Anyone Using Crystals?

...and we all start edging into the surreal....

Geo, you're absolutely Right.  As a skeptic, I ought to investigate...IF interested, which I'm not so much.   Given my 'listening space', which is light years from being 'optimal' (you'd be appalled, really), I do what I can with it...

I don't 'get' the 'religious aspect' of the discussion mentioned, but faith is a wonderful thing in general as long as one doesn't opt for the 'ISIS approach".  Bombing and beheading the opposition into compliance in regard to one's audio tastes might be an option but let's leave that to the 'cable and interconnect' crowd.  They seem a bit more 'religious' about it...

Yes, the previous Does drip enormous amounts of sarcasm....sorry about the stains on your monitors.   Windex....;)

(Maybe I should just toss it and become a pro troll....I do suspect that some would rather stuff my keyboard into an appropo orifice and hope for an early and quiet end to my 'absurdvations'...*sly S*)

"It's all too much...."   

Northernescape
And I guess I do have to add to this thread there is a reason that most scientific studies involving humans and responses are double blinded! AND INCLUDE A PLACEBO TO ASCERTAIN THAT EFFECT.. BG...

Nope, doesn’t work for audio. Might be OK for pharma. There are just too many reasons the tests can be done wrong for audio. Therefore nothing can be concluded if the test results are negative. Best to just throw them out. In audio we see the threat of controlled blind tests frequently, and the dreaded placebo effect and it’s ugly sister, expectation bias, you know, as if the mere threat of such is sufficient to scare the opposition into submission or "prove" the controversial device under consideration must be a hoax or scientifically impossible.

"Most scientific studies...." Lol.

Double blind tests. Ewwwwww!

Whatever one thinks makes their system sound better is the tweak that should be used.

Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!

But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need. If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome". Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!

Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.

stfoth, yep but kinda dropped psychotropic studies, shifted to anesthetic agents, which when you think of it, are the ultimate big gun--knocking you out, rather than fine tuning sensations, so kind of boring in comparison.

 
northernescape
Lai, 100% agree. I really really do.Many are the physicians who have prescribed sugar pills to great patient benefit. If it works for you obviously keep it!

>>>>>>>But can be shown that a thing is or is not a placebo by careful testing. That's a pretty obvious Strawman argument you just made.

But...But beware of situations in audio somewhat analogous to Münchhausen's Syndrome, in that the audiophile unwittingly HAS to try solutions, that are proven scientifically impossibly unable to improve sound, because of an intrinsic need.

>>>>>>Oh, geez, another Strawman argument. Maybe they are scientifically impossible in your mind. That's not the same thing as scientifically impossible.


If it is inexpensive enough, generally really no harm(and I guess this would be wallet dependent), but if carried to extreme, it would represent a detrimental "syndrome".

>>>>>Who are you to decide how much anyone can spend? 

Often coupled with dogmatic defense in the face of valid criticism, this situation would be less than ideal. I believe all of us have seen this behavior amongst the audiophile population. However, if one really believes anything makes the sound better, bearing in mind the previous cautionary imperative, more power to you!!

>>>>>>This is all starting to look like dogmatic criticism, not valid criticism. Sorry.

Any study, including double blind, nearly measures response numbers. Almost never are they anywhere near 100%, the reason for statistics and probability. The two standard deviations or "95%" probability of the result not being due to chance Never, ever states it is the correct result absolutely, just that it is the statistically correct chance of being the result. We scientifically accept that, but never deny that it might be incorrect. Many audiophile fringe issues seem like this. The real issue is absolutely 100% we all do not hear the same and this, perhaps more than anything, answers the variance in audio perceived benefits.

>>>>>>Of course there won't be 100% agreement for anything audio related, for the reasons I already alluded to. That's why I suggested throwing out the negative results if most results are positive. If there is only one test and its results are negative it doesn't mean anything. I dare say what appears to be a fringe issue to you is an advanced concept to some others.