So I'm still not seeing where the credible proof is that anyone should waste any time or money to even begin to bother with these things, and lets be clear, it does cost money. You have to pay for these things and even though there is a money back guarantee, you're still most likely not getting back shipping to you or from you back to them. For something that doesn't come with a shred of credible evidence, it's not worth even the price of shipping to me.
You're absolutely right, hearing is totally subjective and what you hear is different from what I hear and that's different from what everyone else hears. However, that's why we have the objective stuff. To keep us from wasting money on things that don't offer any audible improvement. Because, I mean, there are people who believe in ghosts, bigfoot, the yeti, and many other things. Like with the tuning stick and many other marketing gimmicks, I'll wait for the proof that it will give me an audible difference and I won't spend a dime until then. What you and others hear and do with their money is totally and completely up to you and them. I respect your right to do so and your opinion that you hear what you hear. I also ask that you respect my right to think that, that's pretty silly.
You are correct. It does cost something to try products even if that amount is small. So, if you don't want to spend that amount to try, then don't. And I do respect your right to THINK the way you do. What I do not respect is your trying to convince others to think they way you do about something that you know nothing about because you haven't tried it. You say ''products that don't work'' but that is an assumption. How can you actually know a product doesn't doesn't work if you haven't actually tried it?
Your whole approach is hardly objective. In fact it is prejudicial.
But none of that bothers me really. You can be as sure of your assumptions and speculations as you wish to be. It is when you put them forth as fact and you use technical jargon to give weight to your assumptions that I take exception. If you said something like ''probably'' they don't work because...'' then that would be another matter.
But you don't. You put it forth as concrete fact and to make matters worse, you ridicule. You ridicule both the products and those who might actually have heard positive results. If we don't agree with you then we are audiophools. This whole thread is full of such ridicule. It started with the preview article written by Andy and it just rolled right on, prompting me to ask my original question.
And you slander the manufacturers. You put their integrity up to question. They are all crooks out to cheat us out of our hard earned money and the reviewers are all in cahoots with the manufacturers... that kind of stuff... none of which you have any hard evidence for but which does damage to reputations nonetheless.
That is the stuff I take very much exception with. This is what I object to.
By attempting to deter those who might be willing to spend the money to try, you are doing no one any service... especially if, contrary to your expectations, the product does actually work. But you are doing a disservice to many others.
You want to express your opinions, well go right ahead. I am all for that. But put them forth as opinions and not as fact.
I support your right to believe anything you want and more power to you. I just wish you would stop trying so hard to convince me and others like me to believe what you do... to believe things that you yourself cannot possibly know to be true because you have no actual experience. It would also be nice if you stopped trying to convince us that we are fools if we don't see it your way.
By the way, I agree with you when you say that the ''objective stuff'' helps us to not waste money and Audioholics is to be praised in its efforts to keep us apprised. But the truth is that in this instance, starting with the original article and continuing in this thread, there has not been one objective statement made by anyone about the Akiko Tuning Sticks.