Snake oil came first. By a likely ~ +50k years

n80895 posts12-11-2018 6:46pmA lot of shamanism and snake oil have no real physical science behind them whatsoever. But that has never meant that they do not lack effectiveness when applied at the right time to the right person.

>>>>Gosh, that’s awful decent of ya. By the right person one assumes you mean a very gullible one or one very susceptible to the dreaded placebo effect. 😬

But seriously, can you give me an example of an audio device or tweak that doesn’t have science behind it? Assumed you looked for an explanation, which you probably didn’t. If a thing works it must obey science, no? Or do you mean no explanation can be found in a text book. You are not an engineer or physicist so maybe you’re not really a good candidate for finding a science explanation. Even the Teleportation Tweak has an explanation. 

Now, you personally might not know what the science is behind some outrageous audiophile tweak but that’s another issue. I did not create reality. We did not know what gravity was until Newton cane along. Even after he figured it out we didn’t know the whole story. The science community for new observations and new concepts can take a very long time to catch up. 🐛

“I looked for a scientific explanation but I couldn’t find one.” 😳 - Naysayer’s lament

Whoa! Even Wikipedia gets involved.

ControversiesEdit

There is substantial controversy on the subject of audiophile components; many have asserted that the occasionally high cost produces no measurable improvement in audio reproduction.[20] For example, skeptic James Randi, through his foundation One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, has offered a prize of $1 million to anyone who can demonstrate that $7,250 audio cables "are any better than ordinary audio cables".[21] In 2008, audio reviewer Michael Fremer attempted to claim the prize, and said that Randi declined the challenge.[22]Randi said that the cable manufacturer Pear Cables was the one who withdrew.[23]

Criticisms usually focus on claims around so-called "tweaks" and accessories beyond the core source, amplification, and speaker products. Examples of these accessories include speaker cables, component interconnects, stones, cones, CD markers, and power cables or conditioners.[24][25]

There is disagreement on how equipment testing should be conducted and as to its utility. Audiophile publications frequently describe differences in quality which are not detected by standard audio system measurements and double blind testing, claiming that they perceive differences in audio quality which cannot be measured by current instrumentation,[26] and cannot be detected by listeners if listening conditions are controlled,[27] but without providing an explanation for those claims.

Read this thread then went to sleep.