Why is science just a starting point and not an end point?
Measurements are useful to verify specifications and identify any underlying issues that might be a concern. Test tones are used to show how equipment performs below audible levels but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
This thread is about how science, and the scientific method, bares upon audio claims.
Another distortion for keeping your crusader agenda...
Read the OP stating question....
This thread is not your property , on the contrary the OP suggest wisely that known engineering facts ( i will reserve the name of science for other things) perhaps dont explain all there is in audio experience...
Then boxer is right and has a good perspective....He dont look like a crusader at all unlike you....
Me i am perhaps a crusader also, 😊against people who give lesson and label all audiophiles in the same bag because they dont use blind test...
Science is not first blind test but begins FIRST by anecdotal individual experiment, especially with a specific audio system in a very specific electrical grid in a very specific room with very specific pair of ears....
In an audio forum we exhange about INDIVIDUAL experiences.... Not about "scientific decree" mainly and blind test in particular....
Prof- FWIW, I never misunderstand what you write. In this case I was attempting to open your mind a little & improve the performance of your audio system at the same time.
When you condemn barefoot walking you condemn it nevermind any theory proposing explanation, assimilating it to superstition in astrology and anything out of your mind...
This article of your neurologist criticize some theory pretending to prove barefootwalking benefit not the barefoot walking benefit itself... On the other end a scientist saying that science will never prove the benefit of barefoot walking by principle is not a scientist in my book...
He is more cautious than you anyway....
By god you seem to be gullible.
Yes i am credulous, and very skeptical at the same times in general...
Credulity being "A "and skeptical being " B",
My working brain go from A to B and from B go back to A, with some new ideas about a way to prove or disprove my belief...
It is called thinking...
Exemple: Faith healer....
I am credulous than i accept that it is perhaps possible.... It is "A"...
By "B" i doubt it but instead of rejecting the idea i keep his possibility in my OPEN mind....It is called going from B to A .... And times to times i have discovered very interesting fact about faith healing...Is it not better than your decree mentality?
It is not scientifically proven for me BUT very possible by my inquiring thinking process...There exist for example HISTORICALLY some event linked to some faith healer that really make us skeptic about the impossibility of faith healing...
True Skepticism is a sword with 2 sides by the way.....
« Why do you keep a rabbit feet in your pocket Groucho? Because it is the only way to keep rationality when you speak with a robot»- Groucho Marx dixit
This thread is about how science, and the scientific method, bares upon audio claims.
You are simply repeating a request to engage in non-scientific anecdotal method, with zero control for imagination and bias.
If you can pass a listening test with such controls, showing you can indeed hear a difference between a CD green penned and not, without "peeking" - be my guest.
Of course I referenced a specific theory of earthing: "improving their health" by "grounding themselves magnetically to the earth" with their bare feet." I’ve already seen the "theory" taken apart by knowledgeable people, so yeah I’m familiar with it, which is why I brought it up.
By contrast, in a thread with science as it’s theme, you say "It takes one second to look for a positive reason to walk barefoot by a doctor on the net"
Sure, one second of googling...and you think this addresses my point and are apparently convinced "it’s a real thing!"
That’s a really steel-trap, critical, scientific-minded approach you have going there.
Here’s someone a little more knowledgeable and cautious about the "theory" - a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine:
By the way prof read this about magnetic field effect for healing....
There is another doctor here that think that it is possible is it another crook? for you for sure...
But being rational i will not go full speed against him ...Read his short areticle... It is not a proven scientific fact but it seems that this magnetic field effect deserve scientific experiments more than your power to decree what is science and what it is not are suggesting to us in your post...
For faith healers and phone psychic i will let you keep them in your bag with deluded audiophiles tough....It will be too long post for me to reveal the limiting power of your "scientific papal brain"...
