# Some HOT Science From Synergistic Research



## alvin sawdust

Anyone else spotted this?
  
http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/hot-headphone-optimized-transducer/
  
 Crossfeed in a can maybe?


----------



## David Pritchard

I have the Synergistic Research Headphone Optimizer Transducer (HOT) in my dedicated headphone system. Senheisser 800 cans with Double Helix cables, Eddie Current Zana Deux tube amp, Marantz SA11S-2 SACD player.
  
 This device gives a major improvement to my systems sound. Soundstage detail is improved. Images are precisely placed. Harmonic textures are more clearly heard. I do  not hear any added brightness to the system. Instead the music is more flowing with a sense of ease and improved transmitted emotion.
  
 I am enthusiastic having the HOT in my system and after listening for the past two weeks, it is staying in my system. I do hope you are able to audition this device. They have not shipped any of the transducers to England yet but will soon. Another way to audition the Hot is to E-mail the Cable Company here in the USA. They do offer the 30 day money back trial. Europian buyers are responsible for shipping- $14.80 each way to England.
  
 I look forward to other head-fiers impressions of the Synergistic Research Headphone Optimized Transducer in their systems.


----------



## alvin sawdust

Thanks David, I am very interested in the hot and may well get in touch with the cable company.


----------



## David Pritchard

I do know that the Synergistic Research Headphone Optimized Transducer was developed using the Sennheiser 800 headphones I use, and the Audeze headphones that you use. It was also developed using several amps- both tubed and solid state.
  
 I think you will really like what it will do. I look forward to reading your listening experience.


----------



## Bogart24

Yes.  I'm intrigued.  Just got an e-mail from Cable Company claiming:  "The effect of plugging this into your quarter inch headphone jack, and your headphones into it, is immediate and intriguing. The sound opens up and substantially moves out of your head sounding less like headphones and more like loudspeaker listening, or even real life! Articulation also improves as do both the high and low frequency extremes. . . .Some dedicated headphone users may prefer the in-the-head headphone experience they are accustomed to - to each his own (said the lady as she kissed the cow) - but for most listeners this is a powerful upgrade!"
  
 Synergistic offers a 30-day return, so I guess there's little downside in giving it a try, though the thought of putting something between the HPs and the amp is a bit unnerving.


----------



## David Pritchard

My listening experience is similar to the Cable Company reports in many ways. The soundstage definitely is now wider and deeper such that the music is no longer inside the physical head but extends outward. This is very pleasing sonically. The sound is also more articulate but not due to increased brightness. There is less grain hence the relaxed and flowing analogy in my earlier post. Listening to multi instruments or vocals it is so much easier to pick out individual voices. Last night was a Vivaldi concerto night with Rachel Podger- Channel Classic SACD disc recorded with the fabulous Grimm DAC. I know this disc well. The placement of the individual musicians is now so better defined with the HOT in place. The improved articulation allows the harpsicord and lute to be heard more clearly. Rachel"s violin has more emotion and energy.
  I was concerned that maybe the HOT unit extending out of the headphone jack would cause a stress on my amps jack. I do not think this is a problem now that it is actually in place. I have taken a paper cup, cut it to size and placed it under the Hot unit to provide support. This may not be necessary in practice but now I do not worry about stress at the jack imput.
  
 I am looking forward to tonight's listening- Stevie Ray Vaughn and some Ray Brown jazz.


----------



## alvin sawdust

Thanks for the further impressions David. Are you saying the HOT is a bit weighty for it's size?


----------



## David Pritchard

No it is not heavy. It is about 8 centimeters long and 2.5 centimeters in diameter. I previously used a shortened paper cup under the Sennheiser 800 headphone jack amp input. I feel that electrical connections should be physically supported when easily done. I do not want a headphone jack to become a lose fit over time. The build quality of the HOTunit is very solid.


----------



## alvin sawdust

Certainly looks well constructed in the pics I have seen. Waiting to free up some funds but will most likely pull the trigger on one of these.


----------



## bigshot

I have a page to direct your attention to...
  
 First up is Synergistic Research who have developed HEADPHONE OPTIMIZED TRANDUCERS, which are plugs that go between your cable and amp...
  
 http://www.synergisticresearch.com/featured/hot-headphone-optimized-transducer/
  
 These plugs when "used with your favorite cans you hear sound that gets out of your head as well as smoother more articulate highs with improved bass. If you’ve been looking for more holographic sound with smoother highs and increased resolution, you’ve gotta try HOT!"


----------



## esldude

Haven't looked at the page yet.  No self respecting audiophile will need to do so.  The guy at MIT said in an interview over a decade ago that Asians were trying to push this Ohno Continuous Casting, OCC wire as an improvement.  Yet when MIT tested it the sound was decidedly worse, midfi, annoying in sound quality.


----------



## esldude

Something weird happened there.  Your post title, and post itself and link all changed between my replying and submitting.
  
 But I know the HOT is good. 
  
_you hear sound that gets out of your head as well as smoother more articulate highs with improved bass. _
  
 The above tells me they are on to something though.  Everything good is always providing smoother highs and improved bass.  Seems there is no end to the possible improvements in bass especially. 
  
 I wonder how much it costs for some simple filtering and a bit of crossfeed ?


----------



## bigshot

I found an even better topic so I upgraded!


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> I wonder how much it costs for some simple filtering and a bit of crossfeed ?


 
  
 I'm betting it's just a plug converter that doesn't convert the plug!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I'm betting it's just a plug converter that doesn't convert the plug!




It's "Uniform Energy Field" (UEF) technology, whatever that is. Can't find anything that says what it is or what it's supposed to do. I guess the acronym is supposed to impress the user all by itself. 

se


----------



## Strangelove424

I thought it was a 1/8" adapter at first, then realized it was 1/4" and must be huge. Surely there's a phallic angle to certain parts of the interconnect/wire market. But anyhow... I can't see how this could do anything but harm. If it passes the signal unaltered (i'm betting that's the case) it's a total ripoff, and if it alters the signal it's only distorting it. 
  
 Other products on their site include... an interconnect system with dispersed multi-path interchangeable silver/gold wiring to custom tune the sound signature (akin to the way a pneumatic pressurization system would work), and a speaker cable system with vibration isolating feet and cable risers. Gotta love it when mechanical engineering concepts are applied to electrical engineering implementation.


----------



## bigshot

Parametric Linear Active Conduction Energy Buffering Operation!


----------



## Steve Eddy

Well let's see. They call it a Headphone Optimized _Transducer_. A transducer converts one form of energy into another form of energy. At the headphone jack, we have electrical energy. So what other form of energy are they converting this electrical energy into? Mechanical energy? Acoustic energy? What? Do they not understand what the word means? Do they just use the term so they can make the acronym HOT? 

se


----------



## castleofargh

it's obviously a catalytic converter. it's transforms all the bad particules in the sound into o2 and rainbow.
 so the name should be HOT CAT.


----------



## kraken2109

How is this even legal?


----------



## Muinarc

"30-day no-risk money back gaurantee: Contact your nearest authorized Synergistic Research dealer and arrange for a 30-day, no-risk money back guarantee. Find out for yourself why headphones are HOT"


Someone buy this just so they can write a scathing review that returns the #1 or 2 google search result


----------



## kraken2109

muinarc said:


> "30-day no-risk money back gaurantee: Contact your nearest authorized Synergistic Research dealer and arrange for a 30-day, no-risk money back guarantee. Find out for yourself why headphones are HOT"
> 
> 
> Someone buy this just so they can write a scathing review that returns the #1 or 2 google search result


 
 Can I get it in the UK?
 Otherwise I vote bigshot.


----------



## bigshot

Wait until you see the teardown pics before you buy it!


----------



## bigshot

A sound engineer buddy of mine thought it would be interesting to buy one of these and take it apart to see what was inside. I doubt many people other than him are crazy enough to throw away $300 on a lark like this, but he's just that kind of guy. He says he'll get $300 worth of entertainment value out of it.
  
 So what's inside Synergistic Research HOT?
  


 A male stereo 1/4 inch jack and a female stereo mini jack with three wires connecting them together.
  
 The female jack was coated in glue and had a little bit of glassy sand stuck to it. Wrapped around the sticky mess was three pieces of foil which were attached to the wires.
  
 There you go... basically a plain old plug extender with some sand and glue and foil shoved into it.


----------



## HPDJ

O.M.G are you serious?? I literally found out about this HOT thingy and searched around to find some impressions and this is what I find? Kind of hilarious wow.
  
 You know though, I don't want to take away anything from the positive impressions that have been expressed in this thread already. If you heard an improvement using it, then that is totally cool. 
  
 I honestly don't know what I expected to be inside this unit, as there is not really any info on their website about what they use to build it (I guess we see why now!). Sometimes I see pictures of the insides of certain power conditioners and they look so bare-bones inside like, just some wires and such...but folks claim to hear a difference.
  
 I acknowledge that there is a part of me that is a little weak and gullible for things like this from the industry...tweaks that claim to offer magical improvements to my music listening. But I'm becoming more and more suspicious of such things and feel that I will soon be done with experimenting/putting faith in them. The tweaks in particular more often than not, just don't deliver on the claims the manufacturers provide in my experience.
  
 Again we have a positive account of the HOT in this thread and that is truly great...but I'm discouraged to say the least, at the internal construction of this thing for the price they are asking. It could very well improve the sound of my system, but I'm really turned off by those photos, geeez.
  
 Well, back to focusing on the music


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> A sound engineer buddy of mine thought it would be interesting to buy one of these and take it apart to see what was inside. I doubt many people other than him are crazy enough to throw away $300 on a lark like this, but he's just that kind of guy. He says he'll get $300 worth of entertainment value out of it.
> 
> So what's inside Synergistic Research HOT?
> 
> ...


 
 Come on Bigshot, you know those three little wires are Synergistic Research wire.  Not like it would be just three little ol'wires of any kind.  That is SR wire. 
  
 Rest easy tonight Bigshot, you have made a few people laugh with glee.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Bigshot started a thread on this over on Sound Science, but it seems to have been deleted for some reason.

In that thread I said they calli it a "transducer," and that a transducer transforms one kind of energy into another. And I wasn't sure why they would call it that. You have electrical energy at the headphone jack. What sort of energy would you want to turn that into in order for it to have any sort of effect, given that headphones operate on electrical energy? It didn't make any sense.

But I saw a post on SR's Facebook page that made it clear that the HOT is in fact intended to be a transducer. "...like all transducers HOT converts one type of energy to another. In this case, electrical to mechanical energy..."

Looking at the photos, it looks like the granular material could be quartz, which has piezoelectric properties. Meaning that if you apply an electric field to it, it will physically deform. That's mechanical energy. Or more to the point, conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy. So we have the shield of the female jack covered with (what looks like) bits of quartz. And then some strips of foil laid over them, which at least for the left and right hots, would produce an electric field between the foil and the shield on the female jack. The ground foil doesn't make any sense however. The female jack's shield is connected to ground, which would put it at the same potential as the ground foil, in which case there would be no electric field between them, and hence no transduction of electrical energy into mechanical energy. Perhaps it's there to keep the other two foils company. 

Of course the electric field produced by the relatively low voltages of a headphone output and such tiny strips of foil isn't really going to do anything to speak of to the bits of quartz, but even if it did, what would be the point of vibrating some little bits of quartz on the shield of a female headphone jack? You're obviously not intended to hear them vibrating. They're sealed up inside a rigid plastic tube, and hey, you've got a pair of headphones on. 

Go figure.

se


----------



## bigshot

I think it's just dirt from the garage they made it in. Maybe kitty litter.


----------



## alvin sawdust

Might not buy one.


----------



## castleofargh

it's obviously fairy dust! that's why they'd rather not explain how it works on the website. because they have enslaved a fairy and don't want to be found out by peter pan.


----------



## bigshot

I heard they are rebranding these with a new name... Synergistic Headphone Integrated Transducer


----------



## esldude

Check to see if that coating is magnetic.  Once was a youtube video on making your own power and speaker cables.  They put iron filings around the wires with some other dust.  Supposed to absorbed and filter bad harmonics or some such stuff.  Not that it would make any sense here, but just curious if they bought into that.


----------



## bigshot

Remember that speaker wire that cost thousands of dollars and it turned out that it was a Monoprice cable inside aquarium tubing filled with potting loam?


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Remember that speaker wire that cost thousands of dollars and it turned out that it was a Monoprice cable inside aquarium tubing filled with potting loam?


 

 Well don't know if we are thinking of the same thing, but that is also the company who made the video.  Though as I recall it wasn't even monoprice just house wiring, the dust was iron filings mixed with vermiculite inside a garden hose with a high tech looking outer covering.  The silicate was supposed to be piezoelectric and mixed with iron filings transduced the bad harmonics into heat. Don't remember if they covered it with foil or not. 
  
 So maybe SR has done the same thing.  Vermiculite or some other silicate mixed with iron dust and glued between foils.
  
 And this isn't going to actually do anything you can hear in my opinion.


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> And this isn't going to actually do anything you can hear in my opinion.


 
  
 You didn't even need to put "in my opinion" after that sentence. A chimpanzee could tell that this doesn't do anything (in my opinion).


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> You didn't even need to put "in my opinion" after that sentence. A chimpanzee could tell that this doesn't do anything (in my opinion).


 

 Hey as this thread isn't in the Sound Science section, I kept in mind that opinion trumps facts.  That was the strongest manner of making my statement considering.


----------



## Music Alchemist

Even if this worked, I wouldn't get it, since I'm getting the Smyth Realiser A8 and using balanced headphones anyway.


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> I heard they are rebranding these with a new name... Synergistic Headphone Integrated Transducer


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> Even if this worked, I wouldn't get it, since I'm getting the Smyth Realiser A8 and using balanced headphones anyway.


 

 I need feedback on this. I couldn't make myself send 3200euros to get a 30days trial of it. if I was an IT macgiver I would take the flight simulator software that reads your head movements with the webcam, and virtually duck tape it to a surround DSP. but I'm really not that guy


----------



## bigshot

esldude said:


> Hey as this thread isn't in the Sound Science section, I kept in mind that opinion trumps facts.


 
  
 The picture should make it pretty much self evident. No need for opinion any more.


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> I need feedback on this. I couldn't make myself send 3200euros to get a 30days trial of it. if I was an IT macgiver I would take the flight simulator software that reads your head movements with the webcam, and virtually duck tape it to a surround DSP. but I'm really not that guy


 
  
 Ha. Well, if by feedback you mean impressions, they're all over the Internet. Not to derail the thread, but since you inquired, many people (including ones with a lot of experience with headphones and speakers) said they couldn't tell they weren't listening to speakers while using it. The ability to emulate practically limitless speaker systems (given that you have the opportunity to visit them and take the measurements) makes it even more interesting.


----------



## esldude

music alchemist said:


> Ha. Well, if by feedback you mean impressions, they're all over the Internet. Not to derail the thread, but since you inquired, many people (including ones with a lot of experience with headphones and speakers) said they couldn't tell they weren't listening to speakers while using it. The ability to emulate practically limitless speaker systems (given that you have the opportunity to visit them and take the measurements) makes it even more interesting.


 

 I think your post is quite ironic in this thread.  We have positive impressions in this thread of the HOT device.  After the tear down photos the positive impressions seem not to be accurate.  Not equating the Smyth device with the HOT, but just the reliability of subjective impressions on the internet take a bit of a hit in this thread.


----------



## Music Alchemist

esldude said:


> I think your post is quite ironic in this thread.  We have positive impressions in this thread of the HOT device.  After the tear down photos the positive impressions seem not to be accurate.  Not equating the Smyth device with the HOT, but just the reliability of subjective impressions on the internet take a bit of a hit in this thread.


 
  
 Perception can't always be trusted, that's for sure. I only mentioned the A8 because it targets a similar experience, but is a heavy-duty device that is one of the few on my "definitely buy" list, among countless "maybe try/buy someday" components. I don't claim to know how the HOT is supposed to work, but unlike Synergistic Research, Smyth Research go into some detail about how their technology works.


----------



## Currawong

So what is that whole thing around the socket? It is a socket alone? Does anyone actually know what it is supposed to actually do to the signal?
  
@bigshot I deleted your thread. You posted it PURELY to mock the product, without either A: owning it, or B: having any knowledge of what it actually is supposed to do with a signal. This isn't a forum purely for mocking products, and certainly science isn't about mocking things either. If you want to do anything of value, maybe see if Tyll can get a hold of one and measure some headphones with and without it in the chain to see if anything can be discerned that way. THAT is a proper application of science.


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> So what is that whole thing around the socket? It is a socket alone?




Yeah, it's just a regular 1/4" female socket, which typically feature a shield around them like that.




> Does anyone actually know what it is supposed to actually do to the signal?




They claim it's purpose is to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy. So it's apparently not doing anything to the signal. Couldn't do anything to the signal unless you converted that mechanical energy back into electrical energy. Remember, headphones operate on electrical energy, not mechanical energy.

They call their "technology" UEF for Uniform Energy Field. Sorry, but it sounds like nothing but gibberish to me.

se


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

This thread is clearly tainted now, but for the non-conspiracy theorists out there here are a few pictures. I just got it today. If anyone without malicious intent wants to hear some impressions I can do that. I haven't posted on head-fi in a while, I've just been peacefully listening to my setup behind the scenes. Pleasure to be back. One thing that really pisses me off is snake oil and I'd be the first one in line to point it out when I see it.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> So what is that whole thing around the socket? It is a socket alone? Does anyone actually know what it is supposed to actually do to the signal?


 
  
 Yes, it's just a socket. It doesn't do anything to the signal. The packaging is designed to make people think it is doing something to the signal.
  
 I jumped the gun on mocking it, I guess. My friend *did* buy one so we could see what it is, and I've posted our photos of what is inside it now... There is *nothing* inside. I think it's time to mock it now, right?


----------



## bigshot

uncle00jesse said:


> This thread is clearly tainted now, but for the non-conspiracy theorists out there here are a few pictures.


 
  
 Keep your eye on the return window! Don't let 30 days slide by. I'm afraid my buddy and I are stuck with the one we so kindly ripped apart to show you that there is nothing inside there but wires connecting one jack directly to another. It's in pieces now so we can't return it. We took a $300 fall so you don't have to. You are very welcome.
  
 I would suggest being very careful about doing business with the manufacturer of this boondoggle and any retailers who stock it. They clearly don't have your best interests at heart.
  
 Caveat emptor.


----------



## bigshot

By the way, I posted a link to this thread on the Synergistic Research Facebook page so they could respond to our questions, but I'm afraid they deleted my offer and link and banned me from their Facebook page. So much for their willingness to respond to someone who bought their product and has a question about the effectiveness of the product he was charged for!
  
 Feel free to visit their Facebook page yourself, but for heaven's sake, don't mention the fact that this product is just a plain old plug!
 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergistic-Research/292108336578


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

I appreciate your bravery. Did you guys listen to it first before you tore it apart? I hope you didn't jump the gun like that, just for kicks at least. Well I'm no electrical engineer so those tear-downs don't do much for me, although at first glace it looked a little, um, sparse? Anyways I hope you're wrong. I can confirm it works, there is sound coming out of my headphones! That's a solid sign, right? Just breaking her in right now. We'll see how it goes when I fire up Kicking Television - Live at Chicago in a few minutes and switch back and fourth with and without it. Fingers crossed.


----------



## bigshot

uncle00jesse said:


> I appreciate your bravery. Did you guys listen to it first before you tore it apart?


 
  
 Not surprisingly, it sounded like a dummy plug- which is what it is. No difference with or without.
  
 You don't have to be an electrical engineer to see that there is a stock male jack on one end, connected by three wires (Positive Right, Postive Left and Ground) to a stock female jack. It's basically a straight wire in and out again. Look closely. You'll see how it's made.


----------



## Steve Eddy

uncle00jesse said:


> Well I'm no electrical engineer so those tear-downs don't do much for me, although at first glace it looked a little, um, sparse? Anyways I hope you're wrong.




The only things in this thing, aside from the male/female plug/jack and the wires that connect the two is just some adhesive, ground up bits of rock (possibly quartz), three little strips of foil (each soldered to the tip, ring and sleeve terminals of the jack), tape, and heatshrink. How that adds up to "...dramatically improves the sense that you are listening to an actual sound stage as opposed to music played in-between your ears..." (direct quote from SR) is beyond me. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

Personally, I suspect that the HOT is an offshoot of this uh... "technology." 

http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm



se


----------



## castleofargh

steve eddy said:


> Personally, I suspect that the HOT is an offshoot of this uh... "technology."
> 
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/machina31.htm
> 
> ...


 

 ah yes! the "gems". the same kind that keeps computer monitors from sending you bad waves when you put some on your table. I didn't think about that possibility.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> The only things in this thing, aside from the male/female plug/jack and the wires that connect the two is just some adhesive, ground up bits of rock (possibly quartz), three little strips of foil (each soldered to the tip, ring and sleeve terminals of the jack), tape, and heatshrink. How that adds up to "...dramatically improves the sense that you are listening to an actual sound stage as opposed to music played in-between your ears..." (direct quote from SR) is beyond me.


 
  
 Do you think it adds up to any audible difference at all? I think the folks here would appreciate the basic truth more than dotted is and crossed ts.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Do you think it adds up to any audible difference at all?




I don't see that it adds up to anything more than a jack and a plug wired together, so i wouldn't expect its effect to be anything more than adding some extra contacts to the mix compared to just plugging your cable straight into the amp. 

se


----------



## Currawong

I think we're due for impressions from owners. It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is. I agree though that they should explain more about what it does and they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I'm just glad it's not available for XLR. Gives me one less thing to worry about.
  
 For what it's worth, in case everyone didn't notice, there is a customer review at the bottom of the official link.
  
 One alternative (at half the price and with strong user feedback) is the Out Of Your Head software. In addition to a free trial, there are pre-rendered demo files.


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> I think we're due for impressions from owners.




Fine, though those impressions can't speak to whether or not this thing is actually doing anything more than a simple jack/plug would do. Because we're all human beings, you can literally dream up anything you want and you're pretty much guaranteed to find some number of people who will profess to its benefits. That's how quacks and charlatans can make money, even today. And I'm not talking about just audio, but medicine and other areas as well. There are people making millions even today in the 21st century selling what amounts to snake oil. 




> It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is.




But we do know what the "more" is. It's some glue, some crushed up rock, some small metal foils, some heatshrink and some tape. But they just don't add up to anything meaningful. 

se


----------



## Currawong

steve eddy said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I think we're due for impressions from owners.
> ...


 
  
 Not disagreeing, but if you took apart a capacitor, not knowing anything about what it was or how one worked, what would you make of what you found inside? What I am saying is: Just because we don't know what exactly is inside it, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything significant.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures


 
  
 No. It *IS* just a straight through plug to socket. If you've ever replaced your own plug on a set of headphone or turntable, you got connectors with three pins on them exactly like this at Radio Shack.
  
 Quote: 





currawong said:


> Not disagreeing, but if you took apart a capacitor, not knowing anything about what it was or how one worked, what would you make of what you found inside? What I am saying is: Just because we don't know what exactly is inside it, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything significant.


 

 We do know exactly what is inside it. It is a female 1/4 inch plug jack on one end, and a male 1/4 in plug jack on the other, connected by three wires for left, right and ground. Check your headphones and see if the housing around the jack on the end of them unscrews. If so, you will see three wires connected to pins on the back of the plug just like this. A headphone jack is a connector. It doesn't affect the sound. All it does is allow you to put the plug from your headphones in one end and patch the signal directly into the plug on your amp.
  
 All this consists of is an additional two and a half inches of wire.
  
 I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland here!


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> Not disagreeing, but if you took apart a capacitor, not knowing anything about what it was or how one worked, what would you make of what you found inside?




Probably wouldn't be able to make much of it if you're talking about the average person off the street. But anyone with a fairly basic understanding of physics and material properties would be able to suss it out pretty quickly.

And it's not much different here. This thing just isn't complicated at all. And we know enough that if you take certain materials and arrange them in certain ways, it will behave a certain way. 

My take is that it looks for all the world like someone who had a rather rudimentary understanding of piezoelectricity cobbled something together believing it would do something that it is not.

And just to check myself, I telephoned a friend of mine who knows vastly more than I do about physics and material properties. I showed him the photos and explained what was found inside. I would probably be banned if I repeated what he said, but suffice to say there was no disagreement.

This is my friend if you have any interest in checking out his qualifications.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/stuart-yaniger/2/b37/7a1

I was hoping to be able to send him the device so that he could do a thorough analysis on its electrical behavior, but the person who bought the device was a bit too eager to tear it apart. I suppose it could be put back together enough to still run the analysis. I'll look into that but I'm pretty confident and so is my friend that it would behave no differently than a jack/plug simply wired together.




> What I am saying is: Just because we don't know what exactly is inside it, doesn't mean it doesn't do anything significant.




Given its construction, you don't have to know _exactly_ what's inside it to know that it doesn't go anything significant. You don't have to know _exactly_ what the alloy of the foils are, or _exactly_ what the crushed up rock is, or _exactly_ what the formulation of the adhesive is. No matter what they are, given their construction and arrangement in this thing they're just not going to have any meaningful effect on the electrical signal passing through the device.

se


----------



## bigshot

I think your piezo electric theory is pure speculation. It is just as likely that it is sand from a harmonic convergence in a sacred Indian ceremonial ground in Sedona Arizona.


----------



## esldude

currawong said:


> I think we're due for impressions from owners. It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is. I agree though that they should explain more about what it does and they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.


 

 Really, Currawong, REALLY!?  After the tear down photos you really, really have these reservations that it might do something?  The lack of explanation should be a clue.
  
 Impressions of owners,  REALLY?  
  
 Maybe worth reading for some:
 http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments


----------



## bfreedma

currawong said:


> I think we're due for impressions from owners. It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is. I agree though that they should explain more about what it does and they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.


 
  
 While I understand the desire to not anger potential paying advertisers, don't we owe the head-fi community some level of honesty about a product so that informed buying decisions can be made?  I'm also missing what you see as the "more" in this design - at least "more" that has relevance to audio reproduction.
  
 Given the information available and the lack of response from Synergistic, this should be considered "Snake Oil" until the manufacturer can present supporting evidence of it's functionality.
  
 Frankly, I don't see how customer testimonials are going to alter the physical reality of the device.


----------



## Currawong

esldude said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I think we're due for impressions from owners. It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is. I agree though that they should explain more about what it does and they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.
> ...


 
  
 If those impressions are "It did nothing for me so I sent it back", then all well and good. As for the lack of explanations -- I think they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, given that they are a cable company and people will judge them purely because of that, before anything else. I'm simply not going to judge something I haven't tried, though I am skeptical as everyone else is.
  


bfreedma said:


> currawong said:
> 
> 
> > I think we're due for impressions from owners. It does seem to be more than just a straight-through plug-to-socket from the pictures, even if we don't know what the "more" is. I agree though that they should explain more about what it does and they are shooting themselves in the foot by not doing so.
> ...


 
  
 I don't have any care about advertisers on here. They don't affect me as I'm not paid to be here. If I had the attitude you suggest, the last page or so of posts wouldn't be here any longer.  
  
 The "more" is the material that surrounds the socket which we haven't identified, let alone know what it does. If it affects the sound, people will hear it. If not, they'll send it back under their return policy. From their site:
  


> *30-day no-risk money back gaurantee:*
> Contact your nearest authorized Synergistic Research dealer and arrange for a 30-day, no-risk money back guarantee.


 
  
 Again, I'm not expecting anything, but I am curious to try it. If I get one, and I don't feel it does anything, I'll say as much. If I feel it makes some difference, I'll say as much too.


----------



## bfreedma

currawong said:


> If those impressions are "It did nothing for me so I sent it back", then all well and good. As for the lack of explanations -- I think they are damned if they do and damned if they don't, given that they are a cable company and people will judge them purely because of that, before anything else. I'm simply not going to judge something I haven't tried, though I am skeptical as everyone else is.
> 
> 
> I don't have any care about advertisers on here. They don't affect me as I'm not paid to be here. If I had the attitude you suggest, the last page or so of posts wouldn't be here any longer.
> ...


 
  
 So there is no need for a "sniff test" here?  Spreading any substance on a piece of electronics now needs subjective review before being assumed to be bunk based on well known science and acoustic theory?   If I spread peanut butter on my TRS connector socket, I should expect a serious review of the impact to audible sound without clearly stating the benefits?
  
 The minute they called it a "transducer", the game was over.  Until Synergistic presents some objective data anyway.


----------



## Currawong

bfreedma said:


> So there is no need for a "sniff test" here?


 
  
 I didn't say that.


----------



## bfreedma

currawong said:


> I didn't say that.


 
  
 Agreed - you just seem to be discounting Bigshot's disassembly of the HOT in favor of subjective opinions.
  
 Given that Synergistic won't/can't explain the "special sauce", I don't think owner's testimonials will be changing my opinion.  Others may see this differently.


----------



## Currawong

bfreedma said:


> you just seem to be [...]


 
  
 Don't go down that road. I say what I say and I mean what I say.


----------



## bfreedma

currawong said:


> Don't go down that road. I say what I say and I mean what I say.


 
  
 LOL - no problem
  
 No interest in a peanut butter coated 1/4" TRS to test.......


----------



## castleofargh

I understand the "no judgment until full proof" attitude you have currawong. but let's be honest, what kind of tech could hide inside that little gadget that could be expected to make an audio improvement when plugged between any amp and any headphone? go call some engineering friends and tell me all about it. even double amping get criticized so what wonder of the third type can pretend to that universal "dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance" ?
  
 with your knowledge what's to expect outside of something that would change the signature, mess up the phase of some frequencies, or play around with impedance, trying to control it or trying to change it on purpose? how many of those could be called improvement of headphone/amplifier performance without any apparent regard for the type of amp or headphone?
 the plug has been "voiced with Audeze LCD-3 and Sennheiser HD 800 stereo headphones"(stereo headphones? wow I need to get one of those!!!). that's it, I can stop reading. how do we get 1 thing to improve both? well I would love to hear all about that.
 ortho vs dynamic, 350 to 600ohm vs ruler flat 60ohm, even a signature trick on one would most likely suck on the other. this is ludicrous and is obviously a catch phrase to make us feel how elite and universal that thing is.
 and I'm not even talking about the ludicrous tech explanation(or lack of it) and improper namings.
  
 everything screams of scam, and then big shot comes in and put the last nail on an already magnificent coffin. the revolutionary plug seems to be manufactured at a bus stop with a can of coke and some sand technology. do you really need more?
 you think the real tech (whatever that could be) was hidden inside and bigshot in his rage against the brand decided to hide it and replace it by sand just to make a point?
  
  as an admin should hurry and put at least a warning in the title of this topic.
 if the brand has something to say, well let them come and explain how many years of R&D it took to decide upon the color of the plug. we're not trying to shift the burden of proof here. we have strong evidence vs shady marketing gibberish and they can come in anytime to say their piece.


----------



## cooperpwc

Subscribed. This is some kind of fun.


----------



## RudeWolf

I'm genuinely curious about what evidence is needed to dismiss something as being snake oil, if this doesn't do it. I'm a bit on the cynical side, but I was pretty sure that they had put a crossfeed or some kind of electronic "seasoning" inside there, but yeah... This takes the cake.
  
 Should be a waking call for some.


----------



## Steve Eddy

currawong said:


> The "more" is the material that surrounds the socket which we haven't identified, let alone know what it does.




Let's look at that from the other direction.

Name any material that _could_ be put on there that would have any significant effect on the signal.

From an electrical point of view, it could only do this by way of the material's permeability and permittivity properties. And while we don't know _ecxactly_ what the material is, we do know _exactly_ what the construction of the device is. And given that, we can know that it wouldn't matter what the material's permeability and permittivity was. In this particular construction, it simply wouldn't have any meaningful effect on the signal. 

But given SR's own words, this device's supposed benefits aren't electrical, but mechanical. They say it is a transducer and they mean exactly that. That its job is specifically to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy. So let's just take them at their word and even go so far as to allow that the audio signal passing through this thing is causing the mystery material to move in some fashion. 

Tell me, how does that translate into "...dramatically improves the sense that you are listening to an actual sound stage as opposed to music played in-between your ears"?

Unless of course you're expected to actually _hear_ those little bits of rock moving. 

Inside a rigid sealed tube.

While you're wearing headphones.

se


----------



## David Pritchard

I have been off  the internet for several days and have now opened this thread to read a lot of posts that are disappointing in their attitude, and lack of civility. As stated many posts earlier, I have a Synergistic Research Headphone Optimized Transducer. I have over fifty hours of listening to my audio system with the Transducer (HOT) in  and out of my system. With both my Sennheiser 800 and Sennheiser 650 headphones, I hear an improvement in the music that to me is significant.
  
 Pretty simple really. For me the improvement in the music is worth the $300.00.
  
 The 30 day money back offer makes it a no risk and a system educational event. Try something new in my audio system, enjoy and learn from the experiment and keep or return the product.
  
 Steve Eddy has posted about this product without listening to it in his system. I find this approach close minded. Steve makes audio cables for a living. I could buy one of his cables with genuine "French Silk" material and with a 30 day money back policy. This does not seem different than Synergistic Research's marketing policy or return policy.
  
 I hope headphone lovers will attend the SoCal CanJam March 28 and29 and take the opportunity to hear the Headphone Transducer for themselves.
  
 I look forward to meeting CURRAWONG  and others at the convention. I hope Steve Eddy will bring his headphone cables to the meet so we all can try them. I would like to see how they compare to my stock cables and my aftermarket cables.
  
 David Pritchard
 575-644- one-four-six-two


----------



## SoupRKnowva

david pritchard said:


> I have been off  the internet for several days and have now opened this thread to read a lot of posts that are disappointing in their attitude, and lack of civility. As stated many posts earlier, I have a Synergistic Research Headphone Optimized Transducer. I have over fifty hours of listening to my audio system with the Transducer (HOT) in  and out of my system. With both my Sennheiser 800 and Sennheiser 650 headphones, I hear an improvement in the music that to me is significant.
> 
> Pretty simple really. For me the improvement in the music is worth the $300.00.
> 
> ...




The difference being that Steve eddy doesn't make any claims about what his cables will do to your headphones soundstage or any other such nonsense, specially not after its confirmed that it is just two adapters with wires connecting them. 

He just sells well built cables for a reasonable price, you can tell he doesn't believe in any of that stuff since he "just" uses OFC instead of %99.9999999 whatever OCC coper


----------



## bigshot

David Pritchard, do you work for Synergistic Research?
  
 By the way, Steve Eddy wasn't the one who arranged this. It was a mutual friend of ours who is an engineer. We're just sharing the info he shared with us. I think it's interesting that you have focused on Steve Eddy and think it's a good idea to drag his business into this. He makes no claim about how his cables sound. He just says they are pretty and function properly. His business is irrelevant to the discussion we are having here.
  
 Would you like to discuss my business? I work in the entertainment business and have supervised recording sessions, sound editing and sound mixing for CDs, TV series and specials, rock videos, commercials, and a feature film. I have worked as a producer and post production supervisor for over 25 years. I say this gadget is a useless gaffe. Feel free to comment on my personal business.


----------



## Steve Eddy

rudewolf said:


> I'm genuinely curious about what evidence is needed to dismiss something as being snake oil, if this doesn't do it.




I guess we'll have to give a sample of the mystery material to the FBI's George Wilbur so he can identify it using his Hewlett-Packard model model 5710A dual column gas chromatograph with flame anayzation detectors. 

se


----------



## zachchen1996

david pritchard said:


> As stated many posts earlier, I have a Synergistic Research Headphone Optimized Transducer. I have over fifty hours of listening to my audio system with the Transducer (HOT) in  and out of my system. With both my Sennheiser 800 and Sennheiser 650 headphones, I hear an improvement in the music that to me is significant.
> 
> Pretty simple really. For me the improvement in the music is worth the $300.00.


----------



## bigshot

currawong said:


> The "more" is the material that surrounds the socket which we haven't identified, let alone know what it does.


 
  
 I'd be happy to clear that up for you...
  
 The outside of the female socket is a protective covering. It's grounded along with the rest of the socket, only the two leads that carry the Left and Right signal are hot and they are inside. It's a protective shell to cover the leads so they don't get bumped. Someone has done a craft project, gluing sand to the outside of this shell. They've also attached little strips of foil to the wires. None of these things alter the signal path. They're just decorations on the outside of the protective case of the jack. They can't do anything, because they are glued to the outside of the jack, not the inside where the Left and Right leads are exposed.
  
 If you want to try this same thing at home and see how it works for you, put a box of dirt on top of your CD player and scotch tape some little flags of Reynolds Wrap to the insulation of the interconnects on the back of it. Make sure none of it touches any bare wires. It might do something then (short out the connections so the plug doesn't work at all!)


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> No interest in a peanut butter coated 1/4" TRS to test.......


 
  
 Make sure that you price your peanut butter over $300! Synthetic Research just learned that their price point was too low. If they had priced it at $800 me and my buddy might not have been able to afford to cut it open and void our return privileges. If you make a useless gizmo with about 75 cents worth of inert parts inside, for goodness sakes don't price it affordably. If you do that, everyone will be cutting it open and shooting pictures of it and revealing the emperor's nakedness on the internet!


----------



## bigshot

rudewolf said:


> I'm genuinely curious about what evidence is needed to dismiss something as being snake oil, if this doesn't do it.
> 
> Should be a waking call for some.


 
  
 There is a lesson here even for people who smelled a rat on this "product" from the very start... It's clear that for some audiophiles there is *no* acceptable level of evidence that will make them realize that their subjective impressions might not be a good reflection of reality. We have one poster here who has seen the blatantly obvious tear down photos and is "waiting to audition it for himself" and another who has seen clearly that this is an inert plug extender who still believes that it is a "major improvement in all areas of headphone performance". That's like a husband coming home and finding his wife in bed with another man and brushing it off saying, "Well maybe they were both sleepy and that was the only bed available..."
  
The real lesson here is how pervasive and how deeply entrenched outright fakery is in the high end audio business. It doesn't matter if the snake oil comes with a 30 day guarantee, it's still snake oil. Those who are interested in getting good sound out of their systems should take this as an object lesson to learn from. The things it teaches us is that subjective descriptions of "major improvements" like "tighter bass, better detail, extended decay of notes, and improved soundstage" can be based on nothing but expectation bias. _A subjective impression isn't proof that a product is worthwhile... it's a claim that requires supporting evidence as proof._
  
This is a 14k gold plated example of *expectation bias* in action. It's also a 14k gold plated example that high end *audio manufacturers and dealers are not necessarily your friends,* even if they smile and act polite while they are cashing your check. If I had even a scrap of faith left in stereo salesmen, the first thing I would do is to check to see if any dealer I do business with stocks products by Synergistic Research. If they do, I would send them an email with a link to this thread. If they still list Synergistic Research products in their catalog in 30 days, I would make it a point to never do business with them again.
  


david pritchard said:


> The 30 day money back offer makes it a no risk and a system educational event.


 
Boy howdy! You can say that again!
  
By the way... would you be willing to refund me the $300 for the HOT in the photo? I've gotten all the learning from of this educational event that I possibly can now.
  
 (not expecting to get a "yes" on that)
  
I'm hoping the $300 loss taken on this little tear down project opens other people eyes and helps them save tens of thousands of dollars. If it does, it's worth it.


----------



## Claritas

souprknowva said:


> The difference being that Steve eddy doesn't make any claims about what his cables will do to your headphones soundstage or any other such nonsense, specially not after its confirmed that it is just two adapters with wires connecting them.
> 
> He just sells well built cables for a reasonable price, you can tell he doesn't believe in any of that stuff since he "just" uses OFC instead of %99.9999999 whatever OCC copper




If only hadn't made any objective-sounding claims, you'd be fine with it, maybe give it a try. Good on you for keeping an open mind.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> Make sure that you price your peanut butter over $300! Synthetic Research just learned that their price point was too low. If they had priced it at $800 me and my buddy might not have been able to afford to cut it open and void our return privileges. If you make a useless gizmo with about 75 cents worth of inert parts inside, for goodness sakes don't price it affordably. If you do that, everyone will be cutting it open and shooting pictures of it and revealing the emperor's nakedness on the internet!


 
  
 Now someone just needs to examine their other products, ranging from a few bucks to five figures.
  
 This is actually the first release by the company that I never took seriously. At least some of their product lines (such as Galileo LE) have a stellar reputation among certain groups of affluent audiophiles, but as you so eloquently stated below, such stature warrants scrutiny.
  


bigshot said:


> _A subjective impression isn't proof that a product is worthwhile... it's a claim that requires supporting evidence as proof._


 
  
 This just might be the ultimate truth in the audio industry.


----------



## bigshot

claritas said:


> If only hadn't made any objective-sounding claims, you'd be fine with it, maybe give it a try. Good on you for keeping an open mind.


 
  
 Speaking for myself... If I wanted pretty cables, I would buy pretty cables. I have pretty sterling silver knives and forks to eat with, but they don't work any different than my everyday stainless. I don't understand your point.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> Now someone just needs to examine their other products, ranging from a few bucks to five figures.


 
  
 You can do that with your own money this time! We've taken the fall for your benefit once, don't expect us to deliberately lose money again!
  
 Personally, I wouldn't give this guy another penny. If he is willing to do it once, he'll do it again. Credibility is zero in my book.


----------



## esldude

rudewolf said:


> I'm genuinely curious about what evidence is needed to dismiss something as being snake oil, if this doesn't do it. I'm a bit on the cynical side, but I was pretty sure that they had put a crossfeed or some kind of electronic "seasoning" inside there, but yeah... This takes the cake.
> 
> Should be a waking call for some.


 

 Yes, I had exactly the same idea about crossfeed and such.  Also have the matching idea that if this isn't enough to dismiss a product as snake oil is anything?
  
 I believe that for a considerable number of well heeled audiophiles the answer is nothing will convince.  If they put it in, get a subjective listening impression then nothing changes their mind.
  
 Wish I had the link handy, but a DIY audio forum had a huge long running thread about some expensive filters.  They were tested by professionals in every way imaginable up into the gigahertz range.  Then cut open and there is nothing in it either.  Tested exactly like the nothing it was.  The claim is one of those quantum level effects.  And even then at least as many defended the product as 'sounding clearly better' as derided it.  That product is still available for sale some few years after that thread. 
  
 So the wake up call works both ways.  Don't think you can convince people with facts when they have built a subjective experience at odds with what is physically impossible.   The more cynical need to study this situation and use a different more effective approach.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> You can do that with your own money this time! We've taken the fall for your benefit once, don't expect us to deliberately lose money again!
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't give this guy another penny. If he is willing to do it once, he'll do it again. Credibility is zero in my book.


 
  
 Yeah, I understand how this HOT thing destroyed their credibility for you. It's just that, until now, at least some of their products garnered consistent satisfaction from a significant number of users to the point of arousing my interest...which makes me all the more curious about testing out said products the proper way. Looks like if I ever want to do so, I'll stand to lose far more than a few hundred dollars.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

bigshot said:


> Speaking for myself... If I wanted pretty cables, I would buy pretty cables. I have pretty sterling silver knives and forks to eat with, but they don't work any different than my everyday stainless. I don't understand your point.




That's more what I was getting at yes


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> Yeah, I understand how this HOT thing destroyed their credibility for you. It's just that, until now, at least some of their products garnered consistent satisfaction from a significant number of users


 
  
 Look at this thread. You have a person here who has *seen* the teardown pictures with his own eyes and still is willing to offer "impressions" on the effectiveness of an inert plug extender to tightening up bass, improving clarity and making the soundstage wider and deeper. Does that sound like consistent satisfaction to you? It sure does to me.
  
 There are millions of people in the world who have claimed to see ghosts and UFOs. I have no doubt that they truly believe they have. But I'm not going to believe them based on their reports. I want to see documented proof- in audio, that's things like measurements, controlled tests, hard facts. Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT and I don't expect them to be any more accurate with the rest of Synergistic Research's products... or any other audio products for that matter.


----------



## Steve Eddy

david pritchard said:


> Steve Eddy has posted about this product without listening to it in his system. I find this approach close minded.




It is the open mind that recognizes and accepts the well known and well established fact that our subjective perceptions are not the unerring reflections of the objective reality that our vanities and our egos would like us to believe they are. In fact our subjective perceptions can be so trivially altered by influences outside of the objective reality it's almost embarrassing. 

It is because of this that simply "listening" is not a very useful tool in determining whether or not something is having any actual and meaningful effect on the signal passing through it as claimed.

To the contrary, it is the closed mind that denies one's own humanity and assumes that if one subjectively perceives some difference, then it must be due to the device having some actual audible effect on the signal.

Sure, I could listen to the HOT in my own system. But it's not going to inform me of anything beyond my own subjective experience. It will not tell me (or anyone else for that matter) whether or not the HOT is doing anything beyond what a jack/plug combo simply soldered together would do.

And just so you know, before it was torn apart, it was tried with a number of different amps and headphones. They heard no differences with and without the HOT in the system. Of course as is usually the case, those who report not hearing any differences are dismissed as being deaf, having crappy systems, or both. It's only the positive experiences that are considered "valid." 

Look, this isn't just some cheap tweak you can buy with what you would spend at Starbucks in a week. It has a $300 price tag and is made of maybe $20 in parts (I'm being generous). And given what was found inside, it appears that the only reason for that $300 price tag is to dissuade anyone from taking one apart.




> I hope Steve Eddy will bring his headphone cables to the meet so we all can try them. I would like to see how they compare to my stock cables and my aftermarket cables.




I won't be there. But you're free to try one with our no-risk 30 day return policy. 

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

souprknowva said:


> He just sells well built cables for a reasonable price, you can tell he doesn't believe in any of that stuff since he "just" uses OFC instead of %99.9999999 whatever OCC coper




Actually it's "just" ETP, not OFC. None of our customers has needed their headphone cables to work in a hydrogen annealing furnace. 

se


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> Look at this thread. You have a person here who has *seen* the teardown pictures with his own eyes and still is willing to offer "impressions" on the effectiveness of an inert plug extender to tightening up bass, improving clarity and making the soundstage wider and deeper. Does that sound like consistent satisfaction to you? It sure does to me.
> 
> There are millions of people in the world who have claimed to see ghosts and UFOs. I have no doubt that they truly believe they have. But I'm not going to believe them based on their reports. I want to see documented proof- in audio, that's things like measurements, controlled tests, hard facts. Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT and I don't expect them to be any more accurate with the rest of Synergistic Research's products... or any other audio products for that matter.


