cjl said:

A single blind test that results in a negative outcome (when there was a claimed difference on sighted listening) would be a useful data point though. If the single blind test results in a positive outcome, I agree that a more rigorous (properly double blinded) test is in order, but I don't think the single blind is useless.

Click to expand...

Well if it's going to be done single blind, the listener is going to have to be as isolated as possible from both the person administering the test as well as the device itself. There can't be any cues which could be seen or heard as to when the device is switched in or out.

se

sound science "yes we might!"
we're totally extreme in here.
 
for people interested in trying stuff, I would think that a switch is one of the first things that let you have fun while killing 80% of the differences you made up in your head. the ability to insta-switch, be it by software of with a physical switch, is a great help to notice differences or the lack of them. of course it's still only a subjective tool.
 
if I had a hot I would just loop my music and record once with nothing, once with the hot in line. then ABX the 2 tracks. the hard part for me in those situations being to edit it in audacity to try and get a "perfect" synchro.
or RMAA in loop with and without the hot, in the hope to see anything changing and all the great claimed improvements? there are plenty of things to try when you play little scientist ^_^. but we'll get real measurements soon so it's probably not needed.

If seeing two plugs connected by three wires isn't enough to prove to people that this is just a dummy plug, what difference do you think measurements showing the same thing will make to them?

Mel has the HOT. I could ask him to create two tracks, one with the HOT and one without for people to run an ABX.

se

steve eddy said:

Mel has the HOT. I could ask him to create two tracks, one with the HOT and one without for people to run an ABX.

se

Click to expand...

poor Mel is being enslaved

castleofargh said:

poor Mel is being enslaved

Click to expand...

I said I could ask him.

se

I've cleaned up some OT posts: Please go to http://www.head-fi.org/t/513481/are-blind-tests-bogus-examples-of-blind-tests-with-positive-results to continue generic debates of blind tests.

bigshot said:

 
I think it's interesting the Ted is handing out freebees. (Since it's damaged, it can't be returned to stock, so it can't be called a loaner.) And the folks he chose to hand the freebees out to were interesting choices too.
 
AnakChan's listening test is a perfectly scientific demonstration of expectation bias at work. We have a dongle that can't possibly alter the sound. He is told that the dongle will improve soundstage. He hears a slight improvement in soundstage. Perfect example of placebo in action. Sometimes placebo even works when you've been told it's placebo. That's how strong it is.

Click to expand...

 
Speculative. Conclusions based on assumptions.
 

bigshot said:

  To be perfectly honest, all I need to do is look at the teardown photo and I know any test would be pretty much useless. There isn't anything inside it that could affect the sound at all.

Click to expand...

 
Same here - speculative. Based on purely visual of a passed-on photo. I don't see how this is contributive to the proof or disproof of the HOT.

anakchan said:

Speculative. Conclusions based on assumptions.


Same here - speculative. Based on purely visual of a passed-on photo. I don't see how this is contributive to the proof or disproof of the HOT.

Click to expand...

Commenting on the internal components and construction of the HOT device seems more than appropriate.

billheiser said:

Commenting on the internal components and construction of the HOT device seems more than appropriate.

Click to expand...

 
I'm assuming you're talking about moderation. I agree (as such post not deleted). But then again, my reply then wasn't about moderation.

mel famie said:

 

currawong said:

   
it did initially take some focus to actually notice the difference. 

Click to expand...

 
Have you entertained the possibility that the focus was the difference rather than anything this "device" actually does? Frankly, I couldn't hear any difference whatever, and people claiming to hear a difference (or their wives) haven't done any sort of actual listening test.
 
Am I allowed to ask this question?

Click to expand...

 
Yes. At first I didn't notice any difference. Actually, it was quite funny. I plugged it into the Studio Six and plugged my headphones, then switched back and forth, listening to the same song from beginning to end, not noticing any difference at all. Then I tried switching mid-song and the music kept playing -- I was moving the wrong plug! (I was using the same type of aftermarket cables for two different pairs of headphones.) So I definitely wasn't expecting any difference. I'd rather expect nothing from anything I try, whether it be amp, DAC or some other device, and be pleasantly surprised, rather than the other way around.
 
My speculation is that if it absorbs EM and RF radiation as described, then the effect it has will depend on how much of these things an amp radiates for how much effect it will have. It's a problem that we have NO data that I know of on how EM and RF have any significant effect on headphone listening. I know there are RF devices for cables (can 'o' worms or what!) but they are usually on expensive cables way above the kind of price range we care about here. The closest I've come to anything like that is putting a pair of hand-braided ICs on a system behind my TV and the cables picking up very audible noise.
 
If Ted says the stuff inside the HOT absorbs EM and RF, we either take him at his word, or not.  I just asked to try one out of curiosity because I'd never tried any of his products before.

So far, Ted Denney and/or his Synergistic Research website have told us:
1.  It is a Uniform Energy Field product
2.  It is a transducer, changing electrical energy into mechanical energy
3.  It is a filter.
4.  It is a transducing filter.
5.  It absorbs RF and EMI.
6.  It is a combination of a transducing filter and an absorber.
7.  It is "is something TOTALLY NEW because before we invented and perfected HOT, nothing remotely like HOT existed in the world."
 
 
The above list are not my words, but theirs.
I suppose they might mean that the product is #8, ALL of the above, too.
I have no comment here, just reporting this compiled list about the product's properties.

anakchan said:

 
Speculative. Conclusions based on assumptions.

Click to expand...

 
There is absolutely nothing in the signal path except three wires connecting the two plugs together. If you are hearing a difference, do you have a better explanation of why you might be hearing a difference that can't exist? It's either some kind of fourth dimensional mumbo jumbo magic or expectation bias, and I think I know which one is more likely.
 
You are subject to expectation bias. So am I. So is every other human being on earth. That really isn't an insult. There's no reason to become defensive about it. We are humans, not machines.
 

anakchan said:

  Based on purely visual of a passed-on photo. I don't see how this is contributive to the proof or disproof of the HOT.

Click to expand...

 
Uh... I'm the one who posted the photo. It was given to me by a friend who shot it and tore the HOT apart. I know its source. It is complete proof. What is the point in defending this obvious fraud?

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif

<snip>
 
If Ted says the stuff inside the HOT absorbs EM and RF, we either take him at his word, or not.  I just asked to try one out of curiosity because I'd never tried any of his products before.

Click to expand...

 
Rather than question this fellow's word, a better question might be, that regardless of whether the HOT absorbs EM and RF or not, is it's presence audible?

currawong said:

  My speculation is that if it absorbs EM and RF radiation as described, then the effect it has will depend on how much of these things an amp radiates for how much effect it will have.

Click to expand...

 
Where did you get that theory from? It's an amp, not a microwave oven. And even if it was a 100 foot tall radio transmitter, three wires connecting two plugs together isn't going to make a lick of difference.