$1,323 worth of snake oil?

[James Price[_5_]]

Has anyone ever heard of this thing? I'm pretty sure it's primary function is to separate buyers from their money, but opinions are welcome:

http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html

"The Blackbody is unlike any other filter or conditioner. All power filters and conditioners address noise found on wires, but there’s another type of noise altogether. Until now, this inconspicuous type of noise has been largely unacknowledged. It is caused by constant electromagnetic interaction between gear and immediately surrounding objects: stands, racks, nearby signal wiring, enclosures, and other objects containing circuitry or not. This type of radiated noise is not confined to wires. The Blackbody works by absorbing these reflections, effectively solving the problem. Being the only conditioner of its kind, it offers a level of performance previously unattainable."

[Frank Stearns]

James Price > writes:

>Has anyone ever heard of this thing? I'm pretty sure it's primary function =
>is to separate buyers from their money, but opinions are welcome:

>http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html

Oh. My. God.

It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange ways,
something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction with the engine computer
in my car two blocks away caused a misfire on cylinder 3."

Mabye, but most likely not, unless the dog is REALLY LOUD and there's a serious
problem with how the computer is set up on the car.

The surprise here is that the price is only $1300. They either dropped a zero
by mistake, or are feeling just a tiny bit of shame.

Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions what I also call the "3
am effect". I've always attributed the heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with
music in the wee hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.

It's dark at that hour so we don't have our eyes for early warning. If we touch
something it's too late; we're a snack for a nocturnal beast.

The only effective distance-warning sense we have at that hour when there is no
light is hearing. Mother nature seems to "turn it up" for us if there is no input
from the visual side of things.

Of course, visually impaired people, who often make great mix engineers, piano
tuners, et al, deal with this all the time, and have the phenominal hearing to
prove it.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.

This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.

In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours, probably
because we are rested and more alert. There is also the fact that there are
fewer visual and audible distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades
our appreciation of the music.

[Scott Dorsey]

Frank Stearns > wrote:
>Oh. My. God.
>
>It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange ways,
>something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction with the engine computer
>in my car two blocks away caused a misfire on cylinder 3."

Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

Another point...

An electromagnetically conductive object does not "suck in" EM radiation like
a vacuum cleaner sucks up air.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>Another point...
>
>An electromagnetically conductive object does not "suck in" EM radiation like
>a vacuum cleaner sucks up air.


This valuable training video may be of use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ul7X5js1vE
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:

> "Frank Stearns" wrote in message
> acquisition...
>
> > Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
> > what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
> > heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
> > hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
> > closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.
>
> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.
>
> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours, probably
> because we are rested and more alert. There is also the fact that there are
> fewer visual and audible distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades
> our appreciation of the music.

Must have been something wrong with every audio system I've owned.
They've all sounded the same regardless of time of day.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[James Price[_5_]]

On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>
>>Oh. My. God.
>>
>>It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange ways,
>>something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction with the engine
>>computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire on cylinder 3."
>
>Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
>review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.

Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?

http://www.thecableco.com/Product/Siltech-Emperor-Double-Crown

[Scott Dorsey]

James Price > wrote:
>On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>
>>>Oh. My. God.
>>>
>>>It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange ways,
>>>something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction with the engine
>>>computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire on cylinder 3."
>>
>>Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
>>review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
>
>Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?

Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables with
Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic boxes
on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
no WONDER they sounded different.

That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy to
tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are better
or not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" > writes:

>"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

>> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
>> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
>> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
>> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
>> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.

>This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.

>In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours, probably
>because we are rested and more alert. There is also the fact that there are
>fewer visual and audible distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades
>our appreciation of the music.


Right, that's part of it. Due to lack of input, the visual cortex is consuming less
brain energy than the normal 24% of total calories consumed to run the
wetware.

But well-rested? Waking up at 3 am? This should be in the middle of our normal sleep
cycle. Sound the alarm, something is in an abnormal state.

And that's the thing: as a survival mechanism our senses are on a different
operational profile if we're up and about at times when the body clock says we
should be resting.

So if we're fully awake at an abnormal time, the mode is defense. And the one sense
that works at a distance and doesn't need light are our good ole ears - so crank up
the sensitivity to listen for threats.... (or delightful nuances in the music you
might have missed).