 
  
 That's what I meant by until now. Guess I should've said before now, but I was specifically referring to the Galileo LE line.
  
 Which is exactly why I want to do some real experiments with them someday.


----------



## Claritas

bigshot said:


> Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT




An objective claim can be inaccurate, but it's not clear that a subjective impression can be inaccurate. If he is experiencing something, that's really his experience.


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> Wish I had the link handy, but a DIY audio forum had a huge long running thread about some expensive filters.  They were tested by professionals in every way imaginable up into the gigahertz range.  Then cut open and there is nothing in it either.  Tested exactly like the nothing it was.  The claim is one of those quantum level effects.  And even then at least as many defended the product as 'sounding clearly better' as derided it.  That product is still available for sale some few years after that thread.




To be fair, it didn't test like nothing. It tested like the .025 ohm resistor that it was. 

se


----------



## bfreedma

claritas said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT
> ...




So at best, the HOT is a really effective/expensive placebo?

Not knocking the listener, just the claims made by Synergistic. Anyone "surprised" a rep hasn't arrived to defend their product.......?


----------



## Music Alchemist

claritas said:


> An objective claim can be inaccurate, but it's not clear that a subjective impression can be inaccurate. If he is experiencing something, that's really his experience.


 
  
 If you listen to the same audio file multiple times, under the same conditions, you can have a different experience each time too. Heck, I've woken up, listened to a song, and had it feel like it was playing in slow-motion. Since it involves the ears _and_ the brain, hearing is subjective, and that's why we need to take all factors into account.


----------



## Steve Eddy

claritas said:


> An objective claim can be inaccurate, but it's not clear that a subjective impression can be inaccurate. If he is experiencing something, that's really his experience.




Yeah, there's just no arguing someone's subjective experience unless you're willing to go so far as to call them a liar. And how are you going to make that case? 

se


----------



## esldude

steve eddy said:


> To be fair, it didn't test like nothing. It tested like the .025 ohm resistor that it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 You are right.  I had forgotten it did have a very small resistance.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

steve eddy said:


> Actually it's "just" ETP, not OFC. None of our customers has needed their headphone cables to work in a hydrogen annealing furnace.
> 
> se




Touché good sir! But ill counter with this Wikipedia quote, and admit I didn't even know what ETP copper was till I just googled it and read the wiki article on OFC, "Most ETP sold today will meet or exceed the 101% IACS specification."


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> You are right.  I had forgotten it did have a very small resistance.




Yeah, because it was literally an off-the-shelf, physical resistor that was hidden inside an outer tube. 

se


----------



## bigshot

claritas said:


> An objective claim can be inaccurate, but it's not clear that a subjective impression can be inaccurate. If he is experiencing something, that's really his experience.


 
 I have absolutely no doubt that people making inaccurate subjective impressions believe that they are stating what they experience. But I don't think that means anything to me if I spend $300 on an inert plug. The only way for a review to have meaning for other people is for it to be based on facts, not expectation bias.
  
 I was speaking to an artist friend about this situation just now and he reminded me of a quote by Time magazine's art critic, Robert Hughes in his documentary called "The Mona Lisa Curse". Hughes was speaking about the fraudulence of the contemporary fine art market (Jeff Koons, Damien Hirst, etc.) and he said, "High prices for art blinds people to its true value. Once you put a seven or eight figure price tag on a painting, it acquires a value to the art world, even if it is completely without artistic merit."
  
 That is very similar to what we see here. It's basically a very short six dollar headphone jack extender ( http://www.amazon.com/Hosa-Straight-Headphone-Extension-Cable/dp/B0010CTUW6/ ). But when you shrink wrap a logo around the casing and charge $300 for it, suddenly it becomes an "audiophile sound enhancement device".
  
 The amazing thing is that people have seen the teardown photo and can see for themselves that it is just a 2 1/2 inch long headphone jack extender, yet they say... "People have said that it makes a difference. It's very expensive. So maybe I should try it and see if it makes a difference for me." That is the same as looking at "Michael Jackson and Bubbles" by Jeff Koons...
  

  
 ...and thinking it might be an artistic masterpiece because art dealers have praised it highly and it is insured for millions of dollars.
  
 Too many people believe things for all the wrong reasons. That's the lesson here. The other lesson is that certain members of the audiophile business community obviously have no respect for their own customers. They see them as idiots. (The same way the contemporary fine art market sees the investors who bid at auction on porcelain Michael Jackson monkey statues.)


----------



## bigshot

bfreedma said:


> Not knocking the listener, just the claims made by Synergistic. Anyone "surprised" a rep hasn't arrived to defend their product.......?


 
  
 I posted the photo to Facebook and tagged Synergistic Research in it. They deleted the post and blocked me from commenting on their Facebook page. I think that is the only response you're likely to get.


----------



## bfreedma

bigshot said:


> I posted the photo to Facebook and tagged Synergistic Research in it. They deleted the post and blocked me from commenting on their Facebook page. I think that is the only response you're likely to get.


 
  
 That's why I put "surprised" in quotes.  I need to remember that sarcasm doesn't always resonate over the internet.
  
 Synergistic's actions with your Facebook post and silence otherwise speaks volumes.


----------



## Steve Eddy

souprknowva said:


> Touché good sir! But ill counter with this Wikipedia quote, and admit I didn't even know what ETP copper was till I just googled it and read the wiki article on OFC, "Most ETP sold today will meet or exceed the 101% IACS specification."




Yeah. ETP starts out with a pretty high purity copper. Then during the melt, they add very small, precisely controlled amounts of oxygen. The purpose of the oxygen is to scavenge the remaining impurities and take them out of solution, which increases the conductivity of the copper. The IACS conductivity standard was established before this method was developed, which is how we ended up with IACS conductivities over 100%.

The "problem" with ETP is that if you heat it in a reducing atmosphere, such as you might find in a hydrogen annealing furnace, the hydrogen can react with the oxygen in the copper and embrittle it. So that's where OFC comes in handy. But because OFC can't take advantage of oxygen scavenging, it has to be of a higher inherent purity in order to achieve the same conductivity as ETP.

So at the end of the day, you end up with the same thing, conductivity-wise, but because it doesn't require the additional refining that OFC does, it doesn't cost quite as much, even though the cost difference isn't that much. But in situations like the above, where you can't have any appreciable amount of oxygen in the copper, but you want the same conductivity as ETP, that's your only choice. So until people start using their headphone cables in hydrogen annealing furnaces, we'll continue to use ETP, even though it's not, as Jason over at Schiit would put it, "buzzword compliant." 

And now back to the show...

se


----------



## bfreedma

music alchemist said:


> Now someone just needs to examine their other products, ranging from a few bucks to five figures.
> 
> This is actually the first release by the company that I never took seriously. At least some of their product lines (*such as Galileo LE*) have a stellar reputation among certain groups of affluent audiophiles, but as you so eloquently stated below, such stature warrants scrutiny.
> 
> ...


 
  
 $9,500 for a pair of 1 meter XLR cables?  No thanks.


----------



## Music Alchemist

This thread has become...a HOT topic. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


bfreedma said:


> $9,500 for a pair of 1 meter XLR cables?  No thanks.


 
  
 I took care to throw the word "affluent" in there, but I don't think many people use such expensive gear with headphone systems. It's sheer curiosity that drives me. If after exhaustively testing stuff like this I discover that cheap cables sound just as good, all the better! But I won't be satisfied until I can verify it for myself, not merely in theory.


----------



## bfreedma

music alchemist said:


> This thread has become...a HOT topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 It's already been verified multiple times, but suit yourself.
  
 Affluent should not be used as a synonym for "stupid" and cost is not an actual technical specification.  Not every well off audio enthusiast is unaware of the science behind audio reproduction.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bfreedma said:


> It's already been verified multiple times, but suit yourself.


 
  
 I would appreciate it if you could direct me to this conclusive proof (with specific examples using cables in all price ranges), because all I've seen are impressions and theory from both sides of the debate.


----------



## bigshot

I've been known to double check with personal testing myself. But it's mostly to determine whether I've ended up with a defective piece of equipment. I research the technical aspects and features carefully before I buy something so I know exactly what to expect. I'm not going to drop thousands of dollars on the basis of vague subjective praise, whether or not there is a 30 day money back guarantee or not. My time and effort has too much value to me to compare randomly with no reason to expect that I am getting what I need. But I do appreciate Amazon's no questions asked return policy and have used it to return things that don't work out.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> I would appreciate it if you could direct me to this conclusive proof (with specific examples using cables in all price ranges), because all I've seen are impressions and theory from both sides of the debate.


 

 The truth rarely lies midway between opposing arguments.
  
 Here is a great place to start...
  
 http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
  
 Also see Ethan Winer's wonderful presentations to the AES (Audio Engineering Society)
  
AES Audio Myths Seminar: http://youtu.be/BYTlN6wjcvQ
AES Damn Lies Seminar: http://youtu.be/Zvireu2SGZM
  
 This should get you started. If you need clarification, feel free to ask in the Sound Science forum. That's the place to discuss this.


----------



## bfreedma

music alchemist said:


> I would appreciate it if you could direct me to this conclusive proof (with specific examples using cables in all price ranges), because all I've seen are impressions and theory from both sides of the debate.


 
  
 Can't be discussed here due to the rules of the forum, but Bigshot provided some links where you can start.


----------



## David Pritchard

Let's see I should only buy a product if I can establish scientific proof that it is superior. That certainly is one approach. And those who only have that philosophy should go back to the Sound Science Forum.
  
 On this forum there are many posts concerning the sonic superiorty of  Steve Eddy's cables. I think that is great- people reporting what they hear in their system with his cables. Reading Steve's posts he should be complaining as his customers are making sonic judgements without scientific proof. If his Cable sounds better than the Radio Shack cable is that expectation bias? If his cable sounds better than a three thousand cable is that a reverse expectation bias? I can't find any proof that these cables test better than others. However his cables are the only cables in the world to be constructed with "French Silk" as he has gotten a trade mark for this term. It seems that Steve Eddy is not immune to a bit of marketing hype.
  
 I do not work for Synergistic Research, nor have I ever gotten any special treatment from the company.
  
 Steve Eddy has offered to send me his cables with a thirty day trial, but if I like what I hear I am a fool because I have no proof they must sound better. If I don't like what I hear I am a fool as I  must be some expectation bias.
  
 Tyll Hertsen at Innerfidelity.com is an avid and long time headphone user. Go to his web site. He does all kind of headphone measurements and struggles with the frequent discrepancy between his measurements and what he hears.
  
 When I go to hear live music I listen with little expectation and decide if I like it. I do the same with audio equipment. 
  
 I am looking forward to the Southern California CanJam March 28 and 29 to have some exciting subjective listening and to visit with some wonderful headphone enthusiasts.


----------



## bigshot

david pritchard said:


> Let's see I should only buy a product if I can establish scientific proof that it is superior.


 
  
 No, that isn't what we are saying at all. We're suggesting that an understanding of how audio reproduction works and how it doesn't work is helpful for sorting out the wheat from the chaff. An informed consumer always makes better decisions than one who takes things on faith alone. And it isn't exactly rocket science to look at the photo I posted and see that it's two plugs connected together by three wires and deduce that there is no way that it could make a bit of difference to the sound.
  
 Science is VERY useful in identifying the weak points in a system so you can attack those directly, rather than randomly churning components hoping to randomly stumble across a combination that works for you. It can help you precisely define the aspect of sound reproduction that is important to you. For instance, maybe you prefer a rolled off high end for a warm sound. If you learn how to read a frequency response graph, you can see at a glance which manufacturers and models might appeal to you. Science is also excellent at putting the lie to outright fraud and false claims. Those sorts of things thrive in a totally subjective environment, but objectivity nips it in the bud. This thread is a great example.
  
 I have a question though... Why are you making this about Steve Eddy? He didn't start this thread. I did. Why aren't you addressing me?
  
 I'm afraid I won't be at the get together, but when you're in Southern California, you are invited to come by and visit me. I live in the San Fernando valley a little over a half hour away from Costa Mesa. I'll show you my system and explain to you how it works and you can see what you think. All I ask is that you be calm and polite and keep your ears and mind open for new ideas you might not have considered before. I've extended this offer to quite a few people before, but no one has ever taken me up on it. It would be nice to find someone in this forum who actually is interested in listening to what I've designed.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I won't be at the get together, but when you're in Southern California, you are invited to come by and visit me. I live in the San Fernando valley a little over a half hour away from Costa Mesa. I'll show you my system and explain to you how it works and you can see what you think. All I ask is that you be calm and polite and keep your ears and mind open for new ideas you might not have considered before. I've extended this offer to quite a few people before, but no one has ever taken me up on it. It would be nice to find someone in this forum who actually is interested in listening to what I've designed.


 
  
 I may take you up on that offer someday! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 (That is, if it's being extended to readers of your post.)


----------



## bigshot

Sure. When you are in town, just let me know. My theater/listening room is a whole lot of fun.


----------



## bfreedma

david pritchard said:


> Let's see I should only buy a product if I can establish scientific proof that it is superior. That certainly is one approach. And those who only have that philosophy should go back to the Sound Science Forum.
> 
> On this forum there are many posts concerning the sonic superiorty of  Steve Eddy's cables. I think that is great- people reporting what they hear in their system with his cables. Reading Steve's posts he should be complaining as his customers are making sonic judgements without scientific proof. If his Cable sounds better than the Radio Shack cable is that expectation bias? If his cable sounds better than a three thousand cable is that a reverse expectation bias? I can't find any proof that these cables test better than others. However his cables are the only cables in the world to be constructed with "French Silk" as he has gotten a trade mark for this term. It seems that Steve Eddy is not immune to a bit of marketing hype.
> 
> ...


 
  
  
 I own a headphone cable from Steve Eddy - it sounds exactly like every other cable.  They are, however, far more ergonomic than any other cable I've tried which is why I purchased from him.  Very flexible, zero microphonics, super lightweight, and feel decent when they make contact.
  
 All perfectly good reasons to spend money on cables.  If Q-Audio or Steve has stated that they sound better than other cables, please provide a link.
  
 Claims by vendors should require a different level of scrutiny than claims from product owners.


----------



## Bogart24

Hot topic.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bogart24 said:


> Hot topic.


 
  
 Beat ya to it! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  


music alchemist said:


> This thread has become...a HOT topic.


----------



## Steve Eddy

david pritchard said:


> On this forum there are many posts concerning the sonic superiorty of Steve Eddy's cables. I think that is great- people reporting what they hear in their system with his cables. Reading Steve's posts he should be complaining as his customers are making sonic judgements without scientific proof.




Apparently you haven't been reading my posts.

As I said previously, there's no arguing peoples' subjective experiences. Not unless you're prepared to call them liars. If someone is simply relating their subjective experience, there can be no legitimate demand for any "scientific proof." So I don't see why you think I should be complaining about people simply sharing their subjective experiences. 

It's only when objective claims are made that there is a legitimate demand for scientific proof. 

Once the tear down photos were posted and the construction of this thing was revealed, the discussion centered on the objective issue of whether or not this thing could have any more effect on the signal passing through it than a jack/plug simply wired together without the rocks and the foils. And there's no earthly reason to believe that it can.

Then you were critical of me for not having listened to it first, as if that would somehow answer the question. But it would not have as our subjective perceptions are embarrassingly unreliable. 




> If his Cable sounds better than the Radio Shack cable is that expectation bias? If his cable sounds better than a three thousand cable is that a reverse expectation bias? I can't find any proof that these cables test better than others.




I've no idea what it would be, and I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion.




> However his cables are the only cables in the world to be constructed with "French Silk" as he has gotten a trade mark for this term.




Not the only cables in the world. A competitor ripped off both the design and the trademark.




> It seems that Steve Eddy is not immune to a bit of marketing hype.




I don't see how French Silk is any sort of marketing hype. It doesn't speak to anything having to do with their technical performance, like Headphone Optimized Transducer, or Uniform Energy Field "technology." 

It's just a simple trade name. The sleeving on the cables is silk, and we buy it from a company in France. Also, my favorite desert is French Silk chocolate pie, and that's how I came to choose the trade name French Silk. I don't see that it's any more marketing hype than the trade name "Tide" for laundry detergent. Perhaps you can explain.




> Steve Eddy has offered to send me his cables with a thirty day trial...




Just to be clear, they would be sent to you after you _purchased_ a pair. 




> ...but if I like what I hear I am a fool because I have no proof they must sound better. If I don't like what I hear I am a fool as I must be some expectation bias.




You would only be a fool if you assumed that if something sounds better, that it _must_ be due to the device or whatever altering the signal in such a way as to actually be audible.

Speaking for myself, when it comes to the enjoyment of reproduced music, I'm wholly subjectivist. I go with what gives me the greatest pleasure and enjoyment regardless of any of the reasons behind it.

But I don't fool myself into believing that if something sounds better or just different, it must be because of any actual audible difference. 




> Tyll Hertsen at Innerfidelity.com is an avid and long time headphone user. Go to his web site. He does all kind of headphone measurements and struggles with the frequent discrepancy between his measurements and what he hears.




There will always be discrepancies. That's because we are subjective beings and our subjective perceptions aren't any sort of accurate reflection of the objective reality. To assume that it is our subjective perceptions that are always correct and we're just not "measuring the right things" is sheer nonsense. But that "argument" is routinely made in this industry.

se


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> There is a lesson here even for people who smelled a rat on this "product" from the very start... It's clear that for some audiophiles there is *no* acceptable level of evidence that will make them realize that their subjective impressions might not be a good reflection of reality. We have one poster here who has seen the blatantly obvious tear down photos and is "waiting to audition it for himself" and another who has seen clearly that this is an inert plug extender who still believes that it is a "[COLOR=444444]major improvement in all areas of headphone performance". That's like a husband coming home and finding his wife in bed with another man and brushing it off saying, "Well maybe they were both sleepy and that was the only bed available..."[/COLOR]
> 
> [COLOR=444444]The real lesson here is how pervasive and how deeply entrenched outright fakery is in the high end audio business. It doesn't matter if the snake oil comes with a 30 day guarantee, it's still snake oil. Those who are interested in getting good sound out of their systems should take this as an object lesson to learn from. The things it teaches us is that subjective descriptions of "major improvements" like "tighter bass, better detail, extended decay of notes, and improved soundstage" can be based on nothing but expectation bias. _A subjective impression isn't proof that a product is worthwhile... it's a claim that requires supporting evidence as proof._[/COLOR]
> 
> ...




All we need to do is blind tests with multiple subjects who have no particular expectations. I wish I could bring one to the NY meet this weekend, but it would probably not get here on time.


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> Look at this thread. You have a person here who has *seen* the teardown pictures with his own eyes and still is willing to offer "impressions" on the effectiveness of an inert plug extender to tightening up bass, improving clarity and making the soundstage wider and deeper. Does that sound like consistent satisfaction to you? It sure does to me.
> 
> There are millions of people in the world who have claimed to see ghosts and UFOs. I have no doubt that they truly believe they have. But I'm not going to believe them based on their reports. I want to see documented proof- in audio, that's things like measurements, controlled tests, hard facts. Subjective impressions are nice, but they weren't accurate in the case of HOT and I don't expect them to be any more accurate with the rest of Synergistic Research's products... or any other audio products for that matter.




There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, 
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. 
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

You can't measure what you don't understand, and the history of science teaches us that it would be foolish indeed to assume we understand everything that might affect an individual's perception of music.


----------



## warrenpchi

A bit off topic, but...
  


david pritchard said:


> I am looking forward to the Southern California CanJam March 28 and 29 to have some exciting subjective listening and to visit with some wonderful headphone enthusiasts.


 
 Amen to that!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  


bigshot said:


> I'm afraid I won't be at the get together


 
  
 Why?


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
> - Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
> 
> You can't measure what you don't understand, and the history of science teaches us that it would be foolish indeed to assume we understand everything that might affect an individual's perception of music.




That's a nice little logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." It's a common device used by the anti-science movement.

se


----------



## Uncle00Jesse

uncle00jesse said:


> This thread is clearly tainted now, but for the non-conspiracy theorists out there here are a few pictures. I just got it today. If anyone without malicious intent wants to hear some impressions I can do that. I haven't posted on head-fi in a while, I've just been peacefully listening to my setup behind the scenes. Pleasure to be back. One thing that really pisses me off is snake oil and I'd be the first one in line to point it out when I see it.


 
  
 Between last night and today, I've put in about 6 hours of listening with the HOT and without. To my ears there is no discernible difference in the sound whatsoever. I'm not getting the out of head experience that sold me on it, smoother highs or more holographic sound. I ran it through the whole gambit. Rock, live Rock, Jazz, well recorded Bill Evans Trio albums, crazy stuff like Sufjan Stevens etc. Maybe my ears are failing me as I'm getting old and your mileage may vary. A few months ago I couldn't tell the difference between the stock Audeze cable and a $450 Cardas Clear so again this may be just me. I hate to pile on in a thread already spinning out of control, however I wouldn't consider myself a true audio enthusiast like you guys if I didn't voice my opinion.


----------



## Claritas

bigshot said:


> I have absolutely no doubt that people making inaccurate subjective impressions believe that they are stating what they experience.




They're stating what they're actually experiencing, not what they merely _believe_ they're experiencing. That's what a subjective claim is. It's not a claim about the world itself apart from one's experience of it. And I don't know if a person can be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage." Yes, that's what the person is hearing.

If they infer some fact about how the world itself works apart from their experience of it, that would be an objective claim. And a person can certainly be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage _because of the sand crystals in this plug_." That objective claim can be either true or false, and requires an explanation of how the sand crystals cause him to hear the increase in soundstage (which he is hearing regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the cause).


----------



## Steve Eddy

uncle00jesse said:


> Between last night and today, I've put in about 6 hours of listening with the HOT and without. To my ears there is no discernible difference in the sound whatsoever.




It needs more time to break/burn in.

No, wait, you're deaf.

No, wait, your Schiit is crap.

No, wait...

se


----------



## esldude

claritas said:


> They're stating what they're actually experiencing, not what they merely _believe_ they're experiencing. That's what a subjective claim is. It's not a claim about the world itself apart from one's experience of it. And I don't know if a person can be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage." Yes, that's what the person is hearing.
> 
> If they infer some fact about how the world itself works apart from their experience of it, that would be an objective claim. And a person can certainly be wrong about that. "I'm hearing a slight increase in soundstage _because of the sand crystals in this plug_." That objective claim can be either true or false, and requires an explanation of how the sand crystals cause him to hear the increase in soundstage (which he is hearing regardless of whether he's right or wrong about the cause).


 

 Oh how cute.   So I plug this thing in and hear an increase in soundstage.  Somehow that doesn't imply the increase is due to the plugging in of this thing to the point of claiming I am hearing an increase in soundstage from this thing.  No the person wouldn't be wrong to subjectively experience the increased soundstage.  His actual subjective experience of reality due to this real thing he plugged in is in error however if there is no change in the perceptual cues he is getting.


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> That's a nice little logical fallacy known as "argument from ignorance." It's a common device used by the anti-science movement.
> 
> se


 
 I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-arrogance.  People claiming that science is on their side frequently seem to forget is that science is a long process of discovery, and trying to explain everything on the basis of what is currently understood while dismissing anything they cannot explain as therefore false, is actually contrary to the lessons of the history of science.  A real scientist balances a healthy skepticism with an appreciation of the limits of present knowledge.


----------



## esldude

bogart24 said:


> I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-arrogance.  People claiming that science is on their side frequently seem to forget is that science is a long process of discovery, and trying to explain everything on the basis of what is currently understood while dismissing anything they cannot explain as therefore false, is actually contrary to the lessons of the history of science.  A real scientist balances a healthy skepticism with an appreciation of the limits of present knowledge.


 

 Please you are embarrassing yourself.  If one took your approach, science could not use anything to go further because they don't yet know everything.  That isn't how it works.  You use evidence, and work from there.  Subjective evaluation is not good reliable evidence.  And there is plenty of rational knowledge to back that up.


----------



## Bogart24

esldude said:


> Please you are embarrassing yourself.  If one took your approach, science could not use anything to go further because they don't yet know everything.  That isn't how it works.  You use evidence, and work from there.  Subjective evaluation is not good reliable evidence.  And there is plenty of rational knowledge to back that up.


 
 Thanks for your concern, but I don't feel the least bit embarrassed.  Yes--science uses evidence; it also uses theories and, crucially, imagination and insight.  The argument that a healthy respect for the unknown somehow paralyzes science is ridiculous and certainly does not follow from what I said.
  
 Your assertion is that if you cannot explain or measure something you can categorically say that it does not exist.  This is patently absurd.  In the past, scientists could not imagine things like radiation and microbes.  
  
 Don't misunderstand me.  I do not take the contrary position that subjective experience alone can establish the validity of a phenomenon.  However, if that subjective experience is widely shared and can be confirmed in blind tests, I'm not going to let the fact that engineers can't explain it trouble me.  (Not that this is the case here--I have no opinion on the Hot.)


----------



## esldude

bogart24 said:


> Thanks for your concern, but I don't feel the least bit embarrassed.  Yes--science uses evidence; it also uses theories and, crucially, imagination and insight.  The argument that a healthy respect for the unknown somehow paralyzes science is ridiculous and certainly does not follow from what I said.
> 
> Your assertion is that if you cannot explain or measure something you can categorically say that it does not exist.  This is patently absurd.  In the past, scientists could not imagine things like radiation and microbes.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me.  I do not take the contrary position that subjective experience alone can establish the validity of a phenomenon.  However, if that subjective experience is widely shared and can be confirmed in blind tests, I'm not going to let the fact that engineers can't explain it trouble me.  (Not that this is the case here--I have no opinion on the Hot.)


 

 Yes if confirmed by blind tests it would be something believable.  How many times do we see this widely shared experience that fails to pass blind testing.  So, everything known about propagation of electronic signals says this does nothing.  If it did something measurably important that would mean something too.  Until more evidence (measured or tested blind) is offered everything known which is a very reliable guide about such things says it does nothing.    So why the appeal to ignorance?  We gain nothing from it.


----------



## Bogart24

esldude said:


> Yes if confirmed by blind tests it would be something believable.  How many times do we see this widely shared experience that fails to pass blind testing.  So, everything known about propagation of electronic signals says this does nothing.  If it did something measurably important that would mean something too.  Until more evidence (measured or tested blind) is offered everything known which is a very reliable guide about such things says it does nothing.    So why the appeal to ignorance?  We gain nothing from it.


 
 If you take what I have written to be an appeal to ignorance, there is really no point in continuing to engage.  I do not believe that is a reasonable interpretation of what I have written.  It is simply inflammatory rhetoric.


----------



## sonitus mirus

What are some widely shared subjective experiences that have been confirmed with reliable blind testing that has scientists and engineers so discombobulated?


----------



## castleofargh

are we still talking about a plug with glue and sand inside it?
  
 Bogart you really have no opinion about the HOT? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ok I believe you, 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 but I have to say I'm afraid to get diabetes from all the sugar coating in this topic.
  
  
  
  
  


 well maybe for some of us this phone would work wonders too, we certainly don't have enough facts with that picture. so let's not say it's a scam. better not have an opinion and play it safe,  or let's buy one because we can't talk unless we tried...
 this is getting amazingly awkward.


----------



## Claritas

esldude said:


> Oh how cute.  So I plug this thing in and hear an increase in soundstage.  Somehow that doesn't imply the increase is due to the plugging in of this thing to the point of claiming I am hearing an increase in soundstage from this thing.  No the person wouldn't be wrong to subjectively experience the increased soundstage.  His actual subjective experience of reality due to this real thing he plugged in is in error however if there is no change in the perceptual cues he is getting.




I don't respect your snideness or your incivility towards others. Insofar as I can make sense of your response, you aren't making an honest effort to consider observations you don't already agree with. That's no way to learn together with others, so I'm through with you and this thread.


----------



## Bogart24

castleofargh said:


> are we still talking about a plug with glue and sand inside it?
> 
> Bogart you really have no opinion about the HOT?
> 
> ...


 
 Why would I have an opinion about it?  It's brand new.  There are no reviews.  I haven't heard it.  I have not heard from more than a handful of people who have, and they disagree.


----------



## esldude

bogart24 said:


> Why would I have an opinion about it?  It's brand new.  There are no reviews.  I haven't heard it.  I have not heard from more than a handful of people who have, and they disagree.


 

 Considering the context, that is one of the funnier posts in this thread.


----------



## scootermafia

With any tweak it comes down to how much do you trust the company selling it.  If you own all their stuff and you think they're great, chances are they could make practically anything and you'd be inclined to believe that they aren't making stuff up to make money.  If you don't respect the company to begin with, there's not much chance you'd hear a difference whether the tweak was legitimate or not.  Given what we've seen here for the internals of this thing, most people, especially non SR fans, are not going to grasp the intent of its design.  Nobody could argue that this device's manufacture is complex, and nobody could state that it contains active devices, electrical components, crossfeeds, etc.  It contains some parts where it's unclear why exactly they're there.
  
 There are no tweaks too simple for people to believe in.  Because plenty of people believe in putting photos in their freezer to re-align the time continuums.  At this point it comes down to people being highly suggestable and/or intentionally manipulating their own minds in order to change subjective perceptions of the music.  It isn't any different than taking drugs or having an active imagination; you may hear the music differently, but you probably aren't going to change what's coming out of your stereo by freezing a photograph.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> You can't measure what you don't understand, and the history of science teaches us that it would be foolish indeed to assume we understand everything that might affect an individual's perception of music.


 
  
 Well I wasn't talking about perception of music, I was talking about fidelity of sound reproduction. Those are two different things.


----------



## bigshot

warrenpchi said:


> Why?


 
  
 Medical issues I'm dealing with right now.


----------



## bigshot

uncle00jesse said:


> Between last night and today, I've put in about 6 hours of listening with the HOT and without. To my ears there is no discernible difference in the sound whatsoever.
> 
> A few months ago I couldn't tell the difference between the stock Audeze cable and a $450 Cardas Clear so again this may be just me.


 
  
 More likely there is no audible difference with either the HOT or the fancy cable. Welcome to Sound Science!


----------



## bigshot

claritas said:


> They're stating what they're actually experiencing, not what they merely _believe_ they're experiencing.


 
  
 They may be stating what they are perceiving, but not what they are experiencing. External experience is what it is, no matter how we perceive it internally. Mentally ill people believe they are Napoleon and perceive the world that way, but that doesn't mean that mentally ill people are recognized by the French public as their Emperor.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> I'm not anti-science.  I'm anti-arrogance.  People claiming that science is on their side frequently seem to forget is that science is a long process of discovery, and trying to explain everything on the basis of what is currently understood while dismissing anything they cannot explain as therefore false,


 
  
 Take a nice long look at the teardown photo I posted and let me know where your process of discovery leads you!


----------



## spook76

scootermafia said:


> With any tweak it comes down to how much do you trust the company selling it.  If you own all their stuff and you think they're great, chances are they could make practically anything and you'd be inclined to believe that they aren't making stuff up to make money.  If you don't respect the company to begin with, there's not much chance you'd hear a difference whether the tweak was legitimate or not.  Given what we've seen here for the internals of this thing, most people, especially non SR fans, are not going to take it seriously.
> 
> There are no tweaks too simple for people to believe in.  Because plenty of people believe in putting photos in their freezer to re-align the time continuums.  At this point it comes down to people being highly suggestable and/or intentionally manipulating their own minds in order to change subjective perceptions of the music.  It isn't any different than taking drugs or having an active imagination; you may hear the music differently, but you probably aren't going to change what's coming out of your stereo by freezing a photograph.



I agree with your statements but I think we all need to take a deep breath and go back to the tear down picture posted by Bigshot and the comments by Steve Eddy about what constitutes a transducer. 

Unless the company is forth coming and explains how the electrical energy is being transformed into mechanical energy, there is no other possible conclusion to draw but that this is a fraud. Further, to even entertain the possibility that the HOT is anything else but a fraud does a disservice to anyone reading this thread contemplating a purchase of this product.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Your assertion is that if you cannot explain or measure something you can categorically say that it does not exist.  This is patently absurd.  In the past, scientists could not imagine things like radiation and microbes.


 
  
 It's possible to verify the existence of things we don't understand yet. In the case of this gizmo, a simple double blind listening test would do the trick. But I'll leave that to you. I have bigger fish to fry. I know what I need to know about two jacks connected by three little wires.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Why would I have an opinion about it?  It's brand new.  There are no reviews.  I haven't heard it.  I have not heard from more than a handful of people who have, and they disagree.


 

 Would you like to get a great deal on buying the Brooklyn Bridge?


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> Well I wasn't talking about perception of music, I was talking about fidelity of sound reproduction. Those are two different things.


 
 They may be different, but it makes little sense to separate them in this context.  The initial reviewer spoke both about relatively objective things like improved soundstage and harmonics, but he also spoke about an increase in his emotional attachment to the music.  I know one of the things I like about my AURALiC amp is that I have more of an emotional response to music played through it than my other amps.  I suspect the engineers would argue that audio equipment has nothing to do with something as vague and subjective as "emotional response."  
  
 Fidelity is a large part of what most of us are looking for, but I think many of us are also looking for something more elusive.  Certainly this is true for those who willingly trade fidelity for some kind of preferred coloration.


----------



## bigshot

scootermafia said:


> There are no tweaks too simple for people to believe in.  Because plenty of people believe in putting photos in their freezer to re-align the time continuums.  At this point it comes down to people being highly suggestable and/or intentionally manipulating their own minds in order to change subjective perceptions of the music.  It isn't any different than taking drugs or having an active imagination; you may hear the music differently, but you probably aren't going to change what's coming out of your stereo by freezing a photograph.


 
  
 Not a particularly dependable or efficient way to get your stereo to sound good.


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> Would you like to get a great deal on buying the Brooklyn Bridge?


 
 I am (perhaps all too obviously) not an engineer.  It's all magic to me.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> They may be different, but it makes little sense to separate them in this context.  The initial reviewer spoke both about relatively objective things like improved soundstage and harmonics, but he also spoke about an increase in his emotional attachment to the music.  I know one of the things I like about my AURALiC amp is that I have more of an emotional response to music played through it than my other amps.  I suspect the engineers would argue that audio equipment has nothing to do with something as vague and subjective as "emotional response."


 
  
 My advice is to get yourself a girlfriend for emotional response and only expect your stereo components to have good sound fidelity.


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> My advice is to get yourself a girlfriend for emotional response and only expect your stereo components to have good sound fidelity.


 
 That is terrible advice.  What do you listen to music for if not an emotional response?


----------



## esldude

bogart24 said:


> That is terrible advice.  What do you listen to music for if not an emotional response?


 

 He didn't say he wasn't listening for an emotional response.  Just that he doesn't count on gear to provide one.
  
 If two devices are equally good in fidelity to the signal, any emotional response is coming from elsewhere.  The gear can't provide that.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> It's possible to verify the existence of things we don't understand yet. In the case of this gizmo, a simple double blind listening test would do the trick.




Properly done double blind tests aren't exactly simple. Also, there are plenty of people who are unable to detect differences that are known to be audible. So who do you pick for the test?

Actually this device would lend itself well to difference testing, using Bill Waslo's DiffMaker. Just make two digital recordings of whatever piece of music you like, one with the HOT and one with a jack/plug wired together. If this thing is altering the signal in any significant way, it will show in the difference file that DiffMaker creates.

se


----------



## Bogart24

esldude said:


> He didn't say he wasn't listening for an emotional response.  Just that he doesn't count on gear to provide one.
> 
> If two devices are equally good in fidelity to the signal, any emotional response is coming from elsewhere.  The gear can't provide that.


 
 That has not been my experience.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> That is terrible advice.  What do you listen to music for if not an emotional response?


 

 I'm not talking about music. I am talking about a black box with wires plugged into it. The dials on the front of my amp say "volume" and "treble", not "heartbreaking" and "joyful". If music gives you an emotional response, all credit should go to Tchaikovsky or the Beatles or Billie Holliday, The appliance in the equipment rack isn't capable of love. It's just an inanimate object. It just works well or it doesn't.
  
 But I admire your romantic anthropomorphism of stereo equipment. It must be a fun way of thinking to imagine that every object in your house has a personality and is communicating with you on an emotional plane.


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> I'm not talking about music. I am talking about a black box with wires plugged into it. The dials on the front of my amp say "volume" and "treble", not "heartbreaking" and "joyful". If music gives you an emotional response, all credit should go to Tchaikovsky or the Beatles or Billie Holliday, The appliance in the equipment rack isn't capable of love. It's just an inanimate object. It just works well or it doesn't.
> 
> But I admire your romantic anthropomorphism of stereo equipment. It must be a fun way of thinking to imagine that every object in your house has a personality and is communicating with you on an emotional plane.




I'm not sure why you feel the need to be so consistently disrespectful, but if you imagine it adds potency to your arguments you are mistaken. Quite the contrary. It makes you seem childish and insecure. 

It is not anthropomorphism to speak of my emotional response to music or to note that some pieces of equipment are more likely to evoke that response than others. I'm not saying my amplifier has an emotional life


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Properly done double blind tests aren't exactly simple. Also, there are plenty of people who are unable to detect differences that are known to be audible.


 
  
 The test can be simple if you know exactly what you want out of it. If your goal isn't to detect a minute difference on the very bleeding edge of human perception, it can be a lot of work. If you just want to see if it adds up to more than a hill of beans, a gnat's wing or a molehill, a listening test can be simple. I'm interested in improvements that I can hear. Not ones that I have to stop everything, set up an acoustically sterile environment and then strain with all my might to hear it.
  
 There is no reason to chase the last .01% of sound quality when you haven't even dealt with the 99.99% thoroughly yet. I would like to know if there are any people at all in this forum who has gotten 90% of the way to totally drop dead gorgeous sound. If they are listening to headphones, have a system with no equalization, aren't doing multichannel, haven't conquered the problems of room acoustics, and don't have a full set of speakers capable of a full response at loud levels without distortion, then they aren't there yet. Those are huge hurdles I'm not there myself yet. I'm inching towards it, but there are a few pretty big things left to work on before I get to perfection. I'll let you know when I get there!
  
 It's important to keep your perspective by keeping your eyes on the prize. The goal is a kick ass stereo system that you can listen to great music on. It isn't about splitting the atom. Broad strokes first. Then work your way down the list of priorities. Noodding details, last.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> It is not anthropomorphism to speak of my emotional response to music or to note that some pieces of equipment are more likely to evoke that response than others. I'm not saying my amplifier has an emotional life


 
  
 Do you think that maybe the equipment's technical performance... frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, distortion levels, etc... all the things that make up *audio fidelity* might be what makes you react emotionally to the music? Because if that is the case, it's a mistake to credit the electronics with the ability to evoke emotions in you. All the electronics is doing is getting out of the way so the musicians can connect with you emotionally.
  
 That is the concept of *audible transparency,* and it is the loftiest goal for a hifi nut. It isn't about picking equipment that makes the sound nicer. It's about equipment that doesn't stand between you and the music.
  
 Honestly, I'm having fun here. I'm not being disrespectful. I'm trying to share stuff with you in a fun, non-technical way that is easy to understand. There aren't a lot of people in audio who can do that. Maybe I'm not so great at it either. But I try.


----------



## Syn Res

I have been following BigShots attempt to poison the well for HOT for some time. First he created a thread with no other intent but to slander and mock the HOT and SR in general. In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much. Nowhere in that thread did he suggest people actually try the product and honestly report their findings. Thankfully someone at Head-Fi took that thread down.
  
 As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends. In fact many mega buck interconnects are less complex and have far less hand labor involved in their manufacture than does the HOT that was destroyed and photographed. The point is you can't take a piece of audio gear designed to improve our subjective enjoyment of sound, place it in a blender, and then examine the contents; not if you want to actually find out what the product sounds like, or not. For that matter you can't do this with great literary works either. Take the work of Shakespeare and mix the words and letters up what have you got? Scrabble that's what.
  
 At SR we've learned a great deal over the past 22 years about materials and their subjective contribution to sound. Ponder fuses for example. Very few ingredients- a burn wire, end caps, a ceramic body and sand (if you’re lucky). And yet there is a thriving global high performance fuse market, because of the way fuses affect the sound of systems; people who buy high performance fuses do so because they like the way their systems _sound_ with a particular fuse. Certainly the HOT is far more complex, with more labor and materials going into each HOT than any fuse I'm aware of. The fact is it takes over one hour to build a single HOT by hand in our Southern California factory. The HOT's wires are made of 99.999% pure silver placed by hand in Teflon tubes, 3 ribbons cut by hand and made from 99.999% pure silver, 9 hand soldered connections and "magic pixy dust" which is actually a synthetic compound developed in house at great expense and when combined with the other ingredients, makes HOT work exceptionally well in the areas we describe on our website and Facebook page. Frankly I don't know what BigShot expected to find when he cut open HOT. IC's? Transformers? PCB's? Circuit Traces? Anything like that and you'd introduce opacity between the amp and your headphones. What they found is something TOTALLY NEW because before we invented and perfected HOT, nothing remotely like HOT existed in the world. They see what HOT is, they see that a lot of hand work went into it, that it is obviously not just a pass through adaptor and still they mock. Why? Because they are not interested in whether or not HOT contributes what we claim. What they want to do is poison the well to prevent people from ever listening to HOT in the first place and to do so in the most snide and abusive way possible.
  
 Fortunately there are already over 200 HOTs in the marketplace owned by happy people. And all who try HOT can operate a keyboard to share their findings as easily as those who are now pursuing a negative agenda. Early reports from people who have actually tried and listened to HOT shows most are more than satisfied. As the HOT's designer I am proud of both what it accomplishes, and of the elegant way it delivers. In the past people have tried all manner of ways to open up the sound of headphones. Things like crossfeed, phase altering computer programs and complex circuits all of which inevitably take something away in the pursuit of accomplishing what HOT does so well.
  
 Yours in music,
 Ted Denney 
 Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


----------



## bfreedma

syn res said:


> I have been following BigShots attempt to poison the well for HOT for some time. First he created a thread with no other intent but to slander and mock the HOT and SR in general. In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much. Nowhere in that thread did he suggest people actually try the product and honestly report their findings. Thankfully someone at Head-Fi took that thread down.
> 
> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends. In fact many mega buck interconnects are less complex and have far less hand labor involved in their manufacture than does the HOT that was destroyed and photographed. The point is you can't take a piece of audio gear designed to improve our subjective enjoyment of sound, place it in a blender, and then examine the contents; not if you want to actually find out what the product sounds like, or not. For that matter you can't do this with great literary works either. Take the work of Shakespeare and mix the words and letters up what have you got? Scrabble that's what.
> 
> ...


 
  
 While it's great you dropped by, mostly to slam members and other MOTs, you conveniently forgot to include any reasonable explanation of how the HOT works or measurements showing the difference between the HOT and any other 1/4" TRS adapter.
  
 Since we're in the sound science forum, simply mentioning wire materials and "magic pixie dust" doesn't cut it.  Frankly, that post served to convince me that you are selling products but can't actually validate their performance.  Lots of flowery adjectives and discussions of "audiophile" fuses isn't helping.
  
 Bottom line - can you produce any objective evidence to support your rather grandiose performance claims?


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> Do you think that maybe the equipment's technical performance... frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, distortion levels, etc... all the things that make up *audio fidelity* might be what makes you react emotionally to the music? Because if that is the case, it's a mistake to credit the electronics with the ability to evoke emotions in you. All the electronics is doing is getting out of the way so the musicians can connect with you emotionally.
> 
> That is the concept of *audible transparency,* and it is the loftiest goal for a hifi nut. It isn't about picking equipment that makes the sound nicer. It's about equipment that doesn't stand between you and the music.
> 
> Honestly, I'm having fun here. I'm not being disrespectful. I'm trying to share stuff with you in a fun, non-technical way that is easy to understand. There aren't a lot of people in audio who can do that. Maybe I'm not so great at it either. But I try.


 
 I'm not sure I see an interesting distinction between your saying a piece of equipment "doesn't stand between me and the music" and my saying that it evokes an emotional response in me.


----------



## Billheiser

syn res said:


> I have been following BigShots attempt to poison the well for HOT for some time. First he created a thread with no other intent but to slander and mock the HOT and SR in general. In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much. Nowhere in that thread did he suggest people actually try the product and honestly report their findings. Thankfully someone at Head-Fi took that thread down.
> 
> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends. In fact many mega buck interconnects are less complex and have far less hand labor involved in their manufacture than does the HOT that was destroyed and photographed. The point is you can't take a piece of audio gear designed to improve our subjective enjoyment of sound, place it in a blender, and then examine the contents; not if you want to actually find out what the product sounds like, or not. For that matter you can't do this with great literary works either. Take the work of Shakespeare and mix the words and letters up what have you got? Scrabble that's what.
> 
> ...



What does the HOT transduce? You say electrical energy to mechanical energy. Therefore it must decrease the signal traveling through the jack. So I presume HOT lowers the volume, correct?


----------



## Byrnie

bigshot said:


> Take a nice long look at the teardown photo I posted and let me know where your process of discovery leads you!


 
 I'm surprised you have 13k posts and still don't know how to multi-quote...  You just posted 5 posts in a row...


----------



## Audio Jester

Sorry to play devil's advocate, but has anyone here actually tried the HOT?


----------



## Bogart24

audio jester said:


> Sorry to play devil's advocate, but has anyone here actually tried the HOT?


 
 At least two people in this thread have reported on their experiences with it.  One positive, one negative.


----------



## Steve Eddy

syn res said:


> I have been following BigShots attempt to poison the well for HOT for some time. First he created a thread with no other intent but to slander and mock the HOT and SR in general. In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much. Nowhere in that thread did he suggest people actually try the product and honestly report their findings. Thankfully someone at Head-Fi took that thread down.
> 
> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends. In fact many mega buck interconnects are less complex and have far less hand labor involved in their manufacture than does the HOT that was destroyed and photographed. The point is you can't take a piece of audio gear designed to improve our subjective enjoyment of sound, place it in a blender, and then examine the contents; not if you want to actually find out what the product sounds like, or not. For that matter you can't do this with great literary works either. Take the work of Shakespeare and mix the words and letters up what have you got? Scrabble that's what.
> 
> ...




I see a whole lot of chopping, but no chips flying.

se


----------



## Audio Jester

bogart24 said:


> At least two people in this thread have reported on their experiences with it.  One positive, one negative.


... my point still stands. Before people start getting all worked up why don't they try it for themselves? What should we be expecting to find inside the HOT, a flux capacitor?

Edit: missed UJ's second post.


----------



## Steve Eddy

audio jester said:


> ... my point still stands. Before people start getting all worked up why don't they try it for themselves?




