[kraken2109]

So who's taking them to court for false advertising then?

 

[Billheiser]

Regarding this point:
"...a rational argument can be made that an RF filter on a 10ft headphone cable is a good idea."
Perhaps so, but in that case the device should be on the OPPOSITE end of the cable, right?

 

[SilentFrequency]

So who's taking them to court for false advertising then?

So, I take it that devices like HOT clearly do not come under scrutiny like as has been made here only by some official consumer agency?

Surely if a company brings a product to market yet fails so dramatically as the HOT then it should be prevented to be misleadingly sold to the trusting public/audiophile community?

If SR were confident their product did as they state then they could easily defend themselves with any counter "proof" or measurements or whatever then I guess that would be open to them but with pretty damming tests made so far from this community of the HOT, I'd guess SR are busted?

 

[Billheiser]

There's no govt regulation of this sort of stuff. In theory, there could be, but since this is not dangerous/physically harmful, and since the manufacturer's claims are so vague and nebulous, there's nothing to be done from that realm.

 

[Billheiser]

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.

 

[SilentFrequency]

There's no govt regulation of this sort of stuff. In theory, there could be, but since this is not dangerous/physically harmful, and since the manufacturer's claims are so vague and nebulous, there's nothing to be done from that realm.

Just seems ethically (? if right word) wrong ie if I go to see a 3D movie and it's just in 2D (normal) then it's totally false advertising?

Wrong is wrong no matter if it's not dangerous physically to health and as has already been mentioned by another member, fraud?

All I can say is thank goodness for the Sound Science section of Head-Fi and the amazing efforts of members who have contributed so kindly here

 

[SilentFrequency]

Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.

omg, I guess that's just the complete sad truth in the audiophile world! :eek:

I don't even know what to make if SR's 30 day return/refund policy as it suggests maybe they have confidence in their product but now I think it's just a total mind warp?

Edit, this type of occurrence is rare in audiophile world, right?

 

[Speedskater]

Regarding this point:
"...a rational argument can be made that an RF filter on a 10ft headphone cable is a good idea."
Perhaps so, but in that case the device should be on the OPPOSITE end of the cable, right?

This small device is not what anyone would call a real RF filter. Just reading a few filter papers, you would see that filters just don't happen nor are they that small.
http://www.audiosystemsgroup.com/publish.htm
 
But because speaker wires and headphone cables can occasionally act as interference antennas allowing RFI to sneak back into the amplifier through it's output connector, you put the filter at near the amp's chassis.

 

[Billheiser]

Yeh, just because a product doesn't deliver on vague promises doesn't mean it's illegal. There are plenty of ineffective or useless products in the world, and the theoretical idea is that the free market will sort it out. Eventually, people will realize that (for instance) copper bracelets will not treat their arthritis, and eventually the sellers of those items will fail. But in the meantime, the power of suggestion is so strong that a few million folks will waste their money on placebo and false hopes and make the sellers rich for a while.

 

[Mel Famie]

Look at the teardown pix. No filter in there.

 

[Billheiser]

Look at the teardown pix. No filter in there.

Understood. We're just talkin', since SR claims it's a filter. Their definition of filter is certainly not a normal one, to put it mildly.

 

[Mel Famie]

Where did they use the term "filter"?

 

[Billheiser]

Where did they use the term "filter"?

In 3 places. In post #69 of this thread I used SR's words to show how they have variously described the device. I got those words from the SR website, and from their Facebook page, and from Ted Denney's responses to a previous head-fi thread about the HOT.

 

[thune]

I imagined the electrical testing would characterize the device as a 2-port passive black-box. Sure it is overkill, but I thought that was the point (to show that the device has no effect and to do so without relying on arguments related to the construction.)

 

[Mel Famie]

 I imagined the electrical testing would characterize the device as a 2-port passive black-box. 

It did.