Some HOT Science From Synergistic Research
Nov 24, 2014 at 9:21 AM Post #616 of 718

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,736
Likes
1,807
  Please link me to the reference, to save me wading through a bunch of heated "objectivist" discussion.
 
Originally Posted by pataburd
 
Not necessarily.  But would someone please direct me to the salient scientific posts, so I don't have to unduly suffer the concursive banter that comprises a significant percentage of this "objectivist/scientific" thread?

 
So you made those comments without having the courtesy to actually read the thread?  And you don't know about the EDX testing?
 
And you want someone to read the thread for you so you don't have to be bothered.....?
 
Hard to believe you're actually interested in this discussion based on that.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 9:41 AM Post #617 of 718

pataburd

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Posts
6,343
Likes
820
Location
Rural New York State
BF,
I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.  
 
However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 9:51 AM Post #618 of 718

bfreedma

The Hornet!
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Posts
2,736
Likes
1,807
BF,
I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.  

However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.


I'm not surprised you would see it that way. Just not sure why you're trolling the Sound Science forum.

Regardless, enjoy your perspective. Since you asked for scientific evidence then deny the value of it when presented, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

If you want to share your views on how the HOT actually performs as claims, I'd be happy to resume.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 9:58 AM Post #619 of 718

Xenophon

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 15, 2013
Posts
986
Likes
86
I'm not surprised you would see it that way. Just not sure why you're trolling the Sound Science forum.

Regardless, enjoy your perspective. Since you asked for scientific evidence then deny the value of it when presented, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

If you want to share your views on how the HOT actually performs as claims, I'd be happy to resume.


+1 on the above.  On a personal note:   not reading the thread, then requesting evidence (btw, if you'd have bothered reading even the first 10 pages you would have seen a discussion in which the materials and electrical connection are discussed ad nauseam) only to subsequently dismiss it with some flowery prose...simply bad form imo.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM Post #620 of 718

Hudson

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Posts
107
Likes
18
  BF,
I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.  
 
However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.

 
Are you really are considering buying this product or are you just looking for an argument? 
 
If you do want to buy one, it may be worth you reading the whole thread. I certainly would be curious if I was spending this amount of money on a similar priced product.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:02 AM Post #621 of 718

pataburd

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jul 1, 2003
Posts
6,343
Likes
820
Location
Rural New York State
I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not perform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.
 
You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.
 
If I am "trolling", then what justifies this thread's commensurate mocking and intimidation tactics?
 
It seems like you objectivists should be the ones setting the standard for civil discourse.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:05 AM Post #622 of 718

justaname

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Posts
136
Likes
25
Enjoy your new extension plug pataburd.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:18 AM Post #623 of 718

SilentFrequency

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Posts
788
Likes
44
I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not peform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.

You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.

If I am "trolling", then what justifies this thread's commensurate mocking and intimidation tactics?

It seems like you objectivists should be the ones setting the standard for civil discourse.


Well, from what I understand, purchasers of the HOT have a 30 day window in which to return for full refund should you not be satisfied, so bearing that time frame in mind, you are risk free of being out of pocket.

Also worth mentioning, Synergistic Research's lead designer has advised to another member here who owned this device that a 7 day run in for possible optimal performance of the HOT in addition to whatever headphones you use it with to use standard cables from respective manufacturer rather than aftermarket third party ones.

I know you mention that if the HOT does not perform as claimed, you would check back, but will you also check back if the device performs for you as it is intended by the manufacturer?

Thanks,

SF
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:21 AM Post #624 of 718

smial1966

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Posts
2,340
Likes
297
The design hoax or flaw is that the HOT actually makes headphones sound worse, as evidenced by friends and I when we tried a number of different cans and gear with it. Though I suspect that your experience with the HOT may be substantively different. 
 
Quote:
  I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not peform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.
 
You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.
 
If I am "trolling", then what justifies this thread's commensurate mocking and intimidation tactics?
 
It seems like you objectivists should be the ones setting the standard for civil discourse.

 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:26 AM Post #625 of 718

smial1966

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Posts
2,340
Likes
297
Yes, if the HOT doesn't perform as expected, it's likely to be your headphones, aftermarket headphone cable or amplifier that's at fault. 
rolleyes.gif

 
Quote:
Well, from what I understand, purchasers of the HOT have a 30 day window in which to return for full refund should you not be satisfied, so bearing that time frame in mind, you are risk free of being out of pocket.

Also worth mentioning, Synergistic Research's lead designer has advised to another member here who owned this device that a 7 day run in for possible optimal performance of the HOT in addition to whatever headphones you use it with to use standard cables from respective manufacturer rather than aftermarket third party ones.

I know you mention that if the HOT does not perform as claimed, you would check back, but will you also check back if the device performs for you as it is intended by the manufacturer?

Thanks,

SF

 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:43 AM Post #626 of 718

SilentFrequency

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Posts
788
Likes
44


:)

I think its great of you in donating your HOT for benefit of testing results and even more so that you requested the device be then auctioned off with proceeds to go to a charitable organisation :)

Your contribution, generosity and kindness is certainly totally noble and to be applauded, and that is faultless! :)
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 10:46 AM Post #627 of 718

smial1966

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Posts
2,340
Likes
297
Gosh thanks, jolly nice of you to say so. 
redface.gif

 
Quote:
smily_headphones1.gif


I think its great of you in donating your HOT for benefit of testing results and even more so that you requested the device be then auctioned off with proceeds to go to a charitable organisation
smily_headphones1.gif


Your contribution, generosity and kindness is certainly totally noble and to be applauded!
smily_headphones1.gif

 
Nov 24, 2014 at 11:39 AM Post #628 of 718

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,100
Likes
4,741
Location
Hollywood USA
  Maybe a bit of both.  But no cheaper than the manifold salvos of cheap-shots already launched.

 
If I've learned anything in this life, I've learned that the truth rarely lies exactly halfway between opposing opinions. Usually, at least one side is completely full of it. Sometimes it's so self evident, people have to contort their logic into pretzels to accommodate the foolishness... all in the interest of "fairness" of course.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 11:41 AM Post #629 of 718

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,100
Likes
4,741
Location
Hollywood USA
  Not necessarily.  But would someone please direct me to the salient scientific posts, so I don't have to unduly suffer the concursive banter that comprises a significant percentage of this "objectivist/scientific" thread?


I sincerely apologize for finding entertainment value in all of this.
 
Nov 24, 2014 at 11:47 AM Post #630 of 718

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
23,100
Likes
4,741
Location
Hollywood USA
  However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained. 

 
Perhaps you don't know what you are looking at. I would be happy to explain it to you. This is an inert plug extender. Two jacks with three wires between them. There is nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter it, for good or worse. Plugging this in would give the same sound as not plugging it in. It operates on the scientific principle of expectation bias. It is a placebo machine.
 
If you don't understand any of that, I would be happy to slow down and explain so you can understand.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top