Synergistic calls out Audioholics

mitch2,

That seems like saying "If you bought a stone you were told was a real diamond, and a jeweler examining shows you it's only cheap Cubic zirconia, how does that 'prove' it's a fake diamond?"

Er...that's pretty much what it means to be a fake, a scam, snake oil: a false claim.

Per Wikipedia:  "Snake oil is a euphemism for deceptive marketing, health care fraud, or a scam." 


The term "snake oil," has been used in high end audio to describe products that make false/deceptive claims.   It's especially been attached to the tweakier side, and in particular cables, as I'd think you know.  In other words, the idea that many cable/tweak companies make deceptive claims about the performance of their product, using misleading marketing claims and technobabble.


IF Gene proved a product's extravagant performance claims false - showing they produce neither objectively verifiable difference nor subjectively (controlled tests),  that would be essentially the definition of "snake oil" being exposed.

Which is not to say SR products have been so determined.  But it just seems very strange to suggest that if a customer is "happy" then a product isn't snake oil or there is no scam involved.   Do you think if you someone sold you a fake diamond, as long as you happily believe the false claim that it's real then there was no scam involved?  Surely you don't really think this way, so why would you use that logic for an audio product sold on false claims?

perkri

Heres the thing, the products are real, they actually exist. You can hold them, touch them and listen to them. If they don’t work, you can return them.

Homeopathic pills are real, they actually exist. You can hold them, touch them and swallow them. 


Astrologers are real.  You can meet them, touch them (if they let you!), talk to them.  They'll explain to you how the stars guide your fortunes.


The question is: are the CLAIMS made about those phenomena real?

There is no objective evidence for those claims (and plenty against them), yet countless people think they work.   Yet you reasoned that a product that doesn't do what it claims wouldn't maintain business.

Are you able to see the point yet, as to why the basic logic of your inference was somewhat naive?

@prof 

If you were provided with a full spec sheet of any/all products, would you be able to translate those specs into something meaningful? Something you could interpret and explain to someone else that “these should sound like this because of that..”

Every detail and tech tidbit outlined: inductance, capacitance, resistance, magnetic fields generated/isolated, shielding from EMI, noise filtration, a 1khz sine wave in, same wave measured at the other end. And measured at multiple lengths to show what, if any decay or distortion of the signal occurs. How well is that signal protected by shielding so nothing effects the signal?

somehow, I think not.

And no, your analogy is completely without merit.

If it sounds better, then it works.

Super simple.

Like I said, and I think you have actually proven my point .

I have a problem with narrow minded, closed minded ignorance.

If you were provided with a full spec sheet of any/all products, would you be able to translate those specs into something meaningful? Something you could interpret and explain to someone else that “these should sound like this because of that..”

If a product is claimed to have altered an audio signal to an audible degree, there should be measurable differences in the audio signal with and without the product in use. It makes sense then to ask a claimant to show measurable differences in an audio signal, for frequency response, distortion, whatever, to a degree that suggests it’s audibility. It would be even better if it was established as audible under blinded conditions.

And no, your analogy is completely without merit.

Only because you don’t seem to understand the point.

If it sounds better, then it works.

Which is like saying "If I took a homeopathic pill and felt better, it works!"

Or: If a psychic did a reading on me and I left believing she had some hits, then she was using real psychic powers!"

Do you understand the role of controlling for variables?

That you felt better after a homeopathic pill does not automatically entail the pill caused it. You may have gotten better anyway without the pill, or your belief in homeopathy may have led you to happily believe you are cured when you are not (very common in homeopathy, not to mention in faith healing as well). And it does not establish that homeopathy works on the principles it says it works.

Same with psychic powers. The fact you THINK it "worked" may be due to your own naivety about how psychics use standard "cold reading" techniques. And in how you managed to ignore the "misses" in their guesses. It’s standard fair yet people believe in the psychic power all the time.

In other words: BELIEVING something works, THINKING it "happened" doesn’t necessarily mean it works or happened. Our minds are very good at imagining things. Some people think they have been visited and probed by aliens. You don’t think you could imagine a little less upper midrange glare in your system with a new cable?
But I realize none of this will be hitting home if you are one who believes in the primacy and Ultimate Reliability of your subjective impressions, and nothing can refute them.

I have a problem with narrow minded, closed minded ignorance.

I know the feeling. Are you open minded to measurements being used to determine if a product "works" or not? Even if you think you hear it working?