Prof- "Do you have anything more robust?" I have implemented plenty into my system that is more "robust" but way beyond your ability. All I'm asking you to do is: 1. Select a CD for experimentation and listen to it 2. Take the cap off a green permanent marker 3. Apply green marker to the outside edge of a CD 4. Listen to treated disc 5. Decide for yourself if it's worthwhile & let us know
mahgister, FYI: I have come to ignore your replies, based on past experience, and seeing you produce more of the same. Don’t let that stop you though ;-)
Even if English is not my first language you cannot win a debate with me because you are irrational ... You are a philosophical simplistic mind.... You attack people easily....You dismiss anything which is not in your book....
You are a crusader in an audio forum face it....
People are here to exhange ideas about their audio system and experiments not to be given lesson about blind test....
I can find similar testimonies for people "improving their health" by "grounding themselves magnetically to the earth" with their bare feet.And for the healing power of magnetic bracelets. And for faith healers, and prayer and even phone psychics.
This is one expression of your strategy and bad faith dear crusader, putting all phenomenon which you dont approve in the same bag.... And you pretend that it is "science"...
You are pathetic my friend....
And by the way for the usefulness of walking barefoot some doctors think that this is good....For sure they will be put by you in the same bag with me and astrologers and all these deluded audiophiles...
It takes one second to look for a positive reason to walk barefoot by a doctor on the net.... Then for your next post keep psychics, astrologers and audiophiles in the bag but exclude this doctor.... Because it dont take a big brain work to know that some barefoot walking can only be good for the health....
This negative decree from you about barefoot walking illustrate well your crusader mentality....
You are a believer not a scientist....You adopt science like other adopt astrologers....I prefer experimenting and not judging others....
I suggest to you barefoot walking because this improve rational thinking by paradoxically putting emphasis in the brain on more sense data coming from the feet....This will relax your crusader mentality....
And before you dismiss this barefoot doctor from you science list.... Read this truly scientific paper about the very usefulness of a study about barefoot walking.....
I can find similar testimonies for people "improving their health" by "grounding themselves magnetically to the earth" with their bare feet.And for the healing power of magnetic bracelets. And for faith healers, and prayer and even phone psychics.
That’s where most subjective anecdotes stand. Do you have anything more robust?
mahgister, FYI: I have come to ignore your replies, based on past experience, and seeing you produce more of the same. Don’t let that stop you though ;-)
Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.
Ionizer...
Shumann generators...
Shungite plate+copper....
These three are not validated official text book science facts for use in audio...
Only results of other people experience or for the last one my own creation and experiment only....They work for me and for many people...
Then, are we crooks?
You are like the pope invoking theology....
And promising to inquistion psychics and astrologers....(it is very easy to point to some validated efficient psychic in history by the way among the crooks, for astrology you dont have a clue anyway)
A simple listening experiment of my own is not an official scientific fact for sure but it can work without your papal signature or permission...
You are a crusader not a scientist....
You are in the same boat that those believers who negate science...The only difference is the color of your shirt compared to them....Go on warring against audiophile, putting all of them in the same bag for the sake of your dogmatic conception of science....
Go on with your congealed opinions and dogmas....
I prefer simple very simple scientific fact , and experiments that cost nothing...
After all no audio book or scientific forum never teach me about my shungite use in audio.... Is this a proof that i am an idiot or a crook? No it is a proof that i am creative and only crusaders believe with a pair blinders....I am not a believer even in science.... Science is there for teaching us to do more than believing ....And science is there to be used but NEVER to be believed...You can use Newton laws but you dont have to believe them to be ultimate gospel.... They are not....
By the way all audiophiles here are different of one another, labelling them is not rational....
All alleged scientists here are also different, labelling all of them with the qualification of "voice of science" is irrational...
Science facts are there to be used or negated or modified and experimented with..... A decree against audiophiles or psychic is James Randi science.... a show.....
Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected? That’s right, by more science. It’s a self-correcting method.
Do you agree or not?
If so, the old "science has been wrong" bit is a red herring. Yes, science has been wrong, but you don’t get to promote a dubious claim that isn’t scientifically verified "because science has been wrong before."
And yet a lot of audiophiles (and psychics, and astrologers, and New Age charmers, and people with patents on perpetual motion machines etc) hang their hat on that as a response when their views are challenged for better evidence than anecdote.
