What is the Silliest Accessory You Have Ever Seen.
It’s mostly a case of people trying to find a way to go out the garage, or a different room, or outside for a drive, a ride or a long walk....etc.... for some quiet..and agreed upon peace... and find a way to get a hold of and control some small part of their currently messed up life----- ....and they do it by going on line ---and kicking the dog. As the dog is disagreeing with them too. If you beat the dog further, or even making a motion toward the dog with the full intent to deliver a beating...you’ll only be the fool. Worse, actually..more a case of being blind and abusive than anything else. Totally outside of reason/thought. The OP began the thread on the premise of continual beatings due to the OP’s blindness and emotional issues. The worse case scenario as a point of perpetual enforced purgatory... as forced upon entities external to his given self. This is clearly noted in the OP’s thread startings, and contributions in threads. This is counter to all reasonable behavior and should not, under any circumstances, be supported or allowed. |
«Wise men chose most of the times "rarely" over "never" »-Anonymus Smith This is for justifying the chosen content of my word... For justifying the general form in the context of the original answering post by which this chosen word was inspired: Try the word " euphemism" in a rhetorical dictionary.... After that read about "sarcasm" in the same dictionary Connect the two..... And final test: Did i used this precise expression "rarely" because only of his content or because of the context first ? To have a clue do this exercise: Exercise: Repeat after me: " Tweaks are rarely good" Try now : " Tweaks are never good" Sense the differences.... Estimate how the difference had different impact on people in this thread.... End of lesson..... |
We dont lack " nuts" in this thread dont add one more ....Myself included for sure.... By the way sarcasm is an art that ask for more than regurgating common place joke.... Practice rhetoric.... « Word of wisdom can rarely be under a piece of s...»-Anonymus Smith «Especially not on top either»-Groucho Marx Anyway my best to you in your world..... |
Lewm, There is a right frequency response, perfectly flat from each individual speaker within it's operating range. Once you have that you can alter things to suite your taste. I run my subwoofers a little forward and tilt the treble down 3 dB at 20 kHz for some recordings. I also use a 4 kHz notch filter for harsh recording. You should stop being a stick in the mud, spend a couple of $100 and get yourself a calibrated microphone and computer program. It is a lot of fun and a great learning experience. But, if you are happy where you are nobody can argue. Yes, this is certainly a hobby, the mechanical part of it. Listening to music is a necessity. |
Yes it is only a primitive Helmholtz phenomena resonator.... the key with the open pipes is the lenght relative to one another... the Helmholtz resonators sets is the ancester of room correction.... My "organ" is more economical than the original "room lens" for me... i dont pretend it is better tough i have no idea.... By the way i already use 3 bigger tubular "plastic" pipes, 8 feet, 5 feet, 3 feet, with 3 inches and 5 inches diameter with success...My first version of the "roomlens"... These 3 tubes are closed at the aperture and a straw is used with a determined lenght and diameter....I have done this 46 hours ago.... On the other end my organ pipes are vented at the basis not glued to wood like the big tubes, and the top aperture is open... i already created some Helmholtz bottles before that in my room, you have given to me the idea about tubes when answering people mocking "roomlens" with a your post... Thanks to you... All my devices today act complementarily and my audio room is sonically very good now... But i need more experiments with tubes and pipes....Fun for months to come .... Price: peanuts..... I am very proud by the way to be in " the most silliest tweaks" thread and be mocked by some passive consumers and gullible "upgraders" of electronic costly design... They ignore the elememtary fact that an electronic piece of gear CANNOT work optimally in giving an optimal S. Q. in a bad uncontrolled mechanical dimensions, in a bad and noisy electrical house grid and in a bad acoustical room like they almost are.... |
No photos for now.... I just finish the first approximative design...Wait some time please.... 😊 i use 2 set of three pipes vented at the base yes, i try to use golden proportion between the 3 pipes, one is the lenght sum of the other 2, not wool no....It work, improvement on all count in my room.... I am pretty sure that a refinement in more exact proportion and adjustement of the pipes will even improve my results.... But i take few minutes to make one of them then... and the result were amazing... ROOM acoustic is the KEY to audio, not costly electronic design "per se"....Add the mechanical embeddings controls and the electrical grid controls and the door is open to audiophile experience with any relatively good system even low cost one.... I will send you a picture in the week to come... but it is a 2 set of bricks with 3 pipes in each 3 hole... rather easy to figure.... Thanks very much for your interest.... |
