RE: My post above (about 10 up)
Don't know how well my point was understood, so let me rephrase. Sometimes the effect of an invention is immediately understood both experientially AND physiologically. Other times, it is only experienced at first, but the underlying mechanism is figured out years later.
In the case of MD products, it is premature to even discuss the alleged mechanism, because we've NEVER EVEN ESTABLISHED that any AUDIBLE EFFECT OCCURS in the first place. My complete disbelief in the "physics" of MD is pretty much irrelevant at this stage, until we honestly test the fundamental assumption that anyone can hear any improvement from a jar of rocks to begin with.
So those arguing about the underlying physics of MD-type products should really tend to first things first: Demonstrate whether or not one can reliably identify the effect from its sound alone.
Don't know how well my point was understood, so let me rephrase. Sometimes the effect of an invention is immediately understood both experientially AND physiologically. Other times, it is only experienced at first, but the underlying mechanism is figured out years later.
In the case of MD products, it is premature to even discuss the alleged mechanism, because we've NEVER EVEN ESTABLISHED that any AUDIBLE EFFECT OCCURS in the first place. My complete disbelief in the "physics" of MD is pretty much irrelevant at this stage, until we honestly test the fundamental assumption that anyone can hear any improvement from a jar of rocks to begin with.
So those arguing about the underlying physics of MD-type products should really tend to first things first: Demonstrate whether or not one can reliably identify the effect from its sound alone.