Next, what in the world do those links have to do with any particular claim you may have in mind - something you imagine a "naysayer" critiques?
I mean, if you think for instance that an audiophile claiming a green marker on a CD, or a mpingo disc under his DAC, or any number of wacky claims is somehow off the hook because of those links, that would be silly, right?
If you tried to leap from some Discovery article citing a paper of researchers "controlling a cell’s interaction with light" to validating some audiophile’s tweak...that sounds like a profoundly incautious, unscientific leap...the type no actual responsible scientist would make. But...be my guest...show us the leap to relevance.
So, again, try to be clear. If you are going to invoke SCIENCE, can you maintain an actual SCIENTIFIC mindset? Show me exactly what audio thing you "hear at home" that a "naysayer" may criticize, that you think is somehow validated by SCIENCE.
I myself experiment ONLY and have bought no costly "tweaks" and upgrades, using , listening experiments, with homemade controls in the mechanical, electrical,and very importantly, in the acoustical embedding dimension of my audio system....
All my results are inspired by simple science facts (Helmholtz resonators and diffusers in my acoustic settings for example and damped springs for vibrations), or complex psycho-acoustic research to create my imaging effect, and also by simple experiments with cheap unexplained working artefacts (schuman generator, ionizers, shungite+copper plates and other controversial means).
Is it not science spirit to experiment like i did?
My goal was not publishing a paper in a peer reviewed journal, then i never need organized blind-test like claim some crusaders here...Selling no cost creativity is not selling costly products and boasting about them...
My goal was to prove that with a relatively modest system we could achieve great results at PEANUTS cost....Against all the marketing conditioning, i used simple science and experiments...
Then some "pseudo-scientist" could come here and had come, mocking me, and asking for a blind test.... 😁
Objectivist/subjectivist debate for me are ridiculous and child like.... But i prefer those who use also their ears to those who read only dials to create their audio room...Acoustic is a science where ears are not replaceable soon...
For the science debate i will not add anything.....Save this Goethe quote below, written 150 years before Thomas Kuhn...
If you wait for science or religions to understand your life you will wait very long.....😁
Use you senses and couple them with your brain....
Meditate.....Experiment....Or experience....
By the way, listening music,we dont need to prove anything, only to hear the changing sounds....Those who need proofs here are the marketers of new products or the zealots pseudo-scientist crusaders that want to save humanity from buying a product that they believe is useless...I myself dont need one or the other kind of people, because i dont plan to buy anything soon, i prove for myself that audiophile experience is possible at low cost.... Call that a delusion if you own a 500,000 audio system.... My 500 bucks system is not on the same level for sure but not so far from it in quality that most would believe.... The truth is that it is better to read simple acoustic science than buying costly products...
That you're unaware (poof) and need to be led by the hand (or nose, as the case may be), proves my point (you're a poser).
I'd discuss QED, Electrical Theory and the proofs that there's much more going on, than shoving electrons through wires, but: it would clearly be a waste of keystrokes.
Regarding the senses: not that I actually expect you to read anything, lest you awaken from your educational coma, but:
Once again: "My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of POSSIBILITIES; as to why we MAY hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons."
What is it about POSSIBILITIES, that triggers the Naysayer Church's popes, so?
OH: I get it:
It's HERESY!
ps: I don't post such things, expecting to enlighten the willfully ignorant. I just believe someone else may be interested in what's been going on, all around us, in the realm of the sciences, for the past (100 or so) years..
Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas.
Like...what?
I don’t see Floyd Toole - an actual scientist- appealing to QM in his science of psycho-acoustics. You know something he doesn’t? What would that be?
BUT: it’s been the history of science and invention; scoffers and naysayers WILL ALWAYS abound!
You keep invoking science.
What is it that has been scientifically established, that you think anyone is scoffing at?
What’s your actual point. Can you be clear, maybe with some actually relevant example, rather than vague waving to Quantum Mechanics, which just happens to be the de rigueur move for countless crackpot theories? (I’d be a millionaire if I had 10 cents for every new age purveyor appealing to the mystery of quantum mechanics).