And, there might well be ADDED extrapolation during nocturnal auditory processing.
In the right frame of mind with the right musical background, this might make
nearly anything sound better. Hyper-vigilent/creative listening is correcting a
number of the inherent problems of microphones and speakers, and then wrongly
attributing the improvement to something inert. :)

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> James Price > wrote:
>> On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh. My. God.
>>>>
>>>> It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange ways,
>>>> something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction with the engine
>>>> computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire on cylinder 3."
>>>
>>> Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
>>> review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
>>
>> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
>
> Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables with
> Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic boxes
> on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
> no WONDER they sounded different.
>
> That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy to
> tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are better
> or not.
> --scott
>

Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
money for the thing, will hear it as "better".

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

> But well-rested? Waking up at 3 am? This should be in the
> middle of our normal sleep cycle. Sound the alarm, something
> is in an abnormal state.

People vary. I'm a lark, not an owl.

When I reviewed for Stereophile, I often listened around 6 or 7 in the
morning. I would sometimes put in earplugs and take a brief nap to allow my
ears' threshold to fall back to their most-sensitive levels.

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill > wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > James Price > wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> >>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh. My. God.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange
> >>>> ways, something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction
> >>>> with the engine computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire
> >>>> on cylinder 3."
> >>>
> >>> Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
> >>> review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
> >>
> >> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
> >
> > Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables with
> > Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic boxes
> > on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
> > no WONDER they sounded different.
> >
> > That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy to
> > tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are better
> > or not.
> > --scott
> >
>
> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>
> --
> Les Cargill

Good snake oil is never cheap!

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://hankandshaidrimusic.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Stearns" wrote in message
> acquisition...
>
>> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
>> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
>> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
>> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
>> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.
>
> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to
> test it.
>
> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early
> hours, probably because we are rested and more alert. There is also
> the fact that there are fewer visual and audible distractions to add
> "perceptual" noise that degrades our appreciation of the music.

This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test
it.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/14/2013 2:10 PM, hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> James Price > wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh. My. God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange
>>>>>> ways, something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction
>>>>>> with the engine computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire
>>>>>> on cylinder 3."
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
>>>>> review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
>>>
>>> Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables with
>>> Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic boxes
>>> on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
>>> no WONDER they sounded different.
>>>
>>> That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy to
>>> tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are better
>>> or not.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
>> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Good snake oil is never cheap!
>
Snake oil is snake oil, the larger variable
[IMHO] is the quality/slickness of the oiler.
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 6/14/2013 6:09 PM, None wrote:
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Frank Stearns" wrote in message
>> acquisition...
>>
>>> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
>>> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
>>> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
>>> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
>>> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.
>>
>> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test
>> it.
>>
>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours,
>> probably because we are rested and more alert. There is also the fact
>> that there are fewer visual and audible distractions to add
>> "perceptual" noise that degrades our appreciation of the music.
>
> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.
>
>
Ah, but who here has meters calibrated with a "good, better, best" scale?
[YMMV]
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...

>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours,
>> probably because we are rested and more alert. There
>> is also the fact that there are fewer visual and audible
>> distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades our
>> appreciation of the music.

> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering
> to test it.

This is a statement of absolute fact. I've tested it dozens of times.

[Sean Conolly]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message
...
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> > James Price > wrote:
>> >> On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> >>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Oh. My. God.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in
>> >>>> strange
>> >>>> ways, something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction
>> >>>> with the engine computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire
>> >>>> on cylinder 3."
>> >>>
>> >>> Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have
>> >>> to
>> >>> review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
>> >>
>> >> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
>> >
>> > Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables
>> > with
>> > Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic
>> > boxes
>> > on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
>> > no WONDER they sounded different.
>> >
>> > That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy
>> > to
>> > tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are
>> > better
>> > or not.
>> > --scott
>> >
>>
>> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
>> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Good snake oil is never cheap!

There was an infamous German fellow who said something to the effect that
the bigger the lie, the easier it is to pull it off. Try selling the same
cables for $100 and you'll have a lot of doubters, but $1300? No one would
ask for that unless it was legit.

