Golden Audio Magic Ring

[Ducky]

Why does the ring works?
Or when does dubious stuff works?

I suspect it is more than just psychological effect.
So I think it might not be right to dismiss it to too quickly as just psychological.

Consider this ficticious scenario.

My CD player might need a perfectly flat surface, else it'll introduce jitter. But I may not know it. Then I install ABC (which could be the ring, or a premium cable) and discovered that it sounds better now. I therefore conclude convincingly that it had been beneficial. Not knowing that I might have adjusted my CD player.

Above is just one example.

Key point. The improvement might have been real. But it might not have any thing to do with ABC. On the other hand, it is very wrong to have accused the user of being foolish, and quite wrong to dismiss it as ONLY psychological effect. Qualitative or very small improvement that is hard to quantify would pose even more debate.

In fact,

I have convinced my young children that our TV is spoilt because they watch too much of it. And that after allowing it to "rest" for a month it'll work again.

I pulled out the antenna cable so the image is fuzzy. And when I want it to work, I put it back secretly and pretend to hit the TV. To the child, hitting it does work, resting it does work. Unless you expose my deed, you cannot argue with them that it is not real. Hitting and Rest works, and there is No psychological effect.

Ok, wonderful ficticious scenario.

Do you in fact have any proof, or anything that can be then tested as proof, to support this line of products?

Can you in fact, actually show that these products do more than excite a placebo effect in the listener?


OK more simply, show me any proof that these products are actually affecting the frequencies heard by humans.

Give me one fact that is without question that these products ACTUALLY CHANGE THE SIGNAL AND AFFECT SOUND.

If your CD player introduces jitter, you will not hear more than a few seconds of that recording before it errors out.

If the improvement is real, then those that designed it would be vindicated. That you would make more excuses for them is sad.

So you brain washed your kids to believe something that wasn't true. Explain how that has anything to do with the claims of Golden Audio.

 

[Jyera]

I am not contributing to support any Golden Sound product.

I'm just puzzled why Users can report favourably about the product on their website.

After analysis, I believe it is more than just psychological effect.

I believe some of the user reported honestly about improvement. But the improvement could easily have been due to other reason unrelated to the dubious product from GoldenSound. But the customer do not know. This create an illusion that it actually works.

I thought one approach to curbing dubious product like that of GoldenSound's magic ring, is to ensure that Customer do not wrongfully give credit to Magic Ring. Perhaps customer with significant authority, have to come under some pressure to hold their tongue.

--
The point is not about me able to brainwash my kids.
The point is that my children can report honestly, but still come to the wrong conclusion.

Imagine my TV reception is indeed not so good. And someone conducted 1000 tests with a TV-magic-ring and proves statistically that it improves reception 99% of the time. The scientist gladly report new discovery. But perhaps the success is because 99% of the time my outdoor antenna do not have a bird perching on it.

I am hoping that GoldenSound's scientists are just innocently erronous in their research conclusion. I believe scientists are usually honest, unlike their business counterpart, . "Max 5 decibel" is "max 5 decibel", if it can be measured scientists do not lie about cold figures and measurement.

I put some blame on the disappointing audio scientists and their industry.

Why do they allow people to use the meaningless jargon like "soundstage".
Shouldn't the scientist attack aggressively the misleading use of "soundstage"? Someone should put numbers to "soundstage" and kill the vagueness.

And in the process, kill or affirm any claim about the Magic ring's ability to affect soundstage.

Is there any way the regulator can ban qualitative jargon, in ads and brochures?

The only qualitative terms I think should be allowed is,
"I like it" and "I don't like it".

 

[MRC_Hans]

I am not contributing to support any Golden Sound product.

Not intentionally, I assume.

I'm just puzzled why Users can report favourably about the product on their website.

Ehh? You can find websites out there in support for virtually anything.

Think a little: These users are already people who are not too difficult to fool (since they fall for the technobabble supplied by the sellers of this crud). Now they have paid good money for the stuff... do you really think they are likely to come out and say: "Nahh, it made no difference at all. I guess I got ripped off there" ?

After analysis, I believe it is more than just psychological effect.

Excuse me, could you disclose what kind of analysis that was?

I believe some of the user reported honestly about improvement. But the improvement could easily have been due to other reason unrelated to the dubious product from GoldenSound. But the customer do not know. This create an illusion that it actually works.

Uhh, yes, that could sometimes be the case. No doubt some users bought new gear, PLUS some worhtless gadget. And when their new setup works better than their old, some will attribute it to the gadget. It's sille, but people do it all the time.

