Audiophile Bargain!

[EEVblog]

I find it always a bit lame to make fun of other people, while I see quite some gear snobs buying overpriced gear on this forum as well.

Show me a $5000 hand held multimeter with the same specs as a $50 meter and I'll concede your point.

The difference is huge. Many engineers don't mind buying more expensive test gear that has say a bandwidth they might never use, or better build quality etc, and that's fine. But what they don't do is claim that their $5000 instrument with the same specs can measure things the $50 instrument can't. That's what Audiophools claim, and it's why we are justified in laughing at them.

Not gonna go into a debate with that, because it's gonna be an endless story.

You aren't going to do that because you can't.
The same reason why no one ever claimed the James Randi $1M prize for audiophool cables, because the claims are bullshit.
Go on, amaze us how say an expensive audiophool speaker cable that has the exact same electrical parameters as a cheap equivalent twin flex can make any difference.
Or how an audiophool mains cable can "sound" any different to the same electrical equivalent hardware store mains cable.

Even if what people believe isn't totally completely according to science, just respect them.

Respect them?  Why on earth should anyone "respect" someone for believe utter nonsense?
I'll fight for their right to believe anything they want, but I damn sure won't respect them for it.

Look, I've got no problem with paying more money for good quality audio gear that can make a demonstrable difference in performance and/or build quality (for reliability etc), but when you start claiming anti-science anti-engineering utter nonsense then expect to be called out for it and laughed at.

[tggzzz]

Even if what people believe isn't totally completely according to science, just respect them.

Respect them?  Why on earth should anyone "respect" someone for believe utter nonsense?
I'll fight for their right to believe anything they want, but I damn sure won't respect them for it.

Just so. Succinctly put

[BrianHG]

Why are the woofers pictured in that Ebay ad made out of extra cheap old style paper.  And they are so big that any definition and range is lost due to vibrating that cheap mass of flexible paper back and forth.  Much superior technology exists today.

Also, that blue db SPL graph swinging with peaks at 65db going down to 35db not even counting the above 10khz region bloody sucks like crap.

Even my 20 year old Clements RT-7s, a 7 inch woofer and 7 inch ribbon tweeter speaker is flat within 1-2db from 35hz to 25Khz, not to mention they can deliver over 98db SPL distortion free throughout this frequency range.  And they only cost 1300$ and take up a fraction of the floor room.

Also that internal photo of the amp does not look like it would pass UL or FCC.  In fact, it looks like a home made piece of junk.  Without certification, if I have a fire in my house and the insurance company discovers I used this amp, will they cover my multi-million dollar home, or will I loose all my money?

(Considering the price of the audio system, your home would need to be in the mid 7 figure range at least...)

[b_force]

I find it always a bit lame to make fun of other people, while I see quite some gear snobs buying overpriced gear on this forum as well.

Show me a $5000 hand held multimeter with the same specs as a $50 meter and I'll concede your point.

The difference is huge. Many engineers don't mind buying more expensive test gear that has say a bandwidth they might never use, or better build quality etc, and that's fine. But what they don't do is claim that their $5000 instrument with the same specs can measure things the $50 instrument can't. That's what Audiophools claim, and it's why we are justified in laughing at them.

Not gonna go into a debate with that, because it's gonna be an endless story.

You aren't going to do that because you can't.
The same reason why no one ever claimed the James Randi $1M prize for audiophool cables, because the claims are bullshit.
Go on, amaze us how say an expensive audiophool speaker cable that has the exact same electrical parameters as a cheap equivalent twin flex can make any difference.
Or how an audiophool mains cable can "sound" any different to the same electrical equivalent hardware store mains cable.

Even if what people believe isn't totally completely according to science, just respect them.

Respect them?  Why on earth should anyone "respect" someone for believe utter nonsense?
I'll fight for their right to believe anything they want, but I damn sure won't respect them for it.

Look, I've got no problem with paying more money for good quality audio gear that can make a demonstrable difference in performance and/or build quality (for reliability etc), but when you start claiming anti-science anti-engineering utter nonsense then expect to be called out for it and laughed at.

I was obviously talking about overly expensive gear not overly expensive cables.

I am not gonna go any further with this.
Not saying I don't agree with you (because overly expensive audio gear also makes me cringe) but laughing at people because in your opinion it sounds silly is extremely lame and lacking of any kind of respect.
What is the next step, religions and cultures
Since that is basically the same ballpark.

[tggzzz]

Not saying I don't agree with you (because overly expensive audio gear also makes me cringe) but laughing at people because in your opinion it sounds silly is extremely lame and lacking of any kind of respect.
What is the next step, religions and cultures

Quite right[1].

