advertisement


Is this for real?

paulfromcamden said:
I see this sort of esoterica as basically New Age Audio - like healing crystals and courses to open your chakras.

To me it's bonkers but I don't really see the harm.
Click to expand...

I agree that the 'explanations' of how they affect sound seem incomprehensible.having said that - these items do change the sound (often, but not always,for the better). There are several DIY videos on Youtube, but some are coy re the 'magic' filling(s(
 
andrews said:
I agree that the 'explanations' of how they affect sound seem incomprehensible.having said that - these items do change the sound (often, but not always,for the better). There are several DIY videos on Youtube, but some are coy re the 'magic' filling(s(
Click to expand...
They do affect sound, by influencing the listeners’ imaginations. And their wallets as well.
There is no mystery in that. It’s like homeopathy.
It appears to have an effect. It all happens in the gull’s brain.
 
chartz said:
They do affect sound, by influencing the listeners’ imaginations. And their wallets as well.
There is no mystery in that. It’s like homeopathy.
It appears to have an effect. It all happens in the gull’s brain.
Click to expand...

In my case I ghave tried direct earthing - an (expensive) Gutwire a changed the sound in a way I did not like, when attached to my steamer or pre-amp (so sent back), but a (home made) earthing wire on my Etherregen has remained in situ. My conscious is thus is tune with my wallet.
 
stevec67 said:
Are they Mackems too? I was wondering myself whether Washington (T&W) was Tackems or Mackems, not being entirely sure of where the line is there.
Click to expand...
What should I Google to figure out what you guys are talking about? Or is it even worth it? :D
 
booja30 said:
What should I Google to figure out what you guys are talking about? Or is it even worth it? :D
Click to expand...
I'll save you the trouble. The NE of England is traditionally associated with shipping. The town of Sunderland was involved in shipbuilding, the City of Newcastle upon Tyne with seafaring. In the local parlance, people from Sunderland who worked with ships would "Mak 'em" (Make them),; those from Newcastle would "Tak 'em" (Take them to sea). The two towns have a friendly (!) rivalry, being based on either side of one of the area's rivers, and have as a result historically referred to each other as Mackems and Tackems.
 
stevec67 said:
I'll save you the trouble. The NE of England is traditionally associated with shipping. The town of Sunderland was involved in shipbuilding, the City of Newcastle upon Tyne with seafaring. In the local parlance, people from Sunderland who worked with ships would "Mak 'em" (Make them),; those from Newcastle would "Tak 'em" (Take them to sea). The two towns have a friendly (!) rivalry, being based on either side of one of the area's rivers, and have as a result historically referred to each other as Mackems and Tackems.
Click to expand...
Worth pointing out that Washington is a part of Sunderland, most people not from the UK probably don’t realise that there’s a place in the UK called Washington, which is George Washington’s ancestral home.
 
stevec67 said:
There is no clear difference between fraud and making a false claim to sell goods. Remember that Russ Abbot and his cable nonsense has been prosecuted by Trading Stds. As with any other dubious activity it is a question of degree, and unlike you I see no clear line between "your roof needs looking at love" and "you'll never get the best out of this amplifier with a cheap mains cable" .
Click to expand...
I think you’re mistaken. He was required to withdraw and reword an ad by the ASA (the regulator). I don’t believe he was prosecuted for trading standards offences.
 
stevec67 said:
Prosecuted or not, he was dealt with by the authorities for false claims.
Click to expand...
not criminally as you claimed. You’re quick to defend supermarkets against accusations of using sweatshops, but casually spray round incorrect and damaging assertions about people you clearly don’t approve of. Andrews made a technical claim he ultimately couldn’t substantiate to the satisfaction of the regulator. (Noting that the regulator doesn’t employ technical experts in its caseworkers). He was asked to correct and he did. You stated he’d committed a criminal offence, and you’re this casual about the error?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
not criminally as you claimed. You’re quick to defend supermarkets against accusations of using sweatshops, but casually spray round incorrect and damaging assertions about people you clearly don’t approve of. Andrews made a technical claim he ultimately couldn’t substantiate to the satisfaction of the regulator. (Noting that the regulator doesn’t employ technical experts in its caseworkers). He was asked to correct and he did. You stated he’d committed a criminal offence, and you’re this casual about the error?
Click to expand...
I do not believe that a false claim is automatically a criminal offence. Whether his transgression was dealt with by prosecution by a TSO or via soft policing, requirement to take it down, etc is a detail. He was making an unsubstantiated claim, the authorities dealt with him.
I defend supermarkets against claims of sweatshop labour because I know that they go to great lengths to trade ethically, and spend a lot of time working with suppliers, who are independently audited. I have experience at first hand of having to provide them with proof of fair employment all the way through the supply chain. I have provided evidence of these activities here.
I have not seen any evidence that RA has done any comparable work to justify his claims, even though I have looked. I would like to see some. If he were to supply anything to justify his claims, I'd be more inclined to accept them.
So on the one hand we have organisations spending tens of thousands every year to justify their position, on the other not.
 
stevec67 said:
I do not believe that a false claim is automatically a criminal offence. Whether his transgression was dealt with by prosecution by a TSO or via soft policing, requirement to take it down, etc is a detail.
Click to expand...
You stated he'd been prosecuted, which is a clear statement of criminal guilt (civil offences aren't 'prosecuted' as such, they're just civil proceedings. And ASA regulation in this context is neither.). You were mistaken. I corrected you and you've doubled-down on it rather than acknowledge the correction.

It's not a detail. I, like you, work in a field which is very heavily regulated. There's a clear distinction, as I'm sure you recognise, between a minor or inadvertent transgression, and a deliberate, wilful or reckless and egregious breach. Not to mention the shades in-between. And these are treated differently by the regulator. Your statement could easily have led readers to believe it was the latter, when you have nothing to substantiate it.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
You stated he'd been prosecuted, which is a clear statement of criminal guilt (civil offences aren't 'prosecuted' as such, they're just civil proceedings. And ASA regulation in this context is neither.). You were mistaken. I corrected you and you've doubled-down on it rather than acknowledge the correction.

It's not a detail. I, like you, work in a field which is very heavily regulated. There's a clear distinction, as I'm sure you recognise, between a minor or inadvertent transgression, and a deliberate, wilful or reckless and egregious breach. Not to mention the shades in-between. And these are treated differently by the regulator. Your statement could easily have led readers to believe it was the latter, when you have nothing to substantiate it.
Click to expand...
A prosecution is not a statement of criminal guilt. I can be prosecuted for a driving or civil offence, after all. As I said earlier and you say above, all of this is a question of degree and intent.
 
You're mistaken. You're not 'prosecuted' for a civil offence. Driving offences which you can be prosecuted for are criminal offences. And he hadn't committed an offence, civil or otherwise, he'd crossed a regulatory line, which is very different as you well know. And yet you continue to double down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top