Saw that one myself!
Even by the GON standards that is blatantly criminal!!!
Even by the GON standards that is blatantly criminal!!!
I think I've Just Seen Absolute Proof That Audiophiles Are Insanely Gullible
I didn’t want to crap on someone’s sales thread, so I thought i’d post my amazement here. The focus of my disbelief? The "Dalby D7-Vinyl Stabilizer," which is a damn weight that screws onto the turntable spindle to hold the record securely onto the platter. Listed retail? 4000 British Pounds! (although a mag listed it at $6,800! On sale here at AudioGullible for the bargain basement price of 2500 British Pounds, or $3600 US dollars!!! Just read a few snippets of the sales ad . . .
"The D7-Vinyl Stabiliser has a sonic character that brings music to life and the ability to elevate the entire audio frequency from the veil and mechanics inherent in prerecorded music. The gains are immediate, with sweeter high frequency extension while the mid and lower registers are beautifully controlled. The soundscape is wider, higher and deeper, allowing the music to breathe more naturally."
I’m sorry, but I’m calling total BS on this. A friggin’ weight brings "music to life," "sweeter high frequency extension," "allowing the music to breathe more naturally . ." Come on. Its a modified paperweight that screws onto the platter. One can only imagine what this guy thinks about some $20K interconnects for the turntable -- the music probably writes itself! And don’t forget the amazing improvement that a $4,000 carbon fiber mat might add . . . You probably would think you were hallucinating because the music breathed so much it was oozing out of the speakers, like on some of my more memorable nights in college in the ’70’s.
Now I have never heard this amazing gift to the audiophile community, so maybe it is the audio equivalent of the Second Coming, but really? $5,800 for this? It confirms to me that there is a certain insanity/gullibility/too much money/snake oil in this so-called "hobby," (which is a hobby to customers and ridiculous business for some manufacturers). When is enough enough? What about audiophile paint, that has amazing sonic qualities to cut down reflection and make the soundstage so wide that you feel you need a new apartment? Don’t forget the audiophile couch, that is sonically neutral but promises to position your ears to "bring music to life?" OK, I’ve made my point. No offense to the seller of the snake oil, but really . . . When is enough enough?
This concludes my rant for today. :)
"The D7-Vinyl Stabiliser has a sonic character that brings music to life and the ability to elevate the entire audio frequency from the veil and mechanics inherent in prerecorded music. The gains are immediate, with sweeter high frequency extension while the mid and lower registers are beautifully controlled. The soundscape is wider, higher and deeper, allowing the music to breathe more naturally."
I’m sorry, but I’m calling total BS on this. A friggin’ weight brings "music to life," "sweeter high frequency extension," "allowing the music to breathe more naturally . ." Come on. Its a modified paperweight that screws onto the platter. One can only imagine what this guy thinks about some $20K interconnects for the turntable -- the music probably writes itself! And don’t forget the amazing improvement that a $4,000 carbon fiber mat might add . . . You probably would think you were hallucinating because the music breathed so much it was oozing out of the speakers, like on some of my more memorable nights in college in the ’70’s.
Now I have never heard this amazing gift to the audiophile community, so maybe it is the audio equivalent of the Second Coming, but really? $5,800 for this? It confirms to me that there is a certain insanity/gullibility/too much money/snake oil in this so-called "hobby," (which is a hobby to customers and ridiculous business for some manufacturers). When is enough enough? What about audiophile paint, that has amazing sonic qualities to cut down reflection and make the soundstage so wide that you feel you need a new apartment? Don’t forget the audiophile couch, that is sonically neutral but promises to position your ears to "bring music to life?" OK, I’ve made my point. No offense to the seller of the snake oil, but really . . . When is enough enough?