Components are parts of the system that you absolutely need to get sound out of it. In a conventional system, source component(s), amplification, speakers, ICs, SCs, and PCs. Beyond that everything else, categorization-wise, is subjective. Accessories are items that started off as tweaks but have become sufficiently mainstream to be thought of as pretty standard, e.g. footers. Tweaks aren't mainstream, e.g. mpingo discs. One man's tweak is another man's accessory. Fashions change, and generally there is a trend for less out-there tweaks to come to be thought of as accessories. It's an on-going process. A good number of tweaks never make the grade and fall by the wayside, only to be recalled years later in nostalgic threads on Audiogon. |
It’s yet another hobby.Rightly said.... NO acoustician use " equalisation" like a main tool to create a good room, some used instead "room correction" as a secondary tool to refine the link between some speakers and the room... No bad room can be transformed by the equalizer of our "gifted" friend to a good room, at best it can be made less worst...The reason is simple an equalizer does not do a good job to analyse the impulses from the room response timing , it truncate the time response, it is not a room corrector; and anyway i listen to music in TWO different positions in my room then very different responses exist at the 2 locations , how can you equalize optimally? And my 6 headphones are useless now they all sound unnatural compared to my room.... My actual room is very good in the 2 positions... 😊 I am not an acoustician but most people dont use E.Q. and i dont want to either but anyway i will try room correction myself this year to refine my results...My room is acoustically good for my ears now then refinement is in the order....Room correction not equalization.... 😊 My new device acoutical control cost really 3 or 4 peanuts; I called it an "Helmholtz silent organ".... And results are outstanding for room correction with EARS... Cost a brick with 6 copper plumber pipes same diameter but which lenght in the golden ratio proportion with one another...Perfect? not at all....Astounding? yessssssss.... Cost ridiculous....It is my refinement of the "room lens".... My hobby is creativity... Our "gifted" friend is more liberal with his money but more economical with his ideas it seems....I think his brain is too much preoccupied with "snake oil" all around him....Myself i perceive opportunities or "affordance" around me.... My new device created in the last 24 hours: Seeing my " Helmholtz silent organ" device i dont doubt that his "gifted" seeing will perceive snake oil on the spot....Especially because the appearence is not refine and the cost is lower than a pair of good socks...And it work wonderfully teaching us a lesson about acoustic.... 😁 But guess what? i always delude myself ALONE, not with friends in a equalization club smiling at all those who bought "tweaks".... But those who will borrow my crazy ideas will do it at no cost or peanuts costs....And they will have fun... Hi-FI experience is possible at very low cost, i dont give a damn about those who sell costly electronics or useless ideas for creating this experience, like buying a costly equalizer.... Is there is a better system than mine? yes.... But i never listen to one for now.... My experience is for sure limited , yes, but i know how a piano in a room sound like and the sound of a piano NEVER come from speakers, and exist by itself.... My system replicate that in more than a small measure, thanks to my embeddings controls.... |
"The right frequency response is much harder. If you think you can trust your ears for this you are out of your mind." I do not agree there is a "right" frequency response suitable for all program sources. And I am definitely out of my mind. You are chasing your tail with digital room correction, but have fun with that. It's yet another hobby. |
Lewm, I fully agree, You have to know what the real deal sounds and feels like to have a prayer of getting that kind of performance at home....with live recordings. Many recordings were not meant for that. The artist had something else in mind. There are two major characteristics I think in achieving a realistic live performance. Power projection, the ability to create the dynamics and volume of a live performance across the entire frequency band. And the right frequency response which is tricky because this includes the room. Power projection is actually pretty easy. You just need the right speakers and enough power to do the job which depends on what you chose for the right speakers. The right frequency response is much harder. If you think you can trust your ears for this you are out of your mind. Human hearing accommodates to frequency very quickly. I have tested many systems that the owner was happy with and they were all way out. If you are use to listening to a bright system (most common) A system that is relatively flat will sound dull at first. People also have no idea what their room is doing. Making empirical changes in room acoustics is a crap shoot. First you have to get to flat. Flat is the only acceptable reference point. After that you can start tilting things to your preference and you will know exactly what you are doing. The easy way to achieve this is room control. But theoretically you can do this with a measurement microphone and some smarts, but for certain it will take you a lot longer to get there. You will never have the best system you could have trying to balance it by ear, never. I have measured too many systems that people thought were just fine only to come up with a substantial mess. They had just gotten use to their sound. Measurement microphones and programs are not that expensive. IMHO Every audiophile should have one. This is immeasurably more important than any tweak you could buy. It is like having a good protractor for your turntable. It is also a lot of fun and a great learning experience. |
