Do we believe in Machina Dynamics?

+++ you are ignorant of both logic and what science has to say about anything+++

Lol. Let me repeat myself, 'Wow somebody that says {and I quote verbatim} “I am untroubled by not knowing how it works” is lecturing me' on science and logic.

Pray tell us Norm, what is the logic and science in not wanting to understand?

+++ You took offense that I noted on another thread that your having listened to the Adagios and bought them +++

I have no idea what an Adagios is. Again you seem to elude I am the same dummy you are. I am beginning to suspect that you have a problem dealing with people that are intellectually your superiors.

+++ suggested that you do not always value factual basis for making audio choices.+++

Again, you are quite mistaken. (why am I not surprised?) I have yet to make a single purchase not based on sound factual basis.

+++ You are not always an idiot apparently +++

I'm never the idiot Norm. Even the times I do something foolish, folks like yourself make me look like a genius.

+++ Live well and prosper! +++

Oh, I do live well and I am prosperous (within reason), mainly because I don't throw money away on snake oil and vapor-ware like you do. But thank you for the kind sentiments.

Regards
Paul

$200 alarm clocks, $75 phone calls, $159 for a box of rocks, $400 for the cd upgrade box, $40 cd tray tape, $375 for the "Promethean" base (wich looks like a couple slabs of wood and bed springs), $40 intelligent chip cd upgrade and so on.....how come we dont see this guy on late night infomercials sandwiched between a Magic Bullet blender and a Male Enhancement syrum?
And why on earth would anyone be at all skeptical of pet rocks, phone calls and alarm clocks that cost a couple hundred bucks??????????????

+++ I've no problem allowing for physical phenomena whose mechanism we've yet to understand and quantify.+++

Of course. However, we can apply a certain level of reason. If a tweak can effect, lets say vibration or acoustics, we can assume a high probability that it can work, especially if the company has a proven track record.

None of machina dynamics tweaks are even close to being plausible and I have read numerous posting of their tweaks being nothing other that scams. Surely at least one or two of their tweaks should be understood and accepted by the general audiophile public at large by now – but they're not.

The only proponents of MA are folks, who with without exception, claim that they do not understand how tweaks work in general. Out of total ignorance, they make no distinction between tweaks with reasonable chance of having sound factual basis and those that are totally w/o any level of reason.

Regards
Paul

Okay, Pauly, let me try this again at a more sophomoric level.

"Lol. Let me repeat myself, 'Wow somebody that says {and I quote verbatim} “I am untroubled by not knowing how it works” is lecturing me' on science and logic.

"Pray tell us Norm, what is the logic and science in not wanting to understand?"

I never said anything about "not wanting to understand." If one hears something that improves ones sound, is it logical to say that you don't understand it and therefore it cannot be true? Even worse, if you don't try a product that others say works because you don't understand it, are you being rational or valuing the basic elements of the science to be receptive to new findings?

My position as always is that there is science involved in audio but mainly it is more applied engineering, which while explaining the basics, ignores many unknown phenomena. Engineering uses what we know to make things that work, but there are many improvements that could be made were our understanding better.

The very basis of science is observations, in this case listening to reproduced music. If one hears a speaker sound far superior, why not buy it? Science may ultimately explain why there is the improvement or others may reverse engineer it and use it themselves.

"Again, you are quite mistaken. (why am I not surprised?) I have yet to make a single purchase not based on sound factual basis."

I admit that I confused you with someone else who claimed the same position and also found the Adagio speakers to sound much better. Both he and you claim only to buy given a personal understanding of the basis for the component being superior or working at all. Frankly, I think such statements are ridiculous. No one really knows why some caps sound so much better and therefore are used in many components, no one knows how to make the best sounding speaker, wire, electronics. Many try their ideas and some have success.

I therefore believe that you are wrong that all of your purchases are made with full factual knowledge about why they are superior to others. Frankly, you evidence very little capacity to do this.

Don't pat yourself too much on the back or be so dismissive of others who realize that they don't know why something they like works, but buy it nevertheless. You may avoid a tweak or component that really does not work, but you may be missing something that others have found good that you too would enjoy. Who is the worse for this?

If you find all of this illogical, I am sorry for you, but hey everyone somehow gets by. I am none the worse nor none the better for spending time in our unconstructive discussions, but I hope others can understand why I take such exception to those pronouncing that anything is a fraud because they personally cannot understand how it works.

+++ If one hears something that improves ones sound, is it logical to say that you don't understand it and therefore it cannot be true? +++

Nope, and had I actually said as much I would have been wrong. Of course, eluding I had made comments that I didn’t to prove your point, is no less than outright lying and demonstrates lack of character on your behalf.

+++ if you don't try a product that others say works because you don't understand it, are you being rational +++

Second time in two sentences you are eluding to something other than the truth. I don’t blame you though; with a case as weak as yours, I’d be tempted to be deceitful too.

I reject MA products sight unseen because they lack any form of credibility and their offerings lie far outside what can be considered scientifically reasonable to have an effect on audio. I doubt that anybody with any engineering background or experience in electronics thinks otherwise.

MA as a company also has a track record of being fraudulent and I found numerous posts where their products have been exposed as vaporware.

I am happy to try any product if a reasonable explanation, backed by physics and/or research can be produced.

+++ The very basis of science is observations, in this case listening to reproduced music. If one hears a speaker sound far superior, why not buy it? +++

This comment has zero relevance to the topic and by no means contrary to even a single posting I have made on this bulletin board.

+++ Both he and you claim only to buy given a personal understanding of the basis for the component being superior or working at all +++

You come up with this comment after I said {and I quote myself verbatim} “I have yet to make a single purchase not based on sound factual basis”. Yet again, you demonstrate a high degree of deceit in a vain attempt to gain credibility. I have bought a number of things w/o personal understanding, but these items were always based on sound physics. Maybe you need to take an English language class?

+++ Frankly, I think such statements are ridiculous.+++

Yes, I think so too. You’re the one that made it and I am glad you recognize yourself as ridiculous. But then, spending $1000 on $5 dowel sticks does indicate a very irrational personality worthy of ridicule.

+++ I hope others can understand why I take such exception to those pronouncing that anything is a fraud because they personally cannot understand how it works.+++

Yes, in some cultures animals are sacrificed to bring on rains and good harvest. They also take great offense when the practice is exposed as fraud. I mistakenly assumed education would eliminate such ignorance but you have proven me wrong.

Regards
Paul