This concludes my rant for today. :)
132 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
GON is not a policeman of crazy stuff on here. But It just galls me that anyone would fall for this type of exaggerated tweak on such ridiculous claims. I would hope that people on here, even the $10K cable people, get some common sense on this type of nonsense. What is this Tice Clock that people have referred to? Not familiar with that load of do-do . .. |
| Post removed |
What is this Tice Clock that people have referred to?It was a $30 or so Radio Shack LED-based digital clock, that was allegedly subjected to some sort of "processing" that would allegedly enable it to improve the "coherence" of electrons in the AC current powering an audio system plugged in nearby. If I recall correctly, it was on the market in the 1980’s and/or 1990’s and sold for a bit under $300. Here is an article on it written by Dr. Robert E. Greene, a long-time writer for "The Absolute Sound." My own take on it: I suppose it’s conceivable that a digital clock could inject sufficient digital noise/garbage into the AC wiring to have perceivable sonic consequences on some systems plugged into a nearby outlet. And that some may have perceived those consequences as being "better." I wonder if anyone who may have claimed to have heard positive results from one of these things ever went to the trouble of doing a thorough and honest comparison between the effects of the Tice Clock and the effects the $30 Radio Shack version may have had under the same circumstances. Regards, -- Al |
The solution to this question is the easiest part of putting together a musical system. Keep an open mind and try devices, tweaks, etc. with money back guarantees and YOU decide what is worth the money and what is not with only shipping costs at risk. A device that someone mocks (without even having heard it) might be just the thing that makes your stereo sing. |
As the old saying goes, "If something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is". I try to keep that in mind while examining tweak products. And I also have doubt if their explanation has no basis in science. Many products have dubious "owner's reviews" of their greatness, and offer no reason why it works. Then there are things that do work, and better ones do cost more. Until suddenly the price has just gone stratospheric, in those cases I am reminded that a Timex is a very accurate time piece, but a Rolex cost 1000 times more, and doesn't keep time as well. But, it's a status symbol and is real pretty to look at. No one argues that the Rolex isn't a good clock. Back in 1986 I bought a Monster record clamp, it was $35, I had my doubts but I bought it! And it worked! Nothing revolutionary but it did help tighten up the bass. Last year I see the exact same record clamp, I mean exactly the same, selling for $300. Has inflation gone up that much since 1986? If so I really need a cost of living increase! |
@geoffkait , you are not suggesting that a double-blind study, which is the gold standard of valid research, would not be appropriate to expose the charlatans, are you? The placebo effect and the power of expectation are both powerful factors when dealing with subjective things like the way something sounds. It would be the easiest and most reliable way to expose real nonsense like the Dalby D7 compared to my Music Hall record clamp if the listener could not know which one he was listening to. On a minor scale, I have seen this in action myself. I love Pink Floyd's Dark Side of The Moon. There are several versions of it out, from the original "holy grail" in 1983 to the Sony Gold Mastersound, to the remaster to the 2011 remix. One enterprising fellow posted cuts from each, identified only by A-F. I figured that I would likely go for the brand new remix or the Holy Grail. Nope. Not knowing which was which, I though that the Sony Mastermind was the best. Surprised at the results, and now knowing which letter corresponded to which clip, Guess what? The 2011 remaster sounded the best. Goes to show that the double-blind is the benchmark of exposing charlatan claims. And I'm willing to bet that the overblown nonsensical claims made by the seller of the Dalby D7 will be exposed for the BS I believe them to be. |
Moto man, what's next witches' dunking chairs? But seriously, any double blind test, controlled test, A/B test, whatever is only one data point. You cannot extrapolate one data point. If in fact most of the tests reveal the device actually works you just throw out all the negative results. They're only outliers. Follow? |
Whaooooo! Great reading thread--re the Dalbly D7 I know someone with TWO of them--yes seriously observed personally in situ and Horrors!--I own the Shun Mook Clamp and --I admit (snivelling on knees pleading for mercy!!) the TICE CLOCK!!! So I'm next in line for the Crucifixion? -Do you realise how long it takes to die on the cross? The last quote from the 6K restoration of Spartacus I watched last night where an overly coiffured Kirk D is tying to kill Tony C Great Movie superbly restored 2015 version with Alex N score re -recorded highly recommended No snake oil --but lots of body oil-- Sorry Normal Transmission to resume Des |
Moto, why did it take the Dalby piece for you you to have this revelation about "high end" audio? Depending on your perspective, there are endless examples of tomfoolery. BTW, I have friends who own this clamp after fiddling with many others and swear by it. They are all vinyl nuts and have uber $$$ systems as expected. Moto, what does your system consist of and what personal examples of tomfoolery can you share? |