Sean

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early
>>> hours, probably because we are rested and more alert. There
>>> is also the fact that there are fewer visual and audible
>>> distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades our
>>> appreciation of the music.
>
>> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering
>> to test it.
>
> This is a statement of absolute fact. I've tested it dozens of
> times.

No.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours,
>>>> probably because we are rested and more alert. There
>>>> is also the fact that there are fewer visual and audible
>>>> distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades our
>>>> appreciation of the music.

>>> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering
>>> to test it.

>> This is a statement of absolute fact. I've tested it dozens of times.

> No.

A person who refuses to give their real name has no right to criticize other
people's points of view.

How your system sounds depends in part on your mental state. This is
objective, observable FACT. It is not open to argument or contra-diction.
Anyone who owns a decent system will have noticed it many times.

[Gary Eickmeier]

Sean Conolly wrote:
> "hank alrich" > wrote in message

>>> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
>>> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>>>
>>> --
>>> Les Cargill
>>
>> Good snake oil is never cheap!
>
> There was an infamous German fellow who said something to the effect
> that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to pull it off. Try selling
> the same cables for $100 and you'll have a lot of doubters, but
> $1300? No one would ask for that unless it was legit.
>
> Sean

The fascinating thing about golden ear reviews is that no matter what it is,
there is an improvement of leaps and bounds to the previous technology -
which was also described as the ultimate improvement and now perfect in
every way. So each review gives the lie to all previous reviews - nor are
there that many levels of improvement possible within even their world. It
would be amusing to track a series of these of a similar product over the
years and see just how bad they were when described as perfect 5 years ago.

Gary Eickmeier

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" < whiny wheezer @comcast.net> wrote in message
...
>>>>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early
>>>>> hours, probably because we are rested and more alert. There
>>>>> is also the fact that there are fewer visual and audible
>>>>> distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades our
>>>>> appreciation of the music.
>
>>>> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering
>>>> to test it.
>
>>> This is a statement of absolute fact. I've tested it dozens of
>>> times.
>
>> No.
>
> A person who refuses to give their real name has no right to
> criticize other people's points of view.

Wrong. (And non sequitur).

> How your system sounds depends in part on your mental state. This is
> objective, observable FACT. It is not open to argument or
> contra-diction. Anyone who owns a decent system will have noticed it
> many times.

"Proof" by vigorous assertion. "Proof" by majuscule.
If it's "not open to argument", then it's a bull**** claim.

[None]

"None" > wrote in message
m...
> "William Sommerwerck" < whiny wheezer @comcast.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>>>>> In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early
>>>>>> hours, probably because we are rested and more alert. There
>>>>>> is also the fact that there are fewer visual and audible
>>>>>> distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades our
>>>>>> appreciation of the music.
>>
>>>>> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering
>>>>> to test it.
>>
>>>> This is a statement of absolute fact. I've tested it dozens of
>>>> times.
>>
>>> No.
>>
>> A person who refuses to give their real name has no right to
>> criticize other people's points of view.
>
> Wrong. (And non sequitur).
>
>> How your system sounds depends in part on your mental state. This
>> is objective, observable FACT. It is not open to argument or
>> contra-diction. Anyone who owns a decent system will have noticed
>> it many times.
>
> "Proof" by vigorous assertion. "Proof" by majuscule.
> If it's "not open to argument", then it's a bull**** claim.
>

And one that I missed: "Anyone who owns a decent system ..."
Classic audiotool horse****. Thanks for the laugh, li'l buddy.

[William Sommerwerck]

"> "Proof" by vigorous assertion. "Proof" by majuscule.
> If it's "not open to argument", then it's a bull**** claim.

Let's see... The sky is blue. Water is wet. Cyanide is poisonous. We could go
on and on. But...

One's perceptions are often colored by one's mental state.

FACT. Not open to argument.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" < willy****** @comcast.net> wrote in message
...
> "> "Proof" by vigorous assertion. "Proof" by majuscule.
>> If it's "not open to argument", then it's a bull**** claim.
>
> Let's see... The sky is blue. Water is wet. Cyanide is poisonous. We
> could go on and on. But...