Quantum anything means "not seen but there". SO what WE think we see is NOT in reality, what is really there, AT ALL.
In other words what you SEE is NOT what you ARE on the quantum level.
Science is evolving as do ALL things. Weather it's digressive or aggressive, it makes no difference.
WE the biomasses called "Humans" MOVE ON.
Even the "Dark ages" and the USSR had merit. It shows how WE as a RACE of people no matter WHERE we are, WILL not stay the same. We will change, we will GROW...
Into WHAT. That is the BIG question.. I'm lookin' UP, and the heavens are gazing BACK..
Life on this Earth and on this 4th of July is GOOD. Thanks to science.. I prefer applied science. I'm tired of figuring things out.
What do you mix to get ORANGE again? BLUE and RED of course. AND you thought it was REDS and YELLOW, close!!!
"For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the
inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as
either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me:
the height of hubris."
Where in the world did you pull that from? I'd respond more, but all I see is a jumble of non-sequiturs.
My position has always been: with what we've learned from the studies and advancements, related to QM and QED: there are a multitude of possibilities; as to why we may hear the things we do, when listening to our own systems, in our own rooms, with our own ears, and our various add-ons.
Even understanding in the Biological Sciences has been expanded/deepened, through the studies of QM, regarding how the senses and brain function, in many areas.
BUT: it's been the history of science and invention; scoffers and naysayers WILL ALWAYS abound!
That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements)
to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we
make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn't mean we don't.
Audio is just one of the hobby, it's your money, your choice, as long as you're happy, who am I to argue...
You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse.
It's odd that this site's self-proclaimed objectivists and measurementalists so often resort to classic ill logic - such as this ad hominem attack - rather than assert their position with reason. It just seems so inconsistent.
That science has not yet provided us the means (tests or measurements) to explain why many of us hear the things we do, with the choices we make, in fuses, cables, etc: doesn't mean we don't.
MEANWHILE: those of us that do experiment with our equipment and rooms, or, "smear goop" on our cables, to improve such a basic scientific fact as conductivity, will go on enjoying the enhanced musical reproduction we've sought.
What you stated in the post to which I referred, and: "Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research." seem (somehow) contradictory.
Especially, since you seemed to be objecting to my comments, specifically concerning QM and QED.
You're unable to comprehend what was written or being intentionally obtuse. Noone is debating digital storage, lasers , laptops, smart phones. PET, MRI etc.. those are not the "esoteric" boundaries of QM those are the practical results of years of research. Those who research these areas have very little to no interest in the practical results that's the province of applied science. And once again it will be the engineers and technicians who apply this knowledge not the ignorant who think sound reproduction is some mysterious goop slopped on a wire or cable lifters isolating EM fields from carpets.
"Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction."
Thanks again.
That exemplifies the kind of ignorance, to which I referred!
ie: Were it not for the study of QM and QED: there would be no, "digital storage" to enjoy. Nor: LASERs, transistors/semiconductors, home computers/laptops, smart phones, atomic clocks, GPS, MRIs, etc.
That's NOT any kind of debate. It's what's known as, "HISTORY"!
Science is the starting point and it is the end point in audio reproduction. Science is what gave us the medium and tools to enjoy music from the wax cylinder to digital storage and on to processes unknown. It won't be brain dead audiophiles arguing over $200 fuses and $10,000 cables and the shilers that promote them but the theoretician and engineer that fails and succeeds that moves us forward. Scientists who "argue" over the esoteric boundaries of QM have no interest in the mundane workings of basic sound reproduction. Any new findings from research in areas of nanotechnology, nanoparticles, quantum interactions etc.. that may trickle down to the audiophile bubble will be the result of dedicated engineering not the smear this goop on your wires crackpots.
Correction, for clarity: "That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the areas of Physics AND Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s."
"So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!" and "science doesn't know everything!" "It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world. Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected?" "You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right." Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions."
It's the complete (or: perhaps, willful) ignorance of so many, as to what's either been proven and/or obviated, since the dawn of the Scientific Method, that still astounds me.