Try it to what end? Trying it won't determine whether or not it's doing anything at all to the signal passing through it.

Some people have photographs of themselves (and even their audio equipment) in their freezers, reporting that it improves the sound of their system. Do I have to put a photograph of myself in my freezer before I can say that a photograph in my freezer isn't going to have any effect on the behavior of my audio system?

se


----------



## Audio Jester

steve eddy said:


> Try it to what end? Trying it won't determine whether or not it's doing anything at all to the signal passing through it.
> 
> Some people have photographs of themselves (and even their audio equipment) in their freezers, reporting that it improves the sound of their system. Do I have to put a photograph of myself in my freezer before I can say that a photograph in my freezer isn't going to have any effect on the behavior of my audio system?
> 
> se


 well, in the quest for good scientific methods shouldn't someone do some measurements?


----------



## Steve Eddy

audio jester said:


> well, in the quest for good scientific methods shouldn't someone do some measurements?




I had arranged for that. But as soon as the person it was sent to received it, he couldn't resist tearing it apart right away. And now the window for my friend to test it has passed, and the next opportunity won't open up until mid-December. 

However in the interest of completeness, I will acquire another one for him to test next month. I will also arrange to send him some of the "magic pixie dust" from the one that was torn apart. 

se


----------



## Roly1650

​


audio jester said:


> well, in the quest for good scientific methods shouldn't someone do some measurements?



Wouldn't you think the good scientific methods and measurements should start with the manufacturer, before they start selling? You want someone to spend $300 to measure and confirm what we already know?
Sorry missed your post SE.


----------



## Audio Jester

roly1650 said:


> ​Wouldn't you think the good scientific methods and measurements should start with the manufacturer, before they start selling? You want someone to spend $300 to measure and confirm what we already know?


 No, I don't feel that is necessary. Very few items in the world of audio come with measurements (and how can we truly trust them if they are supplied by the company). I do think that good return policies are necessary though.


----------



## Bogart24

audio jester said:


> ... my point still stands. Before people start getting all worked up why don't they try it for themselves? What should we be expecting to find inside the HOT, a flux capacitor?
> 
> Edit: missed UJ's second post.


 
 I agree with you.  Obviously, it's the old debate.  Some people won't credit subjective reports of sound improvements unless they can explain and measure what's happening.


----------



## Roly1650

audio jester said:


> No, I don't feel that is necessary. Very few items in the world of audio come with measurements. I do think that good return policies are necessary though.



OK so you're happy to take their word for it then and hope like hell they honor the return policy. Any competent equipment I've seen comes with a set of specs, derived from measurements.


----------



## Bogart24

roly1650 said:


> OK so you're happy to take their word for it then and hope like hell they honor the return policy. Any competent equipment I've seen comes with a set of specs, derived from measurements.


 
 What would those specs and measurements be for this product?


----------



## Audio Jester

roly1650 said:


> OK so you're happy to take their word for it then and hope like hell they honor the return policy. Any competent equipment I've seen comes with a set of specs, derived from measurements.


 so you're happy to trust their measurements? They are unlikely to show you a graph or spec sheet that is unfavourable to their product. I still prefer the return policy.


----------



## Billheiser

audio jester said:


> so you're happy to trust their measurements? They are unlikely to show you a graph or spec sheet that is unfavourable to their product. I still prefer the return policy.



You should have both. Reputable manufacturers do provide specs that are real; they can be tested and verified or refuted by capable reviewers.


----------



## Roly1650

_W_


bogart24 said:


> What would those specs and measurements be for this product?



There aren't any, just a bunch of unprovable flowery prose, which was kinda the point I was making in my first post.


----------



## Bogart24

roly1650 said:


> _W_
> There aren't any, just a bunch of unprovable flowery prose, which was kinda the point I was making in my first post.


 
 We know there aren't any.  My point is that there could not be.  It's not a product for which any kind of existing measurement would be applicable.
  
 Flowery prose and vague descriptions are par for the course in cables.  The only real "proof" of efficacy is to listen.


----------



## Roly1650

audio jester said:


> so you're happy to trust their measurements? They are unlikely to show you a graph or spec sheet that is unfavourable to their product. I still prefer the return policy.



I did say competent, and specs I've seen from such manufacturers tend to be supported by subsequent measurements. I'm old enough to remember when you couldn't bring anything to market without a comphensive set of specifications and they better be endorsed by the measurements of reviewers of the day, or your product died. Times change, now I suspect there's plenty of manufacturers whose only measurement tool is a tape measure. Those that throw off that aura I try to avoid, return policy or not.
Pro audio gear would seem to be one field where specs and measurements are still considered necessary.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> We know there aren't any.  My point is that there could not be.  It's not a product for which any kind of existing measurement would be applicable.




Why's that? Because it does nothing to the signal passing through it? 

se


----------



## Billheiser

bogart24 said:


> We know there aren't any.  My point is that there could not be.  It's not a product for which any kind of existing measurement would be applicable.
> 
> Flowery prose and vague descriptions are par for the course in cables.  The only real "proof" of efficacy is to listen.



Or get 2 HOTs, remove the goop from inside one, reassemble, and listen to both. See (at one's leisure, in extended listening) if they sound different from each other. Code them x and Y so you don't know which is which.


----------



## Roly1650

bogart24 said:


> We know there aren't any.  My point is that there could not be.  It's not a product for which any kind of existing measurement would be applicable.
> 
> Flowery prose and vague descriptions are par for the course in cables.  The only real "proof" of efficacy is to listen.



It's not a cable, it's supposed to be an active device, the fact that they call it a transducer gives that away. Does it improve frequency response? Measurable. Does it lower distortion? Measurable. Does it improve S/N ratio? Measurable. Does it improve timing errors? Measurable. These are the four and only four criteria necessary to define any piece of equipment, which this purports to be, measure it's improvement in the signal chain and cut the flowery crap. Any competent manufacturer should be capable.
Come to think of it null test cables and you can cut the flowery crap on them to.


----------



## Steve Eddy

billheiser said:


> Or get 2 HOTs, remove the goop from inside one, reassemble, and listen to both. See (at one's leisure, in extended listening) if they sound different from each other. Code them x and Y so you don't know which is which.




You basically have to destroy them to take them apart. So that wouldn't work. Can't put Humpty back together again.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> It's not a cable, it's supposed to be an active device, the fact that they call it a transducer gives that away.




Transducers aren't active devices. They're passive devices.

se


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> Why's that? Because it does nothing to the signal passing through it?
> 
> se


 
 That's speculation.  It's not as if you are proposing a particular measurement, because you can't.  It's not claiming to do anything that can be measured using standard tests.  So the absence of measurements tells us nothing.


----------



## Billheiser

steve eddy said:


> You basically have to destroy them to take them apart. So that wouldn't work. Can't put Humpty back together again.
> 
> se


Ok. Then just "blind" the HOT with some wrap and put the same wrap on a non-HOT jack, with the same dimensions, and then do a comparison. Might be interesting to do at home - relaxed long term single blind testing - or at a headphone meet, with several listeners.


----------



## Roly1650

steve eddy said:


> Transducers aren't active devices. They're passive devices.
> 
> se



Sorry heat of the moment.


----------



## Steve Eddy

roly1650 said:


> Sorry heat of the moment.




No pun intended I'm sure. 

se


----------



## Roly1650

bogart24 said:


> That's speculation.  It's not as if you are proposing a particular measurement, because you can't.  It's not claiming to do anything that can be measured using standard tests.  So the absence of measurements tells us nothing.



Null test


----------



## Music Alchemist

steve eddy said:


> Actually this device would lend itself well to difference testing, using Bill Waslo's DiffMaker. Just make two digital recordings of whatever piece of music you like, one with the HOT and one with a jack/plug wired together. If this thing is altering the signal in any significant way, it will show in the difference file that DiffMaker creates.


 
  
 If any HOT owners could try out this suggestion with Audio DiffMaker, it would be helpful to the community.
  


steve eddy said:


> Transducers aren't active devices. They're passive devices.


 
  
 Interestingly, some of the company's other products _are_ active devices, including types that normally aren't.


----------



## castleofargh

bogart24 said:


> audio jester said:
> 
> 
> > ... my point still stands. Before people start getting all worked up why don't they try it for themselves? What should we be expecting to find inside the HOT, a flux capacitor?
> ...


 
  
 those "some people" are very obviously right. at least as long as we are talking about someone listening to music on his modern home system.
 are you saying there are parts in sound that we cannot measure but can hear? what a nice idea(human is a special thing, machines are just machines... I get where it comes from) as long as we don't think for a second about the processes the sound had to go through to come into our ears, that sure is a nice idea. oops now I went end did it, I thought about that process and now I'm sure it's a ludicrous idea. sorry.
  
 - the sound was produced by the artists, turned into air vibration, pushed the microphone that proportionally(so in a measurable way) turned it into electrical signal.
 -that signal is then turned into digital information(so very obviously quantified, and what isn't quantified just doesn't go further).
 -then mastered etc.., made into an album, the album is turned back into electricity(again a value gives an electrical value and can be measured at all time), first digital, then analog.
 -the analog signal goes to our headphones/speakers, then vibrates in the air to come hit our ears. and at that point we could again get a microphone and go back to step1 with a measurement.
  
 and in all that process some parts of the sound would survive the entire ordeal, because as it happens, someone reports hearing it. but somehow evaded everybody's attention, when they where coming up with creating modern audio systems and all the different gears we all use? nobody noticed that part of the sound was even on the CD, tell me about bad luck.
 I don't know what you're talking about, but that sound part that we can't measure yet can hear sure is one lucky fellow. vibration, electricity, numbers, electricity, vibration. it passed it all while being untraceable. not a small feat indeed.
  
 it's not an old debate. there is nothing at all to debate about. if something comes out of your audio system, it was measured. saying otherwise is being wrong. and it has nothing to do with freedom of opinion. it's the cold hard reality of modern audio gears. recording is measuring!
 now if we were to talk about how recorded sound isn't perfectly like what I heard at the opera, here I would probably agree with the idea that we can struggle to measure exactly the way I heard it, where I heard it(probably because I would be breathing too loud for the microphones)but that's another story.
  
  
 on a side note, we in sound science happen to be very fond of subjective reports. abx, blind test, double blind test... even a simple matched level comparison with a switch is interesting to us. all of those give 100% subjective reports.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> That's speculation.  It's not as if you are proposing a particular measurement, because you can't.  It's not claiming to do anything that can be measured using standard tests.  So the absence of measurements tells us nothing.




If it's altering the signal passing through it in any way, it can be measured. The "it can't be measured" line is a load of nonsense. Sure, you can alter the signal in ways that doesn't lend itself to overly simplified quantifications like THD, IMD, S/N, etc. but if it's altering the signal in any way, it can be shown. 

Look, it's really not as complicated as some would lead you to believe. Unless you want to veer off into the supernatural, the signal is nothing more than changes in voltage and current over time. And we can measure any differences in both the time domain and the frequency domain to levels far far below any human being's ability to perceive. 

And then there's the difference test I mentioned previously. This is where you take a signal that has passed through the device, and one that hasn't, and then differentiate, or subtract them. Anything that the device is doing to the signal will show up in the difference signal.

So don't fall for the "it can't be measured" line. That's only intended to fool those who don't know enough to know any better.

se


----------



## Muinarc

syn res said:


> I have been following BigShots.... In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much.



 


To set the record straight, I believe that was me and I even put a "  " face at the end of my post, though that is of little consolation at this point. It was said in jest and I apologize. I could never have foreseen how this whole thing would blow up.

I just don't want words put into BigShot's mouth.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> My advice is to get yourself a girlfriend for emotional response and only expect your stereo components to have good sound fidelity.





bogart24 said:


> That is terrible advice.  What do you listen to music for if not an emotional response?



Yeah, I tend to come down on this side of the discussion as well. I do like high-value equipment but, in the end, it's about enjoying the music for me.




esldude said:


> He didn't say he wasn't listening for an emotional response.  Just that he doesn't count on gear to provide one.
> If two devices are equally good in fidelity to the signal, any emotional response is coming from elsewhere.  The gear can't provide that.



In my listening experience, gear can definitely influence my emotional response to music. I purposely have acquired gear that does this. I don't listen to hip-hop on my Etys or chamber music on my Atrios.

I also own a solid state amp and a tube amp..._because_ they sound different. 

As I move to high-end gear, I'll continue to do this. I can envision owning the HD800s, HE560's and TH900s and using them for different music. In fact, if someone said to me "I'll either give you a SR-009/BHSE setup or some HD800s, HE560's and TH900s", I'd take the latter in a heartbeat!




bigshot said:


> Do you think that maybe the equipment's technical performance... frequency response, dynamic range, noise floor, distortion levels, etc... all the things that make up *audio fidelity* might be what makes you react emotionally to the music? Because if that is the case, it's a mistake to credit the electronics with the ability to evoke emotions in you. All the electronics is doing is getting out of the way so the musicians can connect with you emotionally.
> 
> That is the concept of *audible transparency,* and it is the loftiest goal for a hifi nut. It isn't about picking equipment that makes the sound nicer. It's about equipment that doesn't stand between you and the music.




Hmmm -- appears I'm not a 'hifi nut' then...just a music lover! Here's a confession, if I'm listening to a poorly produced song, I'll EQ the crap out of it! (think hot, sibilant, etc.).


----------



## esldude

syn res said:


> snippage....................................   Fortunately there are already over 200 HOTs in the marketplace owned by happy people. And all who try HOT can operate a keyboard to share their findings as easily as those who are now pursuing a negative agenda. Early reports from people who have actually tried and listened to HOT shows most are more than satisfied. As the HOT's designer I am proud of both what it accomplishes, and of the elegant way it delivers. In the past people have tried all manner of ways to open up the sound of headphones. Things like crossfeed, phase altering computer programs and complex circuits all of which inevitably take something away in the pursuit of accomplishing what HOT does so well.
> 
> Yours in music,
> Ted Denney
> Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


 
 So as the designer, does HOT modify the signal in any way that would show up in normal electronic measurements?  If not do you know of the mechanism which makes it audibly different, and what is it?


----------



## Billheiser

esldude said:


> So as the designer, does HOT modify the signal in any way that would show up in normal electronic measurements?  If not do you know of the mechanism which makes it audibly different, and what is it?



Shh, it's TOTALLY NEW, and secret.


----------



## justaname

This thread is exciting is so many ways. Subscribed.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just an FYI, the female jack will be sent to a friend of mine for an analysis of the "magic pixie dust." He has an IR spectrometer, scanning electron microscope, and EDX (Energy-Dispersive X-ray) so we'll be able to find out what this substance is made of, down to the elemental level.

Stay tuned.

se


----------



## limpidglitch

bogart24 said:


> That's speculation.  It's not as if you are proposing a particular measurement, because you can't.  It's not claiming to do anything that can be measured using standard tests.  So the absence of measurements tells us nothing.


 
  
 For all intents and purposes the equipment used to measure audio is the same as what's used to record it. Any quality that would evade one, would also evade the other.

 If you want the full and unfiltered experience, live events would be your only hope. No amount of fancy pseudo-tech can bring back something that isn't there in the first place.
  
  


steve eddy said:


> Just an FYI, the female jack will be sent to a friend of mine for an analysis of the "magic pixie dust." He has an IR spectrometer, scanning electron microscope, and EDX (Energy-Dispersive X-ray) so we'll be able to find out what this substance is made of, down to the elemental level.
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> se


 
  
 Yay, science!


----------



## mikeaj

steve eddy said:


> Just an FYI, the female jack will be sent to a friend of mine for an analysis of the "magic pixie dust." He has an IR spectrometer, scanning electron microscope, and EDX (Energy-Dispersive X-ray) so we'll be able to find out what this substance is made of, down to the elemental level.
> 
> Stay tuned.
> 
> se


 
  
 Cool. Nice to see.
  
  


syn res said:


> [...] Frankly I don't know what BigShot expected to find when he cut open HOT. IC's? Transformers? PCB's? Circuit Traces? Anything like that and you'd introduce *opacity* between the amp and your headphones.[...] [emphasis added]


 
  
 Guys, could you help me out here? I haven't read audiophile writing in a while. Everything else aside, what do people even mean by "opacity" in this context? I guess an actual crossfeed circuit would definitely not be audibly transparent and so could said to have some opacity in that sense. Something like that?
  
 So does "no opacity" equate to "do nothing" or "do nothing audible" or what?
  
 Also, if we're setting prior knowledge of how stuff works aside and still fielding guesses about the so-called "transducer" action, maybe the intended (if you want to call it that) effect is the opposite direction of what people have been saying. That is, for the special goop to take mechanical energy from vibrations or maybe electromagentic energy and then have some impact on the electric signal passing through the actual wires. Now, all you need to get back to reality is a diff of the signal you get with HOT vs. without...


----------



## Billheiser

mikeaj said:


> Cool. Nice to see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm sure he means that opacity is undesirable, since one wants transparency. 
And yes, it might be plausible that the goop dampens vibrations in the jack a bit, but not very plausible that it would be audible. However, the designer doesn't claim that effect, but rather claims that the jack transduces or transforms electrical energy into physical energy. Which makes no sense at all, unless we want our headphones to just shake without producing sound.


----------



## bigshot

syn res said:


> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?"


 
  
 What kind of grit is that glued to the plug jack? How are two plug jacks wired directly together supposed to improve sound?


----------



## bigshot

billheiser said:


> What does the HOT transduce? You say electrical energy to mechanical energy. Therefore it must decrease the signal traveling through the jack. So I presume HOT lowers the volume, correct?


 

 Does it create heat?


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Some people won't credit subjective reports of sound improvements unless they can explain and measure what's happening.


 
  
 That sounds pretty practical to me. I wouldn't have as good a sounding system today if I didn't do that.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> What would those specs and measurements be for this product?


 

 I'm positive the specs exceed complete transparency. Which isn't surprising when it's pretty obvious that there isn't anything inside it that could conceivably alter the sound at all.


----------



## limpidglitch

mikeaj said:


> Guys, could you help me out here? I haven't read audiophile writing in a while. Everything else aside, what do people even mean by "opacity" in this context? I guess an actual crossfeed circuit would definitely not be audibly transparent and so could said to have some opacity in that sense. Something like that?
> 
> So does "no opacity" equate to "do nothing" or "do nothing audible" or what?
> 
> Also, if we're setting prior knowledge of how stuff works aside and still fielding guesses about the so-called "transducer" action, maybe the intended (if you want to call it that) effect is the opposite direction of what people have been saying. That is, for the special goop to take mechanical energy from vibrations or maybe electromagentic energy and then have some impact on the electric signal passing through the actual wires. Now, all you need to get back to reality is a diff of the signal you get with HOT vs. without...


 
  
 I think what he's trying to say is that, for maximum fidelity, you should remove the HOT thingy and plug the headphones directly into the jack, because "Anything like that and you'd introduce opacity between the amp and your headphones".
 A slightly odd way of marketing your junk.


----------



## Steve Eddy

syn res said:


> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends.




A critical distinction here. Violins, phono cartridges, and cables all actually _do something_.

se


----------



## Billheiser

steve eddy said:


> A critical distinction here. Violins, phono cartridges, and cables all actually _do something_.
> 
> se


 

 Yes, and the materials and how they are put together do not violate the laws of physics.


----------



## bigshot

muinarc said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Here are my words on the subject... It would be foolish to buy this useless gaffe of a product at all!


----------



## bigshot

I'm struggling to figure out which exercise is the most pointless... Trying to figure out what the rep from Synthetic Research is trying to say, trying to devise a way of testing the effect of this clearly inert device, or trying to argue that we can't tell it won't improve sound if we don't all buy one and try it for ourselves.
  
 This whole concept is like Alice in Wonderland. But just because we haven't had a chance to gaze upon the beauty of this item for over a dozen pages of lunacy, here is an encore of my favorite photo of snake oil...


----------



## SilverEars

Nice discussion. Interesting transition of the thread with it ending up there.  I see that the jack looks like an ordinary jack with the usual soldered wires, but that part that looks like shotgun shell casing I'd like to know more details about.  Would have been nice if atleast some measurements were don't before taking this sucker apart.  
  
 It seems like a placebo experiment to me.  A good one at that.  
  
 Somebody buys this product.  Hears something different.  later revealed it's just a pass though.
  
 Calling a device that passes signal though a transducer makes it questionable enough.


----------



## Strangelove424

Astounding how much friction this discovery has received. Deleted, reinstated comments, and moved threads. 15 pages of baseless apologetics and stubborn resistance to facts, even as they were presented to people in the context of hard fact and reiterated by audio professionals. It's hard to keep up with this all, but there isn't anything new to say that wasn't said early on, or any kind of rationalization for the lack of substantive design we saw in the pictures. How it came this far, and how the $300 sacrifice for the teardown was met with such hostility, I can't imagine. It does no good for the greater community when the pomp of the few is upheld by forfeiting the confidence of the many.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silverears said:


> Nice discussion. Interesting transition of the thread with it ending up there.  I see that the jack looks like an ordinary jack with the usual soldered wires, but that part that looks like shotgun shell casing I'd like to know more details about.




Nothing unusual about it at all. That construction is typical of a female cable mount phone jack (as opposed to a panel mount jack) like the cheapie one shown below. This facilitates mounting in a small tube. You could use a panel mount jack, but it wouldn't be quite as compact. Plus you'd have the nut on the outside which could come loose. So there's nothing at all unusual about that jack, other than the bits of whatever that are glued to it.



se


----------



## bigshot

I want everyone to know that I employ magic pixie dust in my system, and my exclusive supplier of magic pixie dust is Synthetic Research. I hear they make it from ground up Magic Pebbles (tm).


----------



## mulder01

I would have thought that adding anything into a circuit would increase the impedance of the circuit, allowing less to pass through it.  Like someone said, it seems like it would decrease the volume.  
 How can something in series with the headphone load ADD to the signal.  Can't adding to a circuit ONLY take from the circuit?  Maybe that's why it gets HOT?  Converts electrical energy to heat energy?
  
  
 If they make your headphones sound better, I wonder what would happen if you piggybacked 10 hots onto eachother.    IMAGINE THE AWESOME.  Who's got 3 grand spare.


----------



## Steve Eddy

mulder01 said:


> I would have thought that adding anything into a circuit would increase the impedance of the circuit, allowing less to pass through it.  Like someone said, it seems like it would decrease the volume.
> How can something in series with the headphone load ADD to the signal.  Can't adding to a circuit ONLY take from the circuit?  Maybe that's why it gets HOT?  Converts electrical energy to heat energy?




The HOT doesn't really add anything to the circuit. The foil strips on the left and right hots might add some microscopically small amount of parasitic capacitance, but no more than you would get if your headphone cable was a fraction of an inch longer. 

se


----------



## esldude

Well the HOT will add around 300 picoseconds to the circuit versus not having it in the circuit.  And if you null the result with and without it that will be measurable by good equipment.  Now that won't make it sound different unless you notice upon pushing play that it took 300 picoseconds longer before you hear sound.  Silver SR wire notwithstanding.


----------



## gikigill

steve eddy said:


> A critical distinction here. Violins, phono cartridges, and cables all actually _do something_.
> 
> se


 

 Stradivarius violins have been examined with x-ray and other methods to analyze the wood, finishing, waxing, aging and other criteria for the way they sound. Comparing
  
 a Stradivarius to the HOT is silly since only one of them has been pored over by numerous scientists to verify the end result.


----------



## Strangelove424

Bah... old, dried up wood


----------



## gikigill

strangelove424 said:


> Bah... old, dried up wood


 
  
 Exactly. Nowadays its a status symbol, not a piece of performance art and btw Strad violas aren't considered the best. That honour goes to Guarneri.
  
  
 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/01/02/violinists-cant-tell-the-difference-between-stradivarius-violins-and-new-ones/
  
 http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2011/12/05/anatomy-of-a-stradivarius/
  
 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760


----------



## Bogart24

Can one of the engineers please tell me what are the objective measurements for soundstage quality and location, instrument separation, ambience and dynamic speed?


----------



## Steve Eddy

esldude said:


> Well the HOT will add around 300 picoseconds to the circuit versus not having it in the circuit.  And if you null the result with and without it that will be measurable by good equipment.  Now that won't make it sound different unless you notice upon pushing play that it took 300 picoseconds longer before you hear sound.  Silver SR wire notwithstanding.




Reading your post, I couldn't help thinking of ol' Grace Hopper, who used to carry lengths of wire around with her to demonstrate the length of a nanosecond. 

se


----------



## Dark_wizzie

You will fail a double blind test, which demonstrates if the device makes a difference, you cannot hear it, and since you claim to, you hear a difference due to placebo and bias. You can talk endlessly about how science is not 100% right, but the burden of proof is on you guys and of course you cannot offer anything, not even a plausible sounding hypothesis as to why the sound would be better, ESPECIALLY why it would sound better audibly but not during a controlled test. The entire argument essentially ends there. We don't need to go on and on and on about the "arrogance" some people have, or other irrelevant things. Since you've got nothing, you resort to argument from ignorance. Okie dokies.

 Now we have a freakin' 16-paged thread where the resident members of Sound Science have to try to debunk this and SE to analyze the thing down to the elemental level? There are an infinite number of unfalsifiable claims or even claims that can be falsified, but ain't nobody got time to test them all. Show the evidence, where is the bacon? Are you going to pay us for our time?
  
 I have a plug with sand glued on it with my unified field technology! This is so absurd my mind is having a hard time processing this. This thread is 2 parts comedy and 3 parts sad.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> Can one of the engineers please tell me what are the objective measurements for soundstage quality and location, instrument separation, ambience and dynamic speed?




Oh god, not this old canard.

First of all, those are all _subjective_ qualities created in your brain. In fact, stereo itself is just an illusion that is created by your brain.

Second, they're irrelevant. In order to produce any changes in those qualities (leaving out any perceived changes that are only due to the brain because of the way our subjective perceptions work—which is embarrassingly unreliably) a device would have to alter the signal itself in some meaningful, objective way. If the device doesn't alter the signal in some meaningful way, then clearly it can't be responsible for any perceived changes in those subjective qualities. That is of course unless you want to try and drag this discussion into the realm of the paranormal.

se


----------



## Billheiser

Hey a question about the tear down. The Syn Res guy said the foil connectors are 99.999% pure silver. Apparently they are not protected with a coating or insulation, because they look like cr*p in the photo. Very tarnished. Isn't their conductivity lessened by the tarnish? Or is there some kind of coating on there?


----------



## Steve Eddy

billheiser said:


> Hey a question about the tear down. The Syn Res guy said the foil connectors are 99.999% pure silver. Apparently they are not protected with a coating or insulation, because they look like cr*p in the photo. Very tarnished. Isn't their conductivity lessened by the tarnish? Or is there some kind of coating on there?




Like the body of the female jack, the foils are also coated with adhesive and "magic pixie dust."

But the foils aren't really conducting anything anyway. They're neither in series or parallel with the circuit, other than what tiny amount of parasitic capacitance they're adding between the left and right hots and ground.

And even if they were carrying a signal, tarnish is just a microscopically thin layer on the surface of the metal and wouldn't have any effect on the overall resistance of the wire. It doesn't look pretty, but it's not harming anything.

se


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> Oh god, not this old canard.
> 
> First of all, those are all _subjective_ qualities created in your brain. In fact, stereo itself is just an illusion that is created by your brain.
> 
> ...


 
 Evasion and obfuscation.  Declare these widely discussed qualities "irrelevant" or "imaginary."  Lame.


----------



## Billheiser

steve eddy said:


> Like the body of the female jack, the foils are also coated with adhesive and "magic pixie dust."
> 
> But the foils aren't really conducting anything anyway. They're neither in series or parallel with the circuit, other than what tiny amount of parasitic capacitance they're adding between the left and right hots and ground.
> 
> ...


Ok, thanks!


----------



## Billheiser

bogart24 said:


> Evasion and obfuscation.  Declare these widely discussed qualities "irrelevant" or "imaginary."  Lame.



Not lame. You're misrepresenting or not understanding what he said. Read it again.


----------



## Bogart24

billheiser said:


> Not lame. You're misrepresenting or not understanding what he said. Read it again.


 
 What he is saying, in defense of the argument that all qualities of musical reproduction must be explainable and measurable, is that if he can't explain or measure a particular quality, it is irrelevant or imaginary.  I call that lame indeed.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bogart24 said:


> What he is saying, in defense of the argument that all qualities of musical reproduction must be explainable and measurable, is that if he can't explain or measure a particular quality, it is irrelevant or imaginary.  I call that lame indeed.


 
  
 He's saying that if those changes in sound are indeed being produced, then the equipment is altering the signal.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> Evasion and obfuscation.  Declare these widely discussed qualities "irrelevant" or "imaginary."  Lame.




They are indeed irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the HOT is altering the signal passing through it in any meaningful way. And if you don't have even a basic understanding of psychoacoustics, I would suggest dropping out of the discussion.

se


----------



## bfreedma

I'm surprised it took over 200 posts to hit the inevitable "I can hear something that can't be measured" statement....
  
 Any possible alteration of sound this MIGHT make would be so far below the noise floor, let alone most ambient noise levels, that it's irrelevant.  That's by far the most positive spin I can put on it.
    


      
 l'huile de serpent would be a bit more direct.


----------



## Bogart24

bfreedma said:


> I'm surprised it took over 200 posts to hit the inevitable "I can hear something that can't be measured" statement....
> 
> Any possible alteration of sound this MIGHT make would be so far below the noise floor, let alone most ambient noise levels, that it's irrelevant.  That's by far the most positive spin I can put on it.
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Can one of the engineers please tell me what are the objective measurements for soundstage quality and location, instrument separation, ambience and dynamic speed?


 

 Happy to! I'm not an engineer (but I play one on TV)
  
 Spacial location is affected primarily by phase, crosstalk, cancellation, etc... anything that mixes together the two channels or puts them out of sync with each other. This is not generally an issue with modern digital audio components. It usually is messed up due to room acoustics or speaker placement, not electronics.
  
 Secondary depth cues recorded into the track itself (echo, reverb, etc) are dependent on the typical measures of high fidelity sound... response, distortion, dynamics. They are no different than any other part of the recording. Anything that makes the sound more transparent reveals the secondary depth cues better. Among these, the most common aspect to be out of whack is response.
  
 Does that help?
  
 I've done a lot of work improving the soundstage in my own system. If you would like to learn how you can get great precise soundstage too, I would be happy to run down the basics and give you some tips. It would help to see a photo of your room.


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> They are indeed irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the HOT is altering the signal passing through it in any meaningful way. And if you don't have even a basic understanding of psychoacoustics, I would suggest dropping out of the discussion.
> 
> se




If you deny the reality and importance of qualities like soundstage and instrument separation, perhaps you are the one who doesn't belong in this discussion. Dismissing them as merely "psychoacoustics" is circular reasoning. In fact, there is often a clear consensus about how particular equipment performs in terms of qualities you seek to dismiss as entirely the product of an individual listener's mind. You have no explanation for them, so you seek to dismiss them. That's not reason. That's ideology.


----------



## bfreedma

bogart24 said:


> It hardly needs articulation. "I hear something that engineers don't know how to measure" is the heart of the debate.


 
  
 Faith based audio isn't as well received in Sound Science as it is in other areas of this forum.  At minimum, you ought to correlate what you hear with some technical property of the HOT that causes the change.
  
 Given the tear down pictures, I can't come up with a reasonable explanation for what is being claimed.  Apparently, the vendor can't either.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

strangelove424 said:


> Astounding how much friction this discovery has received. Deleted, reinstated comments, and moved threads. 15 pages of baseless apologetics and stubborn resistance to facts, even as they were presented to people in the context of hard fact and reiterated by audio professionals. It's hard to keep up with this all, but there isn't anything new to say that wasn't said early on, or any kind of rationalization for the lack of substantive design we saw in the pictures. How it came this far, and how the $300 sacrifice for the teardown was met with such hostility, I can't imagine. It does no good for the greater community when the pomp of the few is upheld by forfeiting the confidence of the many.


 

 Think you summed up my thoughts here. Feel slightly disheartened with this hobby.
  
 When the engineer of the product puts down the inner workings of the product to 'magic pixy dust', well ... I think I've heard enough.
  
 Finally interesting articles on the Stradivarius, but I feel it's kind of harsh describing them as 'old dried up wood.'
  
 I don't think anyone is saying that the Strads are bad sounding. They're also handcrafted instruments dating back to the 17th and 18th century. No doubt they first garnered their reputation in comparison with their contemporaries. This continued until today. Their perceived value and reputation of sound quality surely must be taken in context of this.
  
 Another point. How will the new violins sound when they're 300+ years old?
 Also as I understand, the makes of the new violins which were preferred were not disclosed. I'm sure there are makers of excellent instruments today. Perhaps as a result of further 300+ years of instrument making experience.
  
 Apologies for going off topic, slightly saddened that the HOT was compared to a Strad, and has been dragged into this.
  
 Edit: typo


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> If you deny the reality and importance of qualities like soundstage and instrument separation


 
  
 I don't deny the importance of accurate soundstage. Speak to me about it.


----------



## bfreedma

bogart24 said:


> If you deny the reality and importance of qualities like soundstage and instrument separation, perhaps you are the one who doesn't belong in this discussion. Dismissing them as merely "psychoacoustics" is circular reasoning. In fact, there is often a clear consensus about how particular equipment performs in terms of qualities you seek to dismiss as entirely the product of an individual listener's mind. You have no explanation for them, so you seek to dismiss them. That's not reason. That's ideology.


 
  
  
 I haven't seen anyone denying the reality of soundstage and instrument separation. The part you seem to be missing is that any changes to those made by the HOT would be measurable.


----------



## bigshot

suntanscanman said:


> When the engineer of the product puts down the inner workings of the product to 'magic pixy dust', well ... I think I've heard enough.


 
  
 USDA Grade AAA Pixie Dust! That stuff don't come cheap!


----------



## Billheiser

bogart24 said:


> If you deny the reality and importance of qualities like soundstage and instrument separation, perhaps you are the one who doesn't belong in this discussion. Dismissing them as merely "psychoacoustics" is circular reasoning. In fact, there is often a clear consensus about how particular equipment performs in terms of qualities you seek to dismiss as entirely the product of an individual listener's mind. You have no explanation for them, so you seek to dismiss them. That's not reason. That's ideology.


No one is denying soundstage and instrument separation AT ALL. In any way whatsoever. You seem to be confusing the reality of the phenomena with unsubstantiated claims by a manufacturer that his device will improve the phenomena.


----------



## Bogart24

bigshot said:


> Happy to! I'm not an engineer (but I play one on TV)
> 
> Spacial location is affected primarily by phase, crosstalk, cancellation, etc... anything that mixes together the two channels or puts them out of sync with each other. This is not generally an issue with modern digital audio components. It usually is messed up due to room acoustics or speaker placement, not electronics.
> 
> ...




Not really. If soundstage is "not generally an issue with modern digital audio components" and is an artifact of room acoustics/speaker placement, wouldn't all headphones perform the same? They don't. 

Same point with attributing qualities to the recording. 

The fact is these qualities clearly vary among audio equipment in ways that listeners consistently hear. 

Thanks for the offer of help with my speakers. I too have spent many hours toeing and dragging. These days I do most of my serious listening using headphones.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just to give an example of what I mean by "illusion," consider simple two channel stereo. You have two loudspeakers, and let's say they're placed a good 20 feet apart, and you're sitting 20 feet away from them equidistant from each loudspeaker.

Take a single sound and play it through each loudspeaker so that it is of equal loudness. Even though the sound is being played through two different loudspeakers placed 20 feet apart, the sound is perceived as coming from a point between the two loudspeakers, where there is no sound source at all. You would have the same perception if you eliminated the two loudspeakers and just played the same sound from a single loudspeaker that was placed between the two previous loudspeakers. 

The sound apparently coming from that same point when the two loudspeakers were used is due to the _illusion_ of a sound source being located there that is created by our brains.

se


----------



## Bogart24

billheiser said:


> No one is denying soundstage and instrument separation AT ALL. In any way whatsoever. You seem to be confusing the reality of the phenomena with unsubstantiated claims by a manufacturer that his device will improve the phenomena.




I'm sorry, but I think attributing these qualities solely to the listener's imagination is pretty clearly denying that audio equipment does anything to determine these qualities. 

I'm not focused on this particular piece of equipment. I reserve judgment until I hear it myself. What I object to is the argument that it cannot possibly work because someone who looks at photos of it in pieces has no explanation for how it might work. I don't think we know everything about music reproduction works. Most of it can be explained in widely accepted engineering terms, but some of it is not so clearly understood, and comes about through an open mind, trial and error and critical listening.


----------



## sonitus mirus

bogart24 said:


> Not really. If soundstage is "not generally an issue with modern digital audio components" and is an artifact of room acoustics/speaker placement, wouldn't all headphones perform the same? They don't.
> 
> Same point with attributing qualities to the recording.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Headphones have varying acoustic properties and even different driver positions between models, but audio equipment like a DAC, interconnect, or an amplifier that has been designed to be audibly transparent should not provide a noticeable change in sound stage or the perception of instrument positioning.  If these do produce changes, it would also be measurable.  If nothing is measurable, the differences could not be reliably blind tested, and any differences are just placebo.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> USDA Grade AAA Pixie Dust! That stuff don't come cheap!


 
  
_*facetious comment warning*_

 I don't know what kind of pixies you got over there in the USA but pixies originate from the British Isles
  
 Makes me think that's not real pixie dust in there at all.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Not really.


 
  
 Are you interested in learning about soundstage? Because it's a subject I know quite a bit about and have researched. I'm happy to share, but I won't waste my effort typing it all out if you don't intend to listen. If you have a question about something you don't understand, ask it. But don't just say "No" when I give you an answer.
  
 You asked politely and I am answering politely. If you just wanted to dismiss, you shouldn't have asked in the first place.
  
 Now, back to the beginning again.
  
 Soundstage is the placement of individual instruments in physical space. The sound field is created by the differences in the signal between the left and right channel, placing elements favoring one side or the other. Signal common to both channels are placed in the center of the sound field. This is called the "phantom center". Not all recordings have soundstage. Multi-tracked and overdubbed recordings are often mixed with synthetic sound fields that don't resemble a real physical space at all. Usually classical recordings and small group jazz have the most precisely recorded soundstage.
  
 Soundstage is the placement of the stereo sound field in front of you at the same distance the speakers are from your listening position. The spread from left to right becomes an aural image of the performers, just as if they were sitting on a stage in front of you performing. Combined with the acoustics of the room, the presence and realism can be uncanny, and you can close your eyes and "see" the position of each performer in the mix. But room acoustics, speaker placement and directionality can all alter or impede the illusion. Soundstage can also be enhanced by the use of 5.1 processing and DSPs. The sound field can be precisely controlled both left and right and front to back, and the phantom center can be reinforced with a center channel, allowing you to set your speakers further apart- effectively increasing the size of the soundstage.
  
 Headphones place the sound in a straight line centered on the middle of your head, bisecting your ears. They are unable to place sound in front of you, so what they produce isn't true soundstage, but rather "headstage". Instead of placing the performers on a stage in front of you, the stage exists through the center of your ears left to right. Just as a room can affect soundstage, the acoustics of the headphones can affect headstage. More open designs extend the sound to the left and right slightly further than closed ones. The unique shape of the listener's ear canal can affect how headstage works as well, so what sounds good for one person, might not sound quite as good for another with a different shaped ear canal. The phase of the headstage can be altered using DSPs. The common type of DSP used for this is crossfeed, which involves digitally delaying one channel to create a slight phase error. This can increase the perception of width.
  
 Any questions?


----------



## bigshot

suntanscanman said:


> I don't know what kind of pixies you got over there in the USA but pixies originate from the British Isles


 
  
 Imported Pixie dust is the best! But the import duties are very expensive on pixie dust.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

bigshot said:


> Are you interested in learning about soundstage? Because it's a subject I know quite a bit about and have researched. I'm happy to share, but I won't waste my effort typing it all out if you don't intend to listen.


 
 I think I saw a thread on HA where people said that open headphones do not allow for a better soundstage. (Err, call it headstage, but I think it's headstage trying to be soundstage). What is your take on this?


sonitus mirus said:


> Headphones have varying acoustic properties and even different driver positions between models, but audio equipment like a DAC, interconnect, or an amplifier that has been designed to be audibly transparent should not provide a noticeable change in sound stage or the perception of instrument positioning.


 
 That's the point, and I'm surprised it took this many posts for somebody to point this out.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> I'm sorry, but I think attributing these qualities solely to the listener's imagination is pretty clearly denying that audio equipment does anything to determine these qualities.




You have grossly misunderstood and further, grossly mischaracterized what I have said.

What I have said is that if the equipment, or in this case device, _is_ doing something to determining these qualities, then it must be doing so by _altering the signal_ that is passing through it. Again, unless you want to try and drag this discussion into the paranormal.

So if you agree that a device can only create a difference in something like soundstage by altering the signal in some way, then my point is that you don't have to try and measure soundstage, you only need to measure the alterations the device is making to the signal. And if there is no alteration to the signal, then the perception of a change in soundstage must be due to something other than the device.

If you can't grasp this simple bit of logic, then I'm afraid there's just no hope for you in understanding any of this and it would be a waste of time to continue trying.

Edit: Oh, and stop using the word "imagination." I have NOT used that word. The word I have used is "illusion." If you don't understand the distinction between those two words, then again, I suggest that you bow out of this discussion.

se


----------



## bigshot

dark_wizzie said:


> I think I saw a thread on HA where people said that open headphones do not allow for a better soundstage. (Err, call it headstage, but I think it's headstage trying to be soundstage). What is your take on this?


 
  
 My own experience is that tightly sealed headphones sound more compact than open ones. There might be other things contributing to that, but it certainly is a difference in something mechanical about the design, not the electrical design.
  
 The thing is, most headphone users have never heard soundstage, so they use a speaker term to describe something in headphones that only speakers can do. Speakers give you triangulation- left, right and the distance between the listener and the speakers. That is two dimensional. Headphones only give you left and right. That is one dimensional- a straight line. 5.1 extends two dimensionality to the rear of the listener, creating a box shaped sound field all around. I guess you could call that "room stage". Dolby Atmos adds speakers at the four corners above, adding the third dimension- a cube. That would be "space stage".


----------



## castleofargh

bogart24 said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh god, not this old canard.
> ...


 

 you're very much the one eluding the problem and pushing us in all kind of directions to make your point.
 turning the question "can a plug with nothing meaningful inside it change sound?", into:
  
  
 "let's believe testimonies whatever they are, and be ok with any argument, because it is the fair way to do it"

  
  
  
 then into science methodology, explaining on a general level the need to inspect every possible parameters even the unmeasurable ones, before saying it doesn't work. and that we should not be satisfied with only a good deal of suspicions. the knowledge that the best thing we can do for sound at the particular place in the audio chain is to do nothing at all. some pictures showing the inside of the plug. and the spokeperson of the brand making a nice post about what looks more like meta science than anything concrete.

  
  
  that's all the reports I could get in the castle of arrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhghghhhhhhh.
 this post is an attempt to show what is mostly going on here. the wonders of rhetoric can let anybody win without ever talking about the real subject or even having to say anything true or relevant, just like I did. I made you say what I wanted you to say, then explained how you were wrong with my 2 video-points that are easy to understand and give me the "nice funny guy" look.
  
  
 I wish we could focus a little more on what this plug could possibly do, and a little less on who's right on the internet.


----------



## bigshot

Monty Python is actually a wonderful show to learn about logical fallacies. They cover just about every one and do it in an absurd and entertaining manner. I have the "All the Words" book, and I spent a whole evening studying the construction of the Argument Clinic sketch. It's brilliantly designed. Every line leads to the next and straight down the rabbit hole again.


----------



## Steve Eddy

I never would have expected you to be a Monty Python fan. 

Edit: This was intended for castleofargh.

se


----------



## Strangelove424

suntanscanman said:


> Think you summed up my thoughts here. Feel slightly disheartened with this hobby.
> 
> When the engineer of the product puts down the inner workings of the product to 'magic pixy dust', well ... I think I've heard enough.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Okay, maybe "old dried up wood" was a bit harsh. But all of my experiences with recordings marketed as being performed on a Strad were markedly unimpressive, and isolated recordings I found of the Strad were also equally unimpressive. They sound flat to me. As a historic piece, they are important additions to the progress of the instrument, but as an actual performance instrument surely there are better examples for cheaper. I don't want to drag this thread into a Strad discussion either though, as interesting as it may be for discussion material. The Stradivari hype aside, they respected the craft of violin making greatly, made the best versions of their age, and I wouldn't equate them at all with the HOT... not even close.


----------



## Music Alchemist

I used to own a Stradivarius trombone. ^_^
  


dark_wizzie said:


> I think I saw a thread on HA where people said that open headphones do not allow for a better soundstage. (Err, call it headstage, but I think it's headstage trying to be soundstage). What is your take on this?


 
  
 Apparently those people never heard of the AKG K1000.
  


bigshot said:


> My own experience is that tightly sealed headphones sound more compact than open ones. There might be other things contributing to that, but it certainly is a difference in something mechanical about the design, not the electrical design.
> 
> The thing is, most headphone users have never heard soundstage, so they use a speaker term to describe something in headphones that only speakers can do. Speakers give you triangulation- left, right and the distance between the listener and the speakers. That is two dimensional. Headphones only give you left and right. That is one dimensional- a straight line. 5.1 extends two dimensionality to the rear of the listener, creating a box shaped sound field all around. I guess you could call that "room stage". Dolby Atmos adds speakers at the four corners above, adding the third dimension- a cube. That would be "space stage".


 
  
 What about when people discuss the depth and height of various headphones' soundstage/headstage?
  
 By the way, I checked out the official page for Dolby Atmos after you mentioned it awhile back. Looks very interesting. Does it work with normal music or do you have to use the proprietary format? I think I also read something about being able to use Dolby Atmos content even with headphones.


----------



## bigshot

strangelove424 said:


> all of my experiences with recordings marketed as being performed on a Strad were markedly unimpressive


 
  
 Well that shouldn't be surprising... If they are advertising the fiddle instead of the fiddle player, odds are the fiddle player is no great shakes. I'm sure you've heard Heifetz, and he owned a couple of them. He was pretty good.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> What about when people discuss the depth and height of various headphones' soundstage/headstage?
> 
> By the way, I checked out the official page for Dolby Atmos after you mentioned it awhile back. Looks very interesting. Does it work with normal music or do you have to use the proprietary format? I think I also read something about being able to use Dolby Atmos content even with headphones.


