Sax on the Web Forum banner
121 - 140 of 186 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Now all we need is somebody to report these companies doing all the false advertising. Problem is, they have a lot of people that say the product works. A simple survey of one hundred professional musicians would yield enough people saying it works.
Science be damned I guess, yeah!
The problem with this false advertising thing is there isn’t enough call for that from people in the business. Like I have said before, the people who are upset about the lack of research done are not the target market, and additionally are simply not who any federal organization would ask when determining legitimacy.
Another similar example is, if SOTW members are upset about who wins a Grammy, it’s not like the Grammy foundation asks them their opinion.
I would personally LOVE for a legitimate scientific study to be done with this product and others that are similar. Let’s start fundraising! Why should we pay for it? Well, like I said just now above, no professional or other sax company is calling for it. So we at SOTW will have to pay for it. Let’s start a go fund me!
:-D
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,883 Posts
Post-truth , believe it or not (sic!) it's a word, voted as one of the most represantative of our times by the Oxford dictionary.

'Post-truth' named 2016 word of the year by Oxford Dictionaries. ... The dictionary defines "post-truth" as "relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.

Here from wikipedia

"..Post-truth is a philosophical and political concept that refers to "the disappearance of shared objective standards for truth"[1] and the "circuitous slippage between facts or alt-facts, knowledge, opinion, belief, and truth."Post-truth discourse is often contrasted with the forms taken by scientific methods and inquiry..."

Watch the video ( it's a TED lecture) on why some decide to believe ( but of course if you are a believer you won't watch it! :twisted: )


 

·
Forum Contributor 2016-17
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
Like I have said before, the people who are upset about the lack of research done are not the target market, and additionally are simply not who any federal organization would ask when determining legitimacy.
There is no lack of research. It's a well established engineering fact that the spectral output of a smooth-bored, rigid-bodied woodwind is not in any way a function of its mass, or of the mass of any object that is attached to it, or of the material it's made from (provided the material is not sound-absorbing).

None of the manufacturers will provide data proving their claims, because they can't. Repeating the experiment with this particular item is literally like redrawing a four-sided geometric shape with yet another different-color ink in order to prove that it's not a triangle.

And it's obvious to any dispassionate observer that the only people who are really upset here are the ones who insist that the things work as advertised, and are taking it personally when all of the the engineers tell them otherwise. Post-truth society, indeed.
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Coffee Guru
Joined
·
41,883 Posts
the only research lacking is the one that would be needed to support the claims. APPROPRIATE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is ( in principle) required by law :soapbox:

Truth In Advertising
When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence
 

·
Out of Office
Grafton + TH & C alto || Naked Lady 10M || TT soprano || Martin Comm III
Joined
·
30,105 Posts
Sorry everyone. It's not my fault these types of products work for so many people.
Are you able to define "these types of products?"

Is it just big heavy screws? Or anything that claims to improve your sound (whether or not there is any scientific basis in the claims)
 

·
Distinguished SOTW Member/Forum Contributor 2010
Joined
·
3,343 Posts
Are there before/after recordings out there where all else is equal? Can we witness the miraculous results?

Not miraculous as in "transcendent", miraculous as in "improbable / impossible to explain"

Even if the working effect was beyond any doubt it would still be an outrage to charge much over $10 for a fat screw. There is nothing complex about making these on a swiss machine, you can spit out hundreds or thousands an hour. Just comes down to the economies of scale I guess. If you are only selling a handful the setup costs will be a major component.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
748 Posts

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
No more than it's your fault that my Flash Gordon costume made me run faster when I was a kid. It was just as effective as the Klangbogus and the high-mass screws, for the exact same reasons.
It wasn't so long ago that the fashionable ruse was to get people to buy pretty stones to glue on their saxes. Goodson???

I think a reminder of this clip is timely:
 

·
Distinguished Technician & SOTW Columnist. RIP, Yo
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
No more than it's your fault that my Flash Gordon costume made me run faster when I was a kid. It was just as effective as the Klangbogus and the high-mass screws, for the exact same reasons.
Well said. I play like a professional when I hang red wool from the end of my sax.

Psychology 101. Nothing to do with saxes really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Did anyone ever tried to check the differences (sound wise) when playing with and then without a neck screw ?

And I believe the name Boostar is actually a touch of (self deprecating ?) humour from the Yanagisawa people about the japanese pronunciation of english terms. A clue that this device should not be taken too seriously... ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Hipparion, there are already many examples online of people demonstrating “on and off”. SOTW members claim to hear no difference (when there is indeed an audible difference)

Pete, I am talking about products that claim that adding mass to the outside of the tube in a particular area effects something. There are a few of these types of products and a lot of people who use them.

Has anybody ever consider the science side that says “more research is needed”? Yes, we have already done things comparable to this. But now that a lot of people are reporting something different, do we just say those people are idiots and call it a day, or submit that further research may be needed to come to a conclusion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
294 Posts
Hipparion, there are already many examples online of people demonstrating "on and off". SOTW members claim to hear no difference (when there is indeed an audible difference)
I should check that, thank you Andre.

Has anybody ever consider the science side that says "more research is needed"? Yes, we have already done things comparable to this. But now that a lot of people are reporting something different, do we just say those people are idiots and call it a day, or submit that further research may be needed to come to a conclusion?
Mmmmh, what do you call exactly the endless discussion about how to properly test that-other-K-device on that-other-undying-thread ? I mean, I know you affectionately nicknamed that attempt under the lovely 'triple blind giant steps robot' label (forgive me if my quote may not be 100% accurate, you get the idea), but what is that attempt to devise such a clean testing experiment if not saying precisely 'more research is needed, lets' try to start doing that with the following methodology: ...' ?

Do you mean that you are now all for it ?
Cool...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
Hipparion, there are already many examples online of people demonstrating "on and off". SOTW members claim to hear no difference (when there is indeed an audible difference)

Pete, I am talking about products that claim that adding mass to the outside of the tube in a particular area effects something. There are a few of these types of products and a lot of people who use them.

Has anybody ever consider the science side that says "more research is needed"? Yes, we have already done things comparable to this. But now that a lot of people are reporting something different, do we just say those people are idiots and call it a day, or submit that further research may be needed to come to a conclusion?
Andre, I ll try to explain it to you once more since you moved your arguments from the klanbogus thread here.Nobody really says that few people can not hear a difference when using those devices.
I will even go so far as to say that those changes can be even demonstrated in a recording as you claim although the videos of the klanbogus failed to do that.
What we are saying is that there is no need for research from the side of acoustics cause we already know that those devices do not produce changes in the sound.
Those devices work according to placebo effect, something you dont seem to understand and yet you disregard.I will give you an example.
When you add a mass to the outside of the saxophone of some players perhaps they can perceive or they think they perceive a weight change and that makes them lift the saxophone and free a wrong squeezed embouchure.
Or could be just the idea of adding something that it supposed to improve the sound that makes them play slightly better.
Those devices are wrong for two reasons. Cause they prevent you to work on your real issues in regard to sound development, and for been an overpriced scam.
 

·
Registered
Tenor, alto, Bb Clarinet, Flute
Joined
·
2,601 Posts
You are wasting your time. Andre can't be reasoned with. He may be a smart guy with all the proper credentials but there is no understanding of the scientific method. No point in engaging in this argument any further.
 
121 - 140 of 186 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top