I'm sure that you could go on and on. Newsgroup history backs that up.
Going on and on is not a good test of facts, as you have demonstrated.

> One's perceptions are often colored by one's mental state.
>
> FACT. Not open to argument.

Facts are always open to argument. They can withstand skepticism and
verification. Bull**** is afraid of argument, lest simple questions
reveal it for the bull**** that it is. Audiophool snake oil is
notorious for denying the value of verification, and its inability to
stand up to scrutiny. It likes to rely on incessant vigorous
assertion, misplaced majuscules, and angry denial of the validity of
falsifiable experiments.

One's perceptions are often colored by one's mental state. Facts are
not.

The earth is flat. Undeniable observable FACT. Yeah, I know how that
works. Thanks again for the laughs, li'l buddy. Not laughing with you
(in part, due to your lack of a sense of humor). Laughing at you,
Willie Laughingstorck.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message m...
"William Sommerwerck" < willy****** @comcast.net> wrote in message
...

>> One's perceptions are often colored by one's mental state.
>> FACT. Not open to argument.

> Facts are always open to argument. They can withstand skepticism
> and verification. Bull**** is afraid of argument, lest simple questions
> reveal it for the bull**** that it is. Audiophool snake oil is
> notorious for denying the value of verification, and its inability to
> stand up to scrutiny. It likes to rely on incessant vigorous
> assertion, misplaced majuscules, and angry denial of the validity of
> falsifiable experiments.

It depends on how you define "facts". But otherwise, I agree with you.
Something you'd know if you paid attention to my posts. But this is not an
issue of "science" or "audiophoolery".

I made it clear I was talking about /perceptions/. (See above.) My system
generally sounds better in the morning, not so good in the afternoon or
evening. There's nothing mysterious about that. In the morning my ears are
rested and my mind relatively clear. How can you not understand this?

This needs no scientific verification, because we're not talking about
science. We're talking about /known/ subjective perceptions.


> Thanks again for the laughs, li'l buddy. Not laughing with you (in part, due
> to your lack of a sense of humor). Laughing at you, Willie Laughingstorck.

No thanks for your stupidity. Only cowardly idiots refuse to post their names.

I'd give you my phone number so we could discuss this. But even if you had it,
wouldn't dare call me, you snivelling, pusillanimous asshole.

Learn to think, you moron.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> I'd give you my phone number so we could discuss this. But even if
> you had it, wouldn't dare call me, you snivelling, pusillanimous
> asshole.

Your puppet-strings are ridiculously easy to pull. If you want phone
calls, maybe you should try to get some friends. Make sure you explain
how superior you are because of the equipment you own. (I'll leave it
to the reader to infer the obvious follow-up to that suggestion.)

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> I'd give you my phone number so we could discuss this. But even
>> if you had it, wouldn't dare call me, you snivelling, pusillanimous
>> asshole.

> Your puppet-strings are ridiculously easy to pull. If you want phone
> calls, maybe you should try to get some friends. Make sure you explain
> how superior you are because of the equipment you own. (I'll leave it
> to the reader to infer the obvious follow-up to that suggestion.)

And what do you own... Bose 501s and a Pioneer receiver?

[William Sommerwerck]

I find it interesting that most people don't actually listen to what other
people say.

I have repeatedly stated that you can purchase a plain-stereo system for
around $4000 that will (probably) amaze and delight you. That's not a lot of
money, as such things go. *

The problem with those attacking "audiophools" (of which I am not one) is that
they try to convince people $4000 for a stereo is some sort of ripoff, that
spending any more than, oh, $500 at Best Buy, is a waste of money. It might be
if you're a casual listener. But if you sit down and listen critically to
music, you can and will hear the difference. The trick is to find a salesman
who'll help you make a wise choice, rather than trying to get you to buy
something that's expensive. Unfortunately, such people are hard to find.

* Forty+ years ago, the KLH Model 20 compact system retailed for $400, which
seemed a lot. Assuming inflation of 5:1, you could purchase a $2000 system
that would blow the KLH out of the room. For $15K to $20K -- the cost of a new
car -- you could buy an audio system that's pretty much state of the art.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> ...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> I'd give you my phone number so we could discuss this. But even
>>> if you had it, wouldn't dare call me, you snivelling,
>>> pusillanimous asshole.
>
>> Your puppet-strings are ridiculously easy to pull. If you want
>> phone
>> calls, maybe you should try to get some friends. Make sure you
>> explain
>> how superior you are because of the equipment you own. (I'll leave
>> it
>> to the reader to infer the obvious follow-up to that suggestion.)
>
> And what do you own... Bose 501s and a Pioneer receiver?