 
  
 Depth of soundstage can be adjusted with speaker positioning and multichannel processing. But that is 2 dimensional, and there is no way to adjust two dimensional space in headphones. By definition headphones present one dimensional sound- a straight line through the head. However, differences in the kind of seal and angle of the drivers can extend the width a little bit beyond the head on both sides a bit. So can crossfeed. That is what most people are describing when they talk about differences in soundstage with headphones.
  
 Atmos hasn't debuted yet. Players won't be available for another year or so. When AV receivers start supporting Atmos, I'm sure they will include DSPs that can synthesize Atmos from traditional recordings.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> Depth of soundstage can be adjusted with speaker positioning and multichannel processing. But that is 2 dimensional, and there is no way to adjust two dimensional space in headphones. By definition headphones present one dimensional sound- a straight line through the head. However, differences in the kind of seal and angle of the drivers can extend the width a little bit beyond the head on both sides a bit. So can crossfeed. That is what most people are describing when they talk about differences in soundstage with headphones.
> 
> Atmos hasn't debuted yet. Players won't be available for another year or so. When AV receivers start supporting Atmos, I'm sure they will include DSPs that can synthesize Atmos from traditional recordings.


 
  
 They're not just describing width, but also depth and height. Many reviewers (all over this site too) go into detail about the differences they perceive in all three categories, for example, when width was the same, but depth was different. There seems to be more to it than only differences in width, but I haven't researched how it's supposed to work.
  
 That will be pretty awesome to experience someday!


----------



## Bogart24

castleofargh said:


> you're very much the one eluding the problem and pushing us in all kind of directions to make your point.
> turning the question "can a plug with nothing meaningful inside it change sound?", into:
> 
> 
> ...




 I'm not saying "let's believe testimonies whatever they are."  I'm saying "let's not dismiss the testimonies of others simply because we cannot explain the effects they report. Let's acknowledge that we do not know everything there is to be known about sound reproduction.'  
  
 The attitude "This device, which I have not used, cannot possibly work because I cannot explain how it works," with the corresponding dismissal of other people's experiences as invalid or infected with bias, and accusations of fraud strikes me as closed-minded and arrogant.  That doesn't mean we credit all reports of an effect we can't explain.  It means we don't dismiss them all.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> They're not just describing width, but also depth and height. Many reviewers (all over this site too) go into detail about the differences they perceive in all three categories, for example, when width was the same, but depth was different.


 
  
 Depth can be indicated through secondary depth cues-- slight reverb, phase, volume level, etc. But secondary depth cues are created in the mix. It isn't altered by the playback device, unless the playback is failing to reproduce one of the main aspects of sound reproduction accurately-- specifically, response, distortion, dynamics or timing. The higher the fidelity to the recording itself, the better the details of the recording are revealed. For instance, frequency response imbalances can create issues with auditory masking or can deemphasize the band of frequencies that the depth cues are occupying.
  
 Descriptions of height in headphone headstage is a misinterpretation of width on the part of the listener, or a flowery exaggeration. There is absolutely no way to indicate height using just two channels unless you stack your speakers on top of each other.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> Depth can be indicated through secondary depth cues-- slight reverb, phase, volume level, etc. But secondary depth cues are created in the mix. It isn't altered by the playback device, unless the playback is failing to reproduce one of the main aspects of sound reproduction accurately-- specifically, response, distortion, dynamics or timing. The higher the fidelity to the recording itself, the better the details of the recording are revealed. For instance, frequency response imbalances can create issues with auditory masking or can deemphasize the band of frequencies that the depth cues are occupying.


 
  
 So you're saying that any perception of improved depth in a headphone would be due to its higher fidelity and not so much the type of physical design that contributes to width? Guess I should share this info whenever I see such descriptions.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> I'm not saying "let's believe testimonies whatever they are."  I'm saying "let's not dismiss the testimonies of others simply because we cannot explain the effects they report. Let's acknowledge that we do not know everything there is to be known about sound reproduction.'




Easy to say for someone who hasn't demonstrated that they know much of anything at all on the subject.

What we do know, is that in the electrical domain, the audio signal is no more than changes in voltage and current over time. And that if a device is going to have any effects which would be audible, it can only do that by altering those changes in voltage and current over time versus those same changes in voltage and current over time without the device in the circuit. Further, we can measure any of those alterations down to levels that far exceed any human being's capacity to hear them.

Ergo, if the device isn't making any meaningful alterations to the signal, it can't be responsible for any purported changes in the sound that one might subjectively experience.

So if there is any acknowledging to be going on here, it is your acknowledging this fact. 

se


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> Easy to say for someone who hasn't demonstrated that they know much of anything at all on the subject.
> 
> What we do know, is that in the electrical domain, the audio signal is no more than changes in voltage and current over time. And that if a device is going to have any effects which would be audible, it can only do that by altering those changes in voltage and current over time versus those same changes in voltage and current over time without the device in the circuit. Further, we can measure any of those alterations down to levels that far exceed any human being's capacity to hear them.
> 
> ...


 
 I have stated that I don't know much about electrical engineering and I'm not attempting to demonstrate otherwise.  Exactly how much do you imagine I need to know to be convinced that you don't know everything?


----------



## Strangelove424

bigshot said:


> Well that shouldn't be surprising... If they are advertising the fiddle instead of the fiddle player, odds are the fiddle player is no great shakes. I'm sure you've heard Heifetz, and he owned a couple of them. He was pretty good.


 
  
 That's certainly a possibility, I found it odd to market a performance based on the instrument instead of the player. There are plenty of recordings of Strads that go unmentioned because there is better stuff to bring up. Haifetz is not the only famous violinist to have a preference for Strads either, I think Perlman is really big on them too. So there are certainly great violin performances made on a Strad, but I also wonder how much their preference is based on tradition and hype. There are also exceptions to the rule, like Tetzlaff, who actually traded his Strad for a newer violin.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bogart24 said:


> I have stated that I don't know much about electrical engineering and I'm not attempting to demonstrate otherwise.  Exactly how much do you imagine I need to know to be convinced that you don't know everything?


 
  
 Let's put it this way: if it's not altering the signal, and all that is passing through it is the signal, what else could the device possibly do in this instance?


----------



## Bogart24

music alchemist said:


> Let's put it this way: if it's not altering the signal, and all that is passing through it is the signal, what else could the device possibly do in this instance?


 
 If it has any effect at all, it must be altering the signal in a way that you can't explain.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Some people just aren't very well cut out for logical thought and reasoning. Bogart24 seems to be one of them. Another one is my own mother. I love her to death, but sometimes she just can't quite grasp certain things. This isn't just because of her age as this has always been the case.

I went with her earlier today to do some shopping. Specifically, she was going to a different supermarket than we usually shop at to see if she could find some better quality potatoes. The place we usually shop only carries a Betty Crocker branded potato in 5 pound bags and lately their quality has been quite poor leading to a fair amount of waste.

I went browsing around other parts of the store and when I eventually caught up with her, I saw that she had two 5 pound bags of potatoes in her cart. She always avoids buying 10 pound bags because she doesn't go through them fast enough before they start spoiling. She told me it was because these potatoes were smaller, so she'd need to use more in order to get the same amount of potatoes than if she was using larger ones.

I started to explain to her that it didn't matter. A 5 pound bag of potatoes was a 5 pound bag of potatoes, and if the potatoes were smaller, you would already get more potates in the same 5 pound bag.

This was completely lost on her. It was if she were arguing that a pound of lead weighed more than a pound of feathers. I tried again to explain it to her and she started getting defensive and pissed off. So I just left it at that. Perhaps she'll finally get it when the potatoes in that other 5 pound bag start to spoil.

se


----------



## Music Alchemist

bogart24 said:


> If it has any effect at all, it must be altering the signal in a way that you can't explain.


 
  
 If there was the slightest alteration to the signal, even outside the threshold of audibility, it would be measurable. Same goes for the sound wave output of headphones and speakers. Of course, the equipment to take such measurements isn't exactly cheap.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> I have stated that I don't know much about electrical engineering and I'm not attempting to demonstrate otherwise.  Exactly how much do you imagine I need to know to be convinced that you don't know everything?




This "you don't know everything" nonsense is growing rather tiresome.

No, we don't know everything, but neither do we know nothing. And we know that in the electrical domain, the audio signal is simply changes in voltage and current over time. Unless again you have some sort of paranormal explanation to offer. 

se


----------



## Bogart24

steve eddy said:


> This "you don't know everything" nonsense is growing rather tiresome.
> 
> No, we don't know everything, but neither do we know nothing. And we know that in the electrical domain, the audio signal is simply changes in voltage and current over time. Unless again you have some sort of paranormal explanation to offer.
> 
> se


 
 Yes, I imagine it is, since it questions the foundation of your certainty that the HOT does absolutely nothing.
  
 The fact that you consider the idea that there are limits on your understanding "nonsense" demonstrates your problem.
  
 The history of science is full of examples of today's "paranormal" becoming tomorrow's accepted truth.


----------



## Bogart24

music alchemist said:


> If there was the slightest alteration to the signal, even outside the threshold of audibility, it would be measurable. Same goes for the sound wave output of headphones and speakers. Of course, the equipment to take such measurements isn't exactly cheap.


 
 Or, you could save the money and just listen to it.


----------



## Music Alchemist

bogart24 said:


> Or, you could save the money and just listen to it.


 
  
 I have no interest in the HOT (I stated before that I will use the Smyth Realiser A8 for that type of thing), although I am intrigued by a few of the company's other products.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bogart24 said:


> If it has any effect at all, it must be altering the signal in a way that you can't explain.




You don't need to explain it. You just have to show that it's altering the signal. And we can detect any alterations to the signal down to virtually any level you care to name. There's no need to explain how it's altering the signal.

Gravity. We can detect it, we can measure it, and we know enough about its behavior that we can take a spacecraft, spin it around the Earth and Mars a few times, send it hurling 300 million miles into space, intercept a comet and land a probe on it. But gravity itself has yet to be fully explained.

And this will be my last post to you and I hope others will follow suit. You've demonstrated that there's simply nothing productive that can come from it.

se


----------



## sonitus mirus

I believe that a critical aspect missing from this entertaining exchange of ideas is that no purely subjective difference has been reliably proven to be detected when put through the rigors of a properly controlled ABX test.  Any differences that supposedly can't be explained or measured with current technology simply have not been properly put through the paces of reasonable scientific application.  Based on overwhelming data that is available, it is practically impossible that any of these subjective differences legitimately exist, and nobody can rely on their ears alone to verify this.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Another FYI, I may be acquiring a seond HOT unit to be used for electrical analysis. It is coming from someone who purchased one, ultimately didn't care for it, but because of a lengthy shipping time and a bit of a rest stop in customs, the return window has expired, so he is graciously offering it up to science. If anyone would like to buy it afterwards, I will be happy to broker the sale and give all the funds to the person supplying it to help defray his loss.

se


----------



## bfreedma

steve eddy said:


> bogart24 said:
> 
> 
> > If it has any effect at all, it must be altering the signal in a way that you can't explain.
> ...




It's funny how virulently some people will question known science where there is no personal risk (audio) but certainly aren't going to question known science where bodily harm might be involved (gravity, medicine, etc...)

That's where the "try it for yourself" argument breaks down quickly.


----------



## Music Alchemist

steve eddy said:


> Another FYI, I may be acquiring a seond HOT unit to be used for electrical analysis. It is coming from someone who purchased one, ultimately didn't care for it, but because of a lengthy shipping time and a bit of a rest stop in customs, the return window has expired, so he is graciously offering it up to science. If anyone would like to buy it afterwards, I will be happy to broker the sale and give all the funds to the person supplying it to help defray his loss.
> 
> se


 
  
 I always thought return policies relied upon shipping documentation, to verify that it was sent out on a certain date, and not when it arrived at the manufacturer. I also thought there were regulations to further protect against this issue...but I could be mistaken.


----------



## Steve Eddy

music alchemist said:


> I always thought return policies relied upon shipping documentation, to verify that it was sent out on a certain date, and not when it arrived at the manufacturer. I also thought there were regulations to further protect against this issue...but I could be mistaken.




I was talking about the time it took to get to him, not the time it took to ship it back. But I think his return window has expired even if you start it from th time he received it. I'll ask him for clarification on that. Would hate to accept it if he still has an opportunity to return it.

se


----------



## SunTanScanMan

strangelove424 said:


> Okay, maybe "old dried up wood" was a bit harsh. But all of my experiences with recordings marketed as being performed on a Strad were markedly unimpressive, and isolated recordings I found of the Strad were also equally unimpressive. They sound flat to me. As a historic piece, they are important additions to the progress of the instrument, but as an actual performance instrument surely there are better examples for cheaper. I don't want to drag this thread into a Strad discussion either though, as interesting as it may be for discussion material. The Stradivari hype aside, they respected the craft of violin making greatly, made the best versions of their age, and I wouldn't equate them at all with the HOT... not even close.


 
 Though it may look otherwise at first, I think we may be in agreement.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Tokyo String Quartet played with Strads - Lovely sound I find. But not saying Strads are the best sounding full stop - but can sound damn fine. Performer and the music are the bigger factors in the enjoyment of the instrument's sound.
  
 Also agree that there could be a certain 'expectation bias' when playing/listening to a 300+ year old relic. Would that be similar to the bias some may have after having paid $300 for a product?
  
(Bummer ... I've gone and compared the Strad to the HOT)


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Depth of soundstage can be adjusted with speaker positioning and multichannel processing. But that is 2 dimensional, and there is no way to adjust two dimensional space in headphones. By definition headphones present one dimensional sound- a straight line through the head. However, differences in the kind of seal and angle of the drivers can extend the width a little bit beyond the head on both sides a bit. So can crossfeed. That is what most people are describing when they talk about differences in soundstage with headphones.
> ...


 

 me!!!!!!!!
 how subjective of me to do that ^_^.
  could be crosstalk(and with some amps the crosstalk goes up with frequencies, so the higher the frequency the more "mono" it would sound, and the more in front of me I would imagine an instrument to be). could be that a certain signature gives more of a sense of going up(that would go with the shape of the ears reflecting different freqs I guess?). or if it's simply the fact that some IEMs go crazy low in impedance and that makes it hard for the amps and crosstalk among other things would go bad? but all that is hard to measure for me and I really can't imagine making guesses as to why, and then explain that as a feedback for everybody on headfi( also some people would burn me where I stand). so I go with how it feels and something anybody can understand: 3 dimensions.
 it is really not hard to get a different "imaging" from a pair of er4 and from my IE80 nothing that was on the left will en up on the right or anything remotely that impressive, but changes at the magnitude of a small crossfeed effect, yes easily. in fact with the IE80 listening to the barber shop track, I feel like the guy is going up when he passes in front of me... super realistic ^_^.
 can't say if it's something in my head, or if most people feel that way with the IE80. still it is clearly not the same presentation as listening to the ER4(then again 2IEMs could hardly be more different in signature).
 I wish I could get more intel about all this, but until then I stay with my layman's depth notion.(but hey! now I say headstage 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 )
  


steve eddy said:


> I never would have expected you to be a Monty Python fan.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I hide my love for english accent and crazy pythons deep inside my nickname so that nobody can tell.
  


bogart24 said:


> I'm not saying "let's believe testimonies whatever they are."  I'm saying "let's not dismiss the testimonies of others simply because we cannot explain the effects they report. Let's acknowledge that we do not know everything there is to be known about sound reproduction.'
> The attitude "This device, which I have not used, cannot possibly work because I cannot explain how it works," with the corresponding dismissal of other people's experiences as invalid or infected with bias, and accusations of fraud strikes me as closed-minded and arrogant.  That doesn't mean we credit all reports of an effect we can't explain.  It means we don't dismiss them all.


 
 again, I think I know where you stand, you don't want to pass judgments before being sure. that's beautiful and I have no doubt you're a great human being.
 but what if it is indeed a scam? your non interference politic is just complicity by omission. people warned you, you had the information, and you did nothing. 
 it's not just all pretty on your side and we are the evils dudes trying to maybe make someone save 300$ for nothing. we have suspicions and find it our duty as fellow audiophiles to warn people about our suspicions.
 on your hand, your posts while pretending not to take sides are clearly aiming at us the "non HOT believers", and not so much trying to get more information from the other side.
 the guy who got the HOT and opened it isn't less legitimate than the one who said the HOT was great. he actually went another step in trying to know. so why not accept to at least put the thing on hold and warn people until we know more(as you seem to need to know more). sure if the product does "dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance." then we are the bad guys who cried wolf. we will apologies, get a ban or not, the HOT guys will have received more publicity in 10days than in the rest of their lives and everybody will know how great a product that is.
  
 but if it isn't, then we are trying to warn innocent audiophiles of a scam. and you're opposing us.
  
  
 the try it before you can say anything is simply an amazing concept for me. I wonder how audiophiles can go past 10years old with that mindset. parents must be amazing at security measures.
 can I fly? is this really poisonous? will electricity hurt me? can I stop a train with my bare hands?  so many questions I want to find an answer to. I have an opinion already, but I'm afraid I should try before sharing it.
 again, ideals are great, but reality often needs a little more practicality. and having faith in general knowledge is an important part of making good judgment calls.
 like the fact that the best way to get a clean signal from an amp to a headphone is with a cable as transparent as possible (so short, low impedance, low everything). even the HOT guy agrees with us on that one. adding anything will have a detrimental effect on audio fidelity(unless of course if the amp is made to drive that headphone). the simple idea that adding something at that very spot could "dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance." was very suspicious from the start. and I think most knowledgeable people in amps and headphones manufacturing would tend to agree with that opinion. buy insisting on keeping an open mind, you're the one rejecting common knowledge.


----------



## Steve Eddy

This just came through on my Facebook newsfeed. Thought it was rather timely.

https://bookofbadarguments.com

se


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> like the fact that the best way to get a clean signal from an amp to a headphone is with a cable as transparent as possible (so short, low impedance, low everything).


 
  
 I plan on getting a 12 foot headphone cable, to give me extra walking room for a future system. (I like to pace back and forth while listening instead of being stationary the whole time.) The manufacturer told me that due to its design, it will sound the same as shorter lengths. Have you noticed any difference in sound between shorter and longer headphone cables, or what?


----------



## Head Injury

steve eddy said:


> This just came through on my Facebook newsfeed. Thought it was rather timely.
> 
> https://bookofbadarguments.com
> 
> se


 
 Oh man, this is a perfect Head-Fi handbook. is there a way to link to specific pages? While all of it is great, there's a handful I'd love to bookmark for future reference around here. Wikipedia is too verbose.


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > like the fact that the best way to get a clean signal from an amp to a headphone is with a cable as transparent as possible (so short, low impedance, low everything).
> ...


 

 no I was talking theory and measurement. my hd650's default cable is like 10foot and I really don't cry over it. but I can close the window with it on my head ^_^.


----------



## Music Alchemist

castleofargh said:


> no I was talking theory and measurement.


 
  
 So I guess you meant short impedance and not short length. I am _so_ not a tech guy!


----------



## Steve Eddy

head injury said:


> Oh man, this is a perfect Head-Fi handbook. is there a way to link to specific pages? While all of it is great, there's a handful I'd love to bookmark for future reference around here. Wikipedia is too verbose.




Nah. It seems to be run by some sort of script.

se


----------



## ns6490

syn res said:


> I have been following BigShots attempt to poison the well for HOT for some time. First he created a thread with no other intent but to slander and mock the HOT and SR in general. In this initial thread he was soliciting Head-Fiers to take advantage of our 30-day trial period and, "write a scathing review", then return the HOT to the hard working dealer; thank you very much. Nowhere in that thread did he suggest people actually try the product and honestly report their findings. Thankfully someone at Head-Fi took that thread down.
> 
> As to the pictures of a dissembled HOT I say, "so what?" Taken out of context a Stradivarius is just a pile of wood, strings and varnish and certainly little different from an inexpensive Chinese Violin. The same holds true for mega expensive phono cartridges which are not too different from their inexpensive brethren. Ditto for cables which when taken apart are little more than wire and dielectric (French Silk?) with connectors on the ends. In fact many mega buck interconnects are less complex and have far less hand labor involved in their manufacture than does the HOT that was destroyed and photographed. The point is you can't take a piece of audio gear designed to improve our subjective enjoyment of sound, place it in a blender, and then examine the contents; not if you want to actually find out what the product sounds like, or not. For that matter you can't do this with great literary works either. Take the work of Shakespeare and mix the words and letters up what have you got? Scrabble that's what.
> 
> ...


 
  
 Ted,
  
 I read this thread with an open mind, but I'm still unsure how HOT attempts to achieve its stated claims. Based on what I have seen in this thread, I'm not optimistic that you will enlighten us, but I'm open to surprises.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> If it has any effect at all, it must be altering the signal in a way that you can't explain.


 

 Hence the pixie dust!!


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Yes, I imagine it is, since it questions the foundation of your certainty that the HOT does absolutely nothing.


 
  
 What are your thoughts about the possibility that the sun might rise in the West tomorrow morning?


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> If anyone would like to buy it afterwards, I will be happy to broker the sale and give all the funds to the person supplying it to help defray his loss.


 
  
 Bogart24 seems to think that we all should buy one and listen for ourselves. Maybe we should buy this one from each other one at a time and sell it to the next person. The one stuck with the lousy thing at the end is stuck with the HOT potato!
  
 It's awfully nice that Synthetic Research didn't allow shipping times to be factored out of the 30 day return window. Perhaps they'd like to comment on that particular bit of stellar customer service.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> can't say if it's something in my head, or if most people feel that way with the IE80.


 
  
 It sounds to me like it might have something to do with bone conduction. If an IEM rests right on a head bone squarely and firmly, it might do very odd things to the sound. I've had really tight headphones at just the right frequency make me feel dizzy. I'm guessing it's setting the fluids in my ear to vibrating.
  
 In any case, that is probably something that is unique to your skull and wouldn't be something that would be verifiable by someone else.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> I plan on getting a 12 foot headphone cable, to give me extra walking room for a future system. (I like to pace back and forth while listening instead of being stationary the whole time.) The manufacturer told me that due to its design, it will sound the same as shorter lengths. Have you noticed any difference in sound between shorter and longer headphone cables, or what?


 

 When I had a 12 foot extender I had no problems with changes due to the length of the wire. The only problems I had were due to the jacks getting jostled as I walked around. They would crackle a bit because the plug didn't make perfect contact. I suppose I could have taken it apart and fixed it, but I never got around to that.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> This just came through on my Facebook newsfeed. Thought it was rather timely.
> https://bookofbadarguments.com


 
  
 FUN! FUN! FUN! (I ordered a copy at Amazon. Three in fact! xmas is coming)


----------



## Head Injury

bigshot said:


> FUN! FUN! FUN! (I ordered a copy at Amazon. Three in fact! xmas is coming)


 

 This may be what I have to do, order extra copies and mail them to people I deem in need.
  
 One HOT can purchase about 26 at Amazon's current market price.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> FUN! FUN! FUN! (I ordered a copy at Amazon. Three in fact! xmas is coming)




That's what I did with David Rees' _How To Sharpen Pencils_. 

se


----------



## Dark_wizzie

bogart24 said:


> Yes, I imagine it is, since it questions the foundation of your certainty that the HOT does absolutely nothing.
> 
> The fact that you consider the idea that there are limits on your understanding "nonsense" demonstrates your problem.
> 
> The history of science is full of examples of today's "paranormal" becoming tomorrow's accepted truth.


 
 No, it's tiresome because rather than prove anything with any sort of plausible sounding hypothesis let alone a theory, or actual testing, you instead won't stop talking about how we don't know everything, which is an argument you can use for justifying anything, including the ridiculous magic sound stones. It is, once again, argument from ignorance. You don't provide evidence for why you are right, only how we cannot prove you must be absolutely wrong. We don't have to disprove your ideas to be left with zero reason to believe it true, among the infinite other possible claims with no evidence.
  
  
 On another note, I was talking about placebophile audiopeelz in a chess chat yesterday and somebody mentioned that he likes amateur cycling and that some enthusiasts swear by $10,000 bike frames. Sometimes I feel that men are just cultured apes, and sometimes not all that cultured either.
  


steve eddy said:


> I like potatotes!


 
 Lol, that was a fun story. Knowing me if I were you she'd never hear the end of it.


----------



## Bogart24

dark_wizzie said:


> No, it's tiresome because rather than prove ANYTHING with any sort of plausible sounding hypothesis let alone a theory, or actual testing, you instead won't stop talking about how we don't know everything, which is an argument you can use for justifying anything, including the ridiculous magic sound stones. It is, once again, argument from ignorance. We don't have to disprove your ideas to be left with zero reason to believe it true, among the infinite other possible claims with no evidence.




We are starting from the conclusion that there is no accepted explanation, so of course I don't offer one. My question is "what can we fairly conclude from not having an explanation?" Is it per se fraud--end of analysis? Or might there be something real that you just don't know how to explain? I think your attitude about this question is almost a matter of faith-- beyond persuasion. 

Your assessments would be much more persuasive if you were willing to listen before declaring there to be no point in listening.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

bogart24 said:


> We are starting from the conclusion that there is no accepted explanation, so of course I don't offer one. My question is "what can we fairly conclude from not having an explanation?" Is it per se fraud--end of analysis? Or might there be something real that you just don't know how to explain? I think your attitude about this question is almost a matter of faith-- beyond persuasion.
> 
> Your assessments would be much more persuasive if you were willing to listen before declaring there to be no point in listening. My entire point is that I don't feel taking your burden of proof.


 
 If I took your approach to every single person that comes peddling a product, I would have no time to live my life, including time to actually listen to music. On the contrary, the burden of proof is on YOU.
  
 The claim is that HOT does something. HOT must demonstrate this. I don't have to prove there is no way HOT can do anything. If I took your exact same arguments to Godzilla or magic crystals, your argument will seem utterly insane to you. Why is this? Even if I fail to prove that HOT does nothing, I am still left with no reason to believe it does anything and therefore no good reason to try. If I try HOT, to be fair I need to try every other claim I cannot disprove that don't have any evidence behind it either. As I said, there are seemingly an infinite number of claims made with no evidence, and there are an infinite number of possible unfalsifiable claims. That is an impossible proposition.

 In essence I don't need to try it. I just need to show your evidence is insufficient. I can see it already: A drugmaker peddling a new way to drop 50lbs fast is questioned by FDA and medical journals, and the drugmaker asks the panel to try their product for themselves.
  
 HOT is a product with a claim that has not met its burden of proof.
 This should literally be the end of the argument.


----------



## gikigill

Let's apply Hitchens razor here. 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


----------



## Steve Eddy

"We don't know everything."

Let's just ponder that "argument" for just a moment. 

In spite of there being no earthly reason to suspect that the HOT would alter the signal any more than a female/male jack/plug combo simply wired together, it has been suggested that the HOT may be significantly altering the signal, but in a way that we simply aren't aware of and don't understand, because hey, we don't know everything, right?

Ok, let's just take that to be the case for the moment. That the HOT is altering the signal, but by a means we aren't aware of and don't understand.

How does one go about designing such a device? Where is your starting point? You wake up one morning and decide that you're going to design a "TOTALLY NEW" device that alters the signal, and does so in such a way that it will dramatically improve soundstage and all those other things audiophiles obsess over. And you decide that the means by which it will do this will be something that we aren't aware of and don't understand. I mean, how cool would that be? It would surely win you a date with the king of Sweden.

Ok.

What's the next step? 

What guides you from there? 

Do you just start randomly throwing all manner of materials together in all manner of ways hoping that like the infinite number of monkeys and typewriters you'll eventually come up with the script to Hamlet?

What?

se


----------



## Billheiser

Good video.  I will emphasize one particular aspect for Bogart24 - your logic system would work only if there's a fairly even chance of a claim being true.  So if I said SmithX headphones are better than Johnson2 headphones, it's fine to think that may or may not be true, let's compare them and see.  But if I make the extraordinary claim that my headphones are best, because they are made of kryptonite from Krypton, it would be stupid to think that's very likely.  Yeah, there's a hypothetical chance of that claim being true, but only after pigs fly.
  
 So for the HOT, the claim is that great improvement is made by a passive jack, using unexplained and mysterious powers.  The president of the company writes to say  it "...is something TOTALLY NEW because before we invented and perfected HOT, nothing remotely like HOT existed in the world."  That is an extraordinary claim, and it would be naive and gullible to accept it at face value.


----------



## esldude

bogart24 said:


> We are starting from the conclusion that there is no accepted explanation, so of course I don't offer one. My question is "what can we fairly conclude from not having an explanation?" Is it per se fraud--end of analysis? Or might there be something real that you just don't know how to explain? I think your attitude about this question is almost a matter of faith-- beyond persuasion.
> 
> Your assessments would be much more persuasive if you were willing to listen before declaring there to be no point in listening.


 

 This also would mean you are starting from the conclusion that it does something, something which is audible.   Perhaps I missed it, but this is also a device you haven't heard.  So you tell us you don't know electronics, you have not heard it so can't even offer anecdotal testimony, won't listen to those knowing electronics telling you it will do nothing, and yet we are approaching it wrong.  Your only reason to think it might work is anecdotal from others, and the announcement by the company making the unit.  You sure are adamant that we all have it wrong for someone with such a slim and shaky amount of info to go on.


----------



## Steve Eddy

billheiser said:


> So for the HOT, the claim is that great improvement is made by a passive jack, using unexplained and mysterious powers.  The president of the company writes to say  it "...is something TOTALLY NEW because before we invented and perfected HOT, nothing remotely like HOT existed in the world."  That is an extraordinary claim, and it would be naive and gullible to accept it at face value.




I don't know that I'd call _that_ an extraordinary claim. I mean hell, I could sit around all day thinking up things that are "TOTALLY NEW." That doesn't take a huge amount of imagination. "New" sells. Just pay attention at the grocery store and notice how many items are stamped "NEW & IMPROVED!" Often you'll find that the only thing that's "NEW & IMPROVED!" Is just the damn packaging or the graphics.

The extraordinary claim is that some glue, some sand, and some tiny silver foils will alter the signal in such a way that it "dramatically improves the sense that you are listening to an actual sound stage as opposed to music being played between your ears." 

se


----------



## Bogart24

esldude said:


> This also would mean you are starting from the conclusion that it does something, something which is audible.   Perhaps I missed it, but this is also a device you haven't heard.  So you tell us you don't know electronics, you have not heard it so can't even offer anecdotal testimony, won't listen to those knowing electronics telling you it will do nothing, and yet we are approaching it wrong.  Your only reason to think it might work is anecdotal from others, and the announcement by the company making the unit.  You sure are adamant that we all have it wrong for someone with such a slim and shaky amount of info to go on.


 
 Well, it is being sold by an established company who are staking their reputation in part on it.  It has been heard by people who report varying results including some who are quite impressed.  That is enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt that it does something.  More persuasive than a bunch of guys on the internet looking at pictures of it and saying "I don't understand this so it must be a fraud."
  
 Seems to me what people are dismissing as "sand" is the operative component.  Crystals have electromagnetic effects, do they not?  And it does not surprise me that the rep from SR does not want to disclose what the substance is, since he is probably not authorized to disclose the company's trade secrets.  I guess we will know soon enough.  A lot of people are very invested in dismissing this product to the extent that we will be getting our own CSI-style analysis.
  
 EDIT--I do agree their marketing is over-the-top, but they are not alone in this sin.


----------



## GearMe

steve eddy said:


> This just came through on my Facebook newsfeed. *Thought it was rather timely.
> https://bookofbadarguments.com*
> 
> se







head injury said:


> Oh man, _*this is a perfect Head-Fi handbook.*_ is there a way to link to specific pages? While all of it is great, there's a handful I'd love to bookmark for future reference around here. Wikipedia is too verbose.







bigshot said:


> FUN! FUN! FUN! (I ordered a copy at Amazon. *Three in fact! xmas is coming*)







head injury said:


> This may be what I have to do, order extra copies and *mail them to people I deem in need.*
> 
> One HOT can purchase about 26 at Amazon's current market price.







steve eddy said:


> *That's what I did with David Rees' How To Sharpen Pencils*.
> 
> se





Disclaimer...I don't believe that the HOT really does anything worth my $300 (or $10 for that matter) and would not buy it based on what I've read. That said, if someone handed me one, I'd listen as Bogart suggests.

However, it's the pure-play objectivist 'attitude' that is often irksome to me. Not sure if that's where Bogart is coming from but thought I'd throw my two cents in. This attitude is not displayed by all of course. But it can come across in a 'know it all' fashion, imo.

Yes, I realize this is the Sound Science forum but _*no measurements completely inform us on what the absolute best equipment is for another's listening tastes.*_ Rightly or wrongly, that's often how some objectivists present their arguments or are at least perceived by those of us that don't bow exclusively to the some measurement device. 

For me, the _measurements are a data point to be considered with reviewers' input (that have similar tastes) -- if can't listen before I purchase. *If I can listen before I purchase, then I don't even care about the measurements.*_ Someone like Tyll, with his mix of measurements and listening, provides the 'best' framework for how I like to evaluate product purchases in our world of limited demoing capability.

Even so, I've bought several products based solely on reviews (no data available) and have been both pleasantly surprised and thoroughly disappointed. What I've learned is that my tastes align better with some folks than others on Head-Fi and I factor that into my buying process.

TBH, I would only spend this kind of money on a 'major' audio system component (amp, dac, or cans)...not a cable or connector. Coincidentally, I've budgeted $300ish for Black Friday and am leaning toward HD600s but part of me wants to get the JVC HA-SZ2000s or Yamaha Pro500s (GASP!..._those don't accurately reproduce music_). It'll probably be the 600's but you never know what the 'Dark (read basshead) Side' is capable of.


----------



## bfreedma

bogart24 said:


> Well, it is being sold by an established company who are staking their reputation in part on it.  It has been heard by people who report varying results including some who are quite impressed.  That is enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt that it does something.  More persuasive than a bunch of guys on the internet looking at pictures of it and saying "I don't understand this so it must be a fraud."
> 
> Seems to me what people are dismissing as "sand" is the operative component.  Crystals have electromagnetic effects, do they not?  And it does not surprise me that the rep from SR does not want to disclose what the substance is, since he is probably not authorized to disclose the company's trade secrets.  I guess we will know soon enough.  A lot of people are very invested in dismissing this product to the extent that we will be getting our own CSI-style analysis.


 
  
 Lots of people claim to have seen Bigfoot and/or ghosts.  Doesn't mean I believe them no matter how self convinced they are.  I find the people with the actual domain knowledge who have looked at the pictures far more convincing that the manufacturer who is basically claiming "pixie dust" as an explanation for performance.  These same people seem far more interested in explaining the functionality of the device (or lack thereof) than the manufacturer - you would think Synergistic would be falling all over themselves to post objective data given this thread.
  
 You've previously stated you aren't an Engineer - perhaps it's time to stop the fishing expedition on what the HOT "does".  If you don't understand the theories behind what crystals/ electromagnetics in this configuration could conceivably achieve, and how what's been seen can or can't influence sound, please stop proposing answers in that realm unless you can support them.


----------



## Bogart24

bfreedma said:


> Lots of people claim to have seen Bigfoot and/or ghosts.  Doesn't mean I believe them no matter how self convinced they are.  I find the people with the actual domain knowledge who have looked at the pictures far more convincing that the manufacturer who is basically claiming "pixie dust" as an explanation for performance.  These same people seem far more interested in explaining the functionality of the device (or lack thereof) than the manufacturer - you would think Synergistic would be falling all over themselves to post objective data given this thread.
> 
> You've previously stated you aren't an Engineer - perhaps it's time to stop the fishing expedition on what the HOT "does".  If you don't understand the theories behind what crystals/ electromagnetics in this configuration could conceivably achieve, and how what's been seen can or can't influence sound, please stop proposing answers in that realm unless you can support them.


 
 Why?  I'm not proposing answers as to how it works (if it works).  I'm suggesting an avenue that has not really been discussed.  That's why I phrased it as a question. I'm sorry if you think I'm not qualified to speculate, but I'm going to do it anyway.  I hope your head doesn't explode.


----------



## bfreedma

bogart24 said:


> Why?  I'm not proposing answers as to how it works (if it works).  I'm suggesting an avenue that has not really been discussed.  That's why I phrased it as a question. I'm sorry if you think I'm not qualified to speculate, but I'm going to do it anyway.  I hope your head doesn't explode.


 
  
 Those avenues have been discussed.  Thoroughly.  You may need to brush up on audio reproduction so that you understand them.
  
 Speculate all you like - it doesn't change the reality that the HOT doesn't actually do what it claims.  Again, where is the manufacturer to provide objective supporting data?
  
 Hey, maybe it's the pigment in the lettering on the exterior of the device that makes the "difference".  Since we're now proposing elements with no possible impact, why not?
  
  
 In all seriousness - are you going to keep proposing new theories each time the previous one you post is debunked?


----------



## castleofargh

bigshot said:


> steve eddy said:
> 
> 
> > If anyone would like to buy it afterwards, I will be happy to broker the sale and give all the funds to the person supplying it to help defray his loss.
> ...


 
 is this legal? in france consumers are protected from that kind of ambiguous warranties, and usually time of delivery(provided by the delivery service) will be what makes the clock ticking, not the buyer, not the seller. I like those guys more and more each day. what amazon does is the right way, or else you don't pretend you have a 30days return policy.
  


bogart24 said:


> esldude said:
> 
> 
> > This also would mean you are starting from the conclusion that it does something, something which is audible.   Perhaps I missed it, but this is also a device you haven't heard.  So you tell us you don't know electronics, you have not heard it so can't even offer anecdotal testimony, won't listen to those knowing electronics telling you it will do nothing, and yet we are approaching it wrong.  Your only reason to think it might work is anecdotal from others, and the announcement by the company making the unit.  You sure are adamant that we all have it wrong for someone with such a slim and shaky amount of info to go on.
> ...


 

 just to be clear do you think those also shouldn't be dismissed?

  
  
 or this

  
  
  
 the crystals will be what? well who cares. that is the answer. 
 they are around the conducting components. the signal just like my fellow frenchmen will always take the path of least resistance and never go through those crystals. but maybe you think that is also just speculation from a guy on the internet?
 and even if I went wild on the open mindness here, let's say the signal somehow does wander around those crystal, if it's quartz, then it will do what? vibrate? let's say it does, the way they are, without a special shape/cut, the vibrations from each rock would be random uncontrolled frequencies. so you can't even make this pass for the water frequency hoax we have in another topic.
 and what would a mechanical micro vibration do to the sound in our headphone?
 if having the cable to micro vibrate is good for sound, maybe I should just buy one of those and put it on the top of my amp?


 not only do they vibrate, but they do in rhythm ^_^


----------



## Steve Eddy

Crystals have piezoelectric properties. If you apply an electric field to them, they will change their shape. This property is used to make a variety of transducers.

As I said after seeing the tear down photos, and SR claiming that the HOT is literally intended to be a transducer that converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, it looks for all the world like SR is using the metal foils to expose the crystals to an electric field produced by the audio signal.

However vibrating some little bits of sand on the sleeve of a female cable mount jack isn't going to have any effect on the electrical signal. And it's the electrical signal that operates the headphones. And you're not going to hear those crystals vibrating inside that rigid sealed tube while you're listening to headphones.Instead of snake oil, it's more like the audio equivalent of the quack medical devices that were popular in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Here's a YouTube video of a guy making his own piezoelectric transducer using a Rochelle salt crystal. You'll note the similarities to the HOT with the use of foil for the electrodes to produce an electric field across the crystal. Note that he needs to couple the crystal to a tin can to act as a diaphragm to get a barely audible sound, as well as having to use the high voltage winding off a microwave oven transformer to create a much higher voltage in order to produce a sto g enough electric field.

http://youtu.be/R7zjfaPKMSE

SR also says they produce their crystals in house at great expense. Here's another video of a guy also producing crystals "in house," though not at a terribly great expense. 

http://youtu.be/E1Ct3VUWvhQ

se


----------



## SunTanScanMan

castleofargh said:


> is this legal? in france consumers are protected from that kind of ambiguous warranties, and usually time of delivery(provided by the delivery service) will be what makes the clock ticking, not the buyer, not the seller. I like those guys more and more each day. what amazon does is the right way, or else you don't pretend you have a 30days return policy.
> 
> 
> just to be clear do you think those also shouldn't be dismissed?
> ...


 
  
 A thought which struck me just now seeing products such as above, is to what extent we can see the consumer as part of the problem. Much of the discussions of this thread, including myself has focused on the company (justifiably in most respects) designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling such products. However, it also follows that people are *buying* these products. There must be 'music lovers' who in their minds try to attain the last ounce of sonic quality by attaching metal cups to the walls and rocks to cables. I'm guessing they don't have any furniture in their rooms lest they bounce the sound away... How do these people even attend music concerts in halls, without going insane thinking about how the violins don't have dust sprinkled on them, and that other people's ears must be eating the sounds which otherwise they would hear...
  
 I would be equally critical upon such consumers' habits. Perhaps even more so than companies making such products? The market provides what the consumer wants right? I guess this is within a certain degree... I don't doubt the influence of marketing and advertising, as well as peer culture. All this overthinking is slightly unsettling.


----------



## bigshot

bogart24 said:


> Well, it is being sold by an established company who are staking their reputation in part on it


 
  
 SPIT TAKE! Holy cow! You have to be kidding. They have an entirely new reputation now!


----------



## bigshot

Has anyone else noticed that Synthetic Research is absent from this thread after one post? If any of you participate in any other audio forums, please copy my picture here and post it with a link to the product page. I think other people should know about this. Don't you?


----------



## Music Alchemist

bigshot said:


> Has anyone else noticed that Synthetic Research is absent from this thread after one post? If any of you participate in any other audio forums, please copy my picture here and post it with a link to the product page. I think other people should know about this. Don't you?


 
  
 I've never heard of _Synthetic_ Research.


----------



## castleofargh

suntanscanman said:


> A thought which struck me just now seeing products such as above, is to what extent we can see the consumer as part of the problem. Much of the discussions of this thread, including myself has focused on the company (justifiably in most respects) designing, manufacturing, marketing and selling such products. However, it also follows that people are *buying* these products. There must be 'music lovers' who in their minds try to attain the last ounce of sonic quality by attaching metal cups to the walls and rocks to cables. I'm guessing they don't have any furniture in their rooms lest they bounce the sound away... How do these people even attend music concerts in halls, without going insane thinking about how the violins don't have dust sprinkled on them, and that other people's ears must be eating the sounds which otherwise they would hear...
> 
> I would be equally critical upon such consumers' habits. Perhaps even more so than companies making such products? The market provides what the consumer wants right? I guess this is within a certain degree... I don't doubt the influence of marketing and advertising, as well as peer culture. All this overthinking is slightly unsettling.


 
 sure people are as much part of the problem as sellers, I remember Currawong telling me that people who want to spend money will do so anyway. and sadly he is most probably right about that.
 people who are weak to something(I'm very weak to pringles myself) need be protected. or else we also can go with natural selection, but I think we gave up on that in modern society ^_^.
 when a friend goes to buy a second hand car, if she or he doesn't know anything, you will go with your friend to make sure it's a legit transaction and the car actually has an engine, 4 wheels and proper papers to go with it. it's a very natural thing to do.
 to me it's the same here, we are not just audiophiles measuring our audio-johnsons with our latest purchase, we are a community and we try to help each other. when I see a fellow headfier buying at great expense something not that great. it's not my problem and I shouldn't care, but I do.


----------



## bigshot

castleofargh said:


> when a friend goes to buy a second hand car, if she or he doesn't know anything, you will go with your friend to make sure it's a legit transaction and the car actually has an engine, 4 wheels and proper papers to go with it.


 
  
 Do you think Bogart buys a used car by purchasing every one that he hears a single good about online, then driving it for himself, and returning it if he doesn't like it? I sure hope not!


----------



## SunTanScanMan

castleofargh said:


> sure people are as much part of the problem as sellers, I remember Currawong telling me that people who want to spend money will do so anyway. and sadly he is most probably right about that.
> people who are weak to something(I'm very weak to pringles myself) need be protected. or else we also can go with natural selection, but I think we gave up on that in modern society ^_^.
> when a friend goes to buy a second hand car, if she or he doesn't know anything, you will go with your friend to make sure it's a legit transaction and the car actually has an engine, 4 wheels and proper papers to go with it. it's a very natural thing to do.
> to me it's the same here, we are not just audiophiles measuring our audio-johnsons with our latest purchase, we are a community and we try to help each other. when I see a fellow headfier buying at great expense something not that great. it's not my problem and I shouldn't care, but I do.


 
 I do value very much the forums for discussions and sharing of information for the reasons, and motivations which you stated. To that end, my previous comment was NOT intended as a criticism of these said motivations to help fellow community members. Like you I do not advocate 'natural selection', and anyhow we do have laws which protects and upholds consumer rights at some level.
  
 But I feel that at a certain point, responsibility must fall upon the individual consumer for their actions (e.g. the onus on them to expand their knowledge either through research or mistakes). The state or an expert cannot lead them by the hand everywhere. For there are countless examples in these forums where facts and explanations only go so far, and are even counterproductive. If we take your analogy of accompanying your friend when purchasing a second hand car - should you expect them to require your help in order to determine whether a racing stripe down the middle of the car will make it go faster?
  
 Related to this, what I described as unsettling in my previous comment was that if we agree of the symbiotic relationship between the consumer and the manufacturer, then the accountability for the existence of snake oil is MUCH LESS obvious. That is, the consumer must have blame too. *I find this very unsettling to consider. * 
  
 Then there is the possibility that the consumers' motivations for buying such products are not sound quality at all, but something else - 'comparing audio-johnsons' (says me with 4 headphones 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) / peace of mind of satisfying a curiosity / peace of mind of satisfying a placebo / peace of mind.... etc  - *then I find **this **unsettling, particularly in an audio forum.*
  
  
  
 -----------
 I do tend to overthink once I get started, so apologies if this has veered WAY off topic (Btw who's protecting _you_ from pringles? In fact, who's protecting _us all _from pringles for that matter? Because I find that once I pop, I can't stop 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




)
  
 Edit: added 'NOT' in first sentence.


----------



## bigshot

Too many people rely on advertorial and high price tags to determine quality, instead of using their own brains.


----------



## Music Alchemist

suntanscanman said:


> (Btw who's protecting _you_ from pringles? In fact, who's protecting _us all _from pringles for that matter? Because I find that once I pop, I can't stop
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 My own body protects me from Pringles, since it can't handle junk food like it used to. I enjoy the taste, but quickly begin to feel sick. =/


----------



## Billheiser

bogart24 said:


> Well, it is being sold by an established company who are staking their reputation in part on it. ...


