Audio nonsense


In this wonderful world of audio that we journey through folks selling stuff have sometimes been inventive in what they claim. In your trip down this road what sticks out as the most ludicrous thing you’ve seen someone try to sell? 
 

I can point to 2 things. When I first saw a Tice clock in a store I thought it was a gag. Next- Peter Belt. 

zavato

@mijostyn 

Aren’t  you late for that book burning, would hate for you to miss it…

How about this, how about you provide us with a complete thesis, using your own words - no copy and paste allowed - on the finer and more detailed points on neuroscience, sensory input and the interactions that occur between the upper, mid and reptilian parts of our brains. I would love to see what you actually know, and see if you might be able to help me remember bits I may have forgotten. Please help to edjumacate us, oh wise one… And while you’re  at it, how about supplying a list of tweaks that are not snake oil as well as a list of those that are. Oh, and outline what are items you have actually listened to, and what you are mearly speculating on, arriving at preconceived notions based on your obvious vast history and knowledge.

The thing about being closed minded, is it maintains a status quo. And a status quo is safe. Safe, is a place where people hide. Safe, is a place where they don’t need to let other beliefs or others in. There is no need for an open mind in this safe place, indeed an open mind threatens the very foundation of the safe place. Those who stick to safe have rarely, if ever, stepped outside of their own postal or zip code. Unless of course, to attend a book burning. 
 

 

 

Post removed 

"@dill Yes. Please send me your list and I will categorize them for you with even an "oilyness factor" number.  After all, it is not brain surgery, very simple and logical."

Why, there is no need as you have that all that figured out. Well, it has to be "simple and logical" otherwise you wouldn't consider it.

This post is targeted to the group I fondly refer to as "Bumble Bees".  You may recall the comment somewhere along the way that given what we know about science and math, an Aeronautical Engineer would have to conclude that Bumble Bees can't fly.  All the data suggests that there's not sufficient lifting force in those tiny wings to overcome the mass of the typical Bumble Bee.  

The problem is, of course, that we've all seen Bumble Bees fly.  This problem is compounded by the fact that when confronting the Aeronautical Engineer, we would handily loose the debate based on our limited knowledge of the technical aspects vs the guy/gal with a pretty strong pedigree in science.  However persistent and insistent we are that our observations (and those of others) are correct, the engineer remains unconvinced.  But, our level of confidence is at the 99.997% threshold in our observations.  Similar to to having a deer crash thru your windshield, embedding its carcass in your passenger's seat, then having your "really smart" neighbor try to convince you that there's no way it could have happened and you should go in for counciling.

So, charge on Bumble Bees!! Trying using some snake oil to lubricate those slide rules?  I heard it will get you to a (predefined) conclusion much faster.