Hehe. Thanks for supporting my point, perhaps unwittingly. Or maybe
half-wittingly ... or perhaps even nit. But regardless of your
witlessness, your baseless opinions don't rise to the level of facts,
even if you capitalize them. Neither accurate audio reproduction, nor
accurate and repeatable evaluation of audio systems, rely in any way
on anybody's ownership of anything.

[Sean Conolly]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> Sean Conolly wrote:
>> "hank alrich" > wrote in message
>
>>>> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
>>>> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Les Cargill
>>>
>>> Good snake oil is never cheap!
>>
>> There was an infamous German fellow who said something to the effect
>> that the bigger the lie, the easier it is to pull it off. Try selling
>> the same cables for $100 and you'll have a lot of doubters, but
>> $1300? No one would ask for that unless it was legit.
>>
>> Sean
>
> The fascinating thing about golden ear reviews is that no matter what it
> is, there is an improvement of leaps and bounds to the previous
> technology - which was also described as the ultimate improvement and now
> perfect in every way. So each review gives the lie to all previous
> reviews - nor are there that many levels of improvement possible within
> even their world. It would be amusing to track a series of these of a
> similar product over the years and see just how bad they were when
> described as perfect 5 years ago.
>

Well, I actually do have golden ears. I can tell exactly what I like and
don't with great precision and no explanation. Of course it's entirely
subjective because my ears have a user base of exactly one (1), but at any
given moment they've been been the best ears I've ever had.

Sean

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

> Hehe. Thanks for supporting my point, perhaps unwittingly. Or
> maybe half-wittingly ... or perhaps even nit. But regardless of your
> witlessness, your baseless opinions don't rise to the level of facts, even
> if you capitalize them. Neither accurate audio reproduction, nor accurate
> and repeatable evaluation of audio systems, rely in any way on anybody's
> ownership of anything.

It must be wonderful knowing that anyone who disagrees with you is
automatically wrong.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" < willie winter****** @comcast.net> whinged in
message ...
> It must be wonderful knowing that anyone who disagrees with you is
> automatically wrong.

That's your field of dilletance, bunky. Now dance for me again!

[James Price[_5_]]

On Saturday, June 15, 2013 3:23:04 PM UTC-5, None wrote:

> That's your field of dilletance, bunky. Now dance for me again!

Dilletance?

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" < willie winter****** @comcast.net> whinged in
message ...

>> It must be wonderful knowing that anyone who disagrees
>> with you is automatically wrong.

> That's your field of dilletance, bunky. Now dance for me again!

Your gun is empty.

[Trevor]

"Ron C" > wrote in message
...
> Snake oil is snake oil, the larger variable
> [IMHO] is the quality/slickness of the oiler.

No, snake oils ain't snake oils, there are thousands of species of snakes to
get oil from. I'm sure they all vary to some degree.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Gary Eickmeier" > wrote in message
...
> The fascinating thing about golden ear reviews is that no matter what it
> is, there is an improvement of leaps and bounds to the previous
> technology - which was also described as the ultimate improvement and now
> perfect in every way. So each review gives the lie to all previous
> reviews - nor are there that many levels of improvement possible within
> even their world.

It's often called the dance of the 7 Million veils, because reviewers had
the habit of saying every improvement was like a veil being lifted :-)

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>
>No, snake oils ain't snake oils, there are thousands of species of snakes to
>get oil from. I'm sure they all vary to some degree.

I thought snake oil was like motor oil or baby oil. That is, it is intended
for applying to snakes.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>No, snake oils ain't snake oils, there are thousands of species of snakes
>>to
>>get oil from. I'm sure they all vary to some degree.
>
> I thought snake oil was like motor oil or baby oil. That is, it is
> intended
> for applying to snakes.

