[Review] Getting animated

But, pretty much this whole debate was not about perception. It was about what the device does in real life. No one from the 'naysayers' side has ever questioned anyone’s perception, only the cause of that perception.

From the (limited) evidence gathered it seems more and more likely the device does nothing in real life.

As for negativity, most of it surfaces when someone says they didn’t perceive an effect from the device or when the cause of others perception is questioned. To question the cause of the perception is not negative. Neither is saying it is likely the device does nothing when that is what the evidence suggests.

 

I am going to Marks and Spencers tomorrow to demand instructions with their trousers.

 

how can you infer from a 30 to 2 polling that it does nothing, simply by the fact it draws an LEDS worth of current?

I'm happy to accept that tones didn't hear it, but none of the negative choir seem happy to accept that we did. and that's the difference.

i don't mind if it 'can't' work, yet my ears tell me it did.

 

I have just waded (well skipped actually) through all 34 pages of this thread and it follows the usual debate where:

Believer's opinion - I have heard a difference, which proves it works

Doubters opinion – there is no logical proof that it works, so you must be imagining it.

Isn't this easy to address? Since Pete can clearly hear a big improvement, he should have no difficulty in identifying when the gizmo is on or off. If one of the doubters is willing to go to Pete's house and Pete is willing to be tested, it would not be too difficult to perform an A/B test.

If a track was played twice, with the gizmo on or off in a random order and the test repeated for 10 tracks, if Pete could correctly identify when the gizmo was on say 8 or more times it would be fairly comprehensive proof that it does work (and that Pete has good hearing). If he gets it right 7 times or less, then it's just a box with a pretty blue light that does strange things to joss sticks.

 

Yes people are being offended, hence this thread is over 30 pages long.

No I am not a scientologist and have no time at all for religion of any persuasion. The word "belief" in the context used during these contentious debates infers that the perceptions experienced by contributors is a fictitious myth or conjured up by the mind consciously or subconciously. By default it is also inferring the person that uses the word is never the victim of such delusions and therfore in a superior position. To put it into perspective, many believe that a God and Heaven exists. Fine by me but come crunch time they cannot summon this God to appear by command in any entity. There are no parallels with that situation in this instance because Zanash is trying to provide real tangible proof that what he witnesses is no trick of the mind. Good on him for trying and facing the onslaught of people like you who see it not as an objective method of substantiation, but an object of ridicule and the opprotunity for more dogmatic unwarranted derision.

Before you start foaming at the mouth in indignation I will tell you a story that does have close parallels directly relevant to this thread.

In 1941 a cartographer was instructed to map the sea bed across the Atlantic to the USA so that submarines could safely navigate underwater. During the echo soundings it was noticed that what appeared to be a deep water "trench" was running north to south down the entire length of the Atlantic. This cartographer then published those findings and the entire scientific community went up in arms about it. Thousands of letters from sceptics poured in from all over the world dismissing these charts as "errors" in the readings. When more were found in other oceans the uproar became even louder and when it was suggested these trenches were the division between continental shelves, well that caused a huge furore. It also accounted for continental drift and why volcanoes are situated where they are and not by accident, so we now know that the reason behind elephants being found in Africa and India was because the land was joined once and they have the same common ancestors. That derision of the cartographer's findings went on for 25 years by the sceptics, but now it's old news and accepted as fact. The sad part of the story for me though is the waste of 25 years on silly childish squabbling, sadder still is that the sceptics that were wrong had nothing to lose by being wrong and still don't.

I will say it again for the hard of thinking that I really don't care one jot about this little box with an LED on top, what I do care about is the bullys that have apparently lots to say and very little to say it with, dominating the proceedings by insisting they are right rather than adopting the true sceptic's mindset, so there is a balance of views in the debate.

Apologies to the moderators but I am trying hard to make a robust and valid point while remaining calm and courteous.

 

Trying (which is a good thing, credit to Zanash), is very different from succeeding. Religious believers can try all they want; it doesn’t provide proof of their beliefs until they succeed.

Also, why do you say that suggesting someone’s perception is an effect of the mind, puts the other person on higher ground? It is completely human and normal to experience auto-suggestion.

 

I disagree Tenson, what's being called into question is the perceived effectiveness of the device. We have not one shred of hard categorical evidence that the device does nothing, beyond supposition and hearsay. The strongest material argument so far that I can see has been from Tones who states that he categorically heard no effect at all when he trialled the device.

