Thanks - shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same. And yours isn't too bad either - combining feedback and Vonnegut in the same sentence is not mainstream!
Just a disharmoious and unmutual gesture, for those in the know. Are we not men?
Now I am haunted by the image of a village in North Wales, populated by members of Devo (but referring to themselves just by numbers).
I've noticed that this is true at times, as well as a "vogue" that it was just a cool thing to study, at least where I was.
It's not necessarily a negative.
For example a cured anorectic might be the best candidate to treat anorectics.
Not a cynical / dismissive person of which many doctors are.
Another one is "sugar pills" in a completely official looking box, I've heard people talking about that.
Oh yeah and this one "99.99% of Chinese medicine is placebo".
It seems like some people, in the west, are just really cynical about placebo and kind of on high horses about everything which is strictly verified.
In fact the most popular Asian medicines usually are placebo, since the purity is so low that it won't do anything at all, sugar pills everywhere, but of course the real Asian medicines work, some of them may even cure conditions which economic interests in certain places may feel threatened by.
It's leaning towards a society which pollutes the air intentionally and then sells gas masks at $70 a piece, then why would anyone want to cure the pollution?
It's not like that, but leaning towards. Specifically I think an Asian medicine or two will cure that pollution.
100 years ago, maybe 1% of society had this issue and now it's more like 20% - 25% which "needs to take meds for it", I think some people here know what I'm talking about.
Edit - It's "Asian" medicine since it just happens to exist in nature in Asia, but there's a connotation that Asian medicine skips the western verification method.
Last edited:
The random thread that just won't die...
Drawing the line between science and pseudoscience
How pseudoscience tries to fool you
Oh, and the mandatory Dilbert
Drawing the line between science and pseudoscience
How pseudoscience tries to fool you
Oh, and the mandatory Dilbert
Have you turned up RocketScientist's posts on here where I take him to task on his claim of 'transparency' for the ODAC? Hilarious to see all the ducking and diving
I looked at his most recent posts which seemed to be ridiculing the entire wine industry and he didn't get very far.
He was planning on writing an article about Timex versus Rolex but didn't publish that either.
I think he was just one of those cynics which think "everything is the same".
I think some people have their perceptual filters running on overdrive and they can't discern differences very well, so they're inclined that way due to how their head is constantly wearing thick sunglasses, by it's design.
Last edited:
Bah Western people invented the placebo method before and after the chineese :
Before during pre-history in Europe by practcissing the trepanning : they cure life !
After with homoeopathy, they licensied the placebo with sugar pills !
This thread is near the Goodwin point as would say Patrick Bateman fellow !
I could guess another method: the Evil-lose point : we start from, Medecine, Nazies or Khmers Rouge to arrive to Hifi !
Abraxalito, I think his transparency assertion comes from fulfilling the limits in all the AES papers?
Edit - Actually, nevermind, he most likely doesn't fulfill all the currently tested thresholds.
He really referenced Ethan Winer?
Ethan Winer writes a lot of weird stuff, I recall an article about concrete versus wood flooring not sounding different, he referenced CSD measurements of both. It's always "my measurement is all encompassing", with those guys.
Like, two cables have identical frequency response, wow, identical FR! All encompassing, everything with identical FR is identical, honestly who has time for that.
I have some idea that Ethan Winer equates noise to harmonic distortion as well, he presented it like that, it's just deluding people, or himself, it's just like speaking of red and yellow as yellow, skipping the entire chapter of red.
Edit - Actually, nevermind, he most likely doesn't fulfill all the currently tested thresholds.
He really referenced Ethan Winer?
Ethan Winer writes a lot of weird stuff, I recall an article about concrete versus wood flooring not sounding different, he referenced CSD measurements of both. It's always "my measurement is all encompassing", with those guys.
Like, two cables have identical frequency response, wow, identical FR! All encompassing, everything with identical FR is identical, honestly who has time for that.
I have some idea that Ethan Winer equates noise to harmonic distortion as well, he presented it like that, it's just deluding people, or himself, it's just like speaking of red and yellow as yellow, skipping the entire chapter of red.
Last edited:
Yes, this is your school of thought.
Then what do you think of the realms in audio which lack the listening data, yet measure extremely well?
Last edited:
As I wrote, "my personal opinion". Not any sort of "school of thought".
Such as?
You are being obscure, as usual. Are you trying to say that once upon a time, there was no data to show jitter was audible? If so, you are wrong. Jitter has been a known and well understood phenomenon since, oh, mid-1960s or so, with lots of data available (hint: T1).
great idea for a new threadwe start from, Medecine, Nazies or Khmers Rouge to arrive to Hifi !
... only how to make a logical link from this tread to the new one ...
Ah, you changed your posting.
Give me an example of "realms in audio" which lack listening data - my guess is that you just haven't come across the data that is available.
I removed jitter from my post since I find it the discussions of jitter dull, I saw a risk for some side-tracking into jitter.
Take amplifier THD, noise, slew rate, settling time, Silver / Teflon cables, DSD impulse response, Class-A versus Class-D.
Hmm what else, Teflon PCB, transducer THD, transducer attack / decay / settling time.
Capacitor THD / Cyril Bateman.
Delta-Sigma noise versus R2R noise.
Take amplifier THD, noise, slew rate, settling time, Silver / Teflon cables, DSD impulse response, Class-A versus Class-D.
Hmm what else, Teflon PCB, transducer THD, transducer attack / decay / settling time.
Capacitor THD / Cyril Bateman.
Delta-Sigma noise versus R2R noise.
Last edited:
Indeed, jitter is mostly a non-issue these days.
Yes - lots of data on those. Suggest you look into the AES library. Or even read Ethan Winer's excellent The Audio Expert.
Again, lots of data available, and some of the things you list don't really matter.
I am sure you are aware that he published a lot of measurement data.
What makes you think that there isn't data available?
I think you may not realise that fast switching ABX can mask actual differences, which we can hear when not using the ABX.
It's only intuition which says that ABX is "all revealing", I've never seen a single reference to how the perceptual mind works in detail.
Maybe you are the pseudo-scientist here, Julf, relying on limited evidence to fulfill an emotional feeling.
It's only intuition which says that ABX is "all revealing", I've never seen a single reference to how the perceptual mind works in detail.
Maybe you are the pseudo-scientist here, Julf, relying on limited evidence to fulfill an emotional feeling.
Do you have any evidence for that statement?
I am not surprised you haven't seen any. You don't seem to be into academic research.
Well, at least I rely on evidence instead of just "emotional feelings" (are there unemotional feelings?).
It does seem this thread only exists for you to promote random rants and beliefs in an almost trollish manner. Again, what is it that you want to accomplish or communicate? It is pretty clear that learning isn't one of your aims.
No, strangely enough.
What is there to think about that? What does "far beyond" mean here? "Far better than"? If so, yes, of course, there are lots and lots of parameters on any competent, modern sound system that measures far better than the limits of audible difference. Nothing new there.
So don't switch fast, take all day if you want to. There's no time limit for these things.
Here's a complete set of rules for valid ABX listening tests, in order of importance:
1) There's no way for the test subject to know which piece of equipment X is.
Oh wait, that's the whole list.
Seriously you can listen as long as you want, whenever you want, switching whenever you want and however you want.
Plenty of Chinese medicine for me this week. The goji berries for instance are full of nutrients well accepted in the west. At some level vitamin C and aspirin are medicine discovered by chance.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.