 
 If it were being sold by Sennheiser or Sony or McIntosh or Wilson or Audeze or a hundred other companies, it would be more interesting.  But Synergistic Research is a company, IMO, without a good reputation.  Pretty much all their products are mysterious and are marketed with double talk that never amounts to a coherent or plausible explanation.   You have to have faith in them first before their products work for you.  That's not how real products work.  Read their circular, jargon-y marketing copy about their "Quantum Tunneling", etc., and you'll see it's gibberish.  It does effectively induce some people to buy their products.  Insert the famous P.T. Barnum quote here.


----------



## bigshot

billheiser said:


> If it were being sold by Sennheiser or Sony or McIntosh or Wilson or Audeze or a hundred other companies, it would be more interesting.


 
  
 The absolute WORST recorded jitter in any consumer audio product ever was a McIntosh product, so even with those names you can't be sure.


----------



## bigshot

music alchemist said:


> I've never heard of _Synthetic_ Research.


 

 I only know them by reputation. (smiley here)


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> suntanscanman said:
> 
> 
> > (Btw who's protecting _you_ from pringles? In fact, who's protecting _us all _from pringles for that matter? Because I find that once I pop, I can't stop
> ...


 

 I'm not the one buying groceries so I'm not in control at all. if I was living in a big city I could go and try to get a dealer in the street at night when I'm going cold turkey, but I'm living in a very small village and the closest pringles provider is 30mn away by car and my hands are shaking too much to drive when I'm in need for more.
 after spending years living right next to 2 stores, it feels like rehab.
 hello my name is castleofargh and I am an addict. I didn't have any kind of pringles in 3days!


----------



## Billheiser

bigshot said:


> The absolute WORST recorded jitter in any consumer audio product ever was a McIntosh product, so even with those names you can't be sure.


 
 OK but they've been around for 50 years with well-regarded products, that generally come with both good sound and good specifications.  You can reverse engineer them to see how they work, and be impressed.  And no claims of mysterious substances.


----------



## Head Injury

castleofargh said:


> I'm not the one buying groceries so I'm not in control at all. if I was living in a big city I could go and try to get a dealer in the street at night when I'm going cold turkey, but I'm living in a very small village and the closest pringles provider is 30mn away by car and my hands are shaking too much to drive when I'm in need for more.
> after spending years living right next to 2 stores, it feels like rehab.
> hello my name is castleofargh and I am an addict. I didn't have any kind of pringles in 3days!


 

 Just keep one of the cans from your next purchase, and put other brands of chips in it. As long as you don't look while you're eating, you should be able to convince yourself that what's inside tastes great!


----------



## SunTanScanMan

castleofargh said:


> I'm not the one buying groceries so I'm not in control at all. if I was living in a big city I could go and try to get a dealer in the street at night when I'm going cold turkey, but I'm living in a very small village and the closest pringles provider is 30mn away by car and my hands are shaking too much to drive when I'm in need for more.
> after spending years living right next to 2 stores, it feels like rehab.
> hello my name is castleofargh and I am an addict. I didn't have any kind of pringles in 3days!


 
  


head injury said:


> Just keep one of the cans from your next purchase, and put other brands of chips in it. As long as you don't look while you're eating, you should be able to convince yourself that what's inside tastes great!


 
  
 Castleofargh, are you even sure you're addicted to pringles specifically?
 I call for a double blind test with rival brands to see if you can really taste the difference.


----------



## castleofargh

disclaimer: "Any resemblance to any persons living, dead, or undead, is coincidental."
  
  
  
 I don't need to double blind test, I know they taste different, I've been eating them for years and went to a lot of pringles meetings with friends and we've agreed upon it. also at those meetings I had the opportunity to try them with all kind of high end combinations of drinks and food. 
 trust me I know.
  
 + I'm sure blind tests always give null results because they're too stressful. and if I fail, so what? does that prove I will always fail? science can only tell us so much about pringles.
 personally I test them by eating the all can.  you get certain differences that you cannot get with just going from one pringle to one chip of another brand and back rapidly.
  
 anyway I don't know what I'm doing here trying to justify myself, I know what they taste like and what effect they have on me. there are a lot of people who said that pringles were better, you can't call them all liars!!! prove to me that I can't tell pringles apart from another brand!!!!!! you can't now can you!


----------



## Music Alchemist

Spoiler: STAX are higher quality.












 If we keep up this conversation, you'll get your Headphoneus Supremus badge in no time!


----------



## bigshot

billheiser said:


> OK but they've been around for 50 years with well-regarded products, that generally come with both good sound and good specifications.  You can reverse engineer them to see how they work, and be impressed.  And no claims of mysterious substances.


 

 My brother has an all McIntosh system. He bought it back in the late 70s and has had it ever since. It still works as good as the day he bought it, but I'm glad I'm not the one with that albatross. My Yamaha AV amp has pretty much the same specs and my brother always has to jump through hoops because no HDMI, no optical, no anything. It was great in its day, but even he admits it's a white elephant now. Too valuable to chuck and too obsolete to do the job really well.
  
 It's kind of funny because he downsized a bit and the thing he chose to get rid of was his speakers. He gave them to me for my birthday. Those were the best part of his system. They are the keystone of my sound system now.


----------



## Billheiser

bigshot said:


> My brother has an all McIntosh system. He bought it back in the late 70s and has had it ever since. It still works as good as the day he bought it, but I'm glad I'm not the one with that albatross. My Yamaha AV amp has pretty much the same specs and my brother always has to jump through hoops because no HDMI, no optical, no anything. It was great in its day, but even he admits it's a white elephant now. Too valuable to chuck and too obsolete to do the job really well.
> 
> It's kind of funny because he downsized a bit and the thing he chose to get rid of was his speakers. He gave them to me for my birthday. Those were the best part of his system. They are the keystone of my sound system now.


I bet the Yamaha AV won't be working in 40 years.


----------



## mulder01

music alchemist said:


> So I guess you meant short impedance and not short length. I am _so_ not a tech guy!


 
 Double the length = double the impedance.  They are directly related.  The difference is negligible over that sort of length though.  
  
 Kinda makes me wonder why companies don't just make thicker headphone cables if the idea is to make the cable invisible to the amp.


----------



## bigshot

billheiser said:


> I bet the Yamaha AV won't be working in 40 years.


 

 But it costs $350. At that price I can burn out four of them and replace them and still come out ahead. Plus, I will be getting updated technology each time.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

bogart24 said:


> Well, it is being sold by an established company who are staking their reputation in part on it.


 
 And based on the way audiophiles go about proving their opinions and reducing human bias, this established company was correct in taking the risk. It is pretty damned minimal.


> It has been heard by people who report varying results including some who are quite impressed.  That is enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt that it does something.  More persuasive than a bunch of guys on the internet looking at pictures of it and saying "I don't understand this so it must be a fraud."


 
  More like, humans make stupid mistakes and see/hear things that are not there. Placebo, expectation bias. 
 And you're totally misrepresenting the situation with that line at the end. That's just dishonest.


> Seems to me what people are dismissing as "sand" is the operative component.  Crystals have electromagnetic effects, do they not?  And it does not surprise me that the rep from SR does not want to disclose what the substance is, since he is probably not authorized to disclose the company's trade secrets.  I guess we will know soon enough.  A lot of people are very invested in dismissing this product to the extent that we will be getting our own CSI-style analysis.
> 
> EDIT--I do agree their marketing is over-the-top, but they are not alone in this sin.


 
 More like few people really want their purchase to not be a waste so they'll go to the ends of the earth and upturn all sorts of burdens of proofs to make their argument sound convincing. Are you really telling me glueing crystals to a jack is going to open the soundstage? It feels like I'm debating a religious person (probably because I am - the audiophile religion).
 Show us the proof it works. Less speculating, more doing.
 Quote:


music alchemist said:


> Spoiler: STAX are higher quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  

 ​Quote:


mulder01 said:


> Double the length = double the impedance.  They are directly related.  The difference is negligible over that sort of length though.
> 
> Kinda makes me wonder why companies don't just make thicker headphone cables if the idea is to make the cable invisible to the amp.


 
 Or maybe just shorter cables. My HD800 is long enough to die up a hostage. I don't get why cable believers don't insist on having the shortest possible cable.


castleofargh said:


> disclaimer: "Any resemblance to any persons living, dead, or undead, is coincidental."
> 
> I don't need to double blind test, I know they taste different, I've been eating them for years and went to a lot of pringles meetings with friends and we've agreed upon it. also at those meetings I had the opportunity to try them with all kind of high end combinations of drinks and food.
> trust me I know.
> ...


 
 I'm going to hit you on the head with a can of pringles.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Just another FYI update. My friend received the torn down HOT unit yesterday, so he'll be able to get it into the lab this week. 

se


----------



## SunTanScanMan

suntanscanman said:


> Castleofargh, are you even sure you're addicted to pringles specifically?
> I call for a double blind test with rival brands to see if you can really taste the difference.


 
 I feel that  -  _given the thread's title, and that some valid questions about the science behind the workings of the HOT specifically claims made by the manufacturer have been asked in these pages_  -  it would be far more appropriate for @Syn Res to address them rather than 'thumb up' a rather flippant comment of mine above.
  
 Personally I am curious to know how those crystals are supposed to affect the sound. Setting aside the sceptics, there have been individuals who have defended the product even in the light of facts and explanations. I feel that they're owed a clarification on the product's properties more than most.
  
 YMMV, just my thoughts and NOT a demand, you are not compelled to respond at all.


----------



## castleofargh

suntanscanman said:


> suntanscanman said:
> 
> 
> > Castleofargh, are you even sure you're addicted to pringles specifically?
> ...


 

 irony is a double edged sword. ^_^
 I'm sure someone somewhere took the all pringlesgate scandal at face value. there is always at least 1.


----------



## limpidglitch

castleofargh said:


> irony is a double edged sword. ^_^
> I'm sure someone somewhere took the all pringlesgate scandal at face value. there is always at least 1.


 
  
 Poe's law.

 I'm still not completely convinced that Syn Res isn't just pulling our legs.


----------



## bigshot

limpidglitch said:


> I'm still not completely convinced that Syn Res isn't just pulling our legs.


 
  
 Pulling our leg with one hand while the other hand is in our pocket.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

suntanscanman said:


> I feel that  -  _given the thread's title, and that some valid questions about the science behind the workings of the HOT specifically claims made by the manufacturer have been asked in these pages_  -  it would be far more appropriate for @Syn Res to address them rather than 'thumb up' a rather flippant comment of mine above.
> 
> Personally I am curious to know how those crystals are supposed to affect the sound. Setting aside the sceptics, there have been individuals who have defended the product even in the light of facts and explanations. I feel that they're owed a clarification on the product's properties more than most.
> 
> YMMV, just my thoughts and NOT a demand, you are not compelled to respond at all.


 
 Hey, if they want to give a serious explanation, I'm all for that. But I doubt we'll get that.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

dark_wizzie said:


> Hey, if they want to give a serious explanation, I'm all for that. But I doubt we'll get that.


 

 ... and of course they don't have to if that's what they decide. We'll just have to make do with silence, which has the benefit of speaking volumes.


----------



## dclaz

dark_wizzie said:


> Hey, if they want to give a serious explanation, I'm all for that. But I doubt we'll get that.


 
 You won't get it, and if you do, we'll be rewriting the physics books.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Update: my friend has booked some time on the SEM/EDX today so should have some preliminary results soon.

se


----------



## bigshot

suntanscanman said:


> ... and of course they don't have to if that's what they decide. We'll just have to make do with silence, which has the benefit of speaking volumes.


 

 I just posted a video in its own thread by Ted from SR demonstrating a room correction doohickey that works without having to be in the signal path. MAGIC!


----------



## castleofargh

well obviously we're all just jealous because they came up with several ground breaking techs that average science isn't yet able to explain.
  
 nothing to be doubtful about.
  

  
  
 wait till they mind probe bigshot into saying all of those are great techs and they come in peace.
  
 you know being anti alien tech is racism right!


----------



## Lenni




----------



## bigshot

If I get possessed by aliens, please take a fire axe to my pod and put me out of my misery.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> I just posted a video in its own thread by Ted from SR demonstrating a room correction doohickey that works without having to be in the signal path. MAGIC!


 

 Yes I'm already subbed to that thread. But there is only so much MAGIC I can take before I overdose on anti-histamines. My kidneys aren't what they're used to be.
  
 So for my sake, and as no-one has cut that product open, I'm holding patient and with a curious mind as all the valid questions seem to have been asked already by other thread members.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Ok, the results are in. 

The mystery crystals are... silicon dioxide. In other words, sand or ground up quartz (my initial suspicion).

As some of you may remember from science class, silicon dioxide is a naturally occurring substance, not a synthetic. And just to refresh your memory, SR claimed it was a "...synthetic compound developed in house at great expense..."

The binder used to glue down the crystals is a silver-bearing compound, much like the stuff used to repair car window heaters.

Here are the spectrographs from the SEM/EDX system.

This is of the crystals by themselves.



This is of the silver-bearing binder by itself.



And this is of the binder and the crystals.



So there you have it. I would like to thank my friend for taking the time and the trouble to do these tests.

Next up, the electrical testing. 

se


----------



## bigshot

Silica Dioxide is also a type of sand. And it's the base sand they use to make glass.
  
 Two plugs, three little wires, some silicone cement and some sand. A BREAKTHROUGH IN AUDIO TECHNOLOGY!


----------



## esldude

steve eddy said:


> Ok, the results are in.
> 
> The mystery crystals are... silicon dioxide. In other words, sand or ground up quartz (my initial suspicion).
> 
> ...


 
 Oh many thanks for doing this test and the public service it represents to the audiophile community. 
  
 I would like to hear from those that say it makes a difference in sound?  What do you think now?   Don't be shy, I once believed lots of this stuff too.  I know how you might feel.  It is a chance for a big learning experience here.


----------



## castleofargh

science is so sexy!!!!!!!!!!
  
 SE big thank you and thanks to your friend.
  
  
  
  
 given how we abuse sand usage in building construction, in 50 years this little product's value might go up.


----------



## bfreedma

Nice work Steve and cohort(s).
  
 I'm sure someone from SR or it's fanbase will let us know how special the sand is.  Perhaps an early return from the Philae comet expedition specially modified by SR?....
  
 I'll bet the Synergistic rep didn't see a Scanning Electron Microscopy coupled with Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscope being used to debunk his claims. Thought he could just put them out there with no recourse....


----------



## Syn Res

steve eddy said:


> Ok, the results are in.
> 
> The mystery crystals are... silicon dioxide. In other words, sand or ground up quartz (my initial suspicion).
> 
> ...


 
  
 Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to libel my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.
  
 Ted Denney
 Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


----------



## esldude

syn res said:


> Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to slander my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.
> 
> Ted Denney
> Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


 

 Rather than simply being seen as an attempt to intimidate someone, it would be more convincing if you said what the substance was.  Are you saying it isn't silicon dioxide?


----------



## bfreedma

Results from an electron microscope or comments from a vendor who refuses to state what the material is or how the device works.

Who to believe........

Ted, You could clear this up easily but for some reason, you won't.


----------



## bigshot

syn res said:


> Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to libel my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.
> 
> Ted Denney
> Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


 

 Oh man! Let's see a picture of the sand manufacturing machine!


----------



## Syn Res

NT


----------



## thune

What is the meaning of the large carbon spike in the aggregate test? could this indicate something like *synthetic* diamond dust? Also, couldn't any quartz be synthetic quartz, making it technically man-made?


----------



## bfreedma

syn res said:


> NT




Is that the abbreviation for the "secret man made material" in question? 

Wouldn't it be simpler to just post the facts at this point? Particularly if they would prove you right given your accusations .


----------



## bigshot

For those who have questions for Ted, you can contact him through his Facebook page....
 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergistic-Research/292108336578?pnref=lhc


----------



## Don Hills

syn res said:


> Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to libel my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.
> 
> Ted Denney
> Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


 
  
 Ted,
 Steve did not say that the compound in the HOT device is from a natural source. He said what it is (silicon diioxide). He separately stated that the compound occurs naturally. Those are provable facts, and the truth is an absolute defense against libel. I suggest for further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect


----------



## Mel Famie

Since the EDX spectra clearly show that this is silicon dioxide, is Mr. Denny claiming that Steve has faked the data? 
  
 The carbon peak is likely from the binder, which appears to be the same kind of silver ink used for repairing windshield heaters and circuit boards.


----------



## bigshot

This one actually has a Yahoo answers page!
  
 Is silicon naturally-occuring or synthetic?
 https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080215215148AAjbmXy


----------



## bfreedma

Ironically, Synergystic Research's chosen method of addressing this thread and community will damage their brand more than all of the posts about the HOT. IMO of course.


----------



## bigshot

Listening test of the HOT I found on SR's Facebook page...
 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152531004043940&set=o.292108336578&type=1
  
 "The HOT just opened everything up.
I thought...
Ted's onto some voodoo again - but it works, and now it's been experienced by friends, with NO word from me - very nice. Lookin' forward to where you might go with this..."
  
Michael Mercer, 
 https://www.facebook.com/sonicsatori?fref=photo
Columnist at The High Fidelity Report, Columnist/Writer at Part-Time Audiophile and Partner/Columnist/Writer at Audio360.org


----------



## Billheiser

syn res said:


> Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to libel my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.
> 
> Ted Denney
> Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


 
 Libel has to be false.  The analysis is not.


----------



## gikigill

Well well well......


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> For those who have questions for Ted, you can contact him through his Facebook page....
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Synergistic-Research/292108336578?pnref=lhc


 

 I've been reading the responses by SR to people asking about how the HOT works on facebook.
  
"Guys this is a hand made in Southern California $299 passive conditioner designed to improve the *subjective* performance of headphones."
  
 I also found the responses *here* enlightening.
  
  
_Wish I'd read all these before it would have made a lot of things clearer_


----------



## gikigill

"As for frequency response, harmonic distortion and measurements like that, they're basically useless and can't even show the difference in imaging and sound staging between a Bose Wave Radio and a pair of Wilson Alexandria speakers, for example" 

Yup, we are all a giant pack of idiots and so is anyone else who makes measuring equipment. Wonder how I can get my HD25 to sound like my STAX.


----------



## Billheiser

suntanscanman said:


> I've been reading the responses by SR to people asking about how the HOT works on facebook.
> 
> "Guys this is a hand made in Southern California $299 passive conditioner designed to improve the *subjective* performance of headphones."
> 
> ...


 
 On their website,  Syn Res calls it a "filter"; in another post they call it a "passive conditioner"; in another place they call it a "transducer".  Is there anything in the world that is all 3 of those?


----------



## Steve Eddy

syn res said:


> Steve Eddy your analysis regarding the compound is false. The compound as found in HOT is man-made and not naturally occurring. Since you have chosen to conduct a campaign to libel my company on a public forum I will give you only one chance to publish a full retraction.




The compound found inside the HOT was silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide is indeed a naturally occurring compound. Sure, you can synthesize it, but at the end of the day, you still end up with silicon dioxide, which is a naturally occurring compound.

se


----------



## spook76

Synergistic Research posted this on their Facebook page: 

"Greg like all transducers HOT converts one type of energy to another. In this case, electrical to mechanical energy but that's probably not what your asking, correct? The details, mechanism and composition of HOT are a trade secret, at least until the patents are granted."

Ted,

If in fact you have filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, then it is a publically available document as is the information contained therein. Please provide a hyperlink to patent application filed with the PTO you reference for the HOT.


----------



## Roly1650

Good job Steve, very well done.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

bigshot said:


> Oh man! Let's see a picture of the sand manufacturing machine!


 
 LOL, how are you not banned on Headfi yet?!


----------



## Steve Eddy

spook76 said:


> If in fact you have filed a patent application with the U.S. Patent Trademark Office, then it is a publically available document as is the information contained therein. Please provide a hyperlink to patent application filed with the PTO you reference for the HOT.




I believe there is a delay from the time the application is filed and it becoming available to the public. He currently has two patents issued, but I see no applications for this device.

se


----------



## spook76

steve eddy said:


> I believe there is a delay from the time the application is filed and it becoming available to the public. He currently has two patents issued, but I see no applications for this device.
> 
> se




That is true but it would be highly unusual to go to market with a product without having already filed a patent application long before hand. 

To analogize, I remember, when I purchased the SE846 in August of 2013, I found the patent applications from Shure already available on the PTO's website.


----------



## Mel Famie

spook76 said:


> That is true but it would be highly unusual to go to market with a product without having already filed a patent application long before hand.
> 
> To analogize, I remember, when I purchased the SE846 in August of 2013, I found the patent applications from Shure already available on the PTO's website.


 
  
 When you file a non-provisional, there's an 18 month delay before publication.


----------



## Steve Eddy

spook76 said:


> That is true but it would be highly unusual to go to market with a product without having already filed a patent application long before hand.
> 
> To analogize, I remember, when I purchased the SE846 in August of 2013, I found the patent applications from Shure already available on the PTO's website.




Yeah, that makes sense when you're a large company like Shure and your pockets are pretty deep. Remember, a patent is only as good as your ability to defend it. Otherwise, it's little more than a marketing tool. 

se


----------



## bigshot

dark_wizzie said:


> LOL, how are you not banned on Headfi yet?!


 

 Because this one has passed from blatantly obvious to self evident to totally absurd.
  
 Also I am one adorable mother- of a fella!


----------



## spook76

steve eddy said:


> Yeah, that makes sense when you're a large company like Shure and your pockets are pretty deep. Remember, a patent is only as good as your ability to defend it. Otherwise, it's little more than a marketing tool.
> 
> se




All true as is the 18 month delay however the question is if the company has already filed with the PTO, there is no reason to continue to claim they will not tell us their "trade secrets". If they have filed it is only a matter of time until it becomes public knowledge and such disclosure will not effect their application.


----------



## Steve Eddy

spook76 said:


> All true as is the 18 month delay however the question is if the company has already filed with the PTO, there is no reason to continue to claim they will not tell us their "trade secrets". If they have filed it is only a matter of time until it becomes public knowledge and such disclosure will not effect their application.




Well, patents don't necessarily preclude trade secrets. At least not up to a point. 

se


----------



## spook76

steve eddy said:


> Well, patents don't necessarily preclude trade secrets. At least not up to a point.
> 
> se



Unfortunately patents, a creation of US Federal law, preclude "trade secrets" which is a common law protection under Stare law. One of the requirements of trade secret protection is non disclosure where as patent protection requires full disclosure. One must choose trade secret (like the formula for Coke) or patent protection but once someone files for a patent they have voluntarily surrendered trade secret protection.

Patents have a limited duration whereas a properly protected trade secret can be forever. That is why Coke has never patented the formula but relies on trade secret protection.


----------



## mikeaj

In lieu of any technical response from the company...
  
 From the Facebook page:


> "What is this product supposed to do, exactly?" HOT dramatically improves the sense that you are listening to an actual sound stage as opposed to music played in-between your ears. Question: Have you ever heard of a negative expectation bias Joel [previous poster]? *SR users are among the most discerning and experienced audio consumers in the market.* When they don't like what they hear, they don't buy. Period. [emphasis added]


 
 Good to know.
  
  
 Well, we got some nice spectrographs out of this adventure, anyhow (and by "we" I mean we're totally a team of other people spending money, other people using their time, other people using lab equipment, and me and the rest of us doing nothing, right?). But what with the upcoming electrical measurements, I believe their claims would be that you wouldn't see anything (much) different there if they want to be consistent with themselves. Then again,


billheiser said:


> On their website,  Syn Res calls it a "filter"; in another post they call it a "passive conditioner"; in another place they call it a "transducer".  Is there anything in the world that is all 3 of those?


 
 they aren't really being consistent.
  
 But the whole transducer claim about converting "in this case, electrical to mechanical energy" should be clear enough. I mean, that's been mentioned multiple places, and "transducer" is in the name of the product. I think the main thing to check would be loss of electrical energy to the device. You can't produce any mechanical energy unless you're using some of the electrical energy from the amp, clearly.


----------



## bigshot

Let's all call a spade a spade. This company is full of hogwash. Anyone who gives them a penny is a sucker.
  
 They created a $300 product that is two jacks wired directly together. If that doesn't tell you something, all the scanning electron microscopes in the world won't tell you anything.
  
 The defenders have run for the hills. Stick a fork in it.


----------



## Steve Eddy

spook76 said:


> Unfortunately patents, a creation of US Federal law, preclude "trade secrets" which is a common law protection under Stare law. One of the requirements of trade secret protection is non disclosure where as patent protection requires full disclosure. One must choose trade secret (like the formula for Coke) or patent protection but once someone files for a patent they have voluntarily surrendered trade secret protection.
> 
> Patents have a limited duration whereas a properly protected trade secret can be forever. That is why Coke has never patented the formula but relies on trade secret protection.




Sure. Which is why I qualified it with "up to a point." By that I meant that trade secrets could be used for some functioning portion of the patent. For example with the HOT, you could say that the crystals are to be some sort of piezoelectric material, which would be fine for the purposes of the patent, but the exact formulation of the particular material you use could be kept a trade secret. 

se


----------



## bigshot

Why are we talking about patents and trade secrets about two plugs connected together with three wires? Are we as crazy as the people trying to sell us this junk?


----------



## dclaz

The sad part is the fact that people have to argue about stuff like this lends it a hugely inflated sense of credibility.


----------



## bigshot

dclaz said:


> The sad part is the fact that people have to argue about stuff like this lends it a hugely inflated sense of credibility.


 

 precisely


----------



## kraken2109

Well this thread got more interesting. It's always interesting to see some proper analysis of 'interesting' products.


----------



## mulder01

Have just noticed something.  SR aren't necessarily lying about what HOT does or how it's made...
  
 SR's original post about the HOT doesn't actually claim to make a _measurable_ difference.  They keep using the word "subjectively" which means it's effects are perceived differently by different people.  They say things like "HOT dramatically improves the _sense_ that you are listening to an actual sound stage".  They don't say that it alters the electrical signal in a way that improves soundstage, just like they don't say that it's not a placebo effect.  They say that it's a transducer that converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, and it is.  The material in the HOT will vibrate from the electrical current passing through it.  Does this achieve anything?  They don't say that it does, they just say that it happens.  Seems a bit dishonest that a company that sells isolation bases with a view to eliminate mechanical vibration also sells a product specifically designed to create mechanical vibration, but that's another argument.  It is a conductor, and it is passive because it's powered by the current flowing through it.  It may also be a filter because the 'crystals' or whatever they are may not behave the same way across the 20-20kHz range, so more electrical energy may be converted into mechanical energy at different frequencies, allowing more electrical energy to pass at certain frequencies than others, thus, technically it behaves as a filter.  (It's also optimised for headphone use because it has headphone connectors on it).  On many occasions they have been asked to explain how HOT works and how it improves soundstage and they don't, I mean, your perception of space comes from sound reaching your left and right ears at different times, and that information really is in the recording.  Doesn't seems like it it could possibly alter the electrical signal to achieve this effect, but they've never actually attempted to explain how it does, so you can't say that they're lying.  They chose to respond to the comment about the sand material inside not being synthetic, and hey, maybe they make their own sand, and yes, that would be way more expensive to produce than buying normal sand...  
  
You've got your believers in a product like this and you have your skeptics.  The skeptics will ignore it and not buy one, and the believers want it to work and there's a good chance that if you believe in a product, that you will get a _subjective difference in enjoyment_.  So, they say that _most_ of their customers ("most" meaning they have less than a 50% return rate) are happy with the results, and that's probably true too.  On their Facebook page someone commented "Sounds like snake oil to me..." and SR replied "Yes, snake oil with a 30-day no-risk money back guarantee".  Again, also true.
  
I agree that it's misleading marketing, and it seems quite dishonest, and I have noticed that they word all their comments very carefully and pick and choose what they respond to.  But they're probably not actually lying about most of their customers noticing a _subjective improvement in listening enjoyment_ (possibly due to placebo effect - who can say for sure).  They're also not lying about how it does what it does (behave as a passive conductive transducer that is also a filter) or the fact that they spend a lot of time assembling it by hand.  
  
Did they ever say it improves the electrical signal from your amp to your headphones?  Nope.  Sneaky.


----------



## cdsa35000

-BREAKING- DIY HOT AND IMPROVED FORMULA





Hi, as a broadband AV/computer/home electric engineer, I can see HOT is a would be 3 pole capacitor.
The silver strips are the poles and the dielectric is the magic pixie compound covered with plastic tube, based on the capacitor principles:
http://www.capacitorlab.com/inside-a-capacitor/

http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/capacitor/cap_2.html

http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/ac_theory/capacitors01.php

We know capacitance will phase-shift the signal running through and when speakers are connected "wrongly" as out of phase audio will sound spacey as out of the head. (google: in phase vs out of phase speakers)
So possibly the microphonic's crosstalk between the poles creates the phase-shiftings out of the head experience.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr08/articles/phasedemystified.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudspeaker_time_alignment 
---
Now can we DIY HOT much with "improved" magic dust compounds:
We can try these cooling paste:
http://www.arcticsilver.com/as5.htm

http://www.arctic.ac/eu_en/mx-4.html
 
Maybe you dont even need the silver strips, just inject the paste in the inside of the jack connector to fill in/up the 3 pole joints. Let us know your experiment results!
http://www.howtogeek.com/62999/how-to-replace-a-stereo-connector-and-salvage-audio-cables-and-headphones/?PageSpeed=noscript


---
---
If you really want to improve significantly more smoother/impulse/detail/airly/space dimention/control/"out of head" etc. your headphone sound, just solder/replace one of these badassbig mkp's in the stereo output L/R of your headamp.
http://www.partsconnexion.com/capacitor_film_mundorf_mkp.html

If there's no money/space you can put a 10uF(or lower)/250V in parallel to the existing output (bi-polar) capacitor of the headamp connected to phonejack output channels L/R.
The bigger xxx uF the better the lower bass response extention will be, otherwise only the high/mid range will be improved.


----------



## mulder01

If you're right, and it is a capacitive effect, wouldn't the distance between the right+ to ground and left+ to ground wires inside the device be the same, separated over the same distance by a material of the same dielectric constant and therefore have the same value of capacitance and shift the phase angles of both left and right channels by the same amount, so they would still be in phase, just ever so slightly delayed??


----------



## stv014

Parallel capacitance would have to be fairly high to make an audible difference, and even then if it is the same on both channels, it would just add treble roll-off. Additionally, most amplifiers that use negative feedback do not like driving capacitors, and if the capacitance is too high, they may become unstable (oscillate).
  
 One simple trick to change the sound with passive components in a connector would be to add ground resistance, which results in crosstalk with inverted phase. Or just serial resistance in general, as it adds a slight bass boost to most full size dynamic headphones.


----------



## Steve Eddy

Update: The second HOT unit was sent out from a purchaser in Europe. Estimated delivery is November 24th. This unit will be used for electrical testing. After which it will be auctioned off and the proceeds donated to a homeless charity per the owner's request.

se


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> Have just noticed something.  SR aren't necessarily lying about what HOT does or how it's made...
> 
> SR's original post about the HOT doesn't actually claim to make a _measurable_ difference.  They keep using the word "subjectively" which means it's effects are perceived differently by different people.  They say things like "HOT dramatically improves the _sense_ that you are listening to an actual sound stage".  They don't say that it alters the electrical signal in a way that improves soundstage, just like they don't say that it's not a placebo effect.  They say that it's a transducer that converts electrical energy to mechanical energy, and it is.  The material in the HOT will vibrate from the electrical current passing through it.  Does this achieve anything?  They don't say that it does, they just say that it happens.  Seems a bit dishonest that a company that sells isolation bases with a view to eliminate mechanical vibration also sells a product specifically designed to create mechanical vibration, but that's another argument.  It is a conductor, and it is passive because it's powered by the current flowing through it.  It may also be a filter because the 'crystals' or whatever they are may not behave the same way across the 20-20kHz range, so more electrical energy may be converted into mechanical energy at different frequencies, allowing more electrical energy to pass at certain frequencies than others, thus, technically it behaves as a filter.  (It's also optimised for headphone use because it has headphone connectors on it).  On many occasions they have been asked to explain how HOT works and how it improves soundstage and they don't, I mean, your perception of space comes from sound reaching your left and right ears at different times, and that information really is in the recording.  Doesn't seems like it it could possibly alter the electrical signal to achieve this effect, but they've never actually attempted to explain how it does, so you can't say that they're lying.  They chose to respond to the comment about the sand material inside not being synthetic, and hey, maybe they make their own sand, and yes, that would be way more expensive to produce than buying normal sand...
> 
> ...


 

 of course they aren't lying. they are not idiots.
 in fact the double language of the hot page was the very first thing that made me suspicious. they take good care to not talk about anything real with a clear definition, all the improvements are indeed on a subjective domain so when people complain about it, they can juggle with the definition of such subjective words and not risk any legal pursuit.
 it's like what you can get from some shameless cable makers who will tell you all about how much more air, soundstage, and natural you can get. none of those words meaning anything.
 because if they were to say you'll get a 5db improvement in crosstalk, +0.2db in trebles at 18khz, and lower phase shift, they would be accountable for those claims.
 it's marketing pure and simple with nothing to fear is you don't deliver.


----------



## bigshot

HOT is definitely a transducer. It converts hot air into hard cash.


----------



## Armaegis

I was almost gonna offer to do some electron microscopy, but it looks like I've been beaten to it. Interesting read gentlemen.


----------



## Billheiser

I actually tried their HFT devices.  Worked very well when I put them up on the walls as prescribed, and listened.  Better depth, soundstage, deep bass, bloom, I thought.  Then my buddy and I took turns listening with eyes closed, not knowing when the devices were installed or not.  Result: neither of us could tell when they were on the walls versus when they were packed away in their box in another room.
 I.e., they did not work.
  
 Power of suggestion is a powerful thing.


----------



## SilverEars

cdsa35000 said:


> -BREAKING- DIY HOT AND IMPROVED FORMULA
> 
> Hi, as a broadband AV/computer/home electric engineer, I can see HOT is a would be 3 pole capacitor.
> The silver strips are the poles and the dielectric is the magic pixie compound covered with plastic tube, based on the capacitor principles:
> ...


 
 Interesting.  Phase shift would create a soundstage like affect if the L and R channels are out of phase.  So one channel is connected to the capacitor creating phase mismatch?  This could explain what is heard.  As far as crosstalk, it would create sound stage like affects also.  At least we now know there was some intentions behind it now.
  
 Waiting for SE's electrical test results. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But, would we get good measurements given the thing is tore up now?


----------



## dclaz

silverears said:


> Interesting.  Phase shift would create a soundstage like affect if the L and R channels are out of phase.  So one channel is connected to the capacitor creating phase mismatch?  This could explain what is heard.  As far as crosstalk, it would create sound stage like affects also.  At least we now know there was some intentions behind it now.
> 
> Waiting for SE's electrical test results.
> 
> ...


 
 He has obtained another one from an owner.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silverears said:


> Interesting.  Phase shift would create a soundstage like affect if the L and R channels are out of phase.  So one channel is connected to the capacitor creating phase mismatch?  This could explain what is heard.  As far as crosstalk, it would create sound stage like affects also.  At least we now know there was some intentions behind it now.




You seem to be conflating two different things, phase shift and polarity inversion. 

Whatever additional capacitance the tiny little foils may be adding, would be totally swamped by the capacitance of the cable itself. If I were to be generous, it would be like using a cable that was an inch longer. And an inch more of any cable you care to name would cost less than $300.

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

dclaz said:


> He has obtained another one from an owner.




Haven't obtained it just yet. It's probably somewhere over the Atlantic about now. 

se


----------



## SilverEars

steve eddy said:


> You seem to be conflating two different things, phase shift and polarity inversion.
> 
> Whatever additional capacitance the tiny little foils may be adding, would be totally swamped by the capacitance of the cable itself. If I were to be generous, it would be like using a cable that was an inch longer. And an inch more of any cable you care to name would cost less than $300.
> 
> se


 
 Well, my post is in response to this:
  


cdsa35000 said:


> .





> Hi, as a broadband AV/computer/home electric engineer, I can see HOT is a would be *3 pole capacitor*


 
  
 As, he is seeing a capacitor.  So if it is a capacitor, it's should have more affect than an additional inch of cable.  The cables I've seen measured, capacitance is negligible.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silverears said:


> Well, my post is in response to this:
> 
> 
> As, he is seeing a capacitor.  So if it is a capacitor, it's should have more affect than an additional inch of cable.  The cables I've seen measured, capacitance is negligible.




And the added capacitance of the HOT would be far far FAR less than the negligible capacitance of a typical cable.

Just because someone calls something that possesses capacitance "a capacitor" doesn't mean a thing.

se


----------



## SilverEars

cdsa35000 said:


> -BREAKING- DIY HOT AND IMPROVED FORMULA
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 Well, he is stating that the innards looks to be made up like a capacitor.  If it was simply a plug pass-through, it's nothing more than additional wire.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Well, he is stating that the innards looks to be made up like a capacitor.  If it was simply a plug pass-through, it's nothing more than additional wire.


 

 Two wires hanging in the air form a capacitor.  Just not one of much capacitance.  HOT would also have some capacitance though the conductive goop holding the SiO2 would short that effect out.  Leaving you again with darn little capacitance.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silverears said:


> Well, he is stating that the innards looks to be made up like a capacitor.  If it was simply a plug pass-through, it's nothing more than additional wire.




Any two conductors (including wires) that are separated by a dielectric can be called "a capacitor." It really doesn't mean much. What counts is how much capacitance is involved. And in the case of the HOT, we're talking about a microscopically small amount of it.

se


----------



## SilverEars

Well, we know capacitance depends on the metallic area, and the dielectric material type in between.  Given he is posting the image of the tear down and postings of the makings of a capacitor, maybe he is seeing things in the images that could provide large metal area with an insulator in between to create significant enough capacitance. For me, it's hard to make out the structure.  I'm not referring to the hanging wires.


----------



## bigshot

I have no trouble at all making out what this is from the photo.


----------



## esldude

silverears said:


> Well, we know capacitance depends on the metallic area, and the dielectric material type in between.  Given he is posting the image of the tear down and postings of the makings of a capacitor, maybe he is seeing things in the images that could provide large metal area with an insulator in between to create significant enough capacitance. For me, it's hard to make out the structure.  I'm not referring to the hanging wires.


 
 http://www.daycounter.com/Calculators/Plate-Capacitor-Calculator.phtml
  
 You can look here.  If I am very generous and put in the area for a 6x6 inch foil, a separation of 1/100th of a millimeter, and use the dielectric coefficient of 1 then I get an answer of just about 2 picofarads.  And I can pretty well tell you what is in that device is a few times less capacitance than this.  Just for comparison RG59 coax cable has just about this amount of capacitance per inch.


----------



## arnaud

mulder01 said:


> Have just noticed something.  SR aren't necessarily lying about what HOT does or how it's made...
> ...
> Did they ever say it improves the electrical signal from your amp to your headphones?  Nope.  Sneaky. Snaky.


 
  
 I thought I might have seen a typo in your text.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silverears said:


> Well, we know capacitance depends on the metallic area, and the dielectric material type in between.  Given he is posting the image of the tear down and postings of the makings of a capacitor, maybe he is seeing things in the images that could provide large metal area with an insulator in between to create significant enough capacitance. For me, it's hard to make out the structure.  I'm not referring to the hanging wires.




What esldude said. 

se


----------



## swannie007

Gee, and ONLY $300.00. Can't wait to buy one! Having seen this device, I now know that my life will be incomplete until I get one and can brag  about it to all my friends! I'm not mocking it now, just damned excited so please don't delete my post as this is my opinion and I truly wanted to share it.


----------



## mulder01

You feeling ok swannie?
  
  
 Hold on, even if this thing was just a cap, isn't that a bad thing?  From memory I think Ray Sameuls makes a point of mentioning that his designs have NO capacitors in the signal path...


----------



## mulder01

castleofargh said:


> of course they aren't lying. they are not idiots.
> in fact the double language of the hot page was the very first thing that made me suspicious. they take good care to not talk about anything real with a clear definition, all the improvements are indeed on a subjective domain so when people complain about it, they can juggle with the definition of such subjective words and not risk any legal pursuit.
> it's like what you can get from some shameless cable makers who will tell you all about how much more air, soundstage, and natural you can get. none of those words meaning anything.
> because if they were to say you'll get a 5db improvement in crosstalk, +0.2db in trebles at 18khz, and lower phase shift, they would be accountable for those claims.
> it's marketing pure and simple with nothing to fear is you don't deliver.


 
  
 Interesting point.  I noticed Schiit Audio in particular are very cautious about what they claim their products do.  Most of their products are DACs and amps, and have measurable stats and that's fine, but all they are willing to claim about their cables is "These are nice, high-quality cables, with solid reliable connectors.  That's it."  And for their USB 'Decrapifier' which cleans up the USB signal coming from your computer they write "But some listeners say Wyrd improves the sound of their system. We’re not going to make any such claims."
  
 Maybe they noticed how Red Bull recently lost a lawsuit and had to pay $13,000,000 in compensation because Red Bull does not in fact 'give you wings'.
  
 I wonder if one day some rich lawyer will spend a bucketload of money on a power cord and find that it' doesn't do anything then file a lawsuit against the cable manufacturer.  I'm sure I have seen companies claim their power cables improve sound before.  Maybe I wasn't reading the descriptions carefully enough to notice that they've thrown in all the buzzwords audiophiles want to hear, but their descriptions don't actually promise anything.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

mulder01 said:


> Interesting point.  I noticed Schiit Audio in particular are very cautious about what they claim their products do.  Most of their products are DACs and amps, and have measurable stats and that's fine, but all they are willing to claim about their cables is "These are nice, high-quality cables, with solid reliable connectors.  That's it."  And for their USB 'Decrapifier' which cleans up the USB signal coming from your computer they write "But some listeners say Wyrd improves the sound of their system. We’re not going to make any such claims."
> 
> Maybe they noticed how Red Bull recently lost a lawsuit and had to pay $13,000,000 in compensation because Red Bull does not in fact 'give you wings'.
> 
> I wonder if one day some rich lawyer will spend a bucketload of money on a power cord and find that it' doesn't do anything then file a lawsuit against the cable manufacturer.  I'm sure I have seen companies claim their power cables improve sound before.  Maybe I wasn't reading the descriptions carefully enough to notice that they've thrown in all the buzzwords audiophiles want to hear, but their descriptions don't actually promise anything.


 
 Red Bull actually lost such a lawsuit? That is HILARIOUS. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Anyways, I always found it funny that some audiophiles claim to hear an improvement... and sometimes a sizable one at that... for a product which the designers didn't believe would change or improve sound quality. Steve Eddy makes cables yet doesn't believe his cables make the sound even better, right? So what must be going through his head when he reads such comments? I read the FAQ for the Schiit Ragnorok and in there basically it specifically pointed out that they are NOT claiming there to be an audible improvement in sound quality, instead comparing the amp to a Timex vs a Rolex (and some car analogy that went over my head). I think that's pretty cool of them to be that honest.


----------



## swannie007

mulder01 said:


> You feeling ok swannie?
> 
> 
> Hold on, even if this thing was just a cap, isn't that a bad thing?  From memory I think Ray Sameuls makes a point of mentioning that his designs have NO capacitors in the signal path...


 

 Yea, I'm just so damned excited by this thing I could just crap! I bet they sell a boatload to those folks who bought the Pono players!


----------



## castleofargh

mulder01 said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > of course they aren't lying. they are not idiots.
> ...


 
 agreed, strange claims for the wyrd were all made by headfiers, none by shiit.
  
  
 I wonder for redbull if somebody came and told them they couldn't say it was a hoax before they tried it themselves, like we were told here? I guess the compensation is that high to account for all those who died trying to fly during the trial.


----------



## drez

I think the main difference is that you can easily prove that Red Bull does not give you wings. Wings are big flappy things birds have, we all understand what they are and how to determine whether or not they exist. 

As was alluded to earlier in the thread, imaging soundstage etc are all subjective terms which sound scientists have trouble describing let alone measuring. There are no established means to measure (for example) soundstage, therefore no established means to disprove a claim relating to soundstage. Therefore you cannot sue a company for not providing soundstage, and cannot defend yourself if you claim they are crooks for selling cables without soundstage etc.


----------



## bigshot

Soundstage as it exists in recorded music is a function of phase and frequency response, both of which are measurable. It is a very specific term, not vague at all. It is just used incorrectly too often by people who don't really know what it is and how it is created.


----------



## mulder01

So, sound science forum people, I know we have HOT measurements pending, but I'm just working on the assumption that it will not enhance soundstage, so can I ask your opinions on weather AMPS can make a difference in soundstage?  If the information is in the recording, is there any way this can be enhanced by an amplifier?  A lot of people claim to hear differences in soundstage switching between gear which I'd like to believe but haven't particularly noticed myself.  Having said that, I don't get to try a big range of stuff.
  
 I own a Violectric v281 amp and on that thread a decent chunk of people claim to notice a big difference in soundstage between the balanced and single ended outputs.  I actually haven't tried it, only due to the fact that I have a single ended adapter away in a box and I'd have to get it out...  Just interested to know from a scientific point of view if there is any truth to anything being able to improve soundstage besides creating it in the recording process.  Or does a more detailed soundstage just come hand in hand with generally more detailed sound?


----------



## drez

bigshot said:


> Soundstage as it exists in recorded music is a function of phase and frequency response, both of which are measurable. It is a very specific term, not vague at all. It is just used incorrectly too often by people who don't really know what it is and how it is created.




Interesting. I Always wondered if you make the signal more out of phase, this might make the soundstage appear larger?


----------



## mulder01

It would seem like that would shift the soundstage to one side?  If you had a delay to the right headphone, the soundstage would still have the same presentation, but off to the left a bit, correct?


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> Soundstage as it exists in recorded music is a function of phase and frequency response...






se


----------



## marcswede

I made my own HOTish adapter yesterday. Left and right channel untouched and a 3F ultracapacitor in parallel with ground.


----------



## GearMe

bigshot said:


> Soundstage as it exists in recorded music is a function of phase and frequency response, both of which are measurable. It is a very specific term, not vague at all.







steve eddy said:


> se




No variability in perceived sound stage due to headphone design, an individual's hearing capabilities, or how their brain interprets the signals sent from their ears?