You should respect me and my statement that "1+2*3=9" [2]

You should respect me and my pastafarian religion, and not laugh at its mandatory headgear:



[1] Not.
[2] Far too many people, including teachers, believe that is true.

[MrMobodies]

You should respect me and my statement that "1+2*3=9" [2]

[2] Far too many people, including teachers, believe that is true.

It'll be too hard if we put in the brackets and we believe not everyone wants or needs to know apart from the very few who are able and want to do it. It is very hard and difficult to explain what they mean when they are in their early stages and it is time consuming for us. It is not an economical and cost effective modern teaching method for the mass majority. We can make equivalently good students if they follow a set of strict instructions set by us like the above and everything will be just fine. If they can't do it we demote them to an easier set of instructions so they won't fail. It is a program after all.
 
Oh yes down the corner we have junk food shops to support it and the junk science curriculum behind it which was dumbed down even more last year to make it "easier" to teach. The uniform regulations considered to be part of the respect were tightened up in an effort to improve behaviour and results. This year you only needed 17% to pass maths at the state schools despite it being "toughened up".

Apparently in England you don't need to be qualified to become a teacher as of last year as in the news they were advertising for them without any qualifications or understanding and I still see requests for them on the Indeed job search site. They do have a high entry requirement for a lot of low paid for jobs the last time I checked.

I think it is responsible for a lot of that junk science and terminology such as these snake oil cables.

[tggzzz]

You should respect me and my statement that "1+2*3=9" [2]

[2] Far too many people, including teachers, believe that is true.

It'll be too hard if we put in the brackets and we believe not everyone wants or needs to know apart from the very few who are able and want to do it. It is very hard and difficult to explain what they mean when they are in their early stages and it is time consuming for us. It is not an economical and cost effective modern teaching method for the mass majority. We can make equivalently good students if they follow a set of strict instructions set by us like the above and everything will be just fine. If they can't do it we demote them to an easier set of instructions so they won't fail. It is a program after all.

What is all that meant to mean?
 

This year you only needed 17% to pass maths at the state schools despite it being "toughened up".

Source reference, please. If none, then it is a TrumpTruth. After all, 23% of statistics are made up on the spot.

[MrMobodies]

What is all that meant to mean?

You should respect me and my statement that "1+(2*3)=9" [2]

No brackets were put in there to read it any differently but I normally go the first way around.
Just one of my jokes on the language I hear from those who want to make things easier in a way.

What is all that meant to mean?

Source:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/24/passing-exam-has-never-easier-just-15-per-cent-required-pass/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6072741/The-tough-new-GCSE-needs-just-17-score-C.html

I know someone who is a retired maths teacher that I still do some work for.
He teaches privately now and he told me about that and then I heard it in the news.
Normally I don't believe the news but he said they lowered the standard and that all his students passed way above what he expected this year.
I suppose every area is different.
Just my sarcasm.

I am just interested in how they got taken in by the snake oil claims and whether this might have something to do with it.
If they have got superior hearing I would like to see hearing tests.

[SiliconWizard]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/24/passing-exam-has-never-easier-just-15-per-cent-required-pass/

Idiocracy, here we are!

[tggzzz]

What is all that meant to mean?

You should respect me and my statement that "1+(2*3)=9" [2]

No brackets were put in there to read it any differently but I normally go the first way around.
Just one of my jokes on the language I hear from those who want to make things easier in a way.

What is all that meant to mean?

Source:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/08/24/passing-exam-has-never-easier-just-15-per-cent-required-pass/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6072741/The-tough-new-GCSE-needs-just-17-score-C.html

I know someone who is a retired maths teacher that I still do some work for.
He teaches privately now and he told me about that and then I heard it in the news.
Normally I don't believe the news but he said they lowered the standard and that all his students passed way above what he expected this year.
I suppose every area is different.
Just my sarcasm.

I am just interested in how they got taken in by the claims on those cables and stuff unless they have got superior hearing I would like to see hearing tests.

Your editing is askew. I find the "preview" button very useful before clicking "post".

Apart from that, if there's anything in the Daily Wail that surprises me, then I automatically assume the Wail is being deceitful. After all, as far as the Wail is infamously concerned, all substances can be divided into two categories: "cancer causing" and "cancer curing". Or for example, the Wail has wailed "chemical X has been detected in your food, why hasn't the EU banned it" - carefully neglecting to mention that the EU had banned it 5 years earlier. Their motto must be "never let the facts get in the way of a headline that will encourage teh worried-well to buy the paper".

The Torygraph is a little better, but the Barclay brothers still have Agendas - infamously against the BBC. It can be difficult to ascertain whether a story has passed the editor because it matches their agenda.

Having said that, diddling with the boundaries is a perennial pasttime, sometimes for good reasons. As someone that did double A-level maths in the 70s, I always thought the exams from the 50s looked harder.

