In Reply to: You've told us what you think the motivation of LFO is *not*, but haven't told us what it is. posted by Pat D on January 29, 2009 at 13:47:37:
"You have the methodology all wrong. First, one shows that there is a phenomenon to understand; second, one looks for explanations as to how it works."
There is definitely a phenomenon to understand: people paying money for trinkets on the basis of claims that the devices improve sound quality.
At least two good explanations come to mind:
(1) People sell snake oil and other people are duped into buying it.
(2) The trinkets improve sound in some mysterious way, perhaps according to a trade secret, or perhaps a mystery to the manufacturer as well.
What's your methodology to discriminate between these explanations? How do you know that this methodology is "based in reality"?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Tony Lauck 01/29/0918:47:14 01/29/09 (37)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Pat D 11:15:09 01/30/09 (36)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Tony Lauck 11:54:42 01/30/09 (35)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Pat D 15:30:57 01/30/09 (34)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Tony Lauck 17:46:33 01/30/09 (33)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Pat D 20:22:21 01/30/09 (32)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Tony Lauck 06:59:42 01/31/09 (31)
- RE: What's your methodolgy and how is it based in reality? - Pat D 10:45:36 01/31/09 (30)
- Try Dialectic Materialism. That one fits you a bit. (nt) - robert young 15:22:28 01/31/09 (29)
- RE: Dielectric materials. - rick_m 09:30:29 02/1/09 (9)
- That's pretty clever, though Wikipedia came up with it first . . . - Pat D 19:17:35 02/2/09 (3)
- You really are... - robert young 06:59:51 02/3/09 (2)
- RE: You really are... - Pat D 09:54:59 02/3/09 (1)
- very true. - robert young 09:57:57 02/3/09 (0)
- Glad you (nearly) got the joke. - robert young 10:36:39 02/1/09 (4)
- Couldn't resist the obvious pun... - rick_m 19:20:21 02/1/09 (2)
- RE: Couldn't resist the obvious pun... - robert young 04:04:49 02/2/09 (1)
- RE: Couldn't resist the obvious pun... - rick_m 07:42:29 02/2/09 (0)
- Tres amusant. nt - geoffkait 10:47:13 02/1/09 (0)
- LOL--that's really funny! - Pat D 17:09:34 01/31/09 (18)
- RE: LOL--that's really funny! - robert young 07:30:44 02/1/09 (17)
- RE: LOL--that's really funny! - Pat D 10:31:53 02/1/09 (16)
- RE: LOL--that's really funny! - robert young 10:54:01 02/1/09 (15)
- RE: LOL--that's really funny! - Pat D 12:32:01 02/1/09 (14)
- You seem to have lost track of the thread. - robert young 15:08:00 02/1/09 (13)
- I can only go by what you say . . . - Pat D 16:58:47 02/1/09 (12)
- Focus, Pat, focus.... - robert young 10:28:01 02/2/09 (10)
- Well, now, you and Tony Lauck alleged I am a materialist with no evidence. - Pat D 19:14:50 02/2/09 (3)
- Just the reply I expected. - robert young 03:47:53 02/3/09 (2)
- Well, Tony at least expressed some desire for communication--you just made a clumsy attempt at a joke. (nt) - Pat D 06:47:16 02/3/09 (1)
- The joke came first and many efforts at communication with you followed. - robert young 06:56:24 02/3/09 (0)
- RE: Focus, Pat, focus.... - Tony Lauck 10:50:13 02/2/09 (5)
- Focus Tony - Pat D 22:31:31 02/4/09 (4)
- RE: Focus Tony - Tony Lauck 04:56:41 02/5/09 (3)
- RE: Focus Tony - Pat D 08:09:24 02/5/09 (2)
- RE: Focus Tony - Tony Lauck 10:22:41 02/5/09 (1)
- RE: Focus Tony - Pat D 11:18:26 02/5/09 (0)
- RE: I can only go by what you say . . . - theaudiohobby 17:13:28 02/1/09 (0)