----------



## mikeaj

mulder01 said:


> So, sound science forum people, I know we have HOT measurements pending, but I'm just working on the assumption that it will not enhance soundstage, so can I ask your opinions on weather AMPS can make a difference in soundstage?  If the information is in the recording, is there any way this can be enhanced by an amplifier?  A lot of people claim to hear differences in soundstage switching between gear which I'd like to believe but haven't particularly noticed myself.  Having said that, I don't get to try a big range of stuff.
> 
> I own a Violectric v281 amp and on that thread a decent chunk of people claim to notice a big difference in soundstage between the balanced and single ended outputs.  I actually haven't tried it, only due to the fact that I have a single ended adapter away in a box and I'd have to get it out...  Just interested to know from a scientific point of view if there is any truth to anything being able to improve soundstage besides creating it in the recording process.  Or does a more detailed soundstage just come hand in hand with generally more detailed sound?


 
  
 There are some things the amp could do that may impact how soundstage is perceived but that would involve intentional deviations that would result in different things for different headphones. Definitely one thing it could do would be to have some series resistance on the ground return, for example, thus introducing crosstalk.
  
 In any case, some signal processing is a much more powerful tool if some differences are desired. I mean, the soundstage you get out of playback on speakers on recordings designed to be played back on speakers is a constructed illusion (sometimes a very good one), anyway. And the soundstage you get with headphones playing those same recordings back is definitely wrong in the sense that it doesn't at all match what you'd get with speakers and generally never sounds like anything one would hear in the audience or even on stage. I mean to say that some compensation and adjusting the signal is justified if it sounds better to you, and there are good reasons why this may be the case too. But I wouldn't think to trying different amps to achieve these goals.
  
 That said, especially with a two-channel source, there's not much to work with. If something's panned to the left and something else to the right, it's not like you can adjust those positions without affecting other sounds. The mix is set. Generally the main thing that can be done is to narrow (and to some degree and maybe less success, widen) the soundstage that's set.


----------



## Billheiser

Don't forget the other side of the picture. Better amplification gives better soundstage - it doesn't create stuff that isn't there but lets all of the signal through with less damage so you get more of what has been recorded.


----------



## bigshot

mulder01 said:


> So, sound science forum people, I know we have HOT measurements pending, but I'm just working on the assumption that it will not enhance soundstage, so can I ask your opinions on weather AMPS can make a difference in soundstage?


 
  
 Yes, soundstage can be degraded by crosstalk (primary phase issues) and frequency response (masking of secondary depth cues). Neither of these are really an issue in modern solid state amps though. Soundstage can also be enhanced through DSPs built into AV amps.


----------



## bigshot

drez said:


> Interesting. I Always wondered if you make the signal more out of phase, this might make the soundstage appear larger?


 
  
 That is the basic idea in a lot of DSPs. I use one called "Stereo to 5.1" which is built into my Yamaha AV amp. It does two things, it filters by frequency and phase to separate out a true center and sub channel. And it adjusts the phase between all five speakers to create a synthetic sound field between them. The effect increases the size of the recorded soundstage by double, while still maintaining precise instrument placement within the sound stage.


----------



## Steve Eddy

marcswede said:


> I made my own HOTish adapter yesterday. Left and right channel untouched and a 3F ultracapacitor in parallel with ground.




If it's parallel with ground, how is it acting like a capacitor?

se


----------



## Steve Eddy

gearme said:


> No variability in perceived sound stage due to headphone design, an individual's hearing capabilities, or how their brain interprets the signals sent from their ears?




I was curious why he left out ILD (inter aural level differences).

se


----------



## bigshot

gearme said:


> No variability in perceived sound stage due to headphone design, an individual's hearing capabilities, or how their brain interprets the signals sent from their ears?


 
  
 Of course, but those are all mechanical and biological. The question I was answering was referring the specifications and measurements of electronics.


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> I was curious why he left out ILD (inter aural level differences).


 
  
 I was thinking that any difference between channels fell under the umbrella of phase, but you are right. Volume isn't phase. I doubt there is an amp made that has problems with relative volumes like that though.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> I was thinking that any difference between channels fell under the umbrella of phase, but you are right. Volume isn't phase. I doubt there is an amp made that has problems with relative volumes like that though.




Yeah. You'd pretty much have to go out of your way to do that.

se


----------



## Armaegis

steve eddy said:


> If it's parallel with ground, how is it acting like a capacitor?
> 
> se


 
  
 He used a green capacitor. Green makes things sound better. Obviously!


----------



## mulder01

swannie007 said:


> Yea, I'm just so damned excited by this thing I could just crap! I bet they sell a boatload to those folks who bought the Pono players!


 
  
 Let us know how your blind tests go when you receive yours.


----------



## swannie007

mulder01 said:


> Let us know how your blind tests go when you receive yours.


 

 That was posted "tongue in cheek" so unfortunately no tests, blind or otherwise. Cheers.


----------



## mulder01

swannie007 said:


> That was posted "tongue in cheek" so unfortunately no tests, blind or otherwise. Cheers.


 
  
 What's wrong with asking that?  
  
 I have to test everything blind if the differences are subtle because it's the only way of knowing what's what.  If possible I try and do an A/B test switching back and forward between things quickly. 
  
 Over the years I've found that if you go out and spend some coin on a new piece of gear, bring it home and plug it in and have a listen while you're excited and looking at it, it seems to sound better...  I'm not trying to be a smartarse, obviously there is a lot of negativity surrounding this product in this thread, but nobody is willing to spend the money on one to do a proper listening test.  If you're going to buy one, what's wrong with asking you to test it out properly and let us know how it goes?  If you refuse to do a blind test on it, that kinda says you have no confidence in it.  So why buy it.


----------



## marcswede

armaegis said:


> He used a green capacitor. Green makes things sound better. Obviously!




Nah, it was black, the color of _M-y-s-t-e-r-y_


----------



## swannie007

mulder01 said:


> What's wrong with asking that?
> 
> I have to test everything blind if the differences are subtle because it's the only way of knowing what's what.  If possible I try and do an A/B test switching back and forward between things quickly.
> 
> Over the years I've found that if you go out and spend some coin on a new piece of gear, bring it home and plug it in and have a listen while you're excited and looking at it, it seems to sound better...  I'm not trying to be a smartarse, obviously there is a lot of negativity surrounding this product in this thread, but nobody is willing to spend the money on one to do a proper listening test.  If you're going to buy one, what's wrong with asking you to test it out properly and let us know how it goes?  If you refuse to do a blind test on it, that kinda says you have no confidence in it.  So why buy it.



Mulder,
Nothing wrong with asking that, it's just that I thought that the statement "tongue in cheek" was understood by most. It means I was kidding. Sorry if you misunderstood, didn't mean to be flippant with you. Cheers.


----------



## SilentFrequency

Firstly, I've been following this thread as a owner of Sennheiser HD800 headphones which incidentally are fab and apparently the HOT was "voiced" with them, so quirky twist I guess.

But, this is just a suggestion, but why not see if Tyll Hertsens would ear test the HOT?

I've watched video of Tyll blind testing AKG headphones, switching between burnt/unburnt in same model headphones before and he totally got everyone correct.

Just a suggestion, but thanks to everyone whom has contributed to this very interesting topic so far!


----------



## bigshot

I still find it amazing that people think it's worth testing two plugs with three wires connecting them together. It just shows how entrenched the false belief system is in audiophile circles. The teardown photo makes it  blatantly obvious that this placebo machine doesn't do a thing to the sound, golden ears or not. Do people know that little about how the equipment they buy works?


----------



## Mel Famie

I'll have electrical measurements shortly to confirm that (or refute it, as if).


----------



## bigshot

The reviews are pouring in!
 http://www.audioaficionado.org/headphones-earphones/28753-synergistic-research-hot-2.html
  
 "*In many threads I said that company was a scam and a fraud with each new product they released. Their products are absolute (word removed) and a waste of money. Those (word removed) were laughing all the way to the bank playing on the frailties and insecurities of audiophiles. I feel totally redeemed now that someone produced evidence that I was right all along. (word removed) you, Synergistic Research."*
  
*"Makes you question the authenticity of dealers who subscribe to and sell this brand."*


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> I still find it amazing that people think it's worth testing two plugs with three wires connecting them together. It just shows how entrenched the false belief system is in audiophile circles. The teardown photo makes it  blatantly obvious that this placebo machine doesn't do a thing to the sound, golden ears or not. Do people know that little about how the equipment they buy works?


 

 +1  Really amazing.


----------



## Billheiser

bigshot said:


> I still find it amazing that people think it's worth testing two plugs with three wires connecting them together. It just shows how entrenched the false belief system is in audiophile circles. The teardown photo makes it  blatantly obvious that this placebo machine doesn't do a thing to the sound, golden ears or not. Do people know that little about how the equipment they buy works?


True. However, testing it might be helpful to people on the fence about the product. Plenty of people have bought the HOT and other magic products from the Syn Res company, and those who are "satisfied customers", due to placebo effects (and/or expectation bias and/or cognitive dissonance and/or appeal to authority), influence others. Syn Res depends on this for sales. Some potential customers want to put faith in companies that claim to be experts. If there are good blind tests that show no audible effect, it would help some folks to not throw away their money.


----------



## Steve Eddy

mel famie said:


> I'll have electrical measurements shortly to confirm that (or refute it, as if).




Just so people won't get confused and think they're waiting on you to do the measurements, I haven't received the second unit yet. So measurements won't happen until I do and send it on to you. Then they can start breathing down your neck. 

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> I still find it amazing that people think it's worth testing two plugs with three wires connecting them together. It just shows how entrenched the false belief system is in audiophile circles. The teardown photo makes it  blatantly obvious that this placebo machine doesn't do a thing to the sound, golden ears or not. Do people know that little about how the equipment they buy works?




I'm a newbie audiophile and don't understand the tear down pics in as much I've never looked under the hood of my car. I'm not kidding, but even if I did I wouldn't understand what but did what. Not that such comparison gives any validity to the HOT.

I'm just saying that Tyll Hertsens review of HOT would be interesting and more accessible perhaps rather than a lot of technical terms.

I'm not saying dumb down but maybe a laymans terms would be good too as this thread though great is a little daunting, at least to me anyway, sorry, please don't come down hard on what I convey as I mean it in the best possible way


----------



## Mel Famie

They can breathe all they want. I'll take my sweet time and do it right.


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> Firstly, I've been following this thread as a owner of Sennheiser HD800 headphones which incidentally are fab and apparently the HOT was "voiced" with them, so quirky twist I guess.
> 
> But, this is just a suggestion, but why not see if Tyll Hertsens would ear test the HOT?
> 
> ...


 

 and nothing disturbs you when you see that it was "voiced" for the hd800 and the lcd3? do you find anything that could actually link those 2 headphones except that they both are named in the propaganda to give an obvious sense of "greatness by association"? go look at the specs of a hd800 and a lcd3 and tell me how on earth something could be "voiced"(whatever that means) for both of them at the same time. oh but I know it's probably all the advanced tech inside the plug that recognizes the headphone and adapts to it by "syntonization"...
  
 wake up people!!!!


----------



## SilentFrequency

castleofargh said:


> and nothing disturbs you when you see that it was "voiced" for the hd800 and the lcd3? do you find anything that could actually link those 2 headphones except that they both are named in the propaganda to give an obvious sense of "greatness by association"? go look at the specs of a hd800 and a lcd3 and tell me how on earth something could be "voiced"(whatever that means) for both of them at the same time. oh but I know it's probably all the advanced tech inside the plug that recognizes the headphone and adapts to it by "syntonization"...
> 
> wake up people!!!!





I own the HD800 only, my father bought it for me, then an amplifier later when I realised they wouldn't work properly without so that is where my point of audiophile entry began, so this world is new to me but not disturbing.

As a new audiophile I'm sorry not to get many of the comments made here hence my suggestion for maybe Tyll Hertsens do a ear test of this HOT device as he may deliver a more accessible synopsis than here (no disrespect inferred whatsoever to this thread).

I'm actually just making a suggestion


----------



## bigshot

billheiser said:


> True. However, testing it might be helpful to people on the fence about the product.


 
  
 What help will a test that says it does nothing be if a person is still on the fence after seeing a picture proving it does nothing? What is there to be on the fence about? Anyone who is seriously considering buying this had better realize that they are distinctly unqualified to make an informed decision on the purchase of any audio equipment.


----------



## bigshot

silentfrequency said:


> I'm a newbie audiophile and don't understand the tear down pics in as much I've never looked under the hood of my car. I'm not kidding, but even if I did I wouldn't understand what but did what. Not that such comparison gives any validity to the HOT.


 
  
 The picture shows that there is NOTHING in the signal path from the jack going in to the jack going out. No electronics at all. It's basically a straight wire running through a plastic tube.
  
 It is very important in life to make informed decisions about things. Don't depend on what a salesman tells you. Do research and understand the basics of how things work. Then you can make a decision. If you depend on what "experts" tell you without doing the legwork to verify that they really know what they are talking about and are presenting their info honestly, you will be taken advantage of BIG TIME. Not just in audiophile circles but in everyday life.


----------



## SilentFrequency

Well why then should anyone make test/reviews unless the prospective user knows how the thing works?

I *bought my hd800's after checking many owners reviews and hearing them myself but trust reviewers like Tyll Hertsens and he puts no caveat that viewers need to know the mechanics of his subjects of review.

I really don't see the problem in suggesting a trusted and well respected reviewer make review of the HOT device either way?

Edit: *actually my father bought them for me initially after he checked reviews firstly but I found out they needed an amplifier for them to work, but I could have returned them if I didn't like them but luckily I did, but you get the picture I hope


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> The picture shows that there is NOTHING in the signal path from the jack going in to the jack going out. No electronics at all. It's basically a straight wire running through a plastic tube.
> 
> It is very important in life to make informed decisions about things. Don't depend on what a salesman tells you. Do research and understand the basics of how things work. Then you can make a decision. If you depend on what "experts" tell you without doing the legwork to verify that they really know what they are talking about and are presenting their info honestly, you will be taken advantage of BIG TIME. Not just in audiophile circles but in everyday life.




I do appreciate your opinion and do agree with the latter part of your comment.

Just to clarify, I'm simply making suggestion from my stand point as a newcomer to the audiophile world and certainly am taking in points made by yourself and other more technically astute members.

It is a steep learning curve but hope my comments aren't dismissed regardless.


----------



## bigshot

There are well respected reviewers who have done totally bogus reviews before. Here is an example of a well known audiophile site giving a positive review to a $100 jar of rocks. They suggest that if you put a jar of special rocks next to your stereo, you will get better sound.
  
 http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html
  
 I'm not suggesting that Tyll isn't honest or knowledgeable. I'm saying that you can't tell a good reviewer from one that is spewing bologna without having a frame of reference and understanding yourself. No one looks out for you better than you. Don't rely on anyone else to take care of you. You will end up burned.


----------



## Billheiser

silentfrequency said:


> I'm a newbie audiophile and don't understand the tear down pics in as much I've never looked under the hood of my car. I'm not kidding, but even if I did I wouldn't understand what but did what. Not that such comparison gives any validity to the HOT.
> 
> I'm just saying that Tyll Hertsens review of HOT would be interesting and more accessible perhaps rather than a lot of technical terms.
> 
> I'm not saying dumb down but maybe a laymans terms would be good too as this thread though great is a little daunting, at least to me anyway, sorry, please don't come down hard on what I convey as I mean it in the best possible way


 

 Agree, a review by Tyll or someone of his level of integrity would be helpful.  He knows his technical stuff, but writes and communicates well to people at any level of technical interest, with the goal of enjoying well-played music.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> There are well respected reviewers who have done totally bogus reviews before. Here is an example of a well known audiophile site giving a positive review to a $100 jar of rocks. They suggest that if you put a jar of special rocks next to your stereo, you will get better sound.
> 
> http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Tyll isn't honest or knowledgeable. I'm saying that you can't tell a good reviewer from one that is spewing bologna without having a frame of reference and understanding yourself. No one looks out for you better than you. Don't rely on anyone else to take care of you. You will end up burned.




Oh yes I understand, that is kind advice, so thank you


----------



## sonitus mirus

I've seen engineers that always have a smile on their face claim that different cables and amplifiers make an audible difference with their 3D-printed headphones. Always the more expensive versions seem to make the best improvements in sound, even if they don't measure differently from a perspective of human hearing ability.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

bigshot said:


> *http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/edge3/edge3.html*


 
 What?


----------



## Speedskater

My thoughts about the 6 moons site.
  
 a] All of the reviewers are poets, artists or dreamers.
 b] Most of the reviewers have zero technical knowledge.
 c] There reviews are neither neutral or critical.
 d] 6 moons is moving towards only reviewing products from manufactures and suppliers that financially support 6 moons.
 e] Much of each review is based on rewriting information provided by the manufacture.


----------



## limpidglitch

silentfrequency said:


> I do appreciate your opinion and do agree with the latter part of your comment.
> 
> Just to clarify, I'm simply making suggestion from my stand point as a newcomer to the audiophile world and certainly am taking in points made by yourself and other more technically astute members.
> 
> It is a steep learning curve but hope my comments aren't dismissed regardless.


 
  
 I doubt Tyll would even consider reviewing it, and 'review' is too kind a word to use about this thing.
 If the HOT was eligible for a review, then what wouldn't be? Does the headphones sound different if you put a marble up your nose? Wear yellow socks? Align all devices with the cardinal directions? When there's a full moon?
 Honestly, where would you draw the line?


----------



## bigshot

speedskater said:


> My thoughts about the 6 moons site.
> 
> a] All of the reviewers are poets, artists or dreamers.
> b] Most of the reviewers have zero technical knowledge.
> ...


 

 Six Moons isn't atypical of audiophile review publications and sites.


----------



## bigshot

Some reviews of Synergistic Research's products
  
 http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews2/synergistic/1.html
 http://www.audiostream.com/content/synergistic-research-high-frequency-transducer-and-frequency-equalizer
 http://www.synergisticresearch.com/sophic/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/TAS-Element-Review.pdf
 http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php/equipment-menu/476-synergistic-research-high-frequency-transducer-hft-and-frequency-equalizer-feq-room-treatments-and-xot-crossover-transducer
 http://www.hifi-advice.com/transparent-ultra-vs-synergistic-research-review.html
 http://www.ultraaudio.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=244:synergistic-research-element-copper-tungsten-and-copper-tungsten-silver-interconnects-and-speaker-cables&catid=37:full-length-reviews&Itemid=2
  
 "Once in place in my system, the Element Copper cables grabbed my attention like the ice-cream man on a hot summer’s day. They threw an absolutely immense soundstage with uncanny image solidity. They sounded rich, full-bodied, weighty, sweet, and warm. They also had Synergistic’s trademark holographic sound, making my MartinLogan Summit X speakers image as deftly as has any cable I’ve used in my system."
  
 Give it a few weeks and we will see a slew of similar reviews of HOT.


----------



## Speedskater

There is nothing wrong with doing manufacturer's supported articles about products.  The US auto magazines do it all the time about new model cars.  Of course the auto mags may do a very critical comparison test of that same new car.  Audiophiles get in trouble when they think that 6 moons (and the like) have any comparison information.


----------



## mulder01

I think what SilentFrequency is asking for isn't _that_ ridiculous.  Like they said, you can show some people all the photos you want but the majority of people have zero understanding about electricity.  (Trust me, I'm an electrician, and some of the questions I get asked... jeez).  So you can show them all the pictures you want and it means nothing.  If you showed some people under the bonnet of a car with the engine completely removed, you could easily convince them that it's a new lightweight electric model and that's how they make them now, and they would believe you because they just don't know.  I think the general lack of knowledge in this area is the reason there is a thriving industry for these sort of products, and those without technical knowledge would benefit more from a well respected neutral party giving their opinion.


----------



## bigshot

I was under the impression that just about all of the audiophile press has succumbed to advertorial.


----------



## SilentFrequency

sonitus mirus said:


> I've seen engineers that always have a smile on their face claim that different cables and amplifiers make an audible difference with their 3D-printed headphones. Always the more expensive versions seem to make the best improvements in sound, even if they don't measure differently from a perspective of human hearing ability.




I only really know of Tyll Hertsens tbh but noticed mention earlier in this thread of a reviewer called Mike Mercer, so am unaware whether he is held in the same level of trust as the former?


----------



## Steve Eddy

Update: The second HOT unit just arrived. I will send it off to Mr. Famey tomorrow and he should have it there on Monday for the electrical testing.

se


----------



## Mel Famie

That's DOCTOR Famie to you, buddy boy.


----------



## Billheiser

silentfrequency said:


> I only really know of Tyll Hertsens tbh but noticed mention earlier in this thread of a reviewer called Mike Mercer, so am unaware whether he is held in the same level of trust as the former?



Mercer's enthusiasm is contagious and he's a great "evangelist" for good gear. But I think he is subject to placebo effects like any of us, and let himself be led astray by the claims of the HOT. I would rely more on Tyll, if he feels like evaluating the HOT.


----------



## SilentFrequency

billheiser said:


> Mercer's enthusiasm is contagious and he's a great "evangelist" for good gear. But I think he is subject to placebo effects like any of us, and let himself be led astray by the claims of the HOT. I would rely more on Tyll, if he feels like evaluating the HOT.




Thank you 

Yes, I kind of understand the desire to get the very best out of ones headphones totally as even though I'm very happy with my hd800's, coming here to this site and reading all the various other members comments on their individual set ups it does become a tad contagious to start looking for something extra to give that extra sparkle of audio quality where it may not necessarily be needed, and hence why threads like this one is so important I guess.


----------



## Steve Eddy

mel famie said:


> That's DOCTOR Famie to you, buddy boy.




Meaaah, whatever you say, Doc. 



se


----------



## esldude

silentfrequency said:


> Well why then should anyone make test/reviews unless the prospective user knows how the thing works?
> 
> I bought my hd800's after checking many owners reviews and hearing them myself but trust reviewers like Tyll Hertsens and he puts no caveat that viewers need to know the mechanics of his subjects of review.
> 
> I really don't see the problem in suggesting a trusted and well respected reviewer make review of the HOT device either way?


 

 I disagree a bit with bigshot here.  I agree if you don't do due diligence you will be taken advantage of in many areas including hifi.  But I see your point most clearly. No one can be an expert in every possible area.  Experts are people who can tell us things in areas we don't know. 
  
 So the problem with hifi?  If has been taken over by charlatans and even honest true believers who are delusional.  Without getting too in depth the way hifi is carried out just almost throws an average non-expert in the direction of acting and believing in ideas that have no merit.  None at all.   
  
 Quite naturally if you don't know about something one of the first things to do is ask people who own it.  See what they think.  Yet in audio beyond just a few very basics like does it break, do I like the controls and how they work, then everything beyond that like sound quality of the device  the owners are usually completely worthless for an idea on actual sound quality.  The expectation bias, and placebo are so overwhelming hearing what someone who owns a device thinks vs another device is close to useless.  Or at the very least only matters when differences are truly huge.  But as a new inexperienced audiophile how could you possibly know this?  You simply couldn't.
  
 So next thing is well what do published reviews by trusted reviewers tell me?  And it is the same problem.  Even if honest as they can possibly be sighted evaluation of sound quality is almost useless.  Though like consumers themselves the subjective experience of that act is quite self reinforcing.  Again, as someone new to this you could never know that.  And that is without adding that some reviewers can be wined and dined, get equipment on permanent loan etc. etc. 
  
 Now publications could over time be educational about these aspects of audio.  I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they believe what they write and don't see the need.  Plus doing so will gore many an ox, and those oxen are advertisers that keep them afloat.  The end result whether intended or not is that the real customers of some publications is the advertiser not the subscriber.  As a newbie how could you know?
  
 Now I don't follow or know Tyll Hertsens so don't know how is approach would be reviewing such a product. I understand the idea it would reach more people if this HOT device were reviewed and the reviewer ended up saying it did nothing.  People who don't need to delve into the science of it.  Unfortunately similar devices known to do nothing are reviewed all the time, the review does not end with a "it does nothing report."  The common one is cable.  Ever wonder why mags that review and do their own measurements of equipment review cable and the only measurement they do is how long it is?  The reason is the measurements will show all cables measure the same.  Not much of a review if the measurements indicate nothing is happening, and if the testing was done blind the review would conclude it sounds just like it does nothing. Yet we have the huge burgeoning cable industry with many expensive products.  
  
 But yes I understand how anyone coming into this situation, knowing nothing technical and wishing to do nothing other than enjoy some musical products is in no position to see any of this.  Then most people on forums go right along.  And you are supposed to listen to some cranky guys in one tiny sub-forum on the internet saying almost much of the high end audio stuff is a fantasy?  Yeah, that is a big, big problem.  
  
 So asking for a 'trusted' reviewer to try it out doesn't impress the regulars here in Sound Science, but I can easily see your viewpoint.   
  
 If you want a bit of education in being defensively incredulous, read a few of these Audio Critic back issues.  This publication tried to do it right.
 http://www.theaudiocritic.com/cwo/Back_Issues/
  
 These are from a few years ago, but get the idea across you might want to be skeptical in your hifi purchases.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> I disagree a bit with bigshot here.  I agree if you don't do due diligence you will be taken advantage of in many areas including hifi.  But I see your point most clearly. No one can be an expert in every possible area.  Experts are people who can tell us things in areas we don't know.
> 
> So the problem with hifi?  If has been taken over by charlatans and even honest true believers who are delusional.  Without getting too in depth the way hifi is carried out just almost throws an average non-expert in the direction of acting and believing in ideas that have no merit.  None at all.
> 
> ...




Thank you so much for summing up and understanding my perspective as I was initially hesitant in commenting here and a little worried of appearing highly uninformed and I appreciate your summary of how reviewers and the audio review "industry" tick, so to speak.

I'm so appreciative that this thread welcomes newcomers like myself as it may well be the case that people like myself are the kind of target sector for devices like HOT regardless of their merit/non merits and why I find this thread so intriguing as it is with such a wealth of experienced contributors.

So yay for this thread!


----------



## bigshot

Google searches can help anyone become informed. There really isn't any excuse for not being an informed consumer any more. Too many people never even ask the question, much less get the answer.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> Google searches can help anyone become informed. There really isn't any excuse for not being an informed consumer any more. Too many people never even ask the question, much less get the answer.




Well that's why I'm here then I guess, to be informed 

Interestingly in esldude's kind audio critic link, Synergistic Research are mentioned in article No.25 regarding cable burnout and the article is dated 1998-1999.

I've read a few of the articles contents so far and find them totally intriguing and have bookmarked this link already! 

Edit: just a thought that whilst "googling" for info is all well and good, such will produce a wealth of information both good and bad so the key is differentiating the wheat from the chaff I guess?


----------



## esldude

bigshot said:


> Google searches can help anyone become informed. There really isn't any excuse for not being an informed consumer any more. Too many people never even ask the question, much less get the answer.


 

 Again I disagree largely here.  Just like SilentFrequency's reply try googling interconnect cable.  You get results all over the place and most are going to be how it is really different sounding.  How is someone new to this to separate wheat from the chaff as it was so well put?  You asking people who merely wish to enjoy music to become technically educated.  And it is not that easy. 
  
 I know people who are educated to a level beyond me, and are undoubtedly more intelligent than I am.  But their area of knowledge is not electronics or psychoacoustics.  Spending an actually unreasonable amount of time on this technical stuff suits my background and natural tendencies.  It does not for most people.  My friends do know enough to listen to me and ask my opinion or to get me to help them figure out issues.  It isn't something they could do on their own. 
  
 I also find communicating what I consider relatively straightforward simple basic ideas about how stuff works often difficult with these people.  I know they aren't dumb, and them to be quite capable in their lives.  What is simple to me is not to them.  They do learn it or get enough of it to see the point.  But electronics is not their field even if high quality music playback is an area of much pleasure to them. 
  
 So asking everyone who enters this hobby from all walks of life to jump in and get it is asking too much.  I am not sure what you do about that other than help them see the simple issues when you can and they are interested.  Make it possible to learn more if they are so inclined.  Gain credibility by giving good advice and explanation when they want it.  Everyone, me included, get more fun and self satisfaction out of dreams about things than just the hard facts.  Some want to keep the hard facts in view so as not to do silly things.  Many ( I think most) just as soon live with the fantasy and dreams.  They are enjoying those.  When it is something otherwise harmless like audio that isn't so terrible.  So the situation looked at this way is easy to explain, difficult to changr, and might well always be a minority opinion.   That just life as a human.


----------



## bigshot

Case in point... I saw a a lot of talk about "jitter" among audiophiles. Supposedly, it degraded sound and didn't show up in normal specs. Some DACs were advertised as "low jitter". I wanted to know if I would get significantly better sound if I got a low jitter external DAC. I spent several days googling, starting with wikipedia and working my way out. I educated myself about what caused jitter, what typical measurements were, what the threshold of perception was, what a picosecond or a nanosecond represents. By the end of my research, I figured out that jitter was complete hooey- a total non-issue.
  
 Now I could have trusted an "expert" at an audiophile website and  believed jitter was important. There are plenty of them that will gladly proclaim that. But when they announce superior jitter performance in a review and cite a picosecond rating, I now know what that means, and what it doesn't mean.
  
 People should know the basics of how audio reproduction works. They should know what frequency response is. What the thresholds of audibility for distortion is. Whether 24 bit is necessary. What the nyquist theory is... basic stuff like that. If they don't they might as well be babes in the woods, believing everything the big bad wolf tells them.
  
 There is WAY too much audio MIS information to not spend time figuring out the basics of the truth. If you are going to drop thousands of dollars on a system for goodness sakes, be informed. Don't be a sucker.
  
 I think the problem with communicating here in sound science has less to do with the ability of newbies to understand, than it is the experienced folks being unable to restrain themselves from going into unnecessary detail to answer direct questions. I look at answers here myself and shake my head in confusion sometimes.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> Again I disagree largely here.  Just like SilentFrequency's reply try googling interconnect cable.  You get results all over the place and most are going to be how it is really different sounding.  How is someone new to this to separate wheat from the chaff as it was so well put?  You asking people who merely wish to enjoy music to become technically educated.  And it is not that easy.
> 
> I know people who are educated to a level beyond me, and are undoubtedly more intelligent than I am.  But their area of knowledge is not electronics or psychoacoustics.  Spending an actually unreasonable amount of time on this technical stuff suits my background and natural tendencies.  It does not for most people.  My friends do know enough to listen to me and ask my opinion or to get me to help them figure out issues.  It isn't something they could do on their own.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I think you have encapsulated my current perspective in audiophile so far, totally.

I mean, I just didn't want to appear "dumb" as you put it, so it's just great that you get me if that makes sense?

But it's such a relief that this community is so generous and welcoming to different perspectives including newcomers to the audiophile scene in general as it can seem a little daunting at times.

But I am here to learn and do take in as much as I can understand from members with experience and tech knowledge they kindly share, I think that's so valuable. 

Such a nice welcome here


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> Case in point... I saw a a lot of talk about "jitter" among audiophiles. Supposedly, it degraded sound and didn't show up in normal specs. Some DACs were advertised as "low jitter". I wanted to know if I would get significantly better sound if I got a low jitter external DAC. I spent several days googling, starting with wikipedia and working my way out. I educated myself about what caused jitter, what typical measurements were, what the threshold of perception was, what a picosecond or a nanosecond represents. By the end of my research, I figured out that jitter was complete hooey- a total non-issue.
> 
> Now I could have trusted an "expert" at an audiophile website and  believed jitter was important. There are plenty of them that will gladly proclaim that. But when they announce superior jitter performance in a review and cite a picosecond rating, I now know what that means, and what it doesn't mean.
> 
> ...




Honestly, I'm trying my best to understand and be as informed as I can possibly but just hope you don't mind me asking the occasional question and hope I don't get in the way of the discussion but don't mind you telling me to be quiet if I get "chatty" for use of a better word as I also understand that this thread does not suffer "fools" lightly.

But I totally appreciate your comments and will do my best to understand technical points made hopefully


----------



## Head Injury

silentfrequency said:


> Honestly, I'm trying my best to understand and be as informed as I can possibly but just hope you don't mind me asking the occasional question and hope I don't get in the way of the discussion but don't mind you telling me to be quiet if I get "chatty" for use of a better word as I also understand that this thread does not suffer "fools" lightly.
> 
> But I totally appreciate your comments and will do my best to understand technical points made hopefully


 
 We don't suffer the willfully ignorant, but anyone with an open mind looking to learn is plenty welcome.


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> We don't suffer the willfully ignorant, but anyone with an open mind looking to learn is plenty welcome.




I'm unsure what you mean by wilfully ignorant but I'm definitely open minded and looking to learn, totally.

I think another member commented that they are about to commence some kind of electrical testing of the HOT device shortly so think that will be interesting to read also


----------



## dclaz

Jesus, I just had a look at SR's other products, the claims made about the tranquility base are simply amazing and bold. It blows me away that there are people whos bullcrap detector don't get triggored by such things.
  
  
 See http://www.synergisticresearch.com/tranquility-base/tranquility-base-2/


----------



## limpidglitch

silentfrequency said:


> I'm unsure what you mean by wilfully ignorant but I'm definitely open minded and looking to learn, totally.
> 
> I think another member commented that they are about to commence some kind of electrical testing of the HOT device shortly so think that will be interesting to read also


 
  
 OED has this to say about the word _willfull:_
  
 "Having or showing a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences or effects : _the pettish, willful side of him_."
  
 Ignorance is bliss, or so they say, and some people seem hell-bent on keeping that bliss.
 Seeing that you've come this far all in one piece, I think you'll do just fine here, in the back of the bus.


----------



## SilentFrequency

limpidglitch said:


> OED has this to say about the word _willfull:_
> 
> "Having or showing a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences or effects : _the pettish, willful side of him_."
> 
> ...




Thank you!


----------



## bigshot

dclaz said:


> Jesus, I just had a look at SR's other products, the claims made about the tranquility base are simply amazing and bold. It blows me away that there are people whos bullcrap detector don't get triggored by such things.


 
  
 There is so much horse dung being flung around nowadays, I think people are immune to it now. Home audio isn't really complicated at all. It just seems that way when the snake oil salesmen start beating their drums.
  
 You get a nice CD. You put it in a player. You listen to it with some nice headphones that go well with your player. It really is that easy.


----------



## esldude

SilentFrequency, you mentioned you were looking at the Audio Critic Issue 25.  I just looked briefly and that is an astute choice.  It has several articles that might well be valuable to you understanding this in a very generalized way.
  
 I also notice in the article by Tom Nousaine, he and some others took apart interface boxes on some Monster Cable M2.2 speaker cable.  Some of their finest back over a decade ago.  It has "interface" boxes on each end.  One labeled amp and one labeled 'speaker'.  Supposedly some super special network to correct interaction of speaker cable and greatly improve sound quality.  They opened the metal box on the amp end.  The box was full of epoxy potting compound to obscure what was inside.  They used a Dremel tool to cut through it to find there was nothing else.  The cable ran through this metal interface box full of potting compound which was purely for show.  On the other end the box also was full of epoxy potting compound, and they found a small 100 ohm resistor between plus and negative sides of the wire.  That would effectively do nothing in use as a speaker cable.  Even if it were a benefit the cost to add that would be pocket change.  Hardly justified the approximately $1000 per 8 ft pair pricing. 
  
 You will notice Monster is still a big name in cables.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> SilentFrequency, you mentioned you were looking at the Audio Critic Issue 25.  I just looked briefly and that is an astute choice.  It has several articles that might well be valuable to you understanding this in a very generalized way.
> 
> I also notice in the article by Tom Nousaine, he and some others took apart interface boxes on some Monster Cable M2.2 speaker cable.  Some of their finest back over a decade ago.  It has "interface" boxes on each end.  One labeled amp and one labeled 'speaker'.  Supposedly some super special network to correct interaction of speaker cable and greatly improve sound quality.  They opened the metal box on the amp end.  The box was full of epoxy potting compound to obscure what was inside.  They used a Dremel tool to cut through it to find there was nothing else.  The cable ran through this metal interface box full of potting compound which was purely for show.  On the other end the box also was full of epoxy potting compound, and they found a small 100 ohm resistor between plus and negative sides of the wire.  That would effectively do nothing in use as a speaker cable.  Even if it were a benefit the cost to add that would be pocket change.  Hardly justified the approximately $1000 per 8 ft pair pricing.
> 
> You will notice Monster is still a big name in cables.




Wow!

I just checked the article you refer to in the "New World Cyborgs" title.

I'm just amazed that a company would risk their reputation on such applications that appear to add a false value to a product, yet as you state, remain successfully in business today.

I notice the author referred to the cable after disassembled as "snake oil".

I mean, isn't it illegal to do such practices?


----------



## esldude

silentfrequency said:


> Wow!
> 
> I just checked the article you refer to in the "New World Cyborgs" title.
> 
> ...


 

 Hey, I am no lawyer.  Seems wrong to me ethically. 
  
 Now if you want another WOW, just google Monster M2.2 speaker cable.  You can find dozens upon dozens of glowing reports of it by owners.  You will even find bits of it for sale second hand even this long afterwards for $200-350. 
  
 I did my own opening of an MIT digital cable once.  Not a super expensive one, but not a cheap one either.  Part of MIT patented network technology series.  It consisted of a coax cable with a fancy techy looking outer jacket.  ( I do believe the cable and jacket were teflon) What of the patented network technology advertised to reduce cable jitter-distortions and deliver natural timbre?  Well it consisted of a one ohm metal film resistor in series with the center lead.  Identical to those I could buy for about 10 cents at a local electronics supply house.  In bulk probably 2 cents each.  There was your network.  MIT is celebrating its 30th year in business this year.
  
 Click on the image for a larger version.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> Hey, I am no lawyer.  Seems wrong to me ethically.
> 
> Now if you want another WOW, just google Monster M2.2 speaker cable.  You can find dozens upon dozens of glowing reports of it by owners.  You will even find bits of it for sale second hand even this long afterwards for $200-350.
> 
> I did my own opening of an MIT digital cable once.  Not a super expensive one, but not a cheap one either.  Part of MIT patented network technology series.  It consisted of a coax cable with a fancy techy looking outer jacket.  ( I do believe the cable and jacket were teflon) What of the patented network technology advertised to reduce cable jitter-distortions and deliver natural timbre?  Well it consisted of a one ohm metal film resistor in series with the center lead.  Identical to those I could buy for about 10 cents at a local electronics supply house.  In bulk probably 2 cents each.  There was your network.  MIT is celebrating its 30th year in business this year.




I think that's just so saddening 

Are these type of things rare amongst certain products ie cables/cable devices though?

But I don't know, the consumer should be more protected?


----------



## limpidglitch

I'm not a lawyer either, and not even american, but there are laws against deceptive advertisement, FTC regulates these.
 My impression is that you don't have much of a government body to take care of these things when they actually occur, and rather rely on public interest groups to force change through civil lawsuits. Case in point: Coca-Cola and Vitaminwater health claims. (I must say, that "penny worth of vitamins" mirror esl's 2-cent-worth network rather well)
  
 It seems unlikely to me that anyone would be willing to spend that kind of money on taking audio snake-oil merchants to court.


----------



## esldude

silentfrequency said:


> I think that's just so saddening
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well, in the USA sometimes we value a hands off approach.  Caveat Emptor rather than having gov't interfere in our personal dealings.  I actually agree and would not wish for gov't oversight.  But again no lawyer, perhaps these things would be illegal under some circumstances. 
  
 As for whether this is rare or not in cables and accessories......well it is not rare, but is the norm. 
  
 An informed audiophile community would simply put these people out of business by not falling for it.   As you can tell, the audiophile community may not be well informed.


----------



## thune

esldude said:


> I did my own opening of an MIT digital cable once.  Not a super expensive one, but not a cheap one either.  Part of MIT patented network technology series.  Well it consisted of a one ohm metal film resistor in series with the center lead. ... There was your network.


 
  
 It's only a shock and disappointment if you didn't look up the patent. Hard to knock something for being exactly what it says in the patent listed. However, according to the US5412356 patent, there should also be a 'fixed capacitor' across the conductors. The only disappointment would be if they claimed that parasitic capacitance was sufficient to be the 'discrete' cap described in the patent.


----------



## esldude

thune said:


> It's only a shock and disappointment if you didn't look up the patent. Hard to knock something for being exactly what it says in the patent listed. However, according to the US5412356 patent, there should also be a 'fixed capacitor' across the conductors. The only disappointment would be if they claimed that parasitic capacitance was sufficient to be the 'discrete' cap described in the patent.


 

 There is no capacitor on it.  So they must be using the normal parasitic capacitance for the result.  And yes, I can knock something for being exactly what it says it is in a patent if the result of that is nothing that makes it perform differently than a simple coax cable.  So you would feel quite happy to pay $129 rather than $10 or $15 for some RG6? That would be really nice RG6 btw.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> Well, in the USA sometimes we value a hands off approach.  Caveat Emptor rather than having gov't interfere in our personal dealings.  I actually agree and would not wish for gov't oversight.  But again no lawyer, perhaps these things would be illegal under some circumstances.
> 
> *As for whether this is rare or not in cables and accessories......well it is not rare, but is the norm. *
> 
> An informed audiophile community would simply put these people out of business by not falling for it.   As you can tell, the audiophile community may not be well informed.







What will the upcoming HOT electrical tests determine?


----------



## mulder01

silentfrequency said:


> What will the upcoming HOT electrical tests determine?


 
  
 Good question.
 I'm gonna take a guess:
 Less efficiency due to some of the signal being converted into 'mechanical energy' (vibration) - oh my god better get a tranquility base for that!
 Slightly different frequency response due to the 'transducer' not being consistent across the whole frequency range.
  
 It also converts kinetic energy from you working and earning money, into the kinetic energy that the owners of these companies need to make their Aston Martins drive...


----------



## SilentFrequency

mulder01 said:


> Good question.
> 
> I'm gonna take a guess:
> Less efficiency due to some of the signal being converted into 'mechanical energy' (vibration) - oh my god better get a tranquility base for that!
> ...




Just out of interest, are you going to perform an ear test (using headphones)?


----------



## Mel Famie

silentfrequency said:


> Just out of interest, are you going to perform an ear test (using headphones)?


 
 If the gadget does exactly nothing to the electrical signal, there's no more reason to do "ear" testing than there is to do dynamometer testing of a claimed perpetual motion machine that turns out to be a cigar box with four marbles in it.


----------



## SilentFrequency

mel famie said:


> If the gadget does exactly nothing to the electrical signal, there's no more reason to do "ear" testing than there is to do dynamometer testing of a claimed perpetual motion machine that turns out to be a cigar box with four marbles in it.




Well, maybe there's no harm in being thorough, covering all bases I guess, regardless?


----------



## bfreedma

silentfrequency said:


> mel famie said:
> 
> 
> > If the gadget does exactly nothing to the electrical signal, there's no more reason to do "ear" testing than there is to do dynamometer testing of a claimed perpetual motion machine that turns out to be a cigar box with four marbles in it.
> ...




That's essentially the equivalent of feeling the need to jump off a tall building just to test measured gravitational results. You don't need to actually jump to know what the result will be.

It also brings subjectivity into play unless you plan to perform an ABX. Nothing to be gained.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bfreedma said:


> That's essentially the equivalent of feeling the need to jump off a tall building just to test measured gravitational results. You don't need to actually jump to know what the result will be.
> 
> It also brings subjectivity into play unless you plan to perform an ABX. Nothing to be gained.




Yes, I understand your point, I guess if it were me, I'd just try it out purely out for curiosity sake, a side note perhaps.


----------



## justaname

silentfrequency said:


> Yes, I understand your point, I guess if it were me, I'd just try it out purely out for curiosity sake, a side note perhaps.




I doubt you would hear a difference after seeing scientific evidence... before maybe, due to expectation biases, but after, not unless you're a reviewer who stands to lose his credibility 

Also I find it real shady that "members of the public" have to take it upon themselves to provide specs and measurements. Looks like not much in their product line-up actually have any specs or measurements, just flowery audiophile prose in the description...


----------



## SilentFrequency

justaname said:


> I doubt you would hear a difference after seeing scientific evidence... before maybe, due to expectation biases, but after, not unless you're a reviewer who stands to lose his credibility
> 
> Also I find it real shady that "members of the public" have to take it upon themselves to provide specs and measurements. Looks like not much in their product line-up actually have any specs or measurements, just flowery audiophile prose in the description...




Yes, I think this is me just saying I'd just be be tempted to try it subjectively and yes maybe that is a tad naive of me to say so here so I guess I just defer to the member who will be making the objective electrical testing and await results.

One thing I can say though is I think it so applauding that for the benefit of this thread members have made their own personal time, effort and finances in obtaining these devices for such tests for this thread.

I think their generosity is amazing and I certainly appreciate their kind efforts to all involved.


----------



## GearMe

esldude said:


> ...*So asking everyone who enters this hobby from all walks of life to jump in and get it is asking too much.*  I am not sure what you do about that other than help them see the simple issues when you can and they are interested.  *Make it possible to learn more if they are so inclined.  Gain credibility by giving good advice and explanation when they want it. * Everyone, me included, get more fun and self satisfaction out of dreams about things than just the hard facts.  Some want to keep the hard facts in view so as not to do silly things.  *Many ( I think most) just as soon live with the fantasy and dreams.  They are enjoying those*.  When it is something otherwise harmless like audio that isn't so terrible.  So the situation looked at this way is easy to explain, difficult to change, and might well always be a minority opinion.   *That's just life as a human. *




Amen!!! Facts are useful to varying degrees in different people's buying process. A 'totally informed buying decision' for one person will be very different from another's. I know people that make their decisions exclusively 'by the numbers' ignoring listening altogether, others that totally ignore the numbers trusting their 'golden ears', and some that use a 'hybrid' approach. No approach is better if everyone is equally happy with their purchase.

Example: a guy I work with purchased the HD598s over the 558s even though the 558s 'sounded better' and they were cheaper. Why...wait for it...because they looked better! Yes -- looked better; well for him anyway! 

I ended up with the 558s. And...I'm 100% convinced that both of our listening experiences would have suffered if we had been forced to trade our headphones. As it was, we've both really enjoyed our purchase over the past few years and I still get a smile when I see him at work in those 'things'.


----------



## SilentFrequency

gearme said:


> Amen!!! Facts are useful to varying degrees in different people's buying process. A 'totally informed buying decision' for one person will be very different from another's. I know people that make their decisions exclusively 'by the numbers' ignoring listening altogether, others that totally ignore the numbers trusting their 'golden ears', and some that use a 'hybrid' approach. No approach is better if everyone is equally happy with their purchase.
> 
> Example: a guy I work with purchased the HD598s over the 558s even though the 558s 'sounded better' and they were cheaper. Why...wait for it...because they looked better! Yes -- looked better; well for him anyway!
> 
> I ended up with the 558s. And...I'm 100% convinced that both of our listening experiences would have suffered if we had been forced to trade our headphones. As it was, we've both really enjoyed our purchase over the past few years and I still get a smile when I see him at work in those 'things'.




