[Review] Getting animated

They dont think it works, they hear it work, dont say it is my English that is not good...

 

For anyone with an understanding of the nature of evidence the anecdotes presented on this thread attesting to the efficacy of this phenomenal device outside of auto-suggestion will appear as weak as a wetted paper tissue. That's not to dismiss these anecdotes, that's just the way it is in the real world. In the real world, where good evidence is sought, confounding errors need to be controlled. This would be a start.

 

What a load of silliness. The fact is, until there is either controlled listening tests done with strong positive results or a water-tight explanation of how it works... all we have is some people saying they heard something and others saying they didn't. (By the way, Pete seems to be the common factor with the tests that show a difference).

Therefore it is really up to each individual to decide whether they think the chances are it does or does not do anything physical to the sound or the listener.

I'm not going to ask Phonosophie to send me one as I am not sure I'm really that comfortable doing so just to put it under the microscope. Plus I don't have £700 free on my card, which I assume they would take as deposit before sending it to me?

 

How about 'they think they hear it work'? Whether this device does anything at all has not been proven to my satisfaction yet - remember some audiophiles claim to hear the effects of some pebbles in a jam jar... I have that one filed under religion rather than audio science. I'm not saying the Phonosophie device doesn't work, nor am I implying that Zanash etc are liars or charlatans - I'd just like more evidence before forming an opinion.

Tony.

 

Isn't it just?.........

True.

It doesn't really bother me but i'm still not totally sure (and I think this Petes main query (?)) how they arrive at that conclusion ...whist being 100/200...whatever miles away!?

 

better.....

non here AFAIK.....

 

remind me what good evidence you are looking for?

again, what errors are you refering to?

 

That is certainly not true in my case.

Let’s review the evidence:

a) Phonosophie have released a product that is a silver disk with a blue LED on the top. The explanation given on their site as to it’s design and function is by any established scientific or logical criteria utter bollocks.

b) Pete / Zanash has one on dem. He likes it. He has operated it in front of a couple of other people who also seem to like it.

c) Tones (a scientific patent attorney) has also had one on dem. He has detected nothing but a blue light.

d) Markus Sauer (an experienced audio magazine reviewer) has also had a dem, albeit at a show. He says he heard no difference.

This is all I have to work with! Wouldn’t you be a tad sceptical?

Tony.

 

1. Evidence where possible confounding errors have been controlled.

2. Psychological bias and post-hoc reasoning.

 

Tony,

If you don't mind my saying so I find that slightly patronising.

I don't dispute Tones knowledge........hes clearly an extremely bright (+ knowledgeable) gentleman......you quote that he is a "scientific patent attorney"......very impressive....it doesn't make his ears any better or worse though.

Tones, by his own admission, would rather listen to his cds than experiment with diff cables. Nothing wrong with that. Its just says to me he has little interest in audio tweaking.....

I don't know Markus....he didn't here anything? Plenty have!

(not "a couple" BTW........I think several...which statistcally, whist hardly conclusive, starts making a difference, especially as some were appararntly quite dramatic)

As a matter of interest, If I was htinking (able to) buy one of these things I WOULD do consderably more to find out its mechanics than I have .......been busy else where. So far i've just contended myself with petes demo.

Yes, I can understand a degree of sceptism (have YOU tied one Tony?) but I don't necessarly think for your given reasons.



edit...sorry, your point a)......haven't read the blurb at all. (Maybe its a good thing!)



regs



David

 

Thanks....

Sorry, not quite familiar with those terms...

Perhapts you could break that down for me?


eg how do you define a confounding error?

 

I think TonyL's post sums up my own feelings on the item.

If it were given to somone able to run it's effects by a calibrated microphone and a scope ... if it does ''something'' then the traces will be different. **

The description of that difference in trace is something that we can then rely on our hearing to describe.

Does anyone else have one that they'd be willing to have measured?

Until we progress the debate to looking at something more concrete, then we have .... well we have the situation that TonyL described quite well.


**NB if anyone cares to state that you can have human 'audible' differences that are not measurable... frankly they are barking mad!

 

It would seem a shame there not rather better documentation of research with the gadget.

Thats doesn't seem to be doing them any favours at all.

 

A) Quite true it is a silver canister with a blue LED on the top. Nobody has suggested anything other than it's an indicator light to show the unit is powered up. No mystery there. Utter bollocks? I don't see any hemspherical breeding organs in the image I have, but the manufacturer's explanantion is at best misleading and at worst commercial secrecy.

B) Inaccurate. My head count differs from that. Nobody professed to "like it" but they did notice "an effect" repeatedly and consistently. More than one has noted an effect on smoke rising believed to be entirely due to the equipment being operated, again repeatedly and consistently. That suggests it is more than a canister with a blue LED on it and goodbye to placebo effect too. However, it is being evaluated for alleged sonic enhancment propreties, not smoke deflection abilities.

C) My auntie Maud once made strawberry jam.

D) None of the other subjects in this trial conducted their observations at a show, so what relevance is that comment?

The fact remains that the language being used by some in this thread certainly isn't unbiased and impartial. Those that profess to having an objective mindset are doing a champion job of concealing it. What's far worse than psuedo science though IMHO is psuedo scientists.

The sample of observers is far too small to draw any meaningful conclusions yet..

 

What fantastic free publicity this all is for anyone who chose to be an agent for the manufacturers of the device.

 

My apologies, it was not intended to be. I was just trying point out that I do not have enough evidence to form any conclusion.

Which is all I’ve been trying to point out.

In a world where people can make damn good money by selling magic pebbles in jam jars, magic ‘Mpingo’ disks on magic wooden stands etc my bullshit detector is prone to twitching a little – I’m not saying the Phonosophie device is bullshit, just that I haven’t entirely ruled that prospect out. The explanation given as to it’s function is no more plausible IMHO than that for the magic pebbles or the Shun-Mook religion.

Tony.

 

"My apologies, it was not intended to be. "

No, Tony, I'm certain it wasn't.

No probs.


(i'm sorry I jumped at you!)





"I was just trying point out that I do not have enough evidence to form any conclusion"



No, we don't.

I agree.

 

There are people who have heard the unit and still say they can't hear anything. I was not referring to people who simply doubt it does anything given the lack of evidence.

It reminds me of a Simpson's sketch.. 'Mr. Hutz we've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?'

'Hutz: Well, Your Honor. We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.'

 

..I think they are in the minority....most ahve heared (or felt they heared) an improvement.

.....sceptism is healthy enough.

I feel the talk goes a bit beyong that though. In some cases its heading dangerously close to arrogance.

 

Of course it is very convenient for the naysayers that Tones came forward, but given his past experience, he doesnt have any credibility on audio equipment testing...

As for the other negative experience, we all know that audioshows are not the best places to test equipment, all of a sudden become more credible than the experiences of several members of the forum...