• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ChemMan last won the day on February 28

ChemMan had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

772 Excellent


About ChemMan

  • Rank

Personal Info

  • Location

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 1
    Rotel RCD 961
  • Digital Source 2
    Bluesound Node 2
  • Integrated Amp
    VTL IT-85/ Arcam A39
  • My Speakers
    Spendor D7/ KEF LS50
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm not offended. I'm pointing out that when the folks write one liners, like something is made in China, they could can be implying that ALL are, to suit further purposes whatever they may be. Maybe it was an honest oversight, but given your verbose reply I'm guessing not so much. It's easy to walk back things that were not thoroughly thought through. Donny and Boris do it every day, why should you be any different? Toss in the fact that discussions like the national origin of products are already on the borderline of good taste and.......... Oh yes, there is the fact of referring to oneself in the third person.
  2. No, you are fine. I couldn't care less if Volvo is Chinese owned, or if the cars are made in China and trimmed in Sweden. I'm growing tired of erroneous information being spread via electronic media. In reference to the post by @Klassik , he writes well and is clearly informed. All I want to hear (read) is "I misspoke." Something I don't hear much at all these days, especially in regard to a clearly controversial subject like, Chinese Made.
  3. That's not what you wrote in the initial post now is it? If you want to be a know-it-all, get your ducks in a row before you decide to cite wikipedia.
  4. Is that so? A fact check is in order.
  5. Maybe and maybe not. Although not my area of study I would say one could not draw conclusions regarding anything qualitative. All it indicates to me is frequencies above and below the supposed human hearing threshold can, in certain conditions, show a biological reaction.
  6. Who said I don't believe it? All the things you mentioned above are why it is "fluffy." The "knowledge" gleaned from a study of this sort is useless: the numbers too small; the ideas too obscure and esoteric and the area of interest so discreet to be irrelevant. I can't tell you how many of these I have peer reviewed, read for marks or written myself. At the end of the day it is nicely scientifically presented. That's about it.
  7. It's fluffy because this is the sort of "study" done when graduate students need to graduate. As I said, well presented and methodical, and it should be. Unfortunately, academia makes its own rules and because of this, academic supervisors/mentors are also in the business of asking people to move on. Or its a case of people who have a nice pile of grant money. Take it for what it is: my opinion on someone's work based on a career in the sciences.
  8. With all due respect. I read this study some time ago and it is, well, "fluffy." It's a well presented, methodical attempt, but at the end of the day -- Fluffy.
  9. I don't believe you are correct. The point of double blind studies, as you know, is to limit bias, variability and manipulation. Testing one individual. multiple times, offers only that one person being tested any knowledge. It in no way has any bearing on overall scientific theory.
  10. All good sir. I don't think Dom set out to say/write anything out of order. You can see @rabski's post above. Double blind in a HIFI "modus operandi" is not easy. Scientifically, I can't come up with a decent scenario for individual testing. One way or another you would need lots of people, time and expense to undertake a significant study.
  11. On the money good man. I've got a lab analysis position open. You want it?
  12. Absolutely Nigel. Can you Imagine those mean old Yanks from Audio.... infiltrating this nice, polite, land of contention?
  13. What's all this about? I remember someone showing a photo of a cat. Seriously though, from a purely scientific point of view, double blind, as anyone with google knows, merely means both participant and experimenter have no idea who gets what. From a HIFI point of view-- very difficult --though not impossible.
  14. Before the interlopers: those pesky immigrants from WHF with nowhere else to go.
  15. Yes, you did. But I'm waiting to hear what you think about the Node2 vs upgrade and an iFi. I believe you took possession of an iFi a couple weeks ago maybe? Upgrade plus iFi gets an improvement for €150.