I thought one approach to curbing dubious product like that of GoldenSound's magic ring, is to ensure that Customer do not wrongfully give credit to Magic Ring. Perhaps customer with significant authority, have to come under some pressure to hold their tongue.

Blinded tests are much simpler. What is wrong with blinded tests? Ahh, they are too effective, perhaps ? Wouldn't wanna entirely spoil the fun, ehhh ?

--
The point is not about me able to brainwash my kids.
The point is that my children can report honestly, but still come to the wrong conclusion.

Exactly (I hope it is only a story and you don't really lie to your kids. If you do, you know who taught them to lie). So much for the "significan authority" idea. See?

Imagine my TV reception is indeed not so good. And someone conducted 1000 tests with a TV-magic-ring and proves statistically that it improves reception 99% of the time. The scientist gladly report new discovery. But perhaps the success is because 99% of the time my outdoor antenna do not have a bird perching on it.

What you are saying is that confounders can muck up a result. True, but a good protocol will minimize that risk. For instance, we could use a signal generator instead of an antenna signal.

I am hoping that GoldenSound's scientists are just innocently erronous in their research conclusion.

I don't believe they are scientists. And I certainly don't believe they are innocent. You know they are not just testing the thing, they have designed it. How can you design something that defies all physical laws and stay in good faith?

I believe scientists are usually honest, unlike their business counterpart, . "Max 5 decibel" is "max 5 decibel", if it can be measured scientists do not lie about cold figures and measurement.

No, probably not. But notice that Golden Sound do NOT provide that kind of data. Instead they talk about "more air", "fuller sound", "better distinction", and other entirely subjective concepts. NOWHERE do they say something like: "The XXXX cable increases your signal/noise ratio with 6dB".

Again, this shows they are unlikely to be in good faith.

I put some blame on the disappointing audio scientists and their industry.

Meaning what? Oh, even the "serious" manufacturers don't have their hands clean. I have seen a very reputed manufacurer claim that "Class A watts sound like more than class B watts" (They had just gone on about why you needed a hundred watt amplifier under their class B product, and now had to come up with something since their class A product only had 50 watts)

Why do they allow people to use the meaningless jargon like "soundstage".
Shouldn't the scientist attack aggressively the misleading use of "soundstage"? Someone should put numbers to "soundstage" and kill the vagueness.

Again, they are not scientists (or if they are, they have sold their souls), they are swindlers. They will come up with anything that can fool their marks.

And in the process, kill or affirm any claim about the Magic ring's ability to affect soundstage.

If they kill it, how can they sell it?

Is there any way the regulator can ban qualitative jargon, in ads and brochures?

Well, it is actually not legal to lie about your product, which is exactly the reason they use undefinable terms like "soundstage".

The only qualitative terms I think should be allowed is,
"I like it" and "I don't like it".

How about: "I like being ripped off" and "I don't like being ripped off"?

Hans

 

[Ducky]

I am not contributing to support any Golden Sound product.

I'm just puzzled why Users can report favourably about the product on their website.

After analysis, I believe it is more than just psychological effect.

I believe some of the user reported honestly about improvement. But the improvement could easily have been due to other reason unrelated to the dubious product from GoldenSound. But the customer do not know. This create an illusion that it actually works.

I thought one approach to curbing dubious product like that of GoldenSound's magic ring, is to ensure that Customer do not wrongfully give credit to Magic Ring. Perhaps customer with significant authority, have to come under some pressure to hold their tongue.

--
The point is not about me able to brainwash my kids.
The point is that my children can report honestly, but still come to the wrong conclusion.

Imagine my TV reception is indeed not so good. And someone conducted 1000 tests with a TV-magic-ring and proves statistically that it improves reception 99% of the time. The scientist gladly report new discovery. But perhaps the success is because 99% of the time my outdoor antenna do not have a bird perching on it.

I am hoping that GoldenSound's scientists are just innocently erronous in their research conclusion. I believe scientists are usually honest, unlike their business counterpart, . "Max 5 decibel" is "max 5 decibel", if it can be measured scientists do not lie about cold figures and measurement.

I put some blame on the disappointing audio scientists and their industry.

Why do they allow people to use the meaningless jargon like "soundstage".
Shouldn't the scientist attack aggressively the misleading use of "soundstage"? Someone should put numbers to "soundstage" and kill the vagueness.

And in the process, kill or affirm any claim about the Magic ring's ability to affect soundstage.

Is there any way the regulator can ban qualitative jargon, in ads and brochures?

The only qualitative terms I think should be allowed is,
"I like it" and "I don't like it".

Wow.

You are naive not only of basic physics, but of human nature as well.