It's not so much that Science has been proven, "wrong", but: that it's moved on, in so many areas.
What those that adamantly want their antiquated, "Science" to make sense (ie: their Math to eloquently balance, or: their universe to yet be based on Newtonian, or strictly Relativity principles) have missed, is that, SO OFTEN: what's been observed and tested/proven makes no sense.
That's been the argument between some of the greatest minds, especially in the area of Physics an Electrical Theory, since the early 1920s.
Anyone that's been paying any attention, AT ALL, to what's been happening subsequent to that time period; would be up on all of that!
For one NOT to be current, on what's been going on; as regards the inventions and scientific proofs, based on such a, "crackpot theory" as either QM or QED and yet refer to themselves as a, "prof", seems to me: the height of hubris.
UNLESS of course: they were a Professor in a field such as Geology or one of the Liberal Arts (ie: Home Economics). In which case: my apologies!
"Properly derived science contains only provable conclusions that are bedrock. All the rest is conjecture - interesting but not the basis for anything solid.
The problem is bad science. This is in the ascendency. One reads the most obviously idiotic nonsense every day, often obtained by extrapolation.
Extrapolation is always bad science.
The one I like best was around 15 years ago. ’All the snow and ice on the Himalayas will be gone in 30 years.
Palpable stupidity at the time; we’re about halfway there and there’s plenty left. I said at the time that if the entire Chinese nation went up there with blowlamps working 24/7 it wouldn’t happen."
The problem is bad science and in particular its politically motivated uses - Covid-19, vaccine wars, PCR tests, global warming etc etc.
As far as Hi-Fi goes, it would seem pretty obvious that the use of science and technology has come a very long way from its origins in the 1920s and 30s.
This situation with ever increasing use of software and modelling is only going to become more prevalent.
The subjectivists, with all of their capricious moods, opinions, and pursuit of a personal audio nirvana may not be happy - but this can only be good news for the other consumers.
Everyone with a pet belief he can't justify empirically tries the same mode of defense.
So we wee that tired old refrain from some audiophiles "Science has been wrong before you know!" and "science doesn't know everything!"
It's the same refrain used by every crackpot theory in the world. Ask yourself: When science has been corrected: how was it corrected? That's right, by more science. It's a self-correcting method. You don't get to say "I'm justified in believing something that contradicts or isn't validated by current science...because MAYBE science is wrong and we'll discover I'm right." Literally any nonsense idea would fly under such conditions. The rational approach is to realize how science is a way of sifting the wheat from the chaff, the hypotheses that hold up to empirical scrutiny, and those that don't.
There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers in the human audible range is nonsense
Your notion of science is TOO limited...
Psycho-acoustic science is not electronical analysis ....
Hearing is the basis of psycho-acoustic phenomenon analysis....
You cannot predict what an audiophile will like, replacing his ears by ONLY electronical analysis...This is technological idolatry...
You are like those who negate science, save you confuse the complex scientific analysis with technological simplistic views of your own...
Audio is not REDUCIBLE to electronical tools....Audio experiuence and experiments is for Brain/ears not mainly for microphones...
I based my own experiments with my ears ON science facts, but i do not replace and never replace the testimony of my hearing by tools or numbers...
I used them not BELIEVE them....
Science can help us to walk, but cannot do the walking for us...
Maps are not reality.....
microphone are not ears....
Etc....
You are like someone who need a scapegoat: an objectivist need a subjectivist like 2 neighbours who like to kill one another.... Enjoy your game...
I prefer psycho-acoustic science....With psycho-acoustic science minimalistic facts and experiments, any investment in electronical costly upgrade was useless for me now.... Science spare me much money.....Objectivist or subjectivist faiths are costly audio marketing religions in audio forums....
