Anyone Using Crystals?

 
northernescape
Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!

>>>>>>>But can be shown that a thing is or is not a placebo by careful testing. That's a pretty obvious Strawman argument you just made.

But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need.

>>>>>>Oh, geez, another Strawman argument. Maybe they are scientifically impossible in your mind. That's not the same thing as scientifically impossible.


If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome".

>>>>>Who are you to decide how much anyone can spend? 

Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!

>>>>>>This is all starting to look like dogmatic criticism, not valid criticism. Sorry.

Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.

>>>>>>Of course there won't be 100% agreement for anything audio related, for the reasons I already alluded to. That's why I suggested throwing out the negative results if most results are positive. If there is only one test and its results are negative it doesn't mean anything. I dare say what appears to be a fringe issue to you is an advanced concept to some others. 

Negative ions (as in air fresheners) attach to dust particles causing them to fall out of the air. The good news is the air is cleaner, the bad news is there are more dust particles on everything. Thunderstorms also do this, although indoor thunderstorms seem extreme and perhaps should be avoided ("Bob, why is the cat smoldering?").

Geoffkait, your responses are why, as I first noted, I really did not want to comment in this fascinating thread. To a degree you are correct, however, the straw man argument is really not that but rather revealing my intrinsic scientific skepticism concerning the topic of this thread( and many others as well). However, the experiment here is simple and the null hypothesis, something like "crystal when( pick your single thing, placement of crystals, number of crystals, size, etc, but only when as the variable tested) do not improve the sound of song a. Experimental protocol like:
First determine minimum number of observations required for significance. Then provide experimental setup...
1. A given audio setup, hidden from view.
2. A random sample of participants(and here randomness might be a questionable variable post experiment)
3. Someone who queries the participantsas to ( and here it can be a continuous result, I.e improvement on a 1-10,1-5, etc scale or discontinuous improvement yes/no)
4. Someone who behind the hidden setup varies the experimental audio setup by Only changing the test variable (crystal change, as noted above).
5. Collect results
6. Analyze the results by determining whether or not the results support the null hypothesis.
7. Discuss as to how the results may have occurred.
simple

 Now obviously no one is likely to expend the effort to do this for the countless audio situations, products, and perturbations existent in the known universe BG .


As to scientifically impossible, that is accepted practice. If existing dogma and the preponderance of data, gathered through countless experiments, supports a given conclusion, then yes, right now based on all existing evidence it IS scientifically impossible. However if you are saying that such a conclusion is open to and should be challenged you are correct (also see one of the great books of recent science philosophy written by one of my professors, T S Kuhn, 
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Any good acoustic scientist should always be open minded.

i never determined "how much someone should spend" and intentionally noted "wallet dependent".

As to your other statements, I do not understand what you are critical of, however, I never wished to be offensive in any way to anyone, and I am very sorry if you took it that way.

BTW! Geoffkai, I missed your double blinded and most scientific studies snarky response. Are you anti science or just be difficult. Hard to be an audiophile and anti science at the same time. The former is entirely contingent on the latter in our world.

 
wolf_garcia
Negative ions (as in air fresheners) attach to dust particles causing them to fall out of the air. The good news is the air is cleaner, the bad news is there are more dust particles on everything. Thunderstorms also do this, although indoor thunderstorms seem extreme and perhaps should be avoided ("Bob, why is the cat smoldering?").

That's very good, Wolfie. 🙄