[MrMobodies]

Daily Wail. I like that.

Sorry silly me I mistype things or say them wrong and don't notice until after despite using the preview button.

Anyway I'll check twice before posting.

[tggzzz]

Daily Wail. I like that.

Sorry silly me I mistype things or say them wrong and don't notice until after despite using the preview button.

Anyway I'll check twice before posting.

So do I. I still need to use the modify button far too often

Neither the Torygraph nor the Daily Wail is original, unfortunately. Ditto the Daily Sexpress when it was owned by the pornographer.

[MrMobodies]

Looking at the amplifier in the photo, the one with Samwha mains caps, the two amplifier boards don't look like they are mounted on anything but the heatsinks and fans and they don't look level as well to each other. Maybe it goes with it being hand made.

[EEVblog]

I was obviously talking about overly expensive gear not overly expensive cables.

You implied that buying expensive test gear is like expensive audio products. When you are talking about "audiophool" products, it's not.

I am not gonna go any further with this.
Not saying I don't agree with you (because overly expensive audio gear also makes me cringe) but laughing at people because in your opinion it sounds silly is extremely lame and lacking of any kind of respect.

Respect is earned, not just given.
And it's not "in my opinion", audiophool products are demonstrably bullshit, and you can use basic scientific testing and engineering knowledge to prove that.

What is the next step, religions and cultures
Since that is basically the same ballpark.

Correct, religion is the same BS, because there is zero demonstrable evidence, and you get hit with the same "you must respect my belief" rubbish.

[frozenfrogz]

“This is a custom made system that we designed and made ourselves from scratch.”

Also: 'designed ourselves' is a bold claim.
It’s rather: "We shamefully tried to copy an award winning system* that sells well among folks with serious money to burn, but lack all basic skills in speaker design."
I don’t think anyone even tried to run a simulation of "their design". Looking at the quoted Beyma 18’’ driver datasheets, these look more like PA than HiFi drivers. Why buy a shitty copy if you can get the original Focal system for basically the same price? I would love to see specs for the used drivers and cross-over components. xD

*among a certain community anyway

[b_force]

I was obviously talking about overly expensive gear not overly expensive cables.

You implied that buying expensive test gear is like expensive audio products. When you are talking about "audiophool" products, it's not.

I am not gonna go any further with this.
Not saying I don't agree with you (because overly expensive audio gear also makes me cringe) but laughing at people because in your opinion it sounds silly is extremely lame and lacking of any kind of respect.

Respect is earned, not just given.
And it's not "in my opinion", audiophool products are demonstrably bullshit, and you can use basic scientific testing and engineering knowledge to prove that.

What is the next step, religions and cultures
Since that is basically the same ballpark.

Correct, religion is the same BS, because there is zero demonstrable evidence, and you get hit with the same "you must respect my belief" rubbish.

So you don't mind it at all if we start to tear apart all your personal quirks and laugh about it in public?
Because I have seen many of your choices that aren't totally "scientifically logic" at all (as if that is the only and best way humans and nature works  )
In addition make fun of how you were raised, you family, your children, your sexuality, your home country, the way you talk and just laugh at you in front of your face?
I find that VERY VERY difficult to believe Dave. Because those are pretty much the same things as what's going on in this topic.
The fact that you find something dumb and stupid doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate
Yes you may have an opinion about it, you may discuss it but just to ridicule and making fun of people in public (forum) is a whole different story.

And for the record, if we are talking about religions (I am not religious myself), prove me evidence that god DOESN'T exist.
answer: you can't
longer answer: you can only prove that certain chapters or explanations from bibles etc aren't correct according evidence, but that still doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

If you understand anything about science, you know that conclusions are always based on statistics. By definition that means that there is not only a margin of error, but also a change that the conclusions don't even work.
So a real scientist will be agnostic, and can only say something about a certain likeliness.
A religious person believes in god, a atheist believes in that fact that there isn't a god and agnostic doesn't believe but basis his opinions on scientific evidence. 

[Cyberdragon]

So we should totally hippie love all over people who's "little quark" is to try to scam 250K for a Chinesium POS that could potentially void your insurance and set your house on fire?

Ok, so my "little quark" will be to sell you 10K "audio grade" power supplies, as is, then not fuse them or tell you the (very large) capacitors are backwards. No refunds or returns.

[b_force]

So we should totally hippie love all over people who's "little quark" is to try to scam 250K for a Chinesium POS that could potentially void your insurance and set your house on fire?

Ok, so my "little quark" will be to sell you 10K "audio grade" power supplies, as is, then not fuse them or tell you the (very large) capacitors are backwards. No refunds or returns.