What is wrong with tuning your listening room to suit your listening preference, so long as you have the sound of live, preferably unamplified music in a live venue as your comparator? To achieve that end, or get close to it, you need to experience live music as often as possible, of course. In my opinion, that approach is as valid as any other. |
mahgister, those who cannot listen will always cry. If not placebo then double-blind, expectation bias, counter-expectation bias, the room, the speakers, my pants are too tight, got a flat tire, dog ate my homework. Lousy listeners are always crying about something. Because: can't hear! They're trying to play a game where hearing and listening are everything, and every time they try, total fail. |
Respectfully,I was asking myself this question 2 years ago BEFORE my systematic journey in listening experiments... We must distinguish between relatively good components and very high refined one.... I own only good components not very refined one on the scale of Quality/ price ratio... After these 2 years i learned that NO good only audio system can compare to a refine costly one.... Not the same measured potentials of quality....But the margin of distance between the 2 can be very strongly shortened... Because ANY system must be embedded in the three working dimensions for their optimal workings... From that follow that the difference between only a" good" component and a very" refined" costly one is NOT what most people think, especially if the costly system is not installed in a controlled environment but the good system to compare with it, itself is... The question is not to know when a "tweak" begin to be a component of a system.... The questions is what any system, relatively "good one" or "very refined" one, ask for, to be rightfully embedded? This problem cannot be solved completely only by a bunch of costly tweaks, but must be answered with systematic listening experiments linked to the mechanical embedding of the system, listening experiments linked to the electrical embedding of the system, and listenings experiments linked to the system acoustical embedding... A pair of speakers, a turntable and a dac, and amplifier are an INCOMPLETE system...If they are not in their controlled working dimensions...This controlled complex environment is the MISSING part of the system, not a tweak or 2.... We nead ears to create listening experiments, even acoustic problems cannot be solved by only electronic tool device... I am not surprized at all by your experience.... I lived through the same..... My best to you.... And thanks for your recommendation of the "lensroom"....It worked great... P.S. Speaking of placebo and blind test is deluding others and himself...Blind test may be interesting but they are not necessary for improving our audio system in our house....... An INCREMENTAL set of increases on a long period (2 years for me) with many improvements after different experiments always going after trials and errors in the same direction: an always better natural timbre experience and a better imaging, CANNOT be ONLY illusory.... But buying a cable and listening if there is a small difference tough MAY be a placebo or not...Sspecially in a noisy environment... I say that for those why cry " placebo" in this thread ....There is a difference between placebo in medecine and illusion of perception in audio but i will not speak about that here.... |
Respectfully, At what level of improvement does the term Tweak lift itself to the level of a component change? That is what I am asking. Does it require a large out lay of funds to be called a component? When some friends heard my new acoustic device they said who would have thought that would make that big a difference..but they still called it a tweak..in my home it makes a large improvement one that tells me when it is engaged and when it is not. Lights up or lights dimmed. Tom |
A tweak is never a solution by itself... It is only a step toward some improvement... Calling a tweak "radical" is only market method for selling....Radical solution are engineered one and costly usually....But very low cost partial solution exist like the "room lens" we can reproduce homemade... Even imperfect, very positive increasing S.Q. For my room i have used many complementary devices with success....At no cost.... The key is understanding that NO audio system can work optimally with no controls at all in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions....Then ridiculizing buyer of tweak and thinking that a systen can work fine out of the box is deceiving oneself with future upgrades illusion... Chasing good sound is first installing his actual system in the best controlled environment... |
Cleeds, obviously, any sense can be deceived. I think most people got the gist of what I was saying in the absence of deception. Again, thank you for the kind an understanding comments. Your second paragraph was wonderful. millercarbon, you seem to be descending into psychosis. Besides getting lost is there anything we can do to help. Really. |