At face value then we have a box with an LED with no supporting objective data to explain what the device is doing and how it does it. In the absence of that, some listeners have reported an effect they say is attributable to this device and not say the clock sitting on the mantelpiece being responsible. All we then have so far as evidence are these contempraneous reports of the aforesaid effect.

This isn't semantics, it's an appraisal I think of where we are in the debate while the rest is just petulance and toy throwing.

 

We are not arguing about religion - please, don't even go there :SLEEP:

You have misquoted me Tenson; I didn't say that perception is an effect of the mind which might put the other person on higher ground. I was challenging the words "faith" and "delusion" in context of contentious threads.

We all have our own perceptions of the world we are surrounded by, so if one person says "I heard a whistle" and the other person says "What whistle, I heard nothing" neither of them is right or wrong because they have individual perceptions of that. From what is known about the ear as a tranducer and the brain as a receptor the ear cannot create a sound that isn't there (unless there is a medical condition like tinitus). It is also known fact that if the second person didn't hear that whistle then there is a high probability that the person has a hearing defect either in the ear tranducer or the receptor, the brain. That doesn't however mean that the fist person has "golden ears" or the second person is deaf which are inaccurate generalisations. There are people that are genuinely tone deaf but can hear a pin drop 10 feet away, so clearly they don't have defective hearing. Some people are sensitive to certain frequencies and others are impervious to those same frequencies.

It is a complicated subject that's why I prefer the word "perception" because that is a more apt and relevant word than "belief".

When was the last time you were subject to auto-suggestion and what was the outcome?

 

Given the nonsense written about it by Phonosophie, why is calling it into question such a shocking thing to do?

And no hard categorical evidence that it does anything, either. Just belief.

You can choose to be offended by people making this elementary point, but that's entirely a matter of you taking the decision to be offended. No more than a rhetorical game, in other words.

My perception is x, my belief is y. Really, they can be treated as synonyms.

Anything in the mind is an artefact of the consciousness or the unconsciousness, by definition. You're inventing spurious conceptual distinctions. This is my belief, it's my perception from reading your posts, please don't get offended...

-- Ian

 

I presume that’s “sought” the advice of the dealer. (Perhaps like yourself he could use a bit of sorting out…) Why should I? I took his advice and that of the instructions, it didn’t work. End of story, End of Room-Animator

You’re dodging constantly the fact that I did the test exactly as described in the instructions, and trying to smear and insinuate that I didn’t. This is highly comical from someone who recently pleaded “Why can’t you accept that I heard something?” and “I don’t tell porkies”. I accepted both. So, why can’t you do likewise? Are you simply unable to face the fact that someone doesn’t agree with your opinion and has had the effrontery to voice it?

Sorry, why should that be a funny? It’s simply fact. I’m with Ian. I’d rather play music than try to coax blood out of a stone, or in this case better sound out of quartz crystals. But don’t let me stop you.

Well, just down the road, otherwise I wouldn’t have bothered.

Pete, to be honest, I’m past caring what you think, because you will continue to think a whole lot of codswallop no matter what I say. And as I’ve said, why bother? He explained it. I tried it. It didn’t work. QED.

Now here you go again, the non-porky who accuses everyone else of porkies when things don’t work his way! Someone needs to instill (or even install) some decency into you. What sort of pathetic, inadequate, little individual are you that you must constantly insinuate that, just because somebody doesn’t agree with your point of view that they are either incompetent or liars? Installation? What installation, for goodness’ sake? You plug the thing in!

Er, no, paragraph 5 reads:

- As you’re listening, observe the volume of the playing, the width and height of the performance. Where does the music come from, from the loudspeakers? From the room? Normally there’ll be a relatively small and compressed picture. After you have listened for a while (about a minute) press the pause button.
And how, pray, does this affect the working or non-working of the thing?

(For the general edification of all, here’s a quick translation of the instructions that came with the device)

This is how you proceed optimally:

- Produce a calm atmosphere. Have the room, equipment, music and Room-Animator ready or installed (don’t turn it on yet!)

- Choose a melodic musical piece to use for the demonstration, ideally one you know well.

- Set the volume to the level you’re going to use for the trial and don’t change it.

- Ideally use a CD player in which it is easy to replay the same passage. Play the selected piece of music for about 1 minute.

- As you’re listening, observe the volume of the playing, the width and height of the performance. Where does the music come from, from the loudspeakers? From the room? Normally there’ll be a relatively small and compressed picture. After you have listened for a while (about a minute) press the pause button.

