, to show why & give clear examples, otherwise it's meaningless as the person stating an improvement has done his/her part by listening blind, if a manufacturer claims something, you disagree with it, surely only correct to test the individual item yourself for clarity before dismissing.
Anyone can stand up & claim a giveaway interconnect cable, one of those string like creatures , will sound identical to an after market cable, but where is the clarity, where is the science to prove this, have the individual cables been tested by the claimant?

Concerning the above post by hc25036, do you not agree that bias works both ways, An earlier post claimed he & friends & family agreed that the giveaway cable sounded identical to an aftermarket job, now this was carried out sighted with bias towards the negative, the person then claims this is fact, how can this be shown to be a scientific method of testing, it's full of obvious flaws.

Blind is the only way to determine a difference/improvement.
If the result doesn't fit with scientific knowledge, where does this leave us.
I'm still yet to see a single scientific piece of evidence on any cable thread to show why the giveaway cable should sound identical to the aftermarket cable, just some spouting, it just has to be, based on science, what science precisely.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I think you're twisting the discussion here. No-one is suggesting banning foo

To be fair, I think Julf was suggesting banning. I'm not deliberately twisting the discussion, but I am trying to take it in a different, possibly more interesting and thought-provoking, direction than the usual 'look at these muppets, what a load of ****ers' that the OP made pretty inevitable. Mightn't that be a better use of electrons?

But to take your point, I'm fine with your moral argument, but look at it from another angle. First, you need to rid yourself of preconceptions and bias (eg the use of 'snake oil salesmen'). Just to try a little thought experiment:

Let's say that an eminent psychologist with a string of PhDs and honorary professorships knows a thing or two about auditory perception. He knows (strings of peer-reviewed papers) that what people perceive can depend on what they believe. So he designs a black box and tells people it uses obscure and subtle technical means to improve the sound of a hifi system. He tells people that with the box connected, they'll hear more expressive playing, better timing, greater dynamic range. And lo and behold, people report that they do indeed perceive those improvements.

He's not a snake oil salesman, he's a scientist conducting an experiment into human perception. This is good, because this is science, right?

Now, put yourselves in the heads of his experimental subjects. You unplug the box, and their hifi systems collapse back to what they knew before. They are bereft. It takes a week of no music before they can bring themselves to listen to their systems again.

Put the box back in, enjoyment resumes. Does it really matter if the box is full of cat litter, not electronic components?

Now just to close this argument. What if our professor knows that the enjoyment perceived is completely real and genuine, but that if he told people the truth, nobody would enjoy it. So he devises a marketing campaign to use his knowledge of psychology to enable people to gain more pleasure from their systems. Their enjoyment is genuine. Is he still a cynical snake oil salesman?