Maybe they have that too :-) (the original wild west oils were not meant for
applying to snakes of course)
And if it's like motor oil and baby oil, then more than one formulation is
probable anyway.

Trevor.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> James Price > wrote:
>>>> On Friday, June 14, 2013 7:45:01 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>>> Frank Stearns > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh. My. God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a weird jumble of bits of real science glued together in strange
>>>>>> ways, something like "My dog barked, and the acoustic interaction
>>>>>> with the engine computer in my car two blocks away caused a misfire
>>>>>> on cylinder 3."
>>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately this is about typical of the high end industry. I have to
>>>>> review a lot of this stuff too. It's excruciating.
>>>>
>>>> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
>>>
>>> Years ago in this group I posted about trying the MIT speaker cables with
>>> Gabe. They definitely sounded different, so we opened up the magic boxes
>>> on each end of the cable and found lumped-sum RC networks in there. So
>>> no WONDER they sounded different.
>>>
>>> That's so much of what is wrong with the high end world... it is easy to
>>> tell that things sound different, and it's harder to tell if they are better
>>> or not.
>>> --scott
>>>
>>
>> Confirmation bias nearly guarantees that the observer, having paid
>> money for the thing, will hear it as "better".
>>
>> --
>> Les Cargill
>
> Good snake oil is never cheap!
>

According to Levon Helm, all rock and roll is based in the traveling
medicine show so I have to be careful there...

--
Les Cargill

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Did you ever have the opportunity to review
>> a $45,000 speaker cable?

> No, but I did demo a pair of $1K headphones.

Electrostatic headphones have gotten expensive, especially when paired with a
direct-drive amplifier. But they can be very, very good.

Whether any dynamic headphone is worth $1K is another matter. (The original
AKG K1000 was an oven-ready gobbler.)

[Trevor]

"Ty Ford" > wrote in message
al.NET...
>> Did you ever have the opportunity to review a $45,000 speaker cable?
>
> No, but I did demo a pair of $1k headphones.

Well it's not so hard to pay that for good headphones, but never a tenth of
that for 2 short speaker cables, let alone $45K. I'd need to see proof that
anyone has ever paid that much for two speaker connections, not just that
some idiot was asking that much, hoping for a bigger idiot.

Trevor.

[Shaun]

>"James Price" wrote in message
...

>Has anyone ever heard of this thing? I'm pretty sure it's primary function
>is to separate buyers from their money, but opinions are welcome:

>http://www.lessloss.com/blackbody-p-200.html

>"The Blackbody is unlike any other filter or conditioner. All power filters
>and conditioners address noise found on wires, but there’s another type of
>noise altogether. Until now, this inconspicuous type of noise has been
>largely unacknowledged. It is caused by constant electromagnetic
>interaction between gear and immediately surrounding objects: stands,
>racks, nearby signal wiring, enclosures, and other objects containing
>circuitry or not. This type of radiated noise is not confined to wires. The
>Blackbody works by absorbing these reflections, effectively solving the
>problem. Being the only conditioner of its kind, it offers a level of
>performance previously unattainable."

I'm guessing that this thing has an antenna inside that picks up the EM
noise in the room and transmits the inverse of it to cancel out the EM
noise. I'd say it's a waste of money too. older style ECG machines do this
to reduce common mode interference so the the ECG traces are interference
free. Metal cases (preferably grounded), shielded cables and low impedance
outputs (speaker outputs) solve this problem already!

Shaun

[Gray_Wolf]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:32:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...
>
>> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
>> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
>> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
>> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
>> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.
>
>This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.
>
>In general, your audio system will "sound better" in the early hours, probably
>because we are rested and more alert. There is also the fact that there are
>fewer visual and audible distractions to add "perceptual" noise that degrades
>our appreciation of the music.


Cooler room temperature helps too.

[William Sommerwerck]

On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:32:18 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

>> Curious side note: the bio of designer Louis Motek mentions
>> what I also call the "3 am effect". I've always attributed the
>> heightened "aliveness" we seem to have with music in the wee
>> hours not due to changes in the grid, but rather something much
>> closer to home -- our brain. It's due to evolution.

> This is an example of making an assumption, then not bothering to test it.

You have edited my post to make it look as if I'm criticizing the poster, when
in fact the opposite is the case.