Author Topic: demagnetisers  (Read 6937 times)

Byrd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,028
    • RAS Consulting
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2007, 08:02:48 am »
In this case you may be able to prove statistically that what observers are not able to discern a difference between an unmagnetised and a magnetised item. If you accept that 2 CD's from the start of the experiment are equaly magnitized that is.

I think we need to keep an open mind though, but without discarding basic logic. Eg double blind testing. There are surely things that are observable that science has as yet been unable to explain. An huge glaring example of this, is a phenomenon which we encounter on a daily basis. Gravity. It is observable (objectively - I doubt I will find any objectors here ;) ) but the mechanism by which it operates is unknown.

The point is if a SCIENTIFIC study is conducted to prove that most people are able to discern a difference, it does not matter if the mechanism is unexplainable.
Dead men tell no tales, and dead horses tell no lies.

joel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2007, 01:56:36 pm »
As expected my post has brought out quite a few opinions.

As a reviewer I believe that while I should question the technical merits of a product, I still have to listen to said item and report on my findings.

Naturally I have to be as objective and unbiased as Humanly possible and cant let my personal feelings or beliefs get in the way.

If i was anti cables, or fancy isolation feet, or even power cables  :), my prejudices could get in the way of me writing a review that was worth reading.

No I dont believe that my word is the gospel, in fact I would never buy a piece of equipment based soley on a review that some person wrote, not unless I knew that person well enough to trust their judgement.

Ultimately some things happen in the audio realm that I certainly dont understand, but do I have to, to give my honest opinion?

Byrd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,028
    • RAS Consulting
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #32 on: October 20, 2007, 12:37:33 pm »
No, as in the gravity example above, even though the mechanism is not understood we still make use of it. All those old farts ( ehem alph....) ;) should know all about gravity :)

However we do hold YOU, as the the reviewer, responsible to put yourself in an as unbiased a position as is possible. Lets get some double blinders Joel.
Dead men tell no tales, and dead horses tell no lies.

Ampdog

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,236
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2007, 07:16:10 pm »

If my remarks were read carefully, it would have been apparent that there is a difference between "disregarding observations because scientific reasons were not immediately apparent" and "disregarding observations because it is immediately apparent that science proves the opposite.

Hi Byrd2,

Sorry to quote from my own previous post, but I have now tried several times to "bring home" the above. Per your example of gravity; sure! We do not know a single thing about it - as we cannot explain the physics of electromagnetic waves! But nobody has thus far tried/succeeded to prove the opposite or even suggested likewise! Is it so difficult to see this difference between my position and yours?  :)

There is no evidence/logic/whatever to show that gravity/electromagnetic effects cannot exist. Its effect can be measured, and is repeatable. Therefore we do not need to know how it works (although I for one would like to!).

In contrast,
(1) There is every evidence/logic to show that demagnetising of CDs/records cannot work.
(2) Its effect cannot be measured.
(3) It is not repeatable. In proper blind listening tests it has been demonstarted every time that an effect  cannot be detected with any statistic certainty.

Where else in science has anything been accepted when the opposite could be proven?

I repeat that I respect Joel's earlier tests. I also respect his stance of two posts ago and applaud that. But a few years ago I conducted a Bedini blind test (as well as I have been taught how). Five listeners were involved, there were 35 occasions on which to detect a difference. No difference were detected with statistical certainty. Many more reports in several magazines (e.g. Stereophile) support this. It has been done!

Does that mean that my tests were right and Joel's wrong? No. It simply means that the limitations of our measuring instrument (hearing) - as with all measuring instruments - should be taken into account.

How open-minded are we when all that is ignored?  ("Open-minded" means to be open to possibilities, not to ignore proven certainties.)

But come on folks - am I the only scientist on this forum? I believe not!
Judging a person does not define who he is; it only defines who you are. (Anon)

Cleansound

  • Guest
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #34 on: October 22, 2007, 08:28:16 am »

No I dont believe that my word is the gospel, in fact I would never buy a piece of equipment based soley on a review that some person wrote, not unless I knew that person well enough to trust their judgement.

Couldn't agree more Joel,I was also flabbergasted by that Demag,yes it works,the only downside is price.

Andrew

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,885
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2007, 03:30:58 pm »
If i was anti cables, or fancy isolation feet, or even power cables  :), my prejudices could get in the way of me writing a review that was worth reading.

So that means you're pro?  ;)

skinnyfat

  • Guest
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2007, 03:37:14 pm »

Andrew

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,885
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2007, 03:49:24 pm »

joel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 657
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #38 on: October 24, 2007, 10:48:51 am »
And Andrew is the one who asked us not to stirr things up too much :D

Lets say that i'm fully prepared to sit on the fence untill my over worked ears prove that these "things" work or not.

Couldnt hear a difference when I put some vibration isolating feet under my new CD player. Perhaps I just wasnt listening (or imagining) hard enough.

But then i didnt pay for the devices so perhaps the cash incentive to hear a difference was missing ::)

Cleansound

  • Guest
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #39 on: October 24, 2007, 10:57:59 am »
But then i didnt pay for the devices so perhaps the cash incentive to hear a difference was missing ::)

I am sure that this issue is often the case.

Andrew

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,885
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #40 on: October 24, 2007, 11:29:36 am »
And Andrew is the one who asked us not to stirr things up too much :D

Well...I didn't include myself...  ;)

skinnyfat

  • Guest
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #41 on: October 24, 2007, 12:08:23 pm »
And Andrew is the one who asked us not to stirr things up too much :D

Lets say that i'm fully prepared to sit on the fence untill my over worked ears prove that these "things" work or not.

Couldnt hear a difference when I put some vibration isolating feet under my new CD player. Perhaps I just wasnt listening (or imagining) hard enough.

But then i didnt pay for the devices so perhaps the cash incentive to hear a difference was missing ::)

Perhaps some more scotch was needed :D

skinnyfat

  • Guest
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #42 on: October 24, 2007, 12:09:18 pm »
And Andrew is the one who asked us not to stirr things up too much :D



Andrew and I are Exepmt from that little rule ;D

Ampdog

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,236
Re: demagnetisers
« Reply #43 on: October 25, 2007, 02:18:08 am »

Lets say that i'm fully prepared to sit on the fence untill my over worked ears prove that these "things" work or not.


I have great hopes for this man. (Now if Skinny and Andrew will also maintain their present rate of improvement ....  See how the World Cup Victory had a positive effect on everybody.)
« Last Edit: October 25, 2007, 02:20:07 am by Ampdog »
Judging a person does not define who he is; it only defines who you are. (Anon)