- Now turn on (aktivieren) the Room-Animator and let it function for 30 seconds without music. Now sit in the same position as previously and relax. Start the replay and listen carefully.

- What differences strike you? Is the volume the same or does it appear louder? Is the extension of the sound picture as it previously was, or does it appear more open and released from the loudspeakers? Are the soft tones generally more pleasing? Is the sound picture more holographic? Does it come to meet the listener?

-If you or your customer cannot hear a difference between the two hearing tests, reset the effect of the Room-Animator and repeat the trial.

Did I do this? Yes. Did I hear a difference? No. Did I do the mobile phone bit afterwards? Yes. Did that make a difference? No. Happy now? Or are you going to hunt for more porkies? And, no, I’m not doing the pentangle dance.

The very one. And the instructions there are the ones that came with the device. "Set up"? Isn't that rather grandiose?

OK, I’ve had enough of this piffle. End of the road for me on this thread. The thing doesn’t work, period. I’m glad for you that you enjoy it, for whatever reason - to have spent all that money and found it not to would have been tragic.

 

This is getting to be like teaching a cat to eat it's dinner with chopsticks

I have no objection at all to anyone dismissing Phonosophies hooey, in fact I challenge you to find otherwise from any of my posts. Read what I said a couple of posts back rather than just cherry picking quotes.

It is that very same absence of objection information that you see as nothing more than a soft underbelly ripe for attack in any debate and even Zanash is getting undeservedly tarred with the same brush you're are using on Phonosophie. Zanash isn't making the nonsense claims that this device does something miraculous, merely that he (and others) have observed "an effect". Period.

Why you should get all upset about this I honestly don't know, because a right minded person has the free choice to ignore it and walk away. As far as I'm concerned Mr Phonospohie and his gizmos can fall off the planet and I wouldn't shed a single tear.

 

No need to "challenge", just stating you have no objection is good enough. All this melodrama is getting a bit tiresome.

And I've never said anything different, I've merely questioned whether, in the absence of categorical evidence, anything has been demonstrated about the audibility of the device. You then leap in and starting taking offence on Zanash's behalf, inventing fairy-tales about me describing him as "deluded" (I haven't) and attempting cheese-paring non-distinctions between "perception" and "belief".

I'm not even slightly upset (I thought it was you who was offended?), and I doubt anything I've posted can be read as such. But I am now thoroughly bored with your rhetorical play-acting, so I will leave you to it. You're welcome to the last word, but I doubt it'll be very enlightening.

-- Ian

 

surely the thing must have some effect?

even if it is small and only in some situations?

if not the trading standards office would probably like to hear about it ?

also if the effect takes a while and only works with doors closed etc then why not have the thing a bit bigger or do different sizes for different rooms?

it seems the main problem with the thing is the way in which it is marketed, if it is that good why not patent it ? then tell the customer how it actually works ?

 

just a curious thought this one, I was thinking about how this thing is sealed up tighter than a gnat's chuff - preventing prying eyes and such-like..

If we charged everybody £1 per post that they've made in this thread, we could buy one of them, measure it, chop it open and see what's really in there..

you know, audio-boards last for years and years, I certainly hope zerogain does.

Maybe, in five years time someone will pick up a disgarded animator at pound stretcher and do the above... I hope I'm around to see what's inside this thing.

Funnily enough, I'm more curious about ''what is it??'' than I am about what effects it has.

It's like an xmas present with the wrapping on under the tree. I don't want to play with it, I just want to get at it with a screwdriver!!

 

I'm not offended at all and am well used to the rough and tumble of forums, so no hard feelings from me whatsoever. Hope that I haven;t ruffled your feathers, but believe me no malice is ever intended :MILD:

It isn't nice though to have a good ding-dong now and again?

 

£2 a post and we're laughing Chris! Count me in for this one

 

I think his 'scientific' approach is lacking a little bit. don't you?

If I read this right you are comparing Zanash to the cartographer? The cartographer had sound scientific evidence, I see none in this case so far. For the sake of this country's children I pray you aren't a science teacher!

 

I don't think pete ever suggested his information was scientific proof.

Tangable evidence?

I don't know.

Enough positive support to hold a degree of credability?

I think so, yes.

 

yes!

If only because of the length of this thread!

Theres no smoke without fire...

true enough...

 

I'd be more than happy to add a few £ to the pot to open one of these, but it would make me sad if we could raise £700 and chose to spend it on that when we can't even get £300 to keep the forum running past next month!