theaudiotweak, by radical do you mean ineffective? Resonance control systems can be very important. The Ben and Jerry's ice cream factory in Vermont had a huge problem. It's compressors were driving it's neighbors nuts. The screens surrounding them rang like a tuning fork. They hired my brother's company to stop it. What component parts do you make? |
Some tweaks are not so fine. When does a tweak become radical ? What's the threshold of a tweak to move above and beyond the mediocrity of its given name. Is an equipment rack a no name tweak or is it like I have found it to be a system component that is a necessity? I am a member of a company that makes high level resonance control systems and component parts for audio as well as for violin and cello. Tom |
"Seeing is believing." Right. Moron. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBap_Lp-0oc Why are audiophiles always making it harder than it needs to be? Take something utterly uncontroversial, turn it into War of the Worlds. Maybe everyone take a break, type the word into a browser, read what comes up? When I do that strangely enough its pretty simple- tweak: improve (a mechanism or system) by making fine adjustments to it. Yeah. I can see how that would drive some people crazy. Sheesh. You can call it a tweak. You can call it an adjustment. You can call it fine tuning. You can tweak VTA, VTF, speaker toe in, etc, etc, on and on. You can tweak by moving, adding, removing. You can buy a tweak, or you can make a tweak. Heck you can even invent a tweak. The question is why anyone would want to ridicule and insult people for trying to improve their systems by making fine adjustments to it? Isn’t improved systems what audiophiles are here for? Apparently not. Some it seems are here to insult us for the crime of wanting to make our systems better. |
Just a word about a simple explanation about "tweaks" that seems to perturb some brain.... It is not the "Riemann hypothesis problem" level of difficulty to understand that: ANY "tweak" is a tool thay may help or not, it is MOST OF THE TIMES not enough to buy a tweak and think that it will solve completely the problem related to the working dimension where the "tweak" or tool is applied... This is the reason WHY i dont recommend tweaks in itself, but a set of systematic listening experiments in the mechanical dimension, electrical and acoustical one...All my devices are chap modified low cost product or homemade by the way....I sell creativity not lazy consumerism... An example: A set of springs can apparently help to control vibrations...If the number of springs is adjusted finely... It is a "tweak" but without listening experiments, this tool cannot solve the problem why? Because it smooth the effect of vibrations yes but not necessarily of speakers internal resonance...And the perception of the instrumental timbre is negatively affected also by resonance .... Then thinking by listening experiments i added an another new set of springs this time on top of the box speakers under an heavy load that was already there damping my speakers... WHY? because the asymmetrical compression of the 2 sets of springs boxes, one under the speakers, the other on top of the speakers under the damping load create an effect of asymmetric elasticity between the top and the bottom of the speakers enclosure smoothing the effect of the inevitable internal resonance... All that is not the fact of a gullible consumers buying a "tweak" or a tool, being a set of springs or an equalizer... I called that listening experiments in the mechanical embeddings dimension of an audio system... COST: peanuts.... Now an important remark: If your electrical grid is too much noisy like ALL non treated electrical grid, if your room acoustic is not enough under sontrol, how could you hear the destruction of musical timbre by internal resonance when putting the springs tool or tweak under your speaker? You could probably not.... You will think that vibrations being in some controls all is ok....you will satisfy yourself with the improvement linked to the partial vibrations control.... But it is an illusion linked to the insufficient treatment of the electrical grid and of the room....An illusion also linked to the fact that NO tweak or tool solve all problem by itself.... Do you understand now why i speak not about "tweaks" mainly, but about the relative controls of the embeddings 3 dimensions of ANY audio system by listenings experiments? Tweaks are plasters in the worst case like many upgrades are, most of the times for most consumers, or in the best case a tool like an equalizer, but NEVER the only solution all by itself...Listening experiments method is the solution.... Or buy a million dollars room and system and call me nut.....It will be less ridiculous than calling me nut because you own a 10,000 bucks equalizer.... More easy to understand than number theory no ? I can give to you an introduction also... |
mijostyn ... all of our hearing is excellent at playing tricks on us. Seeing is believing, but hearing is not.Oh no, the eye is very easily deceived. Using that to advantage is part of the art of many pursuits, such as architecture, illusions ("magic"), and design in all sorts of things, from clothing to cars. In truth, the eye itself is not deceived, but the brain. The same is true when we listen. It's our brain that tells us what we hear. That is an important distinction because it hints at one of the challenges of conducting a scientifically valid blind listening test, but getting into that here is OT. |
