[bfreedma]

  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.

 

[pataburd]

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.

 

[bfreedma]

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.

 

[Xenophon]

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.

 

[Hudson]

  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.

 

[pataburd]

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.

 

[justaname]

Enjoy your new extension plug pataburd.

 

[SilentFrequency]

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

 

[smial1966]

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.

 

[smial1966]

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. 

 
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

 

[SilentFrequency]

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!

 

[smial1966]

Gosh thanks, jolly nice of you to say so. 

 
Quote:

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!

 

[bigshot]

  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.

 

[bigshot]

  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.

 

[bigshot]

  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.