1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Some HOT Science From Synergistic Research

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by alvin sawdust, Oct 29, 2014.
First
 
Back
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
47 48
Next
 
Last
  1. SilentFrequency

    I hope it isn't carcinogenic!

    That would be HOTTER than just HOT! :)
     
  2. bfreedma
    Anyone else find it interesting that the SR vendor rep is showing as viewing this thread regularly and is adding reputation to those he thinks support him, yet makes no actual comments supporting his product now that factual data is being presented?

    Speaks volumes to me.

    Hopefully the level of scrutiny the HOT is getting will get other "faith based audio" product vendors to consider the ramifications of their products being thoroughly examined. Despite the retaliatory HOT sale mentioned in this thread....
     
  3. SunTanScanMan
    Anyone also notice that if you click on the Princeton link there is a "WARNING DO NOT CITE" at the top of the page? Click on it and you get:

    "This content of this page is taken from Wikipedia, and may not be up-to-date. The objective of this website is NOT to provide information, but to demonstrate an automatic document organizer and browser. Please visit the original Wikipedia page if you're interested in content. Feel free to cite the paper on  Visualizing Topic Models, International AAAI Conference on Social Media and Weblogs, 2012."
     
    and if you click on the hyperlink on this notice ('Visualizing Topic Models') you get:  'The webpage cannot be found'.
     
    Hence the need to also cite the Wikipedia page on silicon dioxide I guess.
     
     
    Did we really need two citations of the definition of silicon dioxide, even if one could be out of date? I suppose it's just too tempting to try and associate the product to another well known institution. Last time was Stradivarius... this time Princeton...
     
  4. SilentFrequency

    I get the impression that the SR vendor is participating in this threads topic now via PM at present.

    I know smial1966 posted a PM off SR vendor recently onto the thread and I've also received a PM also (just SR vendor confirming 10% return rate of HOT after I misunderstood their post in my reply to comment I made on thread).

    But I do think SR's approach to this thread by threatening libel action against a member rather than presenting a concise factual/technical reply totally interesting.

    Whether or not SR vendor is saving any factual reply in wait for the upcoming electrical test results is anyone's guess?
     
  5. Xenophon
    I speak only for myself here but I don't think the issue is about (subjective) belief.  With that you enter the realm of wether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.  The problem is that consumers generally won't buy a simple looking but expensive product based on a purely subjective opinion from a vendor, they need to be convinced somehow that a product does what is said on the box.  Else one might as well sell cow dung patties that were dried on the borders of the Ganges as 'dramatically improving amplifier performance if you keep them in your listening room'.  Pertaining to this matter:  what I object to  is that the HOT is sold with a pseudo-technical sauce poured over it which is designed to make people think that there is an objective, technical basis for their claim; citing from their website:  'Headphone Transducers or HOT for short, is the new UEF headphone filter that dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance.'. Trouble is, this claim is not substantiated by verifiable fact and based on the construction of the device and what far more knowledgeable people than I have said about it in this thread, there doesn't seem to be any objective basis for those statements, nor has the producer provided a relevant, verifiable explanation so far.  Had they sold it mentioning -like the Schiit guys for their decrapifier- that 'some people claim it also improves the sound but we simply don't know' it would already have been more palatable.  But face it, who'd pay 300 bucks for a plug extender that might or might not pull a voodoo trick when you can get the same article sans voodoo for 10 USD?
     
  6. bfreedma

    Yes, I got an absurd PM earlier in this fiasco. That said, PMing members is not in any way participating in a public forum.

    If I made a product that I felt was being unfairly maligned, I'd post the supporting facts I possessed for all to see, not PM individuals. But maybe that's just me.
     
  7. pataburd
    Philistines, the lot of you!
    [​IMG]
     
  8. SilentFrequency

    Yes, I totally get your points.

    I think SR's stating the HOT "dramatically improves headphone/amplifier performance" is such a bold claim that brings it under such justified scrutiny here.
     
  9. pataburd
    Agreed here, too.
    $299 is, admittedly--or at least apparently, bona fide theft. 
    I can understand one's taking exception to the manufacturer's voluminous claims, but it invariably lapses into belittling the subjectively predisposed Head-Fier.
    Who are "you" to tell me that "I" cannot hear anything, simply because "you" hear nothing?  (I speak rhetorically.)
    Alas!  The placebo effect IS measurable.
    [​IMG] 
     
  10. SilentFrequency

    Have you received your HOT device yet?
     
  11. SilentFrequency

    I was going to comment in Devils advocate style that maybe this threads more blunt commentators against the HOT maybe was not conducive (if that's the right word) to SR designer feeling comfortable to make counter comments, if not that being a weak premise nontheless, however when I read pataburd's comments, I guess maybe otherwise?
     
  12. bfreedma

    SR makes it and advertises its capabilities. You would think if their clams were supportable, they would be here with the facts and objective measurements re: the HOT

    There would be no downside to them doing so - The product either works or it doesn't.. This isn't the Cables forum where subjective claims will go unchallenged.
     
  13. SilentFrequency

    I totally agree, maybe my earlier comment didn't come across too well by me and I think the electrical test results when complete will be not only interesting but telling maybe that it's taken members of this thread to undertake such due to SR's lack of providing any in the first place.

    SR maybe would show better form so to speak if they were more forthcoming with factual information rather than making few and far between comments and also via private mail to individual members as I think this shows a lack of agency in their HOT product.
     
  14. Steve Eddy

    SR claims to do their own measurements during product development, but those measurements are "proprietary." Just one empty claim after another.

    se
     
  15. bfreedma
     
     
    And the measurements are only discussed internally with the "Cones of Silence" lowered.  Need to Know basis and all...
     
    Cone-of-Silence.jpg
     
First
 
Back
36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
47 48
Next
 
Last

Share This Page