Yes, I totally get your points.

Another member on another thread made a comment to me earlier along the lines of how do I know that my hd800's are best suited for me as I essentially "started" with these headphones. Member then went on to name some other headphones I can't recall off hand right now, that would sound different (more bass).

So I guess for me, I just don't have any points of comparitve reference whereas there are members at beginning of this thread who firmly state the HOT device works as intended by manufacturer and I'm guessing that unlike myself, they do have experience points of comparative reference.

Then the science orientated members offer evidence to the contrary and it's such a stark contrast of opinions it's very polarising positions from each camp so to speak.

But very interesting nonetheless.


----------



## krismusic

FWIW. I have been on here quite a long time and had an interest in HiFi for decades. 
Over that time I have come to the conclusion that psychoacoustics play a greater role in what I hear than anything else. 
I do not believe that the enjoyment of music is somehow hidden in the last 1% of performance. 
As long as everything is properly designed and built you will be listening to sound of a quality that previous generations could not imagine possible. 
Only spend what you can afford and remember, the magic is in the music not the equipment, would be my advice.


----------



## SilentFrequency

krismusic said:


> FWIW. I have been on here quite a long time and had an interest in HiFi for decades.
> Over that time I have come to the conclusion that psychoacoustics play a greater role in what I hear than anything else.
> I do not believe that the enjoyment of music is somehow hidden in the last 1% of performance.
> As long as everything is properly designed and built you will be listening to sound of a quality that previous generations could not imagine possible.
> Only spend what you can afford and remember, the magic is in the music not the equipment, would be my advice.




+1

Yes, I totally get that, it's all about the music primarily, right? 

I think that's such a positive outlook


----------



## castleofargh

for people like SilentFrequency who are new to this messed up world, or simply never wasted their time learning how all that audio stuff worked(like us idiots of sound science love to do so much^_^), even if you don't know enough about the technology involved, it's in fact pretty easy to avoid a great number of snake oil products. because most of the time they give themselves away to ensure they won't risk legal prosecution (a little like the guy making false money keeps adding something dumb on the bill, because the sentence is much smaller if you don't make exact replicas).
 if the sell speech doesn't really involve specs and concrete objective effects, but instead centers around notions hard to measure and how the listener will feel, then you can be pretty confident you're being sold snake oil.
 you just have to put yourself in the seller's shoes. something like redbull "gives you wings"(we saw that one before) was so dumb, the irony should have passed through. but still they get charged because it's an easy to verify statement. you drink redbull, you have wing? no? then they lied. and that's it the hoax was proved.
 so snake oil sellers (not only in audio) will always make you feel like it's a great product without really telling you anything about what it does or will tell what you will experience(that's called power of suggestion). so you know what to expect and your brain will most of the time be enough to trick you into felling a little of whatever was suggested to you.
  when they do that, it will be with words like "soundstage", "more air", "sounds more natural"... none of those words have actual scientific meaning they go with ideas and subjective perception, so cannot be proved to be hoax in court.
 like when a cable seller tells you the added gold in the cable provides warmth, it's hilarious on a scientific level (and what is warmth if not something subjective and oh so relative), but most people will indeed associate gold with warmth because of the color, and somehow think it's quality because of the price of actual gold. those are nice play of words by association.
  
 where it gets a little tricky, it's when sellers start to use big technical words out of context. for example, if someone were to tell you his product is a "transducer"
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 . most people don't have a clue what it means, but hey that must be great stuff right! and he can say it because that kind of stuff is pretty much always true technically. a transducer will take one kind of energy and turn it into another one. so any cable is a transducer in a sense as the impedance isn't 0ohm. a little bit of the signal going through it will be turned into heat and magnetic field. VOILA!!!! transducer in full action and the seller wasn't really lying. 
 those I think are the dangerous ones because they know full well what they are really selling and pry on ignorance.


----------



## krismusic

This ^^^ should be stickied for all new members to read.


----------



## bigshot

I think the problem is that a lot of people seem to not know how much research is enough, and what sort of research is important. For me, whatever it is, a big CD box set of music, a book on art, a receiver, a pair of shoes... before I click the order button, I've done some googling and know what to expect. And the things that I look for are photos of the actual product, clear descriptions of it, and what makes it unique among other similar products.
  
 If something isn't important to me, perhaps I'll just go out and buy anything that looks reasonably good at a fair price. But I can't imagine that with stereo equipment. That is something I use every day and it has to be right. I think if people really know nothing about how digital audio works, they would do a lot better to focus on usability and features than they would focusing on sound quality. As long as you attain a certain level of sound quality, you can always adjust it into sounding better. The only time that sound quality is really an issue is when it isn't capable of putting out great sound. And I think when someone buys tiny bluetooth speakers and cheap ear buds, they don't need a lot of experience to be able to expect that.
  
 Doing your homework isn't hard. People should do that more in all aspects of life, particularly when they vote.


----------



## Xenophon

Snake oil is everywhere, always has been, always will.  The ancient Greeks were already peddling rejuvenation and hair growth potions.  In audio it's magical pebbles, power cables, interconnects costing 1000's of euros.  Couple of years ago, many health food producers in the EU had to quickly redesign packaging and campaigns due to a new regulation that made it mandatory for any 'health claim' to be backed up by scientific evidence.  A black day for marketeers.
  
 It's imo not realistic to demand that the average consumer is able to study a field so they can judge claims on their scientific/technical merit.  At the end of the day I want to listen to my classical music, not pull out a maths book to study Fast Fourier Transform algorithms,  a reasonable amount of due diligence is normal but unfortunately in many cases (granted, not in the case covered by this thread) it's not easy.  The only things I've learned is that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence and that if it sounds too good to be true -no pun intended- then it usually is.
  
 Anyway, heartfelt thanks to all the participants who took the time and effort to dissect this scam, explain in excruciating detail why it is a scam and even took the pains of preparing a sample and sending it through a spectrograph.
  
 BTW:  Castleofargh:  did you ever set a pringle on fire?  Try it and see what leaks out, it'll cure the itch


----------



## Steve Eddy

xenophon said:


> Snake oil is everywhere, always has been, always will.  The ancient Greeks were already peddling rejuvenation and hair growth potions.  In audio it's magical pebbles, power cables, interconnects costing 1000's of euros.




Didn't used to be that way with audio. If there was any snake oil being sold, it was pretty deep underground. Today it has become mainstream.

se


----------



## castleofargh

xenophon said:


> BTW:  Castleofargh:  did you ever set a pringle on fire?  Try it and see what leaks out, it'll cure the itch


 
 how to talk like a junky step one!  "I can stop anytime I want, I just don't want to"
  
 well in fact I can very much stop anytime I want, because pringles don't go all that well with nutella
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
  
 the strange thing is that I'm a skinny tall dude, my engine must be very inefficient(probably class D), or maybe I have too many transducers inside me wasting my energy for a greatly improved headphone to amp experience?


----------



## bigshot

steve eddy said:


> Didn't used to be that way with audio. If there was any snake oil being sold, it was pretty deep underground. Today it has become mainstream.


 
  
 People used to make fun of excessive advertising claims. Now the whole information chain is set up to protect and promote them. Customers are encouraged to stroke their own egos by making up their own.


----------



## SunTanScanMan

castleofargh said:


> how to talk like a junky step one!  "I can stop anytime I want, I just don't want to"
> 
> well in fact I can very much stop anytime I want, because pringles don't go all that well with nutella
> 
> ...


 

 If this thread tells us anything, there's only one way you and we can be totally sure.


----------



## castleofargh

suntanscanman said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > how to talk like a junky step one!  "I can stop anytime I want, I just don't want to"
> ...


 

 not sure if customs would be ok for me to send a sample to SE's friend for analysis


----------



## krismusic

bigshot said:


> People used to make fun of excessive advertising claims. Now the whole information chain is set up to protect and promote them. Customers are encouraged to stroke their own egos by making up their own.



I like your take on customer reviews!


----------



## Steve Eddy

bigshot said:


> People used to make fun of excessive advertising claims. Now the whole information chain is set up to protect and promote them. Customers are encouraged to stroke their own egos by making up their own.




Back in the day, it was largely just stuff like over inflating power ratings and whatnot. No one was selling little bags of rocks and the like.

se


----------



## esldude

silentfrequency said:


> Just out of interest, are you going to perform an ear test (using headphones)?


 

 Well the person who supplied the one in photos listened to it before doing so.  Presumably the person who is supplying the one being measured did so.  And no reason an ear test can't be done. 
  
 Now you asked what will the test show.  I expect they will test frequency response, distortion, and noise over up to 20 khz.  They may do more than this.  If the results are the same with or without the device it does nothing audible.  They may also do a null test, but I'll say no more as I am not the one doing the testing. 
  
 Now you are wondering why not a listening test just to see.  For one thing, if a device measures the same on all the above tests it has been found to sound the same.  Lots of claims different, but they just don't pan out.
  
 Now another issue is people are just prone to hear a difference on the flimsiest excuse.  Not that they are making it up or aware of what is happening.  Some fair number of people just knowing they plugged something in may honestly try to see if it sounds different and find that it does.  Even when there is no reason for it. They are even more likely to have the experience of hearing a difference if someone has primed them to expect a difference.
  
 The way to deal with that is blind testing.  Someone plugs in and alternately bypasses the device while another person listens and says whether the sound is different or not.  Devices that measure the same, but people listen to and swear how real the difference is turn out not to be discerned when the listening comparison is done blind.
  
 It is good to be aware of how easily your ears/mind will trick you when you know something has been changed.  It happens to everyone, and no one is totally immune from it no matter how hard they try.  Very hard to get many to believe this.  Hey, why are you so close minded they say, just listen for yourself and see. Such a situation anyone is very likely to listen and hear a difference that is not really there.  Just trying something out to see what you think seems so simple.
  
 Now if the differences are large, then yes you can actually hear something is different with a more casual approach (though matching levels is important even here).  But anything so easily detected with sighted listening will measure obviously different.  The tricky issue is differences get small enough our ears may get tricked well before measured differences get too small to be detected.  By then your brain is likely to grab hold of nearly anything and match a pattern to hear a difference even when there is no difference.


----------



## SilentFrequency

esldude said:


> Well the person who supplied the one in photos listened to it before doing so.  Presumably the person who is supplying the one being measured did so.  And no reason an ear test can't be done.
> 
> Now you asked what will the test show.  I expect they will test frequency response, distortion, and noise over up to 20 khz.  They may do more than this.  If the results are the same with or without the device it does nothing audible.  They may also do a null test, but I'll say no more as I am not the one doing the testing.
> 
> ...




That's actually really interesting and I didn't realise the psychological aspect involved at the level you describe, it's just intense!

I guess I understand the values of the electrical testing much better now as the organic human aspect of testing when subtleties can be potentially cause false positives if I'm understanding fully.

But what is a null test you mentioned?


----------



## Head Injury

silentfrequency said:


> That's actually really interesting and I didn't realise the psychological aspect involved at the level you describe, it's just intense!
> 
> I guess I understand the values of the electrical testing much better now as the organic human aspect of testing when subtleties can be potentially cause false positives if I'm understanding fully.
> 
> But what is a null test you mentioned?


 

 A null test takes one signal and subtracts it from another to leave just the differences (it "nulls" or zeroes everything that's the same). In this case, the tester would loop the signal from the DAC back into an ADC, or even all the way through headphones and a microphone too, and record the signal, then do the same thing with the HOT in the chain. After the non-HOT loop is subtracted from the HOT loop, anything the HOT does to the signal will be left and can be tested for volume level, frequency response, etc.


----------



## Steve Eddy

silentfrequency said:


> But what is a null test you mentioned?




A null test is where you take two signals, one which has passed through the device under test, and the other signal without having passed through the device under test. Then you differentiate, or subtract them. What you're left with is a residual signal that is the difference between the device under test and the bypass.

If the residual signal isn't audible, then the device under test isn't changing the signal in any audible way.

se


----------



## smial1966

OK, time to confess. 

I'm the gullible schmuck that purchased the HOT that Steve Eddy now has for testing. Being a perennial tweaker audio gadgets intrigue my Luddite mind and I've circumbed to many whacky tips over the years. Yes, I have frozen CD's and green inked their circumferences, stuck Black-Tac on my listening room walls and even purchased a "Sonic Plate" hewn from bell brass. All of the aforementioned nonsense cost relatively little and were not promoted by a supposedly reputable company. 

In a moment of abject madness I stumped up $300 for the HOT from a stateside dealer. When it arrived I eagerly plugged it into my ECP headphone amp, donned my HD650 and awaited the amazing holographic soundstage promised. But oh dear, what the feck?!? The sound was decidedly muffled and devoid of treble extension. Assuming a product 'burn in' period I persevered and left my rig playing for 24 hours. Yeah that helped not one iota. The sound was mushy, coalesced and quite frankly awful. 

People the HOT is a snake oil product borne of quackery and sold to chumps who've had a momentary loss of rationality. 

Please don't judge me too harshly as I've finally learnt the error of my tweaking ways! 

Cheers,
Andy. 




esldude said:


> Well the person who supplied the one in photos listened to it before doing so.  Presumably the person who is supplying the one being measured did so.  And no reason an ear test can't be done.
> 
> Now you asked what will the test show.  I expect they will test frequency response, distortion, and noise over up to 20 khz.  They may do more than this.  If the results are the same with or without the device it does nothing audible.  They may also do a null test, but I'll say no more as I am not the one doing the testing.
> 
> ...


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> A null test takes one signal and subtracts it from another to leave just the differences (it "nulls" or zeroes everything that's the same). In this case, the tester would loop the signal from the DAC back into an ADC, or even all the way through headphones and a microphone too, and record the signal, then do the same thing with the HOT in the chain. After the non-HOT loop is subtracted from the HOT loop, anything the HOT does to the signal will be left and can be tested for volume level, frequency response, etc.








steve eddy said:


> A null test is where you take two signals, one which has passed through the device under test, and the other signal without having passed through the device under test. Then you differentiate, or subtract them. What you're left with is a residual signal that is the difference between the device under test and the bypass.
> 
> If the residual signal isn't audible, then the device under test isn't changing the signal in any audible way.
> 
> se




Thank you both!


----------



## SunTanScanMan

smial1966 said:


> OK, time to confess.
> 
> I'm the gullible schmuck that purchased the HOT that Steve Eddy now has for testing. Being a perennial tweaker audio gadgets intrigue my Luddite mind and I've circumbed to many whacky tips over the years. Yes, I have frozen CD's and green inked their circumferences, stuck Black-Tac on my listening room walls and even purchased a "Sonic Plate" hewn from bell brass. All of the aforementioned nonsense cost relatively little and were not promoted by a supposedly reputable company.
> 
> ...


 

 Hey Andy thanks for donating the HOT for testing.
  
 Could you clarify. Your message seems to imply that the HOT affected your HD650's sound negatively. Or did you feel that way about the Senns before the HOT?


----------



## SilentFrequency

smial1966 said:


> OK, time to confess.
> 
> I'm the gullible schmuck that purchased the HOT that Steve Eddy now has for testing. Being a perennial tweaker audio gadgets intrigue my Luddite mind and I've circumbed to many whacky tips over the years. Yes, I have frozen CD's and green inked their circumferences, stuck Black-Tac on my listening room walls and even purchased a "Sonic Plate" hewn from bell brass. All of the aforementioned nonsense cost relatively little and were not promoted by a supposedly reputable company.
> 
> ...




I really appreciate your honesty and am sure other members will also.

But I'm also sorry this device actually degraded your listening experience and am even more so shocked of this than if you had found it to have made no difference.

This entire thread is such an eye opener for me.

But thank you again for your comments and indeed providing your device for testing.


----------



## Head Injury

smial1966 said:


> Please don't judge me too harshly as I'vefinally learnt the error of my ways!


 
 I say losing $300 to some wire and quartz is punishment enough. Your loss will hopefully help others avoid a similar fate, we should be thanking you.


----------



## smial1966

The HOT has a muting effect on any headphones ability to reproduce frequency extremes and it especially diminishes treble reproduction. It's quite frankly bloody awful in my opinion.




suntanscanman said:


> Hey Andy thanks for donating the HOT for testing.
> 
> Could you clarify. Your message seems to imply that the HOT affected your HD650's sound negatively. Or did you feel that way about the Senns before the HOT?


----------



## krismusic

smial1966 said:


> OK, time to confess.
> 
> I'm the gullible schmuck that purchased the HOT that Steve Eddy now has for testing. Being a perennial tweaker audio gadgets intrigue my Luddite mind and I've circumbed to many whacky tips over the years. Yes, I have frozen CD's and green inked their circumferences, stuck Black-Tac on my listening room walls and even purchased a "Sonic Plate" hewn from bell brass. All of the aforementioned nonsense cost relatively little and were not promoted by a supposedly reputable company.
> 
> ...



Yup. I fell for the green ink.  I spent many years and a reasonable amount of money trying to enjoy a speaker system. I spent several hundreds on cables. 
It was here that I first heard about psychoacoustics. I now think that everything I thought I knew is placebo bias. Not just audio. The rest of my life too!
Seriously, I now have the 600's and a little O2 amp. Total cost about £330 running Spotify Premium through my iPhone and could not be happier with the sound. Job done. Still finding IEM's problematic mind!


----------



## Steve Eddy

smial1966 said:


> Please don't judge me too harshly as I'vefinally learnt the error of my ways!




What do you think, guys? I think he's hopeless. We have the second HOT now, I say we burn him at the stake. 

Thanks for coming forward, Andy. And thanks so much for your generosity.

As I said previously, I told Andy I would be happy to sell it once the electrical testing has been done and pay him back at least part of what he had spent on it. He declined and said that if I sold it, to give the funds to a homeless charity. So once the electrical testing has been done, I will sell it and donate 100% of the proceeds to Sacramento's Loaves & Fishes.

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> I say losing $300 to some wire and quartz is punishment enough. Your loss will hopefully help others avoid a similar fate, we should be thanking you.




Totally this! ^


----------



## Billheiser

Andy, you're a mensch!


----------



## Steve Eddy

billheiser said:


> Andy, you're a mensch!




Hey, no need to resort to name-calling. 

se


----------



## SunTanScanMan

smial1966 said:


> The HOT has a muting effect on any headphones ability to reproduce frequency extremes and it especially diminishes treble reproduction. It's quite frankly bloody awful in my opinion.


 

 Ok thank you.
  
 I only asked because your original post described what I felt about the HD650 when I first heard it.
 I was also under the impression that bits of sand would make negligible difference (either positively or negatively). But I suppose this is why testing is essential. Well frankly I'm not sure what's worse, a product which does nothing (in contrary to its flowery marketing spiel) or one that does _something_ but which affects the sound negatively.


----------



## SilentFrequency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch

"A person of integrity and honour"

Good word! 

I had to google but Wikipedia came top


----------



## Steve Eddy

silentfrequency said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensch
> 
> "A person of integrity and honour"
> 
> Good word!




Yes, it is a good word. I was just messing with Bill. 

se


----------



## mulder01

smial1966 said:


> The HOT has a muting effect on any headphones ability to reproduce frequency extremes and it especially diminishes treble reproduction. It's quite frankly bloody awful in my opinion.


 
  
 Well I guess it makes complete sense that they sounded worse.  The thing takes from the signal going to your headphones... I guess anything passive in series with your headphones could only be detrimental to the sound.


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> Yes, it is a good word. I was just messing with Bill.
> 
> se


----------



## Steve Eddy

mulder01 said:


> Well I guess it makes complete sense that they sounded worse.  The thing takes from the signal going to your headphones... I guess anything passive in series with your headphones could only be detrimental to the sound.




The HOT doesn't really put anything in series with your headphones, except the plug, the jack, and the three 30 gauge wires connecting them together.

se


----------



## mulder01

I agree that it would be a good idea to do a blind listening test.  
  
 The majority of the people in the market for a product like this will not be concerned with measurements and you can provide tests and maths until you're blue in the face, but to them, you refusing to do a listening test writes off your opinion just as much as you doing the electrical test writes off the need to do a listening test for you.  
  
 We have one person who bought it and listened to it that claims that it sounds like rubbish, and I think that you would have more consumers listen if a handful of people with first hand experience say the same thing rather than 100 people say that it doesn't do anything because they've tested it.  Unless of course the tests confirm smial's experiences, then they will probably listen to the measurement results if they confirm the listening test results.


----------



## mulder01

steve eddy said:


> The HOT doesn't really put anything in series with your headphones, except the plug, the jack, and the three 30 gauge wires connecting them together.
> 
> se


 
  
 Yeah true, but I'm saying _if_ this sand material has some interaction with the signal...
  
 I mean, I'm just going to make a moderately educated guess here that it does (as negligible as it may be), given the fact that it's the one thing that SR is willing to directly state that it does, and it seems like from smial's listening experiences that this mostly happens in the treble frequencies, then it may present a small load that varies across the frequency band.


----------



## bigshot

mulder01 said:


> Well I guess it makes complete sense that they sounded worse.


 
  
 I think you can chalk that up to inverse expectation bias. The reason that Synthetic Research is so afraid of that tear down picture is because it's a real buzzkill for placebo.
  


mulder01 said:


> I mean, I'm just going to make a moderately educated guess here that it does (as negligible as it may be), given the fact that it's the one thing that SR is willing to directly state that it does, and it seems like from smial's listening experiences that this mostly happens in the treble frequencies, then it may present a small load that varies across the frequency band.


 
  
 I'll give you a $20 bet that it doesn't!


----------



## mulder01

> Originally Posted by *bigshot* /img/forum/go_quote.gif
> 
> 
> I think you can chalk that up to inverse expectation bias. The reason that Synthetic Research is so afraid of that tear down picture is because it's a real buzzkill for placebo.
> ...


 
  
 He bought the device before he saw the teardown pic didn't he?
  
 haha I'm just saying if it does NOTHING whatsoever, then they could be held accountable for false advertising, and surely they've tested this thing themselves, found the results of what happens then thought of creative ways they could market it.  If they explicitly state that it's a transducer and a filter and it isn't, well I guess they could be in trouble if someone could be bothered chasing it up.  I wouldn't put $20 down on a moderately educated guess though.


----------



## Xenophon

mulder01 said:


> He bought the device before he saw the teardown pic didn't he?
> 
> haha I'm just saying if it does NOTHING whatsoever, then they could be held accountable for false advertising, and surely they've tested this thing themselves, found the results of what happens then thought of creative ways they could market it.  If they explicitly state that it's a transducer and a filter and it isn't, well I guess they could be in trouble if someone could be bothered chasing it up.  I wouldn't put $20 down on a moderately educated guess though.


 

 I'm not so sure, they're careful in their wording on the site and don't provide any type of objectively quantifiable spec anywhere.  I don't know about US law but in the EU it would be very iffy if you'd like to litigate this, would cost 1000's in experts and the outcome would be uncertain in the extreme as for sure they'd be able to find a couple of witnesses who would state that for them, it really does work.  In this case I think search engines are our friend, if I look it up in duckduckgo this thread shows up in 6th position.  Can't imagine a better deterrent for people who contemplate purchasing it but do some basic research.


----------



## SilentFrequency

I was thinking this thread could be made into a film due to its twists and turns 


http://versusthescreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hf1.jpg

(HOT Fuzz)


----------



## mulder01

xenophon said:


> I'm not so sure, they're careful in their wording on the site and don't provide any type of objectively quantifiable spec anywhere.  I don't know about US law but in the EU it would be very iffy if you'd like to litigate this, would cost 1000's in experts and the outcome would be uncertain in the extreme as for sure they'd be able to find a couple of witnesses who would state that for them, it really does work.  In this case I think search engines are our friend, if I look it up in duckduckgo this thread shows up in 6th position.  Can't imagine a better deterrent for people who contemplate purchasing it but do some basic research.


 
  
 Yeah I don't think anyone would actually bother to chase it up, but as a company, you don't want to put yourself in that position.


----------



## mulder01

silentfrequency said:


> I was thinking this thread could be made into a film due to its twists and turns
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
  
 Not toooo many twists and turns, I think the opinion that it's a complete pile of garbage has been pretty consistent the whole time, just the type of garbage is yet to be determined. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Actually, maybe you're right, this thread as a movie has the rollercoaster of emotions box ticked...
 My favourite part of the movie is when bigshot posted the picture of the desert and said it was SRs secret research facility. lol
 The thing about the jar of rocks made me angry, and I also learned a few things along the way.  It has everything really.


----------



## kevin gilmore

I was only able to read the first 8 pages of this thread, so I don't know if its mentioned later or not.
  
 The devices that were referred to are "Bybee's"  of which there are numerous different kinds that
 have changed over the years. Quantum, Cryocooled, and a bunch of other trendy buzzwords.
  
 And there are at least a few hundred pages of threads on multiple websites discussing these
 things.
  
 Synergestic Research clearly missed the boat by not putting in a pair of the super small
 quantum Bybee's and then charging about $800 for the thing.
  
 Then this thread would be 400 pages by now.


----------



## SilentFrequency

kevin gilmore said:


> I was only able to read the first 8 pages of this thread, so I don't know if its mentioned later or not.
> 
> The devices that were referred to are "Bybee's"  of which there are numerous different kinds that
> have changed over the years. Quantum, Cryocooled, and a bunch of other trendy buzzwords.
> ...




The mystery material inside the HOT device was later found to be silicon dioxide after Steve Eddy received lab results.


----------



## Head Injury

Today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal seems very relevant to this thread.


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> Today's Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal seems very relevant to this thread.




looks like HOT marketing only with a much cheaper price tag


----------



## Syn Res

Silicon Dioxide is only one active component in  HOT that affects sound. HOT's total conditioning properties are comprised of natural and proprietary man-made substances that when combined with HOT's physical construction create an elegant transduction filter that affects the signal electrically and mechanically, as well as absorbing EM and RF. As a side, computing and indeed modern electronics could not be possible without Silicon Dioxide.
  
  
 http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2011/acs-presspac-january-19-2011/silicon-oxide-gets-into-the-electronics-action-on-computer-chips.html
  
 https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Silicon_dioxide.html
  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_dioxide
  
 Yours in music,
 Ted Denney
 Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


----------



## Steve Eddy

syn res said:


> Silicon Dioxide is only one active component in HOT that affects sound. HOT's total conditioning properties are comprised of natural and proprietary man-made substances that when combined with HOT's physical construction create an elegant transduction filter that affects the signal electrically and mechanically, as well as absorbing EM and RF.




Translation:



se


----------



## Xenophon

syn res said:


> Silicon Dioxide is only one active component in HOT that affects sound. HOT's total conditioning properties are comprised of natural and proprietary man-made substances that when combined with HOT's physical construction create an elegant transduction filter that affects the signal electrically and mechanically, as well as absorbing EM and RF. As a side, computing and indeed modern electronics could not be possible without Silicon Dioxide.
> 
> 
> http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2011/acs-presspac-january-19-2011/silicon-oxide-gets-into-the-electronics-action-on-computer-chips.html
> ...


 

 You're long on words but short on relevant facts pertaining to this gizmo.  But I can see a brilliant future in investment banking in case the sound stuff doesn't pan out.


----------



## smial1966

So Silicon Dioxide is deleterious to sound quality?!? Or is my personal experience of using the HOT atypical? 




syn res said:


> Silicon Dioxide is only one active component in  HOT that affects sound. HOT's total conditioning properties are comprised of natural and proprietary man-made substances that when combined with HOT's physical construction create an elegant transduction filter that affects the signal electrically and mechanically, as well as absorbing EM and RF. As a side, computing and indeed modern electronics could not be possible without Silicon Dioxide.
> 
> 
> http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2011/acs-presspac-january-19-2011/silicon-oxide-gets-into-the-electronics-action-on-computer-chips.html
> ...


----------



## Syn Res

smial1966 your response is atypical with returns of HOT running less than 10%. As you have 30-days to audition may I suggest you leave it connected to your amplifier and headphones with the source component left on repeat for 7-days? This could do the trick and If not, return it to your dealer for a full refund of the purchase price.
  
 Yours in music,
 Ted Denney
 Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc.


----------



## bigshot

syn res said:


> As a side, computing and indeed modern electronics could not be possible without Silicon Dioxide.


 
  
 If there wasn't silicon dioxide, the ocean would just butt up directly against dirt and there would be nowhere to lay out your towel!


----------



## bigshot

syn res said:


> smial1966 your response is atypical with returns of HOT running less than 10%.


 
  
 I imagine it helps lower the return rate when you block the teardown photos from your Facebook page.


----------



## SilentFrequency

syn res said:


> smial1966
> your response is atypical with returns of HOT running less than 10%. As you have 30-days to audition may I suggest you leave it connected to your amplifier and headphones with the source component left on repeat for 7-days? This could do the trick and If not, return it to your dealer for a full refund of the purchase price.
> 
> Yours in music,
> ...




Hope you don't mind me asking but is the advised HOT run time of over 10% as per your comment also included in the instruction literature within the packaging of HOT device and if not, is this something you are looking to make so?


----------



## Music Alchemist

silentfrequency said:


> Hope you don't mind me asking but is the advised HOT run time of over 10% as per your comment also included in the instruction literature within the packaging of HOT device and if not, is this something you are looking to make so?


 
  
 He just meant that the refund rate is under ten percent, so on average, out of every hundred orders, less than ten people return the product.


----------



## Steve Eddy

syn res said:


> smial1966
> your response is atypical with returns of HOT running less than 10%. As you have 30-days to audition may I suggest you leave it connected to your amplifier and headphones with the source component left on repeat for 7-days? This could do the trick and If not, return it to your dealer for a full refund of the purchase price.




Smial1966's HOT is already past its 30 day return. He has graciously offered to donate it for testing. It was sent to me and is now on its way to Illinois for non-destructive electrical testing. You're welcome to buy it back after that's been done. The proceeds will go to a local homeless charity as per his request.

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

music alchemist said:


> He just meant that the refund rate is under ten percent, so on average, out of every hundred orders, less than ten people return the product.




Yes, my apologies, I totally misunderstood Syn Res's post 

I guess my corrected query is, is there any run in time recommendation for the HOT device inclluded in any literature provided with the device?


----------



## castleofargh

sand is used for CPUs. therefore,
 randomly spread sand on wires= micro computer!!!


----------



## kevin gilmore

everyone quickly run out and buy a tice clock


----------



## esldude

castleofargh said:


> sand is used for CPUs. therefore,
> randomly spread sand on wires= micro computer!!!


 

 Okay, that is a good start.  But you have to look deeper.
  
 Random application allows sand particles to align themselves with all the various energy fields of the universe science doesn't yet understand.  Resulting in naturally occurring quantum level and beyond micro-computers.   One needs to jiggle or let us say dither the final placement in one's own system by applying a signal for 7 days to allow final microscopic positioning of the damping matrix in your location.  If you move the component you may experience a degraded experience until micro re-positioning has occurred in the new orientation.


----------



## smial1966

I don't think that Ted Denney will mind me posting the PM below in it's entirety as he raises some very interesting points. Namely, that the HOT appears to be very headphone and equipment specific, which is something that potential purchasers should be aware of. Also, only certain headphone cables would appear to be compatible too, so this is another factor that should be accounted for. 

Kudos to Ted for trying to extend the returns period, as he didn't known that it's already expired. 


smial1966 I am not sure why the interaction of HOT in your system is muddling the sound but it is puzzling . I notice you listed the HD650 headphones in your report which to my ear, are a bit closed in sounding when compared directly to the headphones we used to voice HOT? Perhaps the HOT along with your electronics which I have not heard could be a less than synergistic combination? I also notice you have aftermarket headphone cables that I am not familiar with. Could it be your aftermarket headphone cables have a 'warming' effect on the sound which may not be compatible with the sonic signature of HOT? Perhaps you can try the HOT with the stock cables and see if this helps the situation out. 

If you let me know which state side dealer you purchased your HOT from I will see to it personally that you are given enough time to experiment with HOT so that if you miss the window by a few days or even one week you will still get a full refund. I am also available to you should you want to discuss particular HOT to system / headphone interactions in Private Messages.

All the best,
Ted Denney
Lead Designer, Synergistic Research Inc


----------



## Head Injury

Ah yes, "synergy". Audio's universal scapegoat. If you don't hear the difference, it's because of the rest of your gear.


----------



## castleofargh

kevin gilmore said:


> everyone quickly run out and buy a tice clock


 

 I didn't know about that marvelous creation, thanks. it seems like I still have a lot to learn about audio.
 the "if you can't hear the improvement then you don't have a golden ear" claim is magnificent. I really appreciate such creativity on the marketing side.


----------



## SilentFrequency

smial1966 said:


> I don't think that Ted Denney will mind me posting the PM below in it's entirety as he raises some very interesting points. Namely, that the HOT appears to be very headphone and equipment specific, which is something that potential purchasers should be aware of. Also, only certain headphone cables would appear to be compatible too, so this is another factor that should be accounted for.
> 
> Kudos to Ted for trying to extend the returns period, as he didn't known that it's already expired.
> 
> ...




So by inference the HOT works best with the headphones that his device was voiced with ie hd800 and the lcd3 and with their cable provided?

And what user instructions literature is provided with the HOT (if you recall) ie is there mention of a 7day optimal run in etc?

I think if these points were advised by Synergistic Research with the HOT device it maybe could elevate any ambiguity on correct suitability/correct application which maybe is a little unclear at present?


----------



## Head Injury

silentfrequency said:


> So by inference the HOT works best with the headphones that his device was voiced with ie hd800 and the lcd3 and with their cable provided?


 
 If its uses are so limited, it makes me wonder how they can stand by this statement on the product page:
  


> When HOT is used with your favorite cans you hear sound that gets out of your head as well as smoother more articulate highs with improved bass.


 
  
 Should they amend this to include "(but only if your favorite cans sound like the HD800 or LCD-3 with the amps and cables we used)"?
  
 Isn't the LCD-3 as dark i.e. "closed in" as the HD650?


----------



## Steve Eddy

silentfrequency said:


> And what user instructions literature is provided with the HOT (if you recall) ie is there mention of a 7day optimal run in etc?




Unless he removed it, the HOT unit I received from him didn't include any documentation. Just a box, some white synthetic cotton packing material and a white rubber band. And the HOT of course.

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> If its uses are so limited, it makes me wonder how they can stand by this statement on the product page:
> 
> 
> Should they amend this is include "(but only if your favorite cans sound like the HD800 or LCD-3 with the amps and cables we used)"?
> ...




Maybe they should totally amend their advice if that's required as is possibly suggested by them in PM to smial1966?

I honestly know nothing about LCD-3 or HD650's but I do own the Sennheiser HD800's though.


----------



## smial1966

Steve,

You received exactly what I did. A box, packaging material and the HOT. 

Perhaps the White rubber band needs to be deployed in the listening chain to experience audio nirvana? 




steve eddy said:


> Unless he removed it, the HOT unit I received from him didn't include any documentation. Just a box, some white synthetic cotton packing material and a white rubber band. And the HOT of course.
> 
> se


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> Unless he removed it, the HOT unit I received from him didn't include any documentation. Just a box, some white synthetic cotton packing material and a white rubber band. And the HOT of course.
> 
> se




Thank you for clarifying 

I'm actually surprised that this HOT device does possibly not include instructions as such suggests this is a simple universal product yet Syn Res's recent PM to smial1966 seems to suggest otherwise.


----------



## SilentFrequency

smial1966 said:


> Steve,
> 
> You received exactly what I did. A box, packaging material and the HOT.
> 
> Perhaps the White rubber band needs to be deployed in the listening chain to experience audio nirvana?






Edit: honestly, this is beginning to feel like a wild goose chase or something! 

At least that's how I'm beginning to feel anyway


----------



## Steve Eddy

smial1966 said:


> Perhaps the White rubber band needs to be deployed in the listening chain to experience audio nirvana?




I certainly hope not. It broke when I was putting it back on before packing it up and sending it out to my friend. 

se


----------



## Head Injury

steve eddy said:


> I certainly hope not. It broke when I was putting it back on before packing it up and sending it out to my friend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

 Well great, you've just invalidated all the measurements


----------



## Steve Eddy

head injury said:


> Well great, you've just invalidated all the measurements




Maybe I can glue it back together. 

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> Maybe I can glue it back together.
> 
> se




No.

It will totally ruin the synergy


----------



## bigshot

Do you think Ted's generous offer of an extended return window will extend to after the tests are done and posted?


----------



## mikeaj

silentfrequency said:


> Maybe they should totally amend their advice if that's required as is possibly suggested by them in PM to smial1966?
> 
> I honestly know nothing about LCD-3 or HD650's but I do own the Sennheiser HD800's though.


 
  
 This is really a gross oversimplification of little value, but if you were to place HD 800 and LCD-3 on an axis, HD 650 would probably be somewhere in the middle in most or some respects and not way off either side. Except in price. It's definitely less expensive than the other two!


----------



## sonitus mirus

silentfrequency said:


> No.
> 
> It will totally ruin the synergy


 
  
 It all depends on the type of glue that is used.


----------



## kevin gilmore

castleofargh said:


> I didn't know about that marvelous creation, thanks. it seems like I still have a lot to learn about audio.
> the "if you can't hear the improvement then you don't have a golden ear" claim is magnificent. I really appreciate such creativity on the marketing side.


 

 more entertainment
http://www.machinadynamica.com/
http://www.coconut-audio.com/
  
 and don't forget articulation poles
http://www.mitcables.com/
 (lots of pictures of the insides of these things available)
  
 but wait, mpingo discs
http://www.shunmook.com/index.html
  
 cable isolators from a company that should know better
https://www.ayre.com/acc_blocks.htm
  
 and an infinite supply of equipment feet, some with
 titanium or ceramic isolators. etc...


----------



## SilentFrequency

mikeaj said:


> This is really a gross oversimplification of little value, but if you were to place HD 800 and LCD-3 on an axis, HD 650 would probably be somewhere in the middle in most or some respects and not way off either side. Except in price. It's definitely less expensive than the other two!




My suggestion can't be any more simpler than the HOT device coming packaged with zero instructions included?

I'm unsure what you mean by "gross oversimplification" and I made no comment whatsoever regarding pricing on any of the headphones you mention but I do own the hd800 personally.

Edit: OMG! I just re-read your comment and realise now I totally mis-read your comment and feel totally dumb now.

My apologies, I'm so sorry! I'm totally embarrassed.

So, yes I understand what you mean in that the 650 headphones fit midway between the lcd3 and hd800's in respects that I'm guessing maybe is regarding their overall quality?

I get this now, so thanks for your kind explaining and sorry again for my misreading/misunderstanding firstly, I guess I've just had a major epiphany!


----------



## Billheiser

My diet pills will make you happier and healthier. They are made of a proprietary chemical compound. It should be remembered that life itself, and the existence of the entire universe, is dependent on chemical compounds!
I think I have made this clear enough. Please send $300.


----------



## Head Injury

silentfrequency said:


> My suggestion can't be any more simpler than the HOT device coming packaged with zero instructions included?
> 
> I'm unsure what you mean by "gross oversimplification" and I made no comment whatsoever regarding pricing on any of the headphones you mention but I do own the hd800 personally.


 

 The comparison _he_ posted is a gross oversimplification, not yours. We're not out to get you, relax!


----------



## Don Hills

kevin gilmore said:


> ...The devices that were referred to are "Bybee's"  of which there are numerous different kinds that have changed over the years. ...


 
  
 There is a long running "snake oil" thread in the Lounge section over on DiyAudio forum. Bybee devices have been exhaustively discussed, dissected and tested. John Curl appears to be a spokesperson for Jack Bybee. Ted could take lessons from the way he handles the discussion.


----------



## SilentFrequency

head injury said:


> The comparison _he_ posted is a gross oversimplification, not yours. We're not out to get you, relax!




edit: sorry, I realise I misread and can't believe I feel so dumb now.

My apologies.


----------



## SilentFrequency

billheiser said:


> My diet pills will make you happier and healthier. They are made of a proprietary chemical compound. It should be remembered that life itself, and the existence of the entire universe, is dependent on chemical compounds!
> I think I have made this clear enough. Please send $300.




No.

All diet pills are bad for you and make you jittery/overstimulated like a legal amphetamine, believe me, I know.

Totally (((bad synergy !!!))) 

Edit: good diet and exercise is the better solution to pills like good headphones and amplifier for good sound


----------



## Billheiser

silentfrequency said:


> No.
> 
> All diet pills are bad for you and make you jittery/overstimulated like a legal amphetamine, believe me, I know.
> 
> ...




Unlike ordinary "diet pills", mine have been specially developed by metabolic scientists and advanced nutraceutical research. It takes advantage of the negatively charged ions found in excess calories and of course calories are a measure of heat. By transducing heat energy to kinetic energy they energize activity on a molecular and atomic level. After taking them 3x/day for a month, you are guaranteed to have different (and better) feelings and thoughts than you did the month before. That is, if your mind and body are developed enough to discern this truly remarkable phenomenon.


----------



## SilentFrequency

billheiser said:


> Unlike ordinary "diet pills", mine have been specially developed by metabolic scientists and advanced nutraceutical research. It takes advantage of the negatively charged ions found in excess calories and of course calories are a measure of heat. By transducing heat energy to kinetic energy they energize activity on a molecular and atomic level. After taking them 3x/day for a month, you are guaranteed to have different (and better) feelings and thoughts than you did the month before. That is, if your mind and body are developed enough to discern this truly remarkable phenomenon.




I'm totally sold!! 

Yay! 

Edit: your special developed diet pills sound HOT


----------



## Billheiser

silentfrequency said:


> I'm totally sold!!
> 
> Yay!
> 
> Edit: your special developed diet pills sound HOT


Another satisfied customer!


----------



## SilentFrequency

kevin gilmore said:


> more entertainment
> http://www.machinadynamica.com/




I want a "particle accelerator ion gun"!

(Hair dryer) 

Edit: can I call my hair band an "acoustic frequency filter"?


----------



## mulder01

silentfrequency said:


> So by inference the HOT works best with the headphones that his device was voiced with ie hd800 and the lcd3 and with their cable provided?
> 
> And what user instructions literature is provided with the HOT (if you recall) ie is there mention of a 7day optimal run in etc?
> 
> I think if these points were advised by Synergistic Research with the HOT device it maybe could elevate any ambiguity on correct suitability/correct application which maybe is a little unclear at present?


 
  
 Don't fall for the 'he seems like a nice and genuine guy' trick.  It's still a just a 1/4 inch to 1/4 inch straight through connector filled with sand at this stage until we get the results from the electrical test.
  
 I can see what's going to happen here - the electrical results will come back and show that it does nothing, or near enough to nothing.  Everyone who is technically minded will say "SEE TOLD YOU SO" and then SR will respond with something like "Well electrical tests don't prove anything because history has shown that products show the same frequency response before and after burn in, yet the vast majority of people claim to _hear_ a significant difference before an after burn in."  Maybe throw in a "not all audible phenomena show up in measurements", keep talking about how much r+d has gone into it, use some emotional language like appealing to people to "listen with their ears not with their calculators", play the sympathy card, and continue to stand by it regardless of what is said and people will still buy it because "you don't know if you don't try it for yourself!"  Money back guarantee!  Don't you want your system to sound better?  Oh ok then maybe this product isn't for you.  Maybe I'll just hang out with all the cool cats over here who own one and love it.  You just sit there with your arms folded and your grumpy face on with a frequency response graph in your hand. etc etc.  Ok maybe not in those words exactly but you get my point.  End of the day, marketing will win customers over measurements every time. (well, maybe not for bigshot and se, but for the bulk of the market)
  
 Maybe interest in this product will go UP because of all this talk about it.  No such thing as bad publicity they say.


----------



## SilentFrequency

mulder01 said:


> Don't fall for the 'he seems like a nice and genuine guy' trick.  It's still a just a 1/4 inch to 1/4 inch straight through connector filled with sand at this stage until we get the results from the electrical test.
> 
> I can see what's going to happen here - the electrical results will come back and show that it does nothing, or near enough to nothing.  Everyone who is technically minded will say "SEE TOLD YOU SO" and then SR will respond with something like "Well electrical tests don't prove anything because history has shown that products show the same frequency response before and after burn in, yet the vast majority of people claim to _hear_ a significant difference before an after burn in."  Maybe throw in a "not all audible phenomena show up in measurements", keep talking about how much r+d has gone into it, use some emotional language like appealing to people to "listen with their ears not with their calculators", play the sympathy card, and continue to stand by it regardless of what is said and people will still buy it because "you don't know if you don't try it for yourself!"  Money back guarantee!  Don't you want your system to sound better?  Oh ok then maybe this product isn't for you.  Maybe I'll just hang out with all the cool cats over here who own one and love it.  You just sit there with your arms folded and your grumpy face on with a frequency response graph in your hand. etc etc.  Ok maybe not in those words exactly but you get my point.  End of the day, marketing will win customers over measurements every time. (well, maybe not for bigshot and se, but for the bulk of the market)
> 
> Maybe interest in this product will go UP because of all this talk about it.  No such thing as bad publicity they say.




Yes, I totally get that 

This may sound silly, but this reminds me of a scenario out of a film (A Few Good Men) as in a military court scene where defence and prosecution are about to do their summing up final remarks to the jury.

Electrical test results possibley the equivalent to evidence submitted late in the trial which possibly could be the smoking gun element to win or lose the case?


----------



## pataburd

The tin-eared teckies have spoken . . . and spoken . . . and spoken . . .
 Let us ignorant peons swoon in deference before these self-assured and self-described know-it-alls.
 After all, the ART of listening is nothing more than "pure" SCIENCE, is it not?


----------



## bfreedma

pataburd said:


> The tin-eared teckies have spoken . . . and spoken . . . and spoken . . .
> Let us ignorant peons swoon in deference before these self-assured and self-described know-it-alls.
> After all, the ART of listening is nothing more than "pure" SCIENCE, is it not?


 

 Are you actually defending SR/HOT or just posting a cheap shot?
  
 Or both?
  
 Will you be buying the HOT being auctioned off after testing?


----------



## Xenophon

pataburd said:


> The tin-eared teckies have spoken . . . and spoken . . . and spoken . . .
> Let us ignorant peons swoon in deference before these self-assured and self-described know-it-alls.
> After all, the ART of listening is nothing more than "pure" SCIENCE, is it not?


