New Free Energy Conferences in Hamburg and Chicago

[MarkE]

Do you need fancy equipment, or technique to tell the difference between an AM and a FM broadcast?

-Dave Wing

Re: New Free Energy Conferences in Hamburg and Chicago
« Reply #181 on: Today at 03:23:34 AM »

    Quote

Who has a clarifier?

I have a few of them and I sell them, so what can I tell you about the device?

It will enhance sound quality on most CD's... Some disc's do in fact respond to treatment better than others that is an honest fact. The movements of the driver on the Non-Clarified disc do in fact display erratic movements, while playing your favorite tune until they are put in the Clarifier. There is a noticeable difference in the way the subwoofer driver reacts to the signal, it tightens up the base of the music. The base hits harder and is more refined, which means the subwoofer cleans up its movements in and out and displays less erratic movement of the driver.

Computer discs that are burnt do all benefit by the clarification treatment, they do sound more open with tighter base as well. If you still use CD's you for sure need one.

So it is not B.S.

-Dave Wing

Here you have made specific claims for the "Clarifier".  I want to know what objective test data if any exists to substantiate those claims.  If the raw PCM stream of a CD from before it was treated matches the stream after it was treated, then by definition the "Clarifier" makes no alteration and therefore your claims are completely false.  So test #1 is can you, or anyone else show a difference between the raw PCM streams from before and after treatment by the "Clarifier"?

[Dave Wing]

I have no lab test data myself so I cannot help you with that... Sorry. All I have is my own ears and how I saw my drivers respond to the device, as I described earlier in my posts.

I have sold many units over the course of years on eBay and not one person has had a complaint and or wanted their money back. So does that mean anything? Who knows, but you would think if the Clarifiers did not work I would have people beating down my door for their money back.

-Dave Wing

[MarkE]

I have no lab test data myself so I cannot help you with that... Sorry. All I have is my own ears and how I saw my drivers respond to the device, as I described earlier in my posts.

I have sold many units over the course of years on eBay and not one person has had a complaint and or wanted their money back. So does that mean anything? Who knows, but you would think if the Clarifiers did not work I would have people beating down my door for their money back.

-Dave Wing

So what actual objective test data does anyone have for these devices?  By what if any operating principle do they supposedly  "Clarify" CDs?  If the only evaluations have been subjective, then has anyone ever performed even single blind tests?

[Dave Wing]

So what actual objective test data does anyone have for these devices?  By what if any operating principle do they supposedly  "Clarify" CDs?  If the only evaluations have been subjective, then has anyone ever performed even single blind tests?

I am putting this in my own words... Apparently the laser beam of the player does refract somewhat when trying to read the image on the aluminum layer. The atoms within the plastic material of the disc are under stress and this can somewhat refract the player laser beam, the Clarifier is arranged such a way that the DC motor is connected to a long power magnet wire that is wrapped around four (quad), super pole magnets, they are wrapped 90* to the super pole magnetic fields.  I believe it is this arrangement that is generating a scalar pulsed field that relaxes the atoms, or depotentializes the somewhat stressed plastic material and this simply allows the laser beam refract less. That is where the sound improvement  comes from. That is about all I know about how the Clarifier works.

-Dave Wing

[TinselKoala]

That's hilarious.

Here, Dave Wing, I have a challenge to you.  You send me 20 untreated audio discs (if you have any) and your best model Clarifier. You are free to choose the content of the discs and even to make them yourself. Mark them (Like A thru T or 1 thru 20 or something) so that they can be identified visually.  I will treat _some_ of the discs according to the approved instructions, and then I'll send the whole package back to you. You listen to the 20 discs and then tell us which have been treated.  If you are, say, 80 percent correct or better, I'll write up a stunning positive endorsement along with the official report of this blinded experiment, which could be published in any audiophile magazine of your choosing.

80 percent correct is a "C+" or low "B -" in school grading terms. You should be able to do better than that, don't you think?   

I will analyze the results according to Signal Detection Theory (SDT). For each disc you will state "yes, treated" or "no, not treated" and I will compare your results to my own records of which discs I actually treated and which were just set aside.  Each of your twenty responses will either be a HIT (you say "yes" to an actually treated disc), a MISS (you say "no" to a treated disc), A FALSE ALARM (you say "yes" to an untreated disc) or a CORRECT REJECTION ( you say "no" to an untreated disc.) Other than my treatment with the Clarifier, all discs you send me will be handled identically. I can even arrange to spin the "untreated" discs without actually treating them with the Clarifier. So the "80 percent correct" discrimination criterion would require that you have a HIT rate of 80 percent or better, a CORRECT REJECTION rate of 80 percent or better, and MISS and FALSE ALARM rates of 20 percent or less. A low B- score, that's all that's required to "prove" your claim under this protocol. I won't even be listening to the discs myself, before or after treating some of them.

A completely random result, say obtained just by flipping a coin over each disc and saying "yes" or "no" based on the coin flip, would ideally yield rates of 50 percent for all 4 boxes in the SDT paradigm. A strong observer bias towards saying "yes" would yield inflated False Alarm rates, and toward saying "no" would yield inflated Miss rates. Only a true ability to detect treated discs would produce the 80:20 or better ratios. For example you could say "yes" to every disc, and obviously you would be "correct" in that your HIT rate would be 100 percent. But your False Alarm rate would also be 100 percent, your CR and Miss rates zero, and your discriminability score ( called d' or d prime) would be zero: you can't really tell the difference, and your Bias score (called beta or criterion) would show a strong "yes" bias.

This analysis allows both a measure of "discriminability" which means how well you can actually detect the actual treated disks, and also "bias" which is a measure of how prone you are to say "yes" or "no" to any disk regardless of its actual treatment state.

I will also analyze the raw PCM data stream coming from the treated disks before and after treatment to see if there is any _objective_ difference in the data stream after treatment.

This is a 100 percent objective and scientific challenge to you, I am completely qualified to do both types of analysis (SDT and data stream) and I am approaching you in good faith. Here you have a chance to prove to yourself, to me, to customers and to the World that the Clarifier works as you claim and advertise, and at no cost to you other than shipping and the cost of making the disks. I expect you not to cheat, say by treating all the disks before you send them to me.... but the wonderful thing about SDT is that it will allow me to determine, by your responses after I send them back to you with a random number of disks I have treated, if you have cheated or not!

I am willing to donate my time and expertise to performing this experiment. Are you willing to take the risk of being proven wrong in your claims about the Clarifier in a truly scientific experiment?