Where have you gotten this notion audio equipment can’t be analyzed at levels audible to humans and actually even bats but I doubt it does them much good. We can test equipment to tell us how much noise and distortion is present in certain frequency ranges. From this we can determine what types of systems most people like. Do they like neutral systems that produce flat frequency response and low distortion or exaggerated highs in the listening window, rolled off high frequency and bumped low bass, etc.. Assemble a system you enjoy and science can analyze it to conclude you prefer accurate uncolored sound reproduction or distortion generators. There’s no right or wrong but this idiotic idea science is useless in analyzing electronics and transducers in the human audible range is nonsense.
This is the reason the measures controls of "psycho-acoustic science" which science is not physical acoustic, are not about the measuring results apparatus "per se" but about the CORRELATION between measures of all kind in acoustic physics, neurological and measures and reaction time and psychological human hearing...
I used for examble the reflective acoustic measures and numbers and their relation and their timing with the reverberation time in MY room with MY ears to create a no cost diffusive surfaces and reflecting one to modify and completely recreate the sound imaging in my room not only between speakers....
Without the experiments made in psycho acoustic laboratory in Japan, i would have never been able to think that it was possible...
Science ? YES but which one?
Heraring ? YES but with listening experiments yes, guessing only NO....
Then those who when they speak science speak about electriucal measures ONLY are ignorant...
Those who negate the measures used in psycho-acoustic laboratory are also guilty of ignorance...
Like in politics and like in school-yards, warring is acting like binary minded apes, sorry....
I refuse to be labeled by idiotic names.... Either political one or audio one like "subjectivist" or "objectivist"....
You know that there is no such thing as gravity right?
Pauly, take a 10 pound weight and raise it to your eye level. Position the object directly above your right big toe. Release the object. Now tell me there's no such thing as gravity? The explanation of gravity has changed and probably will continue to be refined, but the phenomena exist independent of human understanding.
Science never really fails, although sometimes is takes can take indirect path. The question is why isn't it being utilized to test equipment? My point is this; if research into space can continuously reveal the most amazing facts, why is it impossible to analyze audio equipment and show how it performs at listening levels; excluding the sub-audible
noise path?
Look at Prof's post above then read the book mentioned. Nobody's hearing is reliable enough.
My audio system is there solely to please me; more exact, to please my hearing. If it pleases me, it is performing as it should. There is no higher judge than my ear as to what pleases my ear.
You need test tones and a scope to know if your system pleases you? If that is the case, you are missing the point.
Good science is a very high bar. A theory must be proven universally true. That is why science is always a long way behind conjecture.
Name a single scientist fact that will not be proven at least partially untrue in the future. Not possible.
For example. You know that there is no such thing as gravity right? There is no force whereby one object attracts another. What we thought was gravity is a distortion of the fabric of space-time caused by mass.
Science is a very low bar. It describes the world in our current, and somewhat limited, understanding thereof.
I've mentioned elsewhere, on the 'GoN: If the world's best inventors, throughout human history, hadn't ignored, "scientists", naysayers and scoffers (such as some of those, above): we'd still be living in a relative Stone Age, with respect to technology.
ie: When the steam locomotive was invented: the day's best, "scientists" claimed man couldn't survive speeds in excess of 20 MPH!
Interesting, that most of the electrical theories their ilk espouses, came from the same century (the 1800's).
but how music performs at listening levels is the deciding criteria. In that regard science fails miserably.
That’s your opinion
Some of us do have hearing that is both sensitive and reliable enough that we don’t need to a scope to tell us if we heard something or not.
That’s is really wishful thinking and believing your hearing is better than a bat.
All "good equipment" is designed and made using the "Laws of EE" (Electronic Engineering), and the measuring and test gear that designers use to do it with.
"If" they don’t like what they hear or measure after it’s designed and built, good ones will go back again and again and redesign things in the circuit, and re-test, but do it again using all the same EE laws and test equipment, there’s no voodoo involved.
IF THEY DON"T DO IT, DON’T GO NEAR WHAT THEY ARE SELLING, BECAUSE THEY ARE SELLING YOU VOODOO!!!
Test tones also shows how equipment performs at listening levels
No they don’t. Some of us do have hearing that is both sensitive and reliable enough that we don’t need to a scope to tell us if we heard something or not.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