So many questions, so little time, LOL! @tostadosunidos , I sense a DSOTM fan .. . . :) The "holy grail" of DSOTM refers to the 1983 Japanese 1st pressing of DSOTM (matrix CP35-3017 on the CD itself) and also referred to as the "Black Triangle" version. It was the first CD pressing of DSOTM from the master and is not only very rare (in real CD form) but reputed to be the best sounding recording. However, as I indicated above, In the Steve Hoffman music forum, you can see the blind listening clips and results. The differences are not huge between the many versions, but I preferred the Sony Mastersound version. PM me if you want a copy. @geoffkait , I respectfully disagree. It's not extrapolating one data point, which even then is subjective. It is discarding all of the nonsense reviews by "reviewers" and owners, and rely on tests that cannot be colored by preconceived expectations. I am not saying that all participants in a double-blind listen will have the same conclusion, but they should. So to me its not throwing out all of the other data as much as recognizing that some reviewer raving about how a record clamp makes all the difference in the world is BS. This data points should be discarded. Now, in a double-blind study, someone legitimately reached the same result, don't you agree that that would have significantly more validity? Plus, the witches' dunking chairs were supposed to be objectively verifiable tests. You float, you're a witch. You sink, their bad. . . guess you weren't a witch! Based on a faulty premise, sure, but still objectively verifiable. :) @agear , I peruse AudioGon all the time. I am always surprised at some the enormously priced cables, interconnects and equipment. However, I do know that cables sound different, and equipment sounds different -- maybe not $20K better than a $1K cable, but who knows. But sometimes, claims are made which literally leap out at me and cry for comment because of the claims vs. cost vs the product. If the Dalby was $700 or $1000, I wouldn't have blinked. But $5600 US for a record clamp with the overblown claims in the ad . . . As I said before, enough is enough. I'm not sure if you were joking about friends having them and "swearing by them," but it again proves my point that once you're committed to a purchase, it becomes fabulous and you buy into the claims. But in a double-blind test . .. Highly different result, I suspect. @magnum44 , LOL! I have all of my LPs digitized and on a server. My LP's are in storage, for that day when first editions of various LP's in mint condition become too valuable to not sell! Not on point for this snake oil thread, but I wonder if you take a high quality rig, put an LP on and digitize it into a lossless format, shouldn't the "warm analog sound" be captured into the digital file? |
Moto man wrote, "@geoffkait , I respectfully disagree. It’s not extrapolating one data point, which even then is subjective. It is discarding all of the nonsense reviews by "reviewers" and owners, and rely on tests that cannot be colored by preconceived expectations. I am not saying that all participants in a double-blind listen will have the same conclusion, but they should. So to me its not throwing out all of the other data as much as recognizing that some reviewer raving about how a record clamp makes all the difference in the world is BS. This data points should be discarded. Now, in a double-blind study, someone legitimately reached the same result, don’t you agree that that would have significantly more validity? Plus, the witches’ dunking chairs were supposed to be objectively verifiable tests. You float, you’re a witch. You sink, their bad. . . guess you weren’t a witch! Based on a faulty premise, sure, but still objectively verifiable. :)" Something tells me the only ones who are hot to trot to conduct double blind tests are the ones who’ve already made their minds up, you know, the died in wool skeptics. Skeptics claim these outlandish audiophile gadgets can’t pass a double blind test but never do you see a skeptic actually conduct a double blind test. What’s up with that? Isn't that putting the cart before the goat? Cheerios |
"I remember buying a heavy plastic screw-on record clamp from Allied Radio, before it was bought by Radio Shack. It cost $2, and it worked. Apparently, if Allied charged the right amount back then, they would still be in business." "It works" is not exactly what audiophiles have in mind. "It works great!" is what they have in mind. A stock fuse works. An aftermarket fuse works great! A Radio Shack cable works. An audiophile cable works great. Well, ideally. Lol A bicycle inner tube or tennis balls works. A Vibraplane works great! |
