I Just Know It's BS ... But I Have't Tried It Yet


Have you ever noticed how quickly naysayers jump on "unconventional" products they have never tried, letting us know they are worthless -- shamelessly admitting they have no direct experience with the item they are putting down? For example, anything with the word quantum in the name seems to set some people off. Do you have your favorite examples of this phenomenon? What do you make of this irrational approach to high end audio that is often suffixed by LOL and exclamation points for emphasis?
sabai

Showing 12 responses by sabai

There are at least a couple of issues here -- trusting your own ears and trusting the ears of others. The only ears you can trust are your own because they are yours. No one's ears can decide better than your own. But if you cannot trust them for one reason or another then this is a moot point.
Jedinite24,

No, I don't have all the money for every tweak. I have a lot of tweaks and accessories in my system. Almost everything I buy is used -- purchased at a deep discount, in most cases.
Mapman,

I am flattered that you follow my comments. I am in favor of whatever works -- and whatever works better than something similar. I have a lot of tweaks in my system. I do not remember having nay-sayed a product I have not tried. We all speculate on things we have not heard but nay-saying without auditioning is not a wise habit to get into.

But when it comes to my personal limited budget, I do nay-say price and marketing. Which is not to say the products may not work, and work well in some cases. I can think of a couple here -- the Synergistic Research HFT pimples at $60 a pop come to mind. First off, I have never heard them. But I am convinced they work, and probably very well, since I have made my own version that work great in my system -- at about $1 each.

I was thinking about how to develop this kind of tweak when Ozzy tweaked my curiosity with his version. I came up with a variation on the theme that is really excellent. I have about 40 in my listening room -- total cost about $40 vs. $2,400 for the SR pimples.

Frankly, if HFTs were the culmination of my life's work, as Ted Denney claims for his life, I would have demonstrated the HFTs on a real system, not on a Bose wave. After all, he does mount expensive systems at shows. So, this I cannot figure out. Something so "revolutionary" deserved a better introduction, IMO. In any case, to my eyes, HFTs look like a cross between Franck Tchang "Sugar Cubes" and the PMR resonator.

The HFT markeing Youtube that Peter Breuninger (nodding and nodding) and Peter Hansen appear in is rather comical. They talk to the audience as though they were talking to a classroom of morons. They show you how to take each pimple out of the box, how to put the Blu-Tack on the back and how to put them on the wall. Thank you.

SR needed a good marketing plan so they call HFTs transducers. IMO, they are not transducers. They are simple resonators. You cannot sell one pimple at a time so they sell them in 5-packs -- $300 beats $60 -- with the sales pitch of 4 "levels" of 5 pimples per "level". $1,200. Nice. My pimples are not the culmination of anything but they do take the system to a higher level -- one of many levels -- at a total cost of about $40.

Another heavily marketed product that comes to mind is the Nordost Qx4. I am sure it works, and works very well, even though I have never tried it. Because I use the precursor in my system, QRT Symphony Pros. They are great. But they do not need to be packaged in a lead-heavy container that presumably contains a few light components. Sorry, they DO need to be packaged like this so Nordost can charge nearly $3000 each vs. $600 new for their precursors that I have been fortunate enough to pick up for around $200 each used.

I notice that all the reviews I have read on the Qx4 say that Nordost dropped off 4 or 6 units for reviewing and testing. Now, you'd think with that price tag that one Qx4 would do for a normal audio system. Sorry, they say you will want and will need several more. Let's see now. $3,000 x 6 = $18,000. Nice.

I love products that work. But I don't always love the marketing and the price of admission. So, I do my best to get something close to the "real thing" at a fraction of the cost, whenever possible. Some folks can simply throw money at their system. I am not in that category.
Brownsfan,

I agree with you on several points. I believe if we can maintain a certain level of decorum here by being polite and respectful then everything will be so much easier.

I also agree with you about empiricism. Regarding audio, I have been called nuts -- by folks who have never experienced what I have done -- for lengthening the signal path by using a daisy-chained front end and for using cables in series. Although these strange ways defy conventional "wisdom", I go with what my ears say since they have been tested and can still hear 16,000Hz.
Sorry, I got the math wrong. Level 4 of SR HFTs requires two 5-packs. So the price of admission is actually $1,500, not $1,200. Nice.

Oh, and I forgot to mention SR's other "transducers" called ECTs. They are also sold in 5-packs. They look identical to the HFTs except that the latter are silver and the former are black and red. Change the color scheme, change the name and watch the two Peters spilling them into components like jelly beans -- at $60 a pop -- on their Youtube video. With Peter B. looking into the camera and nodding and nodding -- like a nodding toy on your dashboard. Nice.

By the way, talking about marketing, can anyone tell me why HFTs and ECTs are called transducers? What are they transducing? Are they really like microphones or speakers that are true transducers? I believe SR is using the word transducer here as a marketing term that does not reflect what a transducer really is. I could be wrong but I believe HFTs and ECTs are simply resonators. Maybe someone would like to elucidate the matter.
Sgordon1,

I could not agree more with your post. You hit the nail on the head.
Stringreen,

Please note, in most cases, I was not referring to "unknown" products. I was referring to "unconventional" products.

Grannyring,

My experience is similar to yours. Although I would call this "unconventional" rather than "unknown", in most cases, in a few cases -- and I have examples in my own system -- there are, in fact, "unknown" elements involved.
Czarivey,

That's interesting. I imagine this applies to those who have hearing impairment. What other cases come to mind?
Czarivey,

I have maid the point in an earlier thread -- speculating that cable makers would not be able to identify their own cables in a blind A/B test.

But I am concerned with changes in the sound that are significant enough to change the quality of sound. I can hear very subtle changes to my system. I cannot speak for others.