What is the dynamic that make us so gullible when it comes to audio quality. THe gullibility in audio is NOT reserved to a customer buying a tweak...Half truth is your prefered affirmation... The purchase of constant upgrade by people who dont understand that we must treat and control vibrations, the electrical grid and the acoustic is also the most visible face of gullibility before upgrading .... The credulous faith in costly electronic pieces upgrades is the motor of this conditioned market... I have had more negative experiences than I care to admit but usually not from "tweaks" but from poorly designed or misused equipment. A little self confession can help.... Thanks for a moment of truth....especially the word " usually not" about the tweaks you tried... I dont recommend myself any "tweak" i recommend a method of listening experiments systematically in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensionsof the the audio system....A single tweak is like an equalizer, a useful perhaps tool but only that, NEVER an encompassing solution... A method of listening experiments is....I hope you will learn something from me.... There was always better equipment to buy. Who wanted to waste money at the margin.But you forget that a piece of audio or any system itself, CANNOT work optimally in non controlled environment....Then you relapse in the lazy consumer mode thinking that only MONEY can buy happiness in audio... Read philosophy that will help your bank account and help you to think like when you were younger and poor, about how to help yourself in audio without buying too much or even almost without buying anything .... Who is more gullible at the end, me with my peanuts costs "room lens" i improved and corrected yesterday for my room with success or you, with your illusory blind faith that a costly equalizer is THE solution for ALL acoustic problem and not only a tool among other like a Helmholtz bottle for example, which is what a "room lens" is ? But is "an equalizers owners club" constituted a hobby? Like someone, myself, who for hobby use many other tools of his own making ? the answer is yes.... Then why criticizing and mocking other people different hobby with your posts? The days of falling for marketing were over.You begin to understand after throwing big money in your system and now how can someone must admit that audiophile experiences dont necessarily cost a big amount, modulo some experiments and simple devices? it will be admitting your own gullibality....Easy to understand your faith in scientism and consumer market.... Why does all this junk always make things sound better and not worse.Another half truth.... Stupidity is easy to correct we only need to look for the missing piece... The main reasons, i cannot detail all the stage of 2 years of experiments and trials here are easy to understand ANY set of experiments is constitued by rectified errors........ This is the INCREMENTAL process that give a constant improvement after a set of trials....Qualifiying "junk" for example a plumber pipe i used to replicate an helmholtz bottle is bad faith.... But sometimes some mistake must be communicated: example-1 shungite must not be use near a dac a cd player or am amplfier because of the sound conpressing effect... Example-2 the dimensions of resonators and and location is very important then ensuing errors which were modified by trials... Why are there always some people who are unable to understand that their hearing, all of our hearing is excellent at playing tricks on us.Another half truth but this one take the cake... A set of incremental increase each week or month for 2 years CANNOT be ONLY a placebo effect... And because you think that this truth represent all the reality, you use your equalizer like if it can replace totally your ears... It is a tool useful for adjusting the speakers numbers to some aspect of the room.... Thats all.... You need your ears for finalisation of any acoustical process... Do you know the measures numbers fallacy? A circle of measured numbers mesns nothing without EARS to interpret them.... Elementary epistemology... Lack of understanding/knowledge and ego I think are most to blame. None of us likes to be wrong.A mirror is the most epistemological tool in life..... |
I have had more negative experiences than I care to admit but usually not from "tweaks" but from poorly designed or misused equipment. I fell for the marketing. My favorite example being the Transcriptors Vestigial Tonearm. Try not to die laughing but I even tried to put a Koetsu in it and then blamed the Koetsu for poor tracking. When the right bass note came along it would pop right out of the groove. Worse it was on an LP 12. My formative years. A V15 did not even fare well in that arm. There was always better equipment to buy. Who wanted to waste money at the margin. The really stupid stuff didn't start until the early 80's and by then I had set up over 100 systems including the entire PA system at Flagler Dog Track. Experience and reading had gotten me well up to speed. The days of falling for marketing were over. |
