[Currawong]

 

Originally Posted by Currawong /img/forum/go_quote.gif

<snip>
 
If Ted says the stuff inside the HOT absorbs EM and RF, we either take him at his word, or not.  I just asked to try one out of curiosity because I'd never tried any of his products before.

 
Rather than question this fellow's word, a better question might be, that regardless of whether the HOT absorbs EM and RF or not, is it's presence audible?

 
IIRC he also made transducers that convert RF etc. into heat to attach to the main board of amps. 
 
Yes. I think the more general question of how these things affects audio components is a good one. One thing I've pondered for a very long time is, if one put a Faraday cage around one's place of abode (assuming it was in the middle of a large city) and blocked all RF, would one's audio system sound quality improve or not. That is going a bit off-topic though. 
 
The upshot of it is, the HOT needs a better explanation of how it works, or how Ted developed it.

 

[Hudson]

  My speculation is that if it absorbs EM and RF radiation as described, then the effect it has will depend on how much of these things an amp radiates for how much effect it will have. It's a problem that we have NO data that I know of on how EM and RF have any significant effect on headphone listening. I know there are RF devices for cables (can 'o' worms or what!) but they are usually on expensive cables way above the kind of price range we care about here. The closest I've come to anything like that is putting a pair of hand-braided ICs on a system behind my TV and the cables picking up very audible noise.
 
If Ted says the stuff inside the HOT absorbs EM and RF, we either take him at his word, or not.  I just asked to try one out of curiosity because I'd never tried any of his products before.

 
The problem for Synergistic Research is credibility.
 
If they at least made a claim that sounded even remotely plausible, like there was some capacitive/crossfeed effect in the HOT, then people might not be so quick do brand them snakeoil salesmen. Saying RF radiation (which incidentally is a type of EM radiation) absorption, (along with their many other vague/daft explanations) is the principal operating mechanism within the HOT is just a bland, meaningless statement.
 
The underlying physics of EM radiation and the absorption properties of the materials SR are using in the HOT device is well understood. Nothing correlates, no meaningful explanation, and their website is full of baseless nonsense. Zero credibility. Most importantly why and how would any of this be audible?
 
I'm looking forward to the test results and some ABX testing.

 

[mikeaj]

Mel has the HOT. I could ask him to create two tracks, one with the HOT and one without for people to run an ABX.

se

 
For methodological purposes, how about four tracks? Two with HOT and two without. That way there's repeatability and we can see if something in the test changes between two runs.
 
Or make it a ABXY by labeling A as with HOT, B as without, and X and Y being unknown, so people can try to guess for themselves which is which. They will all be slightly different because of random noise.

 

[upstateguy]

<snip>  
The upshot of it is, the HOT needs a better explanation of how it works, or how Ted developed it.

 
Why should it matter how it works or what it does, as long as the effect it has is audible?

 

[Billheiser]

   
Why should it matter how it works or what it does, as long as the effect it has is audible?

When deciding whether to buy, it helps to know beforehand if it may be a bunch of poppycock that only drains your wallet.  It is also useful to know if the "effect" is likely to be mere placebo.

 

[AnakChan]

 
When deciding whether to buy, it helps to know beforehand if it may be a bunch of poppycock that only drains your wallet.  It is also useful to know if the "effect" is likely to be mere placebo.

 
I thought I read somewhere in the old thread there was a 30 day return?

 

[Currawong]

 

 
When deciding whether to buy, it helps to know beforehand if it may be a bunch of poppycock that only drains your wallet.  It is also useful to know if the "effect" is likely to be mere placebo.

 
I thought I read somewhere in the old thread there was a 30 day return?

 
From their web site:
 

 30-day no-risk money back gaurantee:
Contact your nearest authorized Synergistic Research dealer and arrange for a 30-day, no-risk money back guarantee. 

 

[Billheiser]

Yes, 30 day return.  There's a psychology at work there too, but feel free to try it out.

 

[upstateguy]

 

   
Why should it matter how it works or what it does, as long as the effect it has is audible?

When deciding whether to buy, it helps to know beforehand if it may be a bunch of poppycock that only drains your wallet.  It is also useful to know if the "effect" is likely to be mere placebo.

 
If the effect is audible, it is not placebo.

 

[castleofargh]

 

 

   
Why should it matter how it works or what it does, as long as the effect it has is audible?

When deciding whether to buy, it helps to know beforehand if it may be a bunch of poppycock that only drains your wallet.  It is also useful to know if the "effect" is likely to be mere placebo.

 
If the effect is audible, it is not placebo.

audible as in, "I was told I would hear it, and so I did"? (placebo from expectations)
or as the bass from the speaker feeling real and more powerful/louder because we also feel it with our body? (bias from other senses)
or did you mean audible in repeatable in a blind test when most of the others senses and knowledge can't be abused to influence our auditory response?
 
I guess the audiophile definition of audible goes beyond the things our ears can record. that's why unicorns are ok on headfi and this product is still a thing.
 
 
as a side note, Anak and Curra, you don't seem to mention using a switch for both your feedbacks on the HOT. do you have a reason not to have one? I'm asking because you both get sooooooo many stuff in your hands, I would expect guys like you to even have one under your pillow when you sleep just in case.

 

[Xenophon]

   
If the effect is audible, it is not placebo.

Depends on your definition of 'audible'.  It's very possible that people convince themselves that there's a difference and that on interrogation they'd pass a polygraph test (not that those are even remotely reliable but ok).  Professionally I used to review witness statements of sometimes very basic stuff.  Honest people, well-meaning, trying to help.  But my God, when those statements were later confronted with irrefutable objective fact then more often than not it turned out they got it wrong, and not just in the details.    Hence the importance of double blind tests and backing claims with numbers that can be checked.  

 

[SilentFrequency]

If the effect is audible, it is not placebo.

If the effect is percieved as audible but not measurable, it is placebo?

 

[Hudson]

If the effect is percieved as audible but not measurable, it is placebo?

No, it just means it's not measurable. But, you have to be clear on what you mean by audible, as stated above by others.
An audible difference to me means you are able to detect it under a blind test. Which will almost inevitably mean you can measure it too.

 

[SilentFrequency]

No, it just means it's not measurable. But, you have to be clear on what you mean by audible, as stated above by others.
An audible difference to me means you are able to detect it under a blind test. Which will almost inevitably mean you can measure it too.

Members that have used the HOT and commented that the device makes a noticeable difference to sound are essentially claiming this device is audibly changing the sound compared to without using it, which suggests that if this is the case, then it would be measurable?

But Mel Famie is about to post his measurement results of the HOT sometime over the weekend which will be interesting.

 

[Hudson]

Members that have used the HOT and commented that the device makes a noticeable difference to sound are essentially claiming this device is audibly changing the sound compared to without using it, which suggests that if this is the case, then it would be measurable?

But Mel Famie is about to post his measurement results of the HOT sometime over the weekend which will be interesting.

Bare in mind nobody so far claiming to hear an audible difference has done so through a blind test. If an audible diffence can be identified during a blind test i.e. the subject can identify the hot every time, then I would indeed expect that to be quite easily measurable.

Generally speaking, also remember that just because we can measure a differenc doesn't mean we can perceive it under a blind test.

I'm looking forward to the results too, although I'm not expecting to see anything groundbreaking. And I appreciate the effort the experimentalist have put in to this.