|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
|
|
Tweakers' Asylum Tweaks for systems, rooms and Do It Yourself (DIY) help. FAQ. |
|
In Reply to: Curl does not lie....He is incapable of such posted by rcrump on March 27, 2003 at 05:33:25:
Dissenting opinions are just fine, but only if you have actually run the tests and therefor have something worthwhile to add.....Anything less is pure speculation....Sorry Bob, but I think you are off base here.
Let’s stick with a hypothetical. Assume I come on the market with a black box called the TowerTopper, or TT for short. I claim that insertion of the TT into one’s system will enable it to retrieve detail from any recording that cannot be retrieved in any other manner. I also state that my technology is based on secret military technology.
If in fact I have that technology and am using it in the TT, I’m probably violating national security laws. But let’s set that aside.
Under federal laws and the laws of most states, I cannot legally make such a claim unless I have sound scientific testing to back up that claim. Moreover, the fact that I offer a money-back guarantee does not insulate me from that requirement.
What you seem to be saying is that no one should challenge my claim on an audio board unless they themselves have conducted testing. However, the law doesn’t place the burden of testing and verification upon the consumer. Rather that burden is on the manufacturer.
If one were to follow your guidelines, any discussion of the ethics or legality of advertising would not be appropriate on an audio board absent testing by the person challenging my advertisement. In my opinion, high end is already rife with pseudoscience and hype. Excluding comments such as Steve is making will merely ensure that unethical advertising will have free reign in high end audio.
I for one don’t want to see that. High end audio is not exempt from the law, nor, in my opinion, should it be exempt from the requirements of ethical business practices.
And, BTW, as I recall the article or post that got all of this started was from someone, with sound credentials, who has listened to the filters and heard no effect, and then tested them and could not find that they produced any measurable electrical effect. In addition to the fact that testing was involved, I fail to understand why so many people will accept unchallenged sighted auditions when the person believes here is hearing differences, but automatically reject and attack any sighted audition where the person says he couldn’t hear any differences.
Again, I feel that in order to pummel something that could not possibly work that it is necessary to get up off your chair and try the item or procedure in question before an opinion should be given as I see this as the problem the moderator has with you...
Whether or not Steve could hear any differences has no bearing upon the legal and ethical questions raised by the Bybee matter.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Curl does not lie....He is incapable of such - Phil Tower 08:38:47 03/27/03 (1)
- Re: Curl does not lie....He is incapable of such - blake 10:09:45 03/27/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