mijostyn, "@glupson, are you ever wrong?" I was. Third grade elementary school math test. I got one question wrong. I am still considering psychotherapy for that trauma. As far as "how come that tweaks are always for better" question, I asked that many times. At some point one person here, I think it was oregonpapa and, as usual, I may not be wrong, mentioned some tweak that made things worse. That was after I had asked many times the same question. I concluded that negative tweaks do exist, but do not get advertised as such that often. |
@glupson, are you ever wrong? I need to stay up later at night, missed a lot of fun. What is the dynamic that make us so gullible when it comes to audio quality. Why does all this junk always make things sound better and not worse. Why are there always some people who are unable to understand that their hearing, all of our hearing is excellent at playing tricks on us. Seeing is believing, but hearing is not. Hearing is a very emotional sense. If you hear danger you are in big trouble. We can see much farther away than we can hear 99.9% of the time. If you see danger coming you generally have a lot more time to deal with it. It is why we stand on two legs. Good thing Indians were scared to attack at night. Lack of understanding/knowledge and ego I think are most to blame. None of us likes to be wrong. Because most of this stuff does no harm (no benefit either) other than financial it is much harder to fault. I am lucky I suppose in that my own mistakes have always screwed things up enough to notify me that I had botched it. Certainly people with a better understanding of the science behind all of this are less susceptible to the chicanery. When dealing with strangers it is always best to proceed with a high degree of suspicion. Someone who is for real knows this and will go head over heals trying to show just how good their stuff really is at shows and such. You get up in the morning and check your email box 3/4 of it is somebody trying to scam you. It may be sad but you have to keep that in mind when dealing with strangers. |
"What is the Silliest Accessory You Have Ever Seen." Proponents are right, mijostyn formed the question wrong and it is not only because he did not put question mark at the end. Reading about Hallographs, I get an impression they are not an accessory after all. They seem to work as a crucial, centerpiece in fact, part of an audio system. They simply do not qualify for this thread about accessories. |
So, @tweak1 brought up the fabled Clever Little Clock earlier in this thread. The original CLC was a Timex travel alarm clock with an orange dot on the face. Something was definitely very, very clever, but it wasn’t the clock. Rivaled only by legendary products of marketing genius such as the pet rock and the Power Balance wrist band, the CLC garnered almost universal praise from both professional reviewers: I found my entire listening experience to be much more enjoyable with the Clock in place.....Machina Dynamica sells the clock direct for $199, and it’s well worth the price.as well as from audio aficionados such as tweek1: I have been using many Machina Dynamica tweak products to great effect over a decade, including the Clever Little Clocks, and yes they too perform as advertised. If his products don’t work for you then look to your system, or maybe your hearing is not capable, but his products work well.I always appreciate when any dissention is preempted by, "If you cannot hear how great this product is, the problem is either "your crappy system or your crappy hearing" or, one of my favorites, "you obviously don’t know how to listen critically." If you do some sleuthing, you may learn the clock has origins beginning with the "Dawn of Man" and is tied to a person’s internal clock survival mechanism that helps to locate predators. The clock addresses alien time coordinates that are contained in a recording and are associated with the 4-dimensional spacetime coordinate system (x, y, z, t), where t is the time of the recording session and t-0 marks the first instant of the Big Bang. Easy peasy....pretty basic stuff. Apparently, it’s the relative difference between Past Time (i.e., recording time) and Present Time (i.e., listening time) that’s important - and that is where the CLC come in. If you happen to question the lineage of the CLC, consider that: The Clever Little Clock is based on concepts and techniques that were developed by PWB Electronics, Leeds, England and is designed and manufactured exclusively by Machina Dynamica. The Clock I currently produce (with the permission of PWB) is an "updated" version of their original clock and takes advantage of many newer PWB concepts/products that have come along since then. May Belt of PWB Electronics provided assistance with this theory of operation.Wow, good to know. Don’t be fooled by substitutes, and don’t be concerned about availability since there is now an Ultra Signature Version of the Clever Little Clock (a Casio with a thermometer and two neodymium magnets!) for only $299....now that’s darn clever! |
@Audio2design. " Can you imagine having a product that makes a demonstrable and obvious difference in the sound and never making a demonstration that proves the difference is obvious? Surely you must be at least a little curious why that does not occur? " Why would anyone care about such a test? If the test is positive, and there is no audible improvement, no one would care about such a product, and if the test is negative and a number of people report audible benefits, no one cares about the test. In theory theory and practice are the same. In practice (in anything more complicated than ohms law) they are not. |