Well first of all, learn to read, because I very clearly said that I understand it when it's about debunking products or companies.
But debunking and coming with evidence and keeping it objective is very different than ridiculing people.
 

[IanMacdonald]

Well, if people want to buy this stuff then I don't see any problem so long as it isn't being mis-described by the seller. It would be right at home on Top Gear, because it would appeal to the same folks who buy ridiculously overspecified and totally impractical cars. Like the one which was so low to the ground that it couldn't negotiate a car park ramp.

At least the hi-fi isn't likely to end your existence by crashing into you on the highway, so maybe better that they spend their money this way.  Though, ear defenders would be a must if you live near. 

[Cyberdragon]

So we should totally hippie love all over people who's "little quark" is to try to scam 250K for a Chinesium POS that could potentially void your insurance and set your house on fire?

Ok, so my "little quark" will be to sell you 10K "audio grade" power supplies, as is, then not fuse them or tell you the (very large) capacitors are backwards. No refunds or returns.

Well first of all, learn to read, because I very clearly said that I understand it when it's about debunking products or companies.
But debunking and coming with evidence and keeping it objective is very different than ridiculing people.

Ah, so it's totally okay to make fun of a whole bunch of people making lots of crap, but not okay to make fun of one person who made one giant POS.

[Domagoj T]

And for the record, if we are talking about religions (I am not religious myself), prove me evidence that god DOESN'T exist.
answer: you can't

Are you seriously going to ask for that? Of course you can't, and for several reasons. But why should anyone even try that? Default position is non belief. Changing that should require evidence and proof.

longer answer: you can only prove that certain chapters or explanations from bibles etc aren't correct according evidence, but that still doesn't prove god doesn't exist.

And none of the chapters and passages that we can verify to be factual prove that God exists. What's your point?

If you understand anything about science, you know that conclusions are always based on statistics. By definition that means that there is not only a margin of error, but also a change that the conclusions don't even work.

Interesting.
So current score is:
Evidence for existence of God = 0; perfectly reasonable scientific explanations for various phenomena that don't require God = too many to count.
Can you please calculate the confidence level for this statistic?

[Mr. Scram]

Has this thread really devolved into a religious debate within two pages? Well done.

Regarding the need to disprove god, see the links below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[daniel5555]

And for the record, if we are talking about religions (I am not religious myself), prove me evidence that god DOESN'T exist.

Actually, nobody has to provide that evidence. Those people who claim that a god exist are the ones who must provide the evidence for their claims, since they claim the existence of something that is not observable by default.

So that's not a valid reason to not ridicule someone. A valid reason would be that ridiculing someone who doesn't do any harm to anyone just for having certain beliefs is simply obnoxious. But that hardly applies to people who sell this overpriced system for $250000.

A religious person believes in god, a atheist believes in that fact that there isn't a god and agnostic doesn't believe but basis his opinions on scientific evidence. 

As an atheist, I can assure you, that, first, facts do not require belief; second, I don't "believe" that there is no god. Not believing in a god does not require an active belief, unlike believing in a god and actually being a part of some religion.

In fact what you described as an "agnostic" is equally applicable to an atheist.

[MrMobodies]

Religion? They can do a prayer over it and call it Halal cables for all I care.

I would like to see one of those snake oil cables sent to Dave so he can take the oil out of it and do some analysis and teardown on video.

[EEVblog]

So you don't mind it at all if we start to tear apart all your personal quirks and laugh about it in public?

 
Not at all, go for it, seriously. What do you think a big Youtuber gets all day every day, 100% complementary email in their safe space?

Again, you are not comparing apples to apples. I'm talking about laughing at demonstrable audiophoolery, and you are talking about people's quirks 
 

Because I have seen many of your choices that aren't totally "scientifically logic" at all (as if that is the only and best way humans and nature works  )
In addition make fun of how you were raised, you family, your children, your sexuality, your home country, the way you talk and just laugh at you in front of your face?

Go for it, knock yourself out.

I find that VERY VERY difficult to believe Dave. Because those are pretty much the same things as what's going on in this topic.
The fact that you find something dumb and stupid doesn't give anyone the right to discriminate

 
Discriminate

Yes you may have an opinion about it, you may discuss it but just to ridicule and making fun of people in public (forum) is a whole different story.

It's a quarter of a million dollar DIY audiophool speaker and amp on ebay, it's hilarious! (note my non-use of people)

And for the record, if we are talking about religions (I am not religious myself), prove me evidence that god DOESN'T exist.

 

So a real scientist will be agnostic, and can only say something about a certain likeliness.
A religious person believes in god, a atheist believes in that fact that there isn't a god and agnostic doesn't believe but basis his opinions on scientific evidence.

You don't even have the definition of an atheist correct