nonoise,
To hear some say that they’ve never tried a product and then go onto compare it with homeopathic products and the like is silly. SR products are out there for the sampling.
Homeopathic remedies are out there for sampling too.
Do the anecdotal reports of users entail that claims for how the homeopathic pills work are true? Is that really good enough? If so, I guess you simply reject science and it's methods, at least for medicine. But if cognitive bias plays a role in why people think medically inner substances change their disease status, why could similar bias not play a role in evaluating audio?(It does). Please understand: asking if there is a certain type of evidence for a claim is NOT the same as saying the claim is not true. I’d hope such distinctions wouldn’t actually have to be pointed out, but it seems required dishearteningly often in these conversations.
but that doesn’t seem to meet the ever changing goalposts as now they want scientific documentation before they even consider listening to it?
That’s what’s called dealing in bad faith.
Well, that’s interesting. Ted Denny is telling us his products produce measurable results, and is even offering to pay to have his products measured as demonstration. I say kudos to Ted! Now there is something wrong with the desire to demonstrate a product’s objective performance via measurements? Are you against Denny’s efforts to show measurable results for his products? If so, why?
When someone as steeped in audio who should have easy access to what they claim doesn’t work (what with all their connections in the field) refuses to even listen to it speaks volumes to their inauthentic stance.
Can you show me where I have claimed SR’s products don’t work?Or are you making things up? Again.
(Hint: I haven’t - look at my first post on the subject).