 

 Pataburd, I'm not a strict objectivist like the guys at hydrogen audio.   I listen to tubes and occasionally enjoy them more than my ss setups although I know full well that fidelity wise they don't even come close.  That's not the issue here.  But at least a tube amp works according to verifiable principles that don't defy the laws of nature and their effects are measurable + if one wants to learn exactly what they do and how, there are plenty of sources available that can explain without having to appeal to mumbo-jumbo.  With my understanding of how electricity works, this gadget doesn't seem to do anything at all except transfer 300 USD from the buyer's account to the sellers'.


----------



## pataburd

bfreedma said:


> Are you actually defending SR/HOT or just posting a cheap shot?
> 
> Or both?
> 
> Will you be buying the HOT being auctioned off after testing?


 
 Maybe a bit of both.  But no cheaper than the manifold salvos of cheap-shots already launched.
 I am surprised that Synegistic Research has not already weighed in on the dispute with a rational defense--or have they already(?)--I haven't read the entire thread yet.
 I may buy the test model, if the price is right! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 But I am also on the verge of buying a HOT on trial simply to gain some traction on this thread.


----------



## pataburd

xenophon said:


> Pataburd, I'm not a strict objectivist like the guys at hydrogen audio.   I listen to tubes and occasionally enjoy them more than my ss setups although I know full well that fidelity wise they don't even come close.  That's not the issue here.  But at least a tube amp works according to verifiable principles that don't defy the laws of nature and their effects are measurable + if one wants to learn exactly what they do and how, there are plenty of sources available that can explain without having to appeal to mumbo-jumbo.  With my understanding of how electricity works, this gadget doesn't seem to do anything at all except transfer 300 USD from the buyer's account to the sellers'.


 
 Have all the constituent materials been assayed?
 Until I see definitive results from a spectral analysis, et al, what is being passed off  as "science" on this flame-throwers' dream thread is little more than the mumbo jumbo it [the thread] claims to be demystifying.


----------



## bfreedma

pataburd said:


> Maybe a bit of both.
> I am surprised that Synegistic Research has not already weighed in on the dispute with a rational defense.
> I may buy the test model, if the price is right!




After reading this thread, you're buying a HOT? As to why SR hasn't weighed in with a rational defense, the answer is obvious - there is no rational defense.

You seem to have posted for no reason other than to insult those who actually understand the "science of mechanics" of the HOT. Not a good look, paticularly in Sound Science.

Tell you what though - I'll sell you a product that does everything the HOT "does" for half the price.... I'll even put it in my freezer for a night if you prefer yours "cryogenically treated"....


----------



## Hudson

pataburd said:


> Have all the constituent materials been assayed?
> Until I see definitive results from a spectral analysis, et al, what is being passed off  as "science" on this flame-throwers' dream thread is little more than the mumbo jumbo it [the thread] claims to be demystifying.


 
  
 Well we've already had EDX, what else did you have in mind?


----------



## smial1966

pataburd,
  
 Please do buy the HOT when it's auctioned as the monies are going to a very good cause.
 There is no rational defence of a product that actually degrades sound quality, I should know as the donated HOT was originally mine and it had a detrimental affect on my headphones. 
  
 Quote:


pataburd said:


> Maybe a bit of both.  But no cheaper than the manifold salvos of cheap-shots already launched.
> I am surprised that Synegistic Research has not already weighed in on the dispute with a rational defense--or have they already(?)--I haven't read the entire thread yet.
> I may buy the test model, if the price is right!
> 
> ...


----------



## bfreedma

hudson said:


> Well we've already had EDX, what else did you have in mind?


 
  
 Exactly.  There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy when the subjective/anti-science crowd starts requesting scientific and analytical support beyond what has already been realized in this thread.
  
 That and the realization that no amount of verification that the HOT doesn't work as advertised will ever be enough to dissuade some unicorn hunters.


----------



## pataburd

hudson said:


> Well we've already had EDX, what else did you have in mind?


 
 Please link me to the reference, to save me wading through a bunch of *heated* "objectivist" discussion.


----------



## SilentFrequency

pataburd said:


> Have all the constituent materials been assayed?
> Until I see definitive results from a spectral analysis, et al, what is being passed off  as "science" on this flame-throwers' dream thread is little more than the mumbo jumbo it [the thread] claims to be demystifying.




Page 24 of this thread shows analysis results if that's any assistance to pin point that specific info rather than wading through the entire thread?


----------



## pataburd

bfreedma said:


> Exactly.  There seems to be a bit of hypocrisy when the subjective/anti-science crowd starts requesting scientific and analytical support beyond what has already been realized in this thread.


 
 Not necessarily.  But would someone please direct me to the salient scientific posts, so I don't have to unduly suffer the concursive banter that comprises a significant percentage of this "objectivist/scientific" thread?


----------



## pataburd

silentfrequency said:


> Page 24 of this thread shows analysis results if that's any assistance to pin point that specific info rather than wading through the entire thread?


 
 SF,
 Thank you.
  
 pataburd


----------



## bfreedma

pataburd said:


> Please link me to the reference, to save me wading through a bunch of *heated* "objectivist" discussion.
> 
> Originally Posted by *pataburd*
> 
> Not necessarily.  But would someone please direct me to the salient scientific posts, so I don't have to unduly suffer the concursive banter that comprises a significant percentage of this "objectivist/scientific" thread?


 
  
 So you made those comments without having the courtesy to actually read the thread?  And you don't know about the EDX testing?
  
 And you want someone to read the thread for you so you don't have to be bothered.....?
  
 Hard to believe you're actually interested in this discussion based on that.


----------



## pataburd

BF,
 I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.  
  
 However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.


----------



## bfreedma

pataburd said:


> BF,
> I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.
> 
> However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.




I'm not surprised you would see it that way. Just not sure why you're trolling the Sound Science forum.

Regardless, enjoy your perspective. Since you asked for scientific evidence then deny the value of it when presented, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

If you want to share your views on how the HOT actually performs as claims, I'd be happy to resume.


----------



## Xenophon

bfreedma said:


> I'm not surprised you would see it that way. Just not sure why you're trolling the Sound Science forum.
> 
> Regardless, enjoy your perspective. *Since you asked for scientific evidence then deny the value of it when presented, I see no point in continuing this discussion.*
> 
> If you want to share your views on how the HOT actually performs as claims, I'd be happy to resume.


 

 +1 on the above.  On a personal note:   not reading the thread, then requesting evidence (btw, if you'd have bothered reading even the first 10 pages you would have seen a discussion in which the materials and electrical connection are discussed ad nauseam) only to subsequently dismiss it with some flowery prose...simply bad form imo.


----------



## Hudson

pataburd said:


> BF,
> I would have hoped that you could understand my desire not to waste my time with the bulk of this thread's banter which, by the way, is decidedly unscientific, but sensationalistic, rather.
> 
> However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.  Unfortunately, all I see is [apparently] no more than the so-called "scientific" sub-community's predisposed biases flailed about, in monosyllable, without any more a compelling defense than what are the railing accusations brought against the HOT in the first place.


 
  
 Are you really are considering buying this product or are you just looking for an argument? 
  
 If you do want to buy one, it may be worth you reading the whole thread. I certainly would be curious if I was spending this amount of money on a similar priced product.


----------



## pataburd

I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not perform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.
  
 You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.
  
 If I am "trolling", then what justifies this thread's commensurate mocking and intimidation tactics?
  
 It seems like you objectivists should be the ones setting the standard for civil discourse.


----------



## justaname

Enjoy your new extension plug pataburd.


----------



## SilentFrequency

pataburd said:


> I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not peform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.
> 
> You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.
> 
> ...




Well, from what I understand, purchasers of the HOT have a 30 day window in which to return for full refund should you not be satisfied, so bearing that time frame in mind, you are risk free of being out of pocket.

Also worth mentioning, Synergistic Research's lead designer has advised to another member here who owned this device that a 7 day run in for possible optimal performance of the HOT in addition to whatever headphones you use it with to use standard cables from respective manufacturer rather than aftermarket third party ones.

I know you mention that if the HOT does not perform as claimed, you would check back, but will you also check back if the device performs for you as it is intended by the manufacturer?

Thanks,

SF


----------



## smial1966

The design hoax or flaw is that the HOT actually makes headphones sound worse, as evidenced by friends and I when we tried a number of different cans and gear with it. Though I suspect that your experience with the HOT may be substantively different. 
  
 Quote:


pataburd said:


> I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not peform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.
> 
> You still have not adequately explained, from a precisely articulated understanding of the HOT''s actual design--aside from decrying the simple sum of its constituent parts--exactly where the design hoax resides.
> 
> ...


----------



## smial1966

Yes, if the HOT doesn't perform as expected, it's likely to be your headphones, aftermarket headphone cable or amplifier that's at fault. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




  
 Quote:


silentfrequency said:


> Well, from what I understand, purchasers of the HOT have a 30 day window in which to return for full refund should you not be satisfied, so bearing that time frame in mind, you are risk free of being out of pocket.
> 
> Also worth mentioning, Synergistic Research's lead designer has advised to another member here who owned this device that a 7 day run in for possible optimal performance of the HOT in addition to whatever headphones you use it with to use standard cables from respective manufacturer rather than aftermarket third party ones.
> 
> ...


----------



## SilentFrequency

I think its great of you in donating your HOT for benefit of testing results and even more so that you requested the device be then auctioned off with proceeds to go to a charitable organisation 

Your contribution, generosity and kindness is certainly totally noble and to be applauded, and that is faultless!


----------



## smial1966

Gosh thanks, jolly nice of you to say so. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



  
 Quote:


silentfrequency said:


> I think its great of you in donating your HOT for benefit of testing results and even more so that you requested the device be then auctioned off with proceeds to go to a charitable organisation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bigshot

pataburd said:


> Maybe a bit of both.  But no cheaper than the manifold salvos of cheap-shots already launched.


 
  
 If I've learned anything in this life, I've learned that the truth rarely lies exactly halfway between opposing opinions. Usually, at least one side is completely full of it. Sometimes it's so self evident, people have to contort their logic into pretzels to accommodate the foolishness... all in the interest of "fairness" of course.


----------



## bigshot

pataburd said:


> Not necessarily.  But would someone please direct me to the salient scientific posts, so I don't have to unduly suffer the concursive banter that comprises a significant percentage of this "objectivist/scientific" thread?


 

 I sincerely apologize for finding entertainment value in all of this.


----------



## bigshot

pataburd said:


> However, I am grateful to SF for having zeroed me in on page 24, in which--BTW--I do not see the alleged design hoax explained away, or even rudimentarily explained.


 
  
 Perhaps you don't know what you are looking at. I would be happy to explain it to you. This is an inert plug extender. Two jacks with three wires between them. There is nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter it, for good or worse. Plugging this in would give the same sound as not plugging it in. It operates on the scientific principle of expectation bias. It is a placebo machine.
  
 If you don't understand any of that, I would be happy to slow down and explain so you can understand.


----------



## bigshot

pataburd said:


> I just ordered the HOT.  If it does not perform as claimed, I will check back in on this thread.


 
  
 This is why I said earlier that it is important to do research before you buy. Everything anyone needs to know is laid out for them on the internet. But if someone refuses to make the slightest effort to become an informed consumer, they're at the mercy of expectation bias. This sort of intellectual laziness is what all kinds of business techniques are based on... Get a free 30 day subscription! But if you forget to cancel, we bill your credit card and you can't contest the charge. 30 day money back guarantee! Unless you catch a cold and can't make it to the post office in time. Claiming you need a week of burn in and counting the time in shipping into the return window helps make the transactions stick too.


----------



## kevin gilmore

in the same way that a bybee can ever so slightly change the sound of
 large inefficient speakers by adding .025 ohms which will slightly change
 the damping factor and a number of other parameters
  
 the HOT can ever so slightly change the sound of headphones due
 to the addition of something like .01 ohms.
  
 so maybe if you listen long enough, you might be able to hear a difference.
 but the statistics are not going to be in your favor.
  
 In any case, you can make one yourself out of neutrik parts for about $15


----------



## bigshot

Inaudible differences are inaudible. Just because a microscopic difference can be measured, it doesn't mean that someone somewhere can hear it. The Princess and the Pea is called a fairy tale for a good reason.


----------



## LarryK2

No science here - only subjective opinion from a professional cellist.  I auditioned the HOT for a week - LCD 3 and Senn 650.  I found the following:  slightly expanded sound stage, less congestion in very complex orchestral passages and a livelier sound.  I did not purchase the HOT because I thought the differences were not quite worth $300.  I must say I miss it and may well buy one if the price comes down a bit.  There was more improvement in the LCD 3 than the 650s.  My wife (who is not a very critical listener) had a preference for both headphones with the HOT.  I identified the musical excerpts as only A and B (not with and without the HOT). Associated equipment: Mac w/ Amarra - Mapleshade USB to SPDIF - Mapleshade digital cable - Yulong D18 - Morrow MA4 - Woo upgraded WA6.
  
 Just my .02.


----------



## limpidglitch

larryk2 said:


> No science here - only subjective opinion from a professional cellist.  I auditioned the HOT for a week - LCD 3 and Senn 650.  I found the following:  slightly expanded sound stage, less congestion in very complex orchestral passages and a livelier sound.  I did not purchase the HOT because I thought the differences were not quite worth $300.  I must say I miss it and may well buy one if the price comes down a bit.  There was more improvement in the LCD 3 than the 650s.  My wife (who is not a very critical listener) had a preference for both headphones with the HOT.  I identified the musical excerpts as only A and B (not with and without the HOT). Associated equipment: Mac w/ Amarra - Mapleshade USB to SPDIF - Mapleshade digital cable - Yulong D18 - Morrow MA4 - Woo upgraded WA6.
> 
> Just my .02.


 
  
 If the price is of such high concern, why not make one yourself?
  
 All you need is a jack, a plug, three wires, some foil, a pinch of sand and a dab of solder paste, et voilà! Your very own DIY HOT.


----------



## bigshot

I think it's time to post the pictures again. There is nothing inside the HOT that could possibly make it sound like anything at all. It is completely useless.


----------



## limpidglitch

esldude said:


> Because he wants to believe in the magic.  He can't put the special SR magic in a DIY version.  Even if its placebo he has a point.  Him doing it won't sound the same as buying the legitimate item for real money from an established company.  His money buys him sound quality in such a case even if it doesn't.


 
  
 But DIY brings its own powerful expectation bias and rose tinted glasses.
 Just think about all those first timers slapping together a kit, listening to it for the first time, and instantly extolling it's unsurpassed virtues.
 Even IKEA furniture looks a lot prettier if you've spent a considerable amount of blood, sweat and tears putting it together.


----------



## esldude

limpidglitch said:


> But DIY brings its own powerful expectation bias and rose tinted glasses.
> Just think about all those first timers slapping together a kit, listening to it for the first time, and instantly extolling it's unsurpassed virtues.
> Even IKEA furniture looks a lot prettier if you've spent a considerable amount of blood, sweat and tears putting it together.


 

 For some people yes, for some people no.  They don't have that experience and until they do will assume manufactured goods are likely better than their own efforts.  One of those cases where either side you fall on you have some built in expectations for good things to happen.


----------



## Steve Eddy

*UPDATE:* My friend has received the second HOT unit for electrical testing.

se


----------



## Billheiser

larryk2 said:


> No science here - only subjective opinion from a professional cellist.  I auditioned the HOT for a week - LCD 3 and Senn 650.  I found the following:  slightly expanded sound stage, less congestion in very complex orchestral passages and a livelier sound.  I did not purchase the HOT because I thought the differences were not quite worth $300.  I must say I miss it and may well buy one if the price comes down a bit.  There was more improvement in the LCD 3 than the 650s.  My wife (who is not a very critical listener) had a preference for both headphones with the HOT.  I identified the musical excerpts as only A and B (not with and without the HOT). Associated equipment: Mac w/ Amarra - Mapleshade USB to SPDIF - Mapleshade digital cable - Yulong D18 - Morrow MA4 - Woo upgraded WA6.
> 
> Just my .02.


I appreciate you posting this, in a clear and appropriate way, not defensive or offensive, reporting your subjective experience.


----------



## Head Injury

steve eddy said:


> *UPDATE:* My friend has received the second HOT unit for electrical testing.
> 
> se


----------



## mulder01

pataburd said:


> I just ordered the HOT.


 
  
 Is this not exactly what I said would happen?  "POINT ME TO THE SCIENCE" *points him to the science* "I DON'T CARE I'M BUYING ONE ANYWAY"
  


kevin gilmore said:


> in the same way that a bybee can ever so slightly change the sound of
> large inefficient speakers by adding .025 ohms which will slightly change
> the damping factor and a number of other parameters
> 
> ...


 
  
 If all there is to it, is a straight through connection, and the wire is 1 square millimetre CSA, at 23 ohms per kilometre, 5cm of wire is about 1 thousandth of an ohm


----------



## esldude

mulder01 said:


> Is this not exactly what I said would happen?  "POINT ME TO THE SCIENCE" *points him to the science* "I DON'T CARE I'M BUYING ONE ANYWAY"
> 
> 
> If all there is to it, is a straight through connection, and the wire is 1 square millimetre CSA, at 23 ohms per kilometre, 5cm of wire is about 1 thousandth of an ohm


 

 But you are so ignoring the SYNERGY,   how else would SR survive if not for the SYNERGY?


----------



## gikigill

Going forward, all stakeholders will be tasked to proactively think outside the box and produce a synergistic vision for growing the impact of this day on the national consciousness.
  
 This is a ground-breaking chance to get behind this concept 120% and to idea-shower strategies for leveraging our assets and incentivize dynamic solutions in order to evolve a
  
 set of win-win deliverables to add value to this high-altitude occasion.
  
  
 There,s some synergy right there.


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> *UPDATE:* My friend has received the second HOT unit for electrical testing.
> 
> se




I think electrical testing results will be interesting and can I request a laymans version of it too if that's ok?

Thank you


----------



## Tyll Hertsens

silentfrequency said:


> I think electrical testing results will be interesting and can I request a laymans version of it too if that's ok?
> 
> Thank you


 
  
 Sure.  42.


----------



## SilentFrequency

tyll hertsens said:


> Sure.  42.




Hi Tyll! 

I actually suggested that maybe you could give your opinion on the HOT device via an ear test earlier on in this thread 

Sorry but I don't understand your "42" comment?


----------



## Music Alchemist

silentfrequency said:


> Sorry but I don't understand your "42" comment?


 
  
This.


----------



## smial1966

Google Douglas Adams and 42. All will become clear.




silentfrequency said:


> Hi Tyll!
> 
> I actually suggested that maybe you could give your opinion on the HOT device via an ear test earlier on in this thread
> 
> Sorry but I don't understand your "42" comment?


----------



## smial1966

Why 42? Because...

"The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story". Douglas Adams. 




tyll hertsens said:


> Sure.  42.


----------



## SilentFrequency

smial1966 said:


> Why 42? Because...
> 
> "The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'. I typed it out. End of story". Douglas Adams.




Douglas Adams is a writer then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams

I honestly still don't get "42" joke but I guess the meaning of it by Tyll speaks volumes?

Edit: from Music Alchemist's link:

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The number 42 is, in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything", calculated by an enormous supercomputer over a period of 7.5 million years. Unfortunately no one knows what the question is. Thus, to calculate the Ultimate Question, a special computer the size of a small planet was built from organic components and named "Earth".


----------



## Steve Eddy

silentfrequency said:


> I think electrical testing results will be interesting and can I request a laymans version of it too if that's ok?




You got it. 

se


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> You got it.
> 
> se




Thank you!


----------



## Mel Famie

Just to confirm that the crushed stuff in the silver paint is quartz, I ran some infrared spectra and compared it to an authentic sample of crushed quartz (Gelest SIS6964.0). The instrument was a Nicolet S10 FT-IR with a Diamond Cell ATR accessory. Both the SR "crystals" and the authentic quartz show the same characteristic absorbances for quartz (main peak of 1080 cm-1, medium peak at 1160 cm-1, and a doublet at 795/775 cm -1). Because of the silver paint, the SR shows a free carrier tilt to the baseline, but the spectra are otherwise identical. 
  
 These measurements confirm the earlier EDX results- it's silver paint with some crushed quartz in it.


----------



## OddE

mel famie said:


> These measurements confirm the earlier EDX results- it's silver paint with some crushed quartz in it.


 
  
 -Thank you; this thread has been an entertaining read - doubly so when people with spectrometers and more start chiming in.
  
 Still trying to figure out whether I should be full of (righteous!) fury at SR or perhaps rather try to buy stock in the company...


----------



## bigshot

mel famie said:


> Just to confirm that the crushed stuff in the silver paint is quartz


 
  
 My bet is that it is casting sand... the material used for commercial sand casting. It's pure crushed quartz exactly the same texture as the photos. Beach sand has other stuff mixed in and is a finer grit.


----------



## kevin gilmore

mulder01 said:


> Is this not exactly what I said would happen?  "POINT ME TO THE SCIENCE" *points him to the science* "I DON'T CARE I'M BUYING ONE ANYWAY"
> 
> 
> If all there is to it, is a straight through connection, and the wire is 1 square millimetre CSA, at 23 ohms per kilometre, 5cm of wire is about 1 thousandth of an ohm


 
 From the pictures, the diameter of the wire sure looks to be #20 to #22 gauge.  So significantly less than 1 square millimeter.
 Plus the really poor solder joints. So a higher resistance than quoted. The poor solder job is probably part of the magic sauce.
  
 In the future, I have a lab full of analytical instruments. And I'm more than happy
 and capable of using them.
  
 Every kind of Mass Spec you could possibly imagine including ICPMS
 A high resolution bruker FTIR with diamond film ATR
 3 different raman spectrometers
 9 different NMR's including a solids unit perfect for quartz like things
 and 3 different high power Xray crystallography instruments also
 perfect for crystals of all sizes.
  
 Analyzing stuff like this is rather trivial


----------



## SilentFrequency

kevin gilmore said:


> From the pictures, the diameter of the wire sure looks to be #20 to #22 gauge.  So significantly less than 1 square millimeter.
> Plus the really poor solder joints. So a higher resistance than quoted. The poor solder job is probably part of the magic sauce.
> 
> In the future, I have a lab full of analytical instruments. And I'm more than happy
> ...




OMG!

Do you work for CSI or something?


----------



## Music Alchemist

silentfrequency said:


> OMG!
> 
> Do you work for CSI or something?


 
  
 Kevin Gilmore is a legend in the audiophile community, particularly for his electrostatic headphone amplifier designs.


----------



## SilentFrequency

music alchemist said:


> Kevin Gilmore is a legend in the audiophile community, particularly for his electrostatic headphone amplifier designs.




Oh, I was only joking, didn't intend to sound disrespectful.

Sorry.


----------



## zerodeefex

kevin gilmore said:


> mulder01 said:
> 
> 
> > Is this not exactly what I said would happen?  "POINT ME TO THE SCIENCE" *points him to the science* "I DON'T CARE I'M BUYING ONE ANYWAY"
> ...




Do the post doc chemists you support need all that equipment in their lab?!? Awesome! That's a wider array than most universities have on hand.


----------



## pataburd

bigshot said:


> Perhaps you don't know what you are looking at. I would be happy to explain it to you. This is an inert plug extender. Two jacks with three wires between them. There is nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter it, for good or worse. Plugging this in would give the same sound as not plugging it in. It operates on the scientific principle of expectation bias. It is a placebo machine.
> 
> If you don't understand any of that, I would be happy to slow down and explain so you can understand.


 
 Sure.
 Go ahead and explain.
 I appreciate your concern.
 I really don't mean to start/prolong a row on this thread.  
 But even you must admit how readily apparent this thread's biases are.  It comes off as condescending to us dim wits with no scientific breeding.


----------



## castleofargh

pataburd said:


> bigshot said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps you don't know what you are looking at. I would be happy to explain it to you. This is an inert plug extender. Two jacks with three wires between them. There is nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter it, for good or worse. Plugging this in would give the same sound as not plugging it in. It operates on the scientific principle of expectation bias. It is a placebo machine.
> ...


 

 LOL if I may.
 step1: see a plug that has no reason to do something good because there is nothing that should be between an amp and a headphone.
 step2: see the very usual marketing tricks and real technical spec avoidance of the website.
 step3: see the HOT opened with not even a crappy resistor+capacitor in it to pretend it's doing something.
 step4: have analysis of the sand and learn that it pretty much is.
 step5: have a guy who claims proudly he didn't read the topic, tell us we are biased for thinking this plug is BS in a can.
  
  
 yup it is pretty funny.


----------



## Music Alchemist

silentfrequency said:


> Oh, I was only joking, didn't intend to sound disrespectful.
> 
> Sorry.


 
  
 Yeah, I know, don't worry. I mentioned it in a "in case you didn't know" kind of way, not in a "bow before the king" way.
  


castleofargh said:


> step1: see a plug that has no reason to do something good because *there is nothing that should be between an amp and a headphone.*


 
  
 I prefer at least having a headphone cable to connect to the source components.


----------



## castleofargh

music alchemist said:


> castleofargh said:
> 
> 
> > step1: see a plug that has no reason to do something good because *there is nothing that should be between an amp and a headphone.*
> ...


 
 I just imagined having 2 monoblocks hanging out of each side of the headphone, and holding somehow onto some extra length of the drivers coil ^_^.


----------



## gikigill

Cableist philistines. I prefer quad filtered air with precise thermal conditioning for that all natural sound.


----------



## mulder01

kevin gilmore said:


> From the pictures, the diameter of the wire sure looks to be #20 to #22 gauge.  So significantly less than 1 square millimeter.
> Plus the really poor solder joints. So a higher resistance than quoted. The poor solder job is probably part of the magic sauce.
> 
> In the future, I have a lab full of analytical instruments. And I'm more than happy
> ...


 
 Yeah I realise the joins will have a higher resistance than the wire etc etc.  That comment was not meant to be taken too seriously, hence the smiley face with it's tongue poking out.


----------



## mulder01

Guys I was thinking of going into business selling power cables.  What do you think I could get for this?
  
  

  
 FEATURES:
 - Male and female ends connected by 3 wires!
 - ...Unlikely to be carcinogenic!
  
 (pictured with optional isolation base)


----------



## Music Alchemist

I'm pretty sure this was inspired by our private conversation. XD


----------



## mulder01

music alchemist said:


> I'm pretty sure this was inspired by our private conversation. XD


 
 haha yes.  Did I mention that I think neither the HOT, nor placing your power board on an iso base will make your system sound better?  ESPECIALLY the latter of those two things


----------



## Music Alchemist

mulder01 said:


> haha yes.  Did I mention that I think neither the HOT, nor placing your power board on an iso base will make your system sound better?  ESPECIALLY the latter of those two things


 
  
 I had _no_ idea you felt that way.


----------



## Mel Famie

Kevin, we are pretty well-equipped as well. If there's anything pertinent that you think I missed, please let me know. I think the SEM/EDX and FT-IR results pretty much nailed things down from the materials end. From the electrical side, we have the usual array of spectrum and network analyzers, as well as audio-specific test gear. It seems like overkill, but if we're going to call someone a fraud, it's good to have the data in hand to back it up.


----------



## kevin gilmore

No reason  not to go to extremes in the testing of this thing
 if for no other reason than to test out your test gear.
  
 I do also have access to a pair of STEM's just for fun
 and to see if the silver is single crystal or not.


----------



## Mel Famie

Heh, I test my test gear daily. For some reason, we seem to use it for real research. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 This is after-hours stuff.


----------



## SilentFrequency

music alchemist said:


> Yeah, I know, don't worry. I mentioned it in a "in case you didn't know" kind of way, not in a "bow before the king" way.






Steve Eddy has kindly mentioned a laymans version of the upcoming HOT electrical test results so I think that will be great for readers (like me) to understand too! 

On a side note, its seems apparent to me that between HOT subjective "believers" for use of a better word and science objective critics, there is no "middle ground" and don't think such is actually possible? 

Just my thoughts on this ever interesting thread of HOT topic


----------



## SilentFrequency

mulder01 said:


> Guys I was thinking of going into business selling power cables.  What do you think I could get for this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I hope it isn't carcinogenic!

That would be HOTTER than just HOT!


----------



## bfreedma

Anyone else find it interesting that the SR vendor rep is showing as viewing this thread regularly and is adding reputation to those he thinks support him, yet makes no actual comments supporting his product now that factual data is being presented?

Speaks volumes to me.

Hopefully the level of scrutiny the HOT is getting will get other "faith based audio" product vendors to consider the ramifications of their products being thoroughly examined. Despite the retaliatory HOT sale mentioned in this thread....


----------



## SunTanScanMan

syn res said:


> Silicon Dioxide is only one active component in  HOT that affects sound. HOT's total conditioning properties are comprised of natural and proprietary man-made substances that when combined with HOT's physical construction create an elegant transduction filter that affects the signal electrically and mechanically, as well as absorbing EM and RF. As a side, computing and indeed modern electronics could not be possible without Silicon Dioxide.
> 
> 
> http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2011/acs-presspac-january-19-2011/silicon-oxide-gets-into-the-electronics-action-on-computer-chips.html
> ...


 
 Anyone also notice that if you click on the Princeton link there is a "WARNING DO NOT CITE" at the top of the page? Click on it and you get:

 "This content of this page is taken from Wikipedia, and may not be up-to-date. The objective of this website is NOT to provide information, but to demonstrate an automatic document organizer and browser. Please visit the original Wikipedia page if you're interested in content. Feel free to cite the paper on  Visualizing Topic Models, International AAAI Conference on Social Media and Weblogs, 2012."
  
 and if you click on the hyperlink on this notice ('Visualizing Topic Models') you get:  'The webpage cannot be found'.
  
 Hence the need to also cite the Wikipedia page on silicon dioxide I guess.
  
  
 Did we really need two citations of the definition of silicon dioxide, even if one could be out of date? I suppose it's just too tempting to try and associate the product to another well known institution. Last time was Stradivarius... this time Princeton...


----------



## SilentFrequency

bfreedma said:


> Anyone else find it interesting that the SR vendor rep is showing as viewing this thread regularly and is adding reputation to those he thinks support him, yet makes no actual comments supporting his product now that factual data is being presented?
> 
> Speaks volumes to me.
> 
> Hopefully the level of scrutiny the HOT is getting will get other "faith based audio" product vendors to consider the ramifications of their products being thoroughly examined. Despite the retaliatory HOT sale mentioned in this thread....




I get the impression that the SR vendor is participating in this threads topic now via PM at present.

I know smial1966 posted a PM off SR vendor recently onto the thread and I've also received a PM also (just SR vendor confirming 10% return rate of HOT after I misunderstood their post in my reply to comment I made on thread).

But I do think SR's approach to this thread by threatening libel action against a member rather than presenting a concise factual/technical reply totally interesting.

Whether or not SR vendor is saving any factual reply in wait for the upcoming electrical test results is anyone's guess?


----------



## Xenophon

silentfrequency said:


> Steve Eddy has kindly mentioned a laymans version of the upcoming HOT electrical test results so I think that will be great for readers (like me) to understand too!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
 I speak only for myself here but I don't think the issue is about (subjective) belief.  With that you enter the realm of wether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.  The problem is that consumers generally won't buy a simple looking but expensive product based on a purely subjective opinion from a vendor, they need to be convinced somehow that a product does what is said on the box.  Else one might as well sell cow dung patties that were dried on the borders of the Ganges as 'dramatically improving amplifier performance if you keep them in your listening room'.  Pertaining to this matter:  what I object to  is that the HOT is sold with a pseudo-technical sauce poured over it which is designed to make people think that there is an objective, technical basis for their claim; citing from their website:  'Headphone Transducers or HOT for short, is the new UEF headphone filter that dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance.'. Trouble is, this claim is not substantiated by verifiable fact and based on the construction of the device and what far more knowledgeable people than I have said about it in this thread, there doesn't seem to be any objective basis for those statements, nor has the producer provided a relevant, verifiable explanation so far.  Had they sold it mentioning -like the Schiit guys for their decrapifier- that 'some people claim it also improves the sound but we simply don't know' it would already have been more palatable.  But face it, who'd pay 300 bucks for a plug extender that might or might not pull a voodoo trick when you can get the same article sans voodoo for 10 USD?


----------



## bfreedma

silentfrequency said:


> I get the impression that the SR vendor is participating in this threads topic now via PM at present.
> 
> I know smial1966 posted a PM off SR vendor recently onto the thread and I've also received a PM also (just SR vendor confirming 10% return rate of HOT after I misunderstood their post in my reply to comment I made on thread).
> 
> ...




Yes, I got an absurd PM earlier in this fiasco. That said, PMing members is not in any way participating in a public forum.

If I made a product that I felt was being unfairly maligned, I'd post the supporting facts I possessed for all to see, not PM individuals. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## pataburd

Philistines, the lot of you!


----------



## SilentFrequency

xenophon said:


> I speak only for myself here but I don't think the issue is about (subjective) belief.  With that you enter the realm of wether vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate.  The problem is that consumers generally won't buy a simple looking but expensive product based on a purely subjective opinion from a vendor, they need to be convinced somehow that a product does what is said on the box.  Else one might as well sell cow dung patties that were dried on the borders of the Ganges as 'dramatically improving amplifier performance if you keep them in your listening room'.  Pertaining to this matter:  what I object to  is that the HOT is sold with a pseudo-technical sauce poured over it which is designed to make people think that there is an objective, technical basis for their claim; citing from their website:  '[COLOR=444444]Headphone Transducers or HOT for short, is the new UEF headphone filter that dramatically improves headphone / amplifier performance.'. [/COLOR]Trouble is, this claim is not substantiated by verifiable fact and based on the construction of the device and what far more knowledgeable people than I have said about it in this thread, there doesn't seem to be any objective basis for those statements, nor has the producer provided a relevant, verifiable explanation so far.  Had they sold it mentioning -like the Schiit guys for their decrapifier- that 'some people claim it also improves the sound but we simply don't know' it would already have been more palatable.  But face it, who'd pay 300 bucks for a plug extender that might or might not pull a voodoo trick when you can get the same article sans voodoo for 10 USD?




Yes, I totally get your points.

I think SR's stating the HOT "dramatically improves headphone/amplifier performance" is such a bold claim that brings it under such justified scrutiny here.


----------



## pataburd

Agreed here, too.
 $299 is, admittedly--or at least apparently, bona fide theft. 
 I can understand one's taking exception to the manufacturer's voluminous claims, but it invariably lapses into belittling the subjectively predisposed Head-Fier.
 Who are "you" to tell me that "I" cannot hear anything, simply because "you" hear nothing?  (I speak rhetorically.)
 Alas!  The placebo effect IS measurable.


----------



## SilentFrequency

pataburd said:


> Philistines, the lot of you!




Have you received your HOT device yet?


----------



## SilentFrequency

bfreedma said:


> Yes, I got an absurd PM earlier in this fiasco. That said, PMing members is not in any way participating in a public forum.
> 
> If I made a product that I felt was being unfairly maligned, I'd post the supporting facts I possessed for all to see, not PM individuals. But maybe that's just me.




I was going to comment in Devils advocate style that maybe this threads more blunt commentators against the HOT maybe was not conducive (if that's the right word) to SR designer feeling comfortable to make counter comments, if not that being a weak premise nontheless, however when I read pataburd's comments, I guess maybe otherwise?


----------



## bfreedma

silentfrequency said:


> I was going to comment in Devils advocate style that maybe this threads more blunt commentators against the HOT maybe was not conducive (if that's the right word) to SR designer feeling comfortable to make counter comments, if not that being a weak premise nontheless, however when I read pataburd's comments, I guess maybe otherwise?




SR makes it and advertises its capabilities. You would think if their clams were supportable, they would be here with the facts and objective measurements re: the HOT

There would be no downside to them doing so - The product either works or it doesn't.. This isn't the Cables forum where subjective claims will go unchallenged.


----------



## SilentFrequency

bfreedma said:


> SR makes it and advertises its capabilities. You would think if their clams were supportable, they would be here with the facts and objective measurements re: the HOT
> 
> There would be no downside to them doing so - The product either works or it doesn't.. This isn't the Cables forum where subjective claims will go unchallenged.




I totally agree, maybe my earlier comment didn't come across too well by me and I think the electrical test results when complete will be not only interesting but telling maybe that it's taken members of this thread to undertake such due to SR's lack of providing any in the first place.

SR maybe would show better form so to speak if they were more forthcoming with factual information rather than making few and far between comments and also via private mail to individual members as I think this shows a lack of agency in their HOT product.


----------



## Steve Eddy

bfreedma said:


> SR makes it and advertises its capabilities. You would think if their clams were supportable, they would be here with the facts and objective measurements re: the HOT.




SR claims to do their own measurements during product development, but those measurements are "proprietary." Just one empty claim after another.

se


----------



## bfreedma

steve eddy said:


> SR claims to do their own measurements during product development, but those measurements are "proprietary." Just one empty claim after another.
> 
> se


 
  
  
 And the measurements are only discussed internally with the "Cones of Silence" lowered.  Need to Know basis and all...


----------



## SilentFrequency

steve eddy said:


> SR claims to do their own measurements during product development, but those measurements are "proprietary." Just one empty claim after another.
> 
> se




I guess "proprietary" = trade secrets but in this case it's easy to draw our own conclusions from that, and I agree totally that SR's claims from that point seem empty if not evasive.

I think burden of proof surely should lie with the manufacturer and not with members here.

And that is such a shame I guess?


----------



## pataburd

Or does the burden of proof lie with the folks challenging SR's claim (that is already "out there")?


----------



## Mel Famie

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof


----------



## SilentFrequency

pataburd said:


> Or does the burden of proof lie with the folks challenging SR's claim (that is already "out there")?




Please click on Mel Famie's above post link.

It answers your proposition way more better than I ever could.


----------



## bigshot

pataburd said:


> Sure. Go ahead and explain.


 
  
 The HOT contains nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter the sound. It is just two plugs wired directly together with nothing in-between them.
  
 How did I do?


----------



## SilentFrequency

bigshot said:


> The HOT contains nothing in the signal path that could possibly alter the sound. It is just two plugs wired directly together with nothing in-between them.
> 
> How did I do?




Pretty HOT?


----------



## mikeaj

I mean, seriously, if you designed and oversaw manufacturing of a great new product (much less one never been conceived before) and saw skeptics maligning it, wouldn't you explain how it works and part of the process? I mean, you would have to keep certain details under wraps, but resorting to threats, empty claims lacking any meaningful technical detail and motivation, and PMs doesn't seem like the natural response.


----------



## SilentFrequency

mikeaj said:


> I mean, seriously, if you designed and oversaw manufacturing of a great new product (much less one never been conceived before) and saw skeptics maligning it, wouldn't you explain how it works and part of the process? I mean, you would have to keep certain details under wraps, but resorting to threats, empty claims lacking any meaningful technical detail and motivation, and PMs doesn't seem like the natural response.




Maybe this is a "emperors new cloths" type of HOT product?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes


----------



## smial1966

The proof is clearly discernible by listening to this snake oil quackery, as it muddies the signal path and is deleterious to sound quality. But then stuffing a small cylinder full of sand, passing a wire thru it and then expecting this contraption to improve your headphone listening experience beggars belief, doesn't it?!?




pataburd said:


> Or does the burden of proof lie with the folks challenging SR's claim (that is already "out there")?


----------



## SilentFrequency

mulder01 said:


> Guys I was thinking of going into business selling power cables.  What do you think I could get for this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think I've found a buyer for your device!

http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/d46c5c80cff5f51134d50506_533x711.jpg

(lol!)



Edit: and he wants two!

only joking!


----------



## castleofargh

silentfrequency said:


> mulder01 said:
> 
> 
> > Guys I was thinking of going into business selling power cables.  What do you think I could get for this?
> ...


 

 I thought the "only joking" warning was insulting my intelligence, then I remembered in what topic we were.
 so you probably did well.


----------



## Dark_wizzie

pataburd said:


> Or does the burden of proof lie with the folks challenging SR's claim (that is already "out there")?


 
 I'm going to try to put this in uh... less offensive terms so this post doesn't get deleted.
 Religious people generally have no idea how the burden of proof works, and you're demonstrating this right now.
  
 And in many ways, this is an audiophile religion.


----------



## Brooko

dark_wizzie said:


> Religious people generally have no idea how the burden of proof works


 
  
 I cannot even start to tell you how bigoted and intolerant this statement is. What the heck does a person's faith have to do with it.


----------



## gikigill

brooko said:


> I cannot even start to tell you how bigoted and intolerant this statement is. What the heck does a person's faith have to do with it.


 
  
 Nothing wrong there.
  
 He isn't pointing to anyone in particular, just showing the burden of proof lies with those making the claims not the ones challenging it.
  
 " Hey Brooko, I just got a billion bucks, too bad I cant show it to you or spend it on you or provide other evidence but trust me I totally have the billion dollars.
  
 Same applies to religions and any other sort of claims be they scientific or audio related as is the case of the HOT.


----------



## Brooko

No - he deliberately and intentionally singled out one particular group.  He didn't have to mention it - and it is a poor analogy anyway.  I am deeply religious (Christian) but that has nothing to do with my understanding of the burden of proof.
  
 And there is a big difference between lying about something material, and about a person's faith.
  
 I won't go into it further - as I know it's banned on the forum.  But I still say making the statement like he did is both bigoted and intolerant.


----------



## gikigill

Let it go mate, its a very poor analogy.
  
 Not worth wasting our time on.


----------



## Billheiser

I think you can disagree with him, as strongly as you wish, but I don't think it's bigotry at all for him to make the statement. I think claims about the supernatural are apt examples of where the "burden of proof" lies - it is with the claimant not the skeptic. 
You may say that his statement was too general, and you might be right. But the burden of proof is correctly placed with the religious. 
Naturally there are many reasons people have faith, and many of those reasons are not related to claims & evidence, but tied to tradition, etc


----------



## Brooko

Look up the definition of bigotry
  
 "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself"
  
He uses the example of religion to compare to something that we all know is placebo (HOT).
  
Direct inference = religion (or someone's faith) is therefore also placebo / fakery / call if what you will.
  
He didn't need to make that sort of comparison.  It was made intentionally.


----------



## Brooko

Suggest we comment no further on this.  I asked Amos to have a look at removing the post and all subsequent posts.  I apologise - as it's what I should have done originally rather than commenting.
  
 Then you guys can go back to dissecting the HOT.


----------



## SilentFrequency

castleofargh said:


> I thought the "only joking" warning was insulting my intelligence, then I remembered in what topic we were.
> so you probably did well.


----------



## Music Alchemist

gikigill said:


> I just got a billion bucks, too bad I cant show it to you or spend it on you or provide other evidence but trust me I totally have the billion dollars.


 
  
 *pfft* Billion dollars? How 'bout _infinity_ dollars? (Complete with irrefutable screenshot proof! But seriously, that link is one of the funniest I've seen, and I'm sure plenty people here would get a good laugh out of it.)


----------



## SilentFrequency

music alchemist said:


> *pfft* Billion dollars? How 'bout _infinity_ dollars? (Complete with irrefutable screenshot proof! But seriously, that link is one of the funniest I've seen, and I'm sure plenty people here would get a good laugh out of it.)




Money is the root of all evil?


----------



## dhruvmeena96 (Nov 3, 2019)

OK sir...
I am a military scientist by profession

And that claims by company and links are indeed correct, but then I think the application was completely wrong..
It mentions electrodes first

And it is being used for increasing the current in batteries for past 10years .Even if we think, that this thing works(which it doesnt at all)...it will just add straight up DC. But then there is no chemical, plus feeding a fuel less non electrode cell means cutting off high frequency.... But then it will not work as the wire used a pretty normal and doesnt have specific discharge rate..

Its a capacitor which doesnt even act like a capacitor and silicon oxide is doing nothing. And if it works,

Condition 1(deadly): if it works like electric booster, it will add DC offset.

Condition 2(weird): if it works, it just is a low pass at high frequency, which by other people review, just doesnt make sense as, they claim that it is adding air.

Thats more snake oil than needed.. I think its not even snake oil....its a imaginative inter galactic snake oil feeded.

When two electrodes are placed in a battery like structure with silicon dioxide, it breaks up into silicon, and oxide and increases the surface area inside battery which gives us a large amount current draw...but is then limited by electrode...thats why we need graphene and CNT or sulphur.

If we believe its a parallel filter and the member gave the ACS link explaining silicon oxide...then its a battery which gets charging and discharging quick(like a battery and capacitor hybrid).

If the theory....if it works
This can have serious consequence, as it means, they take the DC from signal with low pass action and then add the DC back at an offset.


Which again, what I am saying sounds weird...

This happens when we explain snake oil to the finest.

Here is an advice
Hope you get it....(well, military cannot live with snake oils, or we would loose the war, if it happens)



Just add a ferrite bead and be happy for god sake....that will work better. Make the wire go round and round...

And do check ferrite bead formula for inductance and how to coil it, its alloy and its inductance effected by length (bead length) and the way coiling makes the low pass steeper.

This would help the company on a long run...

Be happy
Avoid situation causing debates

And make good product at good prices

And be happy..


----------



## colonelkernel8

I'm glad you dug up this thread to post bull.


----------



## bigshot

One thing I noticed after getting banned for my photographic contribution to this thread was that if you typed the name of the company into Google, this thread came up. I found that a lot of keywords led back to posts in sound science. We may be the source of a lot of Head-Fi's search engine traffic.


----------



## dhruvmeena96

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'm glad you dug up this thread to post bull.


I was only giving suggestion to company on how to approach the issue... A parallel cap and a series inductor are kinda same(low pass).

And a ferrite bead is psuedo inductor when the main wire is wrapped around, doing the low pass plus, the ferrite bead will also protect the cable from emf and rf.

This is actual cleaning.

Did I post something bull???(I think I am taking it in a wrong way)




bigshot said:


> One thing I noticed after getting banned for my photographic contribution to this thread was that if you typed the name of the company into Google, this thread came up. I found that a lot of keywords led back to posts in sound science. We may be the source of a lot of Head-Fi's search engine traffic.


Thats also good... Headfi getting traffic.....lol


----------



## Speedskater

dhruvmeena96 said:


> Did I post something bull???(I think I am taking it in a wrong way)


No, you posted about how science works in our Universe, not how it works in their universe.


----------



## dhruvmeena96

colonelkernel8 said:


> I'm glad you dug up this thread to post bull.



Sorry



Speedskater said:


> No, you posted about how science works in our Universe, not how it works in their universe.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

Now I am confused...

So... There are multiple universe
I didn't know about that

Sorry for bad English


----------