@geoffkait , "Something tells me the only ones who are hot to trot to conduct double blind tests are the ones who’ve already made their minds up, you know, the died in wool skeptics. Skeptics claim these outlandish audiophile gadgets can’t pass a double blind test but never do you see a skeptic actually conduct a double blind test. What’s up with that? Isn't that putting the cart before the goat?" I disagree and agree. I disagree that the only ones advocating double-blind tests are ones who've already made up their minds. Although in this particular situation, I definitely have some preconceived notions, I would love to do a double-blind test, because the whole point is to come up with a result uncolored by expectations. However, I agree with you that it makes no sense for a reviewer not to conduct a double-blind test. If you have access to a $5600 record clamp, there is no reason not to test it against, for example, my MMF Music Hall record clamp, unless you want to make exaggerated claims unhampered by reality. I would willingly do such a test if I had a Dalby. In fact I have done double-blind tests with speaker cables, interconnects, power amps and preamps, and the results have been very interesting. I see no reason why people would resist that kind of test and I think it should be part of every reviewer's repertoire. I saw an interesting ad today for a $25,800 (new) preamplifier. The ad stated "We have compared it to many that are far more expensive" and it "always wins." First, how many preamps are "far more expensive" than $25,800, and how did they judge which one "won." I'm not saying that the preamp isn't the best preamp since the invention of the transistor, but how about an objective study before proclaiming that it "always wins." That is putting the cart before the goat, I think . . . :) |
| Post removed |
@agear , I peruse AudioGon all the time. I am always surprised at some the enormously priced cables, interconnects and equipment. However, I do know that cables sound different, and equipment sounds different -- maybe not $20K better than a $1K cable, but who knows. But sometimes, claims are made which literally leap out at me and cry for comment because of the claims vs. cost vs the product. If the Dalby was $700 or $1000, I wouldn't have blinked. But $5600 US for a record clamp with the overblown claims in the ad . . . As I said before, enough is enough. I'm not sure if you were joking about friends having them and "swearing by them," but it again proves my point that once you're committed to a purchase, it becomes fabulous and you buy into the claims. But in a double-blind test . .. Highly different result, I suspect. I have audio buddies with top drawer systems who have earnestly fiddled with various clamps and found this one to be the best. There is hyperbole attached to a lot of audio products, threads, etc. That is nothing new. You did not answer my questions. System? Any vignettes of gullibility or are you some transcendent audio being who makes no mistakes? |
For the skeptical protector of naive gullible audiophiles there’s a lot to get the blood boiling. One need look no further than $15K stereo cartridges, $125K speakers, $48K speaker cables, $12K power cords, $24K interconnects, $110K turntables, $6K power strips, tiny little bowl resonators made of pure platinum or gold, amplifiers at more than $100K, $86K DACs. What’s the retail price for the Shun Mook Mpingo record clamp these days, assuming it’s even available which I doubt? That ought be sufficient to bring on a brain aneurism in even the most world weary skeptic. |
@agear , my music system is currently Focal Diablo Utopia III’s, a Plinius SA100mk III upgraded and reconditioned power amp, a Plinius M12 upgraded and reconditioned pre, and a Naim NDX to stream music (FLAC or DSD, as available) from my server to the Plinius. I don't think that I have fallen for any snake oil charms yet, at least that I can recall, although I do remember some somewhat expansive claims about one HT pre/pro being "so much better" than my old one, but I didn't notice much of a difference, at least in sound quality. Do MIT speaker cables count? I was using a pair of Cardas Golden Cross cables, and replaced them with MIT 3.3's. Although the whole "poles of articulation" that MIT uses to market its cables smells of BS, and I'm not sure if there is any bona fide technical evidence of that concept, I definitely heard a difference and liked how they sounded with the Diablo Utopias better than the Cardas, although I was not "blown away" by the improvement. @geoffkait , LOL! |
A couple of points. People talking about audio components or the "best" version of a particular album are usually very clear that their choice is by far the best, no comparison. Secondly, I don’t think we need a statistically valid, new prescription drug class double blind test. That’s what the "no blind test" people hide behind, saying it would be too difficult and expensive to organize, and it probably would be. All I want and think is necessary, is for someone who thinks A blows away B, be it wire or recording or whatever, is to put on a blindfold, sit down in his own listening chair and correctly identify the amp, cable, tweak or recording that caused his jaw to hit the floor when he could see what he was listening to. I just want to make the point that a properly designed double blind test is not needed to test audio claims. I have always suspected that the fastest way to clear audio reviewers out of an open bar at an audio show would be to pull out some blindfolds. |
