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
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
48
Next
 
Last
  1. SilentFrequency

    I guess "proprietary" = trade secrets but in this case it's easy to draw our own conclusions from that, and I agree totally that SR's claims from that point seem empty if not evasive.

    I think burden of proof surely should lie with the manufacturer and not with members here.

    And that is such a shame I guess?
     
    Thad-E-Ginathom likes this.
  2. pataburd
    Or does the burden of proof lie with the folks challenging SR's claim (that is already "out there")?
     
  3. Mel Famie
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
     
  4. SilentFrequency

    Please click on Mel Famie's above post link.

    It answers your proposition way more better than I ever could.
     
  5. bigshot
     
    The HOT contains nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter the sound. It is just two plugs wired directly together with nothing in-between them.
     
    How did I do?
     
  6. SilentFrequency

    Pretty HOT? :)
     
  7. mikeaj
    I mean, seriously, if you designed and oversaw manufacturing of a great new product (much less one never been conceived before) and saw skeptics maligning it, wouldn't you explain how it works and part of the process? I mean, you would have to keep certain details under wraps, but resorting to threats, empty claims lacking any meaningful technical detail and motivation, and PMs doesn't seem like the natural response.
     
  8. SilentFrequency

    Maybe this is a "emperors new cloths" type of HOT product?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes

    :)
     
  9. smial1966
    The proof is clearly discernible by listening to this snake oil quackery, as it muddies the signal path and is deleterious to sound quality. But then stuffing a small cylinder full of sand, passing a wire thru it and then expecting this contraption to improve your headphone listening experience beggars belief, doesn't it?!?


     
  10. SilentFrequency

    I think I've found a buyer for your device!

    http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/d46c5c80cff5f51134d50506_533x711.jpg

    (lol!)

    :)

    Edit: and he wants two!

    only joking!
     
  11. castleofargh Contributor

    I thought the "only joking" warning was insulting my intelligence, then I remembered in what topic we were.
    so you probably did well. [​IMG]
     
  12. Dark_wizzie
    I'm going to try to put this in uh... less offensive terms so this post doesn't get deleted.
    Religious people generally have no idea how the burden of proof works, and you're demonstrating this right now.
     
    And in many ways, this is an audiophile religion.
     
    gikigill and bfreedma like this.
  13. Brooko Contributor
     
    I cannot even start to tell you how bigoted and intolerant this statement is. What the heck does a person's faith have to do with it.
     
    Claritas likes this.
  14. gikigill
     
    Nothing wrong there.
     
    He isn't pointing to anyone in particular, just showing the burden of proof lies with those making the claims not the ones challenging it.
     
    " Hey Brooko, I just got a billion bucks, too bad I cant show it to you or spend it on you or provide other evidence but trust me I totally have the billion dollars.
     
    Same applies to religions and any other sort of claims be they scientific or audio related as is the case of the HOT.
     
  15. Brooko Contributor
    No - he deliberately and intentionally singled out one particular group.  He didn't have to mention it - and it is a poor analogy anyway.  I am deeply religious (Christian) but that has nothing to do with my understanding of the burden of proof.
     
    And there is a big difference between lying about something material, and about a person's faith.
     
    I won't go into it further - as I know it's banned on the forum.  But I still say making the statement like he did is both bigoted and intolerant.
     
    nick n and Claritas like this.
First
 
Back
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
48
Next
 
Last

Share This Page