[Review] Getting animated

So what do you call if someone tells you that you are not hearing what you just said you are hearing, just imagining it... :confused:

Crazy... :crazy:
 
PM me your address, I'll post you a dictionary.

I have no doubt people sincerely describe what they hear when they hear a difference. They are not lying. It can't be made any clearer. So drop the rhetorical games if you want a serious discussion.

-- Ian
 
Your question has been answered, it's just that you can't read.

So, for the last time:

People who sincerely report hearing something which turns out to be down to expectation or placebo are not lying, but they are mistaken. To be mistaken is not to be a liar. People hold beliefs about all sorts of things which later turn out to be false, but if they sincerely hold that belief they are not lying. Lying is deliberately and consciously saying something that one knows at the time to be false, rather than sincerely and honestly saying something which turns out to be an error.

Now, stop trying to provoke by putting words into other people's mouths. It's childish.

I haven't said at any point that people are imagining the effects of the animator, btw, but merely pointed out where the theories allegedly justifying it are wanting. My experience with other tweaks suggests that it's almost certainly the usual audiophool hoopla, however.

Is that clear enough for you? If it isn't, do me a favour and just ignore me, as I really can't be bothered to type all this out again.

-- Ian
 
As far as I know I'm the only forum member whos is an owner .....so you can see there's been a lot of bunkum writen with very little hands on experience.
 
I've been persuade to place the pics on this thread against my better judgment .....if you can hang on for a bit i hope they will appear !
 
I can't resist responding to the occasional bit of audiophoolery :-)

I'm not planning to make a habit of it, though.

-- Ian
 
Ok ....this is not meant to show anything other than the efeect the blue light has on a joss stick ....these pics were taken within 5 minutes from start to finish ..the camera was set on a tripod and not moved ..I think the shutter and apature settings are the same.

pic 1x shows the set up before lighting the joss stick
pic2x shows smoke with the blue light off
pic3x shows with the blue light on

taking the photos I waited for the tallest column of smoke in both instances. These do not prove anything either way .....there not meant as some conclusive proof .....its just another aspect of the the blue light effect....as previously reported this has been tried in a number of different room and in at least three locations in this country ......

pic 1 is to the left and pic 3 to the right.

the joss stick is sat on the glass coaster to the left of the animator
pic 2 shows the smoke breaking up in front of the cd67
pic3 shows the blue light on and the smoke reaching just above the dab tuner ...

these photos have not been edited except to reduce them in size to fit the forum constrains.

if any one wants the larger versions pm me and I'll sort it out by email

I appologise for the loss of my photo elsewhere these had to be deleted to make room for these
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pete, I hate to say this....but I don't see a lot of diff...

(Maybe my comp screen has got very good resulution)

.....but thoughts any one?




:)
 
Follow the white line in pic three [furthest right] from floor to the left hand side of the dab screen height is about 36cm off the floor. At that point the smoke breaks up.

in pic 2 the smoke get barely to the pink pig sat under the stand [don't ask !]

4 x height difference that the smoke column was able to sustain

Oh just a thought ...may be no one else can see the smoke on the photos ...just blue light believers ?


thanks dave......thought "their" bound to say you've imagined it or it was a placebo or mass hallucination!
 
Ok.

yes, I can see that .....


From what ltiitle i know of scientific experimentation (did a bit of fiel trials at my local county college whist working there as a technician) don't you need at least a couple of replicates in order to say you have some evidence...? (ie one pic could be coincidence?)

I'm not meaning to be critical pete, or that you now have to get on you hands/knees again....just predicting what people are going to say...

tell me i'm talking cr*p??






D.
 
Taking my views out of the thread ...I wonder if the none bluelightists can account for the posts from other forum members who have heard this device ......

theres been a lot of psuedo science posted about why the unit may work .....but as far as I can see theres been no obvious explanation why those who have had chance to listen to can hear it ...and those who have not heard it think it can work.

Why would these forum members post descriptions of the units effects if the unit doesn't work .....?

Taking that one stage further ....if everytime you listen to you hifi your deluded into hearing something by your brain ...does that mean the effect doesn't exist ?

IMO it means it does ......we can use the analogy of the stereo effect its self....[the nub of the hobby?] it doesn't exist till your brain intigrates the left and right channel to form the so called stereo image ......I don't hear many of the naysayers say this can't happen .....[this is a simplistic view of psycho accoustics...but I'm only a simple person]

So for lest suppose the effect of the blue light is working to enhance the brains interpretation of the sound recieved by the ears ...............[just thinking aloud]
 
dave ......I said its not supposed to prove anything ......

the secret is for people to try the incense burn in the own room and see how height the smoke column will extend before breaking up......

this has been repeated at jackotrade's and uncle ant's with identical results .......maybe they will confirm this.

its just showing you a repeatable effect......
 

Latest posts

Back
Top