Game Changing Tweak
Dynamic Range Compression. There may be a solution to the distortion in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression |
I am an EE engineer by training, so when encountering pseudo-tech jargon I tend to be a bit more skeptical than the average person. What I mean by pseudo-tech jargon is blending real scientific principles or equations with non-technical or marketing in a compelling cocktail that ultimately claims a positive effect, but never quite telling a scientifically coherent story along the way. The highly technical concepts are often times sufficient to reassure the non technical minded people that real science was employed in the making of the product, getting their guard down. Then again, exotic effects do exist and from when initially discovered the science may lag behind in explaining how & why it works. Sometimes the science can lag years, decades or even centuries after the phenomenon has been initially described or discovered. But none of this should matter. To my way of thinking, the burden of proof should not belong to the consumer, but rather to the producer of the technology. I should not have to buy a $300 product in order to find out if it works or not. Instead, the manufacturer should publish before & after type of proof. In the case of this product, perhaps show the “before” and “after” output signal of an amplifier or a speaker (since 1-2dB are the claimed improvement). Better yet and for even greater believability, send it to an independent testing facility and publish the results. The fact that it isn’t offered raises some alarms for me personally. This doesn’t automatically imply it doesn’t work. Just that, IMO proof should be honestly and transparently offered by those who make the product. I’m not telling anybody how to spend their money, nor do I intend to insult anyone along the way. |