I have what I consider to be an costly system that I built up over the years of $50K. I think it sounds great. and has all the sound qualities described in the mags that mega buck systems claim to have. I have been to shows that have many rooms set up with $100k and up systems. Most all sound much worse than my home system. And store setups are the same! WHY??? The explanation of "RICH" audiophiles, and dealers of big buck audio is They take many days to "tune in" before they sound great. The people setting up the systems are not familiar with the mix of different equipment. The rooms are "Odd" sizes, and shapes. The music is bad. You have to sit in the sweet spot. The power quality in the hotel is crap. That is all crap! Period! Why can’t these systems, at the very least, sound very good??? The truth is, big buck systems are most all, "way over hyped", to anyone that is rational at all! This is the opinion of many, many old audiophiles and all most all outsiders. The extreme high end, which is now all that is left, will not admit this fact! When "High End" comes up for discussion in the "real word" we are "all" idiots. The "big buck" people that are the new majority, are responsible for that view. They use to be the minority, now they rule! Common sense is not very common. In the end, and it is the end. Just enjoy what "you" have! I do not care about future generations. Good night, and Good Bye! |
@tomcy6 , so true! Pull the blindfolds out and see what reviewers say about a product! That would be embarrassing indeed! The key is that they don't know whether they are listening to the super duper best thing since sliced bread or the same $20,000 "old technology" trash that they drooled and fawned over last year. I'd love to see that! |
Regarding blind testing, in this particular case I would certainly expect the differences between the Dalby D7 and most other weights or clamps to be distinguishable, at least when used on most turntables. As I intimated in my post dated 2-2-2016, in fact, I would think that its 3+ pound weight would even damage many turntables, eventually if not sooner. The real question, though, would be whether differences could be distinguished between this $6800 weight and another 3+ pound weight having similar contact area and costing say $50 or so. Likewise, while the article I linked to about the Tice clock in my post dated 2-5-16 mentions that in "a blind test ... Frank Doris [a reviewer] was able to detect the Clock with statistical significance," as I said in that post: I wonder if anyone who may have claimed to have heard positive results from one of these things ever went to the trouble of doing a thorough and honest comparison between the effects of the Tice Clock and the effects the $30 Radio Shack version may have had under the same circumstances.Regards, -- Al |
I design and sell a clock that is, while still a clock, totally unlike the Tice Clock in terms of operation, though obviously also rather outlandish - the Clever Little Clock, now in it’s third incarnation. Would you believe the CLC received a Brutus Award from Positive Feedback and (to make matters worse, so to speak) the clock, which is battery powered and can be placed anywhere in the room, underwent a blind test conducted by the reviewer and his wife? What the Clever Lil Clock illustrates so handily, hang on to your hats, is the effect of time itself on our sensory perception of the sound. |
@almarg , "The real question, though, would be whether differences could be distinguished between this $6800 weight and another 3+ pound weight having similar contact area and costing say $50 or so." You are exactly right. The question is not whether a 3 pound weight makes a difference . . . Its whether a $5800 brass and "lignum vitae" weight makes a worthwhile difference over a 3 pound $50 brass weight. I find it highly doubtful. |
Motor Man wrote, "@almarg , "The real question, though, would be whether differences could be distinguished between this $6800 weight and another 3+ pound weight having similar contact area and costing say $50 or so." You are exactly right. The question is not whether a 3 pound weight makes a difference . . . Its whether a $5800 brass and "lignum vitae" weight makes a worthwhile difference over a 3 pound $50 brass weight. I find it highly doubtful." That’s pretty much the same type of thinking that motivated such nuggets as, "Wouldn't a plain brick work just as well as a VPI Brick?" or, "Why can’t you just knock off the Shun Mook Mpingo disc? How hard could it be?" Or, "there’s no way I’m paying $20K for the new Magico speakers so I’ll just make my own. How hard could it be?" |
@geoffkait , I think you are off base on this one. Speakers first . . . Obviously speakers are complex interrelationships between components, crossovers, etc. Knocking one off is not necessarily impossible but more difficult than a brass weight, or a record clamp. The brass weight or the Shun Mook . .. the question is not whether those can be knocked off, but whether the knocked-off version sounds indistinguishable under uncolored testing conditions. That is really the issue here, I think. |
Motor Man, that’s why I included knocking off the Mpingo disc in my previous post, because things are often not what they seem when it comes to these things. Like the diamond coating used in the Magico tweeter and the graphene coating used in the Magico main driver. You can't judge a book by looking at the cover. Have you ever seen what’s inside a Mpingo disc? |
Some of the funniest and unbelievably stupid things I read everyday are are in audioforums. It is stunning how many people are duped by claims of experts and arm chair prothlitizers. There is a lot of snake oil and out there and tons right false claims about numerous products. If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck it probably is a duck. |
