Hmm, at that point, I expected the story to end differently. Think the closet scene in "Diner."
No, they are mostly business. Or, if you prefer, the zombies of the high-end audio industry.
John we are reviving the Bob Pease dinosaur party this year and I would be glad to bring you as my guest. Bury the hatchet and have some fun. No listening tests required.
anomalous posting criteria
When I was at Bell in the late 70's, we used to have to write weekly "progress reports" for DARPA and the Air Force. You know, to secure additional funding, we had to show "progress". Mostly, boring stuff like " 3 rocket engine prototypes were fabricated and tested to 90% thrust with udmh/irfna fuel prior to failure mode analysis, met design goals set in Spec 345.334B.. blah blah or lambda laser module 4456X MkII fired to 200+ KW for 30 secs prior to catastrophic failure blah blah" on and on... got real boring (like this thread?)
Anyway, I used to spice mine up with terms like "phenomenological anomaly", etc. just to see if anyone would notice. Amusingly, subsequent weekly reports of others would begin to utilize terms like "anomalous phenomena", "notwithstanding the aforementioned to the contrary", that sort of phraseology, completely out of context and somettimes in an oxymoronic context.
Maybe that's what occurs here from time to time...
When I was at Bell in the late 70's, we used to have to write weekly "progress reports" for DARPA and the Air Force. You know, to secure additional funding, we had to show "progress". Mostly, boring stuff like " 3 rocket engine prototypes were fabricated and tested to 90% thrust with udmh/irfna fuel prior to failure mode analysis, met design goals set in Spec 345.334B.. blah blah or lambda laser module 4456X MkII fired to 200+ KW for 30 secs prior to catastrophic failure blah blah" on and on... got real boring (like this thread?)
Anyway, I used to spice mine up with terms like "phenomenological anomaly", etc. just to see if anyone would notice. Amusingly, subsequent weekly reports of others would begin to utilize terms like "anomalous phenomena", "notwithstanding the aforementioned to the contrary", that sort of phraseology, completely out of context and somettimes in an oxymoronic context.
Maybe that's what occurs here from time to time...
It really does make one wonder sometimes, if all of these magic wires, rocks, beaks, capacitors, creams and whatnot, aren't just a big prank.
How can one tell the difference? Certainly not by the amount of laughter derived
Naughty, naughty boys Scott
Well, I know what I'd do if I was doing a psychology degree..
I'd set up my own audiophile website and see how outlandish I could make the claims, and see how many hit's I got.
Hang on, that's already been done!! And I will admit straight up, I simply could NOT come up with wackier things than a phone call to better your system...or magic clocks or rocks.
Crikey, when you think about it it leaves you with a real sense of inadequacy...tho that's probably a good thing.
Hang on. The arrogant audiophile rears it's head again.
who says we have not tried it? Of course, not one of us has ever done it even remotely properly, cause we didn't look (as you proudly boast you need to do. hope you don't mind a personal question, but have you no shame? I mean, how can you boast that you need to see it, yet there are differences??)
In any case, let's assume I have not done it. It would not change my viewpoint.
Why? Nope, not because I am closed minded yada yada, but more prosaically simply because I do not see any worthwhile benefits, and would rather channel my time, effort and any money to more profitable areas.
All I need do is look at your claims, as but one small example. You freely admit you need to see them before you hear them, so what else can I conclude other than these are tenth rate phenomena??
Look at the certainty others proclaim regarding audible effects. The mere fact that the slightest protocol imposed upon it seems to obscure these readily heard and desirable differences just backs up how fragile it is, even if we assume they DO exist.
Why chase something that minor?
Or look at the latest proof of the low level effect of cabling...the mere presence in the room of a heretic non-believer is enough to make the effect disappear.
Taking as a given that ESP or psychic phenomena is a poorly proved phenomenon, the fact that even THAT trumps cable audibility shows up just how far down the heirarchy cable effects are.
so why would I even bother?? Your very own statements tend to us not bothering.
Except of course I think you will find most of us have bothered, it is simply your arrogant audiophile face showing.
So much for "trust your ears"
I guess it's been "trust your brain" all along.
Sheesh, we had to go through this entire thread, just to come to that inevitable conclusion
So much for "trust your ears"
I guess it's been "trust your brain" all along.
Sheesh, we had to go through this entire thread, just to come to that inevitable conclusion
trust your eyes??
Take two classes, tell the one they are the clever class and the other they are the dumb ones. It should be obvious which class will perform better. Magic?
Clearly not.
SY gave as an example of scientific progress that anomalous precession in Mercury's trajectory started research that led to new discoveries. You seemed to take issue with the meaning of anomalous. What SY meant was anomalous in the sense that it could not be explained by knowledge and theories available at the time. That meaning seemed obvious.
jd
No, not magic. And I agree that one class (the one told that they were 'smart') will do better.
Oddly enough, I thought Terry J agreed to this as well, didn't you Terry? Did we really have a disagreement?
jd
Take two classes, tell the one they are the clever class and the other they are the dumb ones. It should be obvious which class will perform better. Magic?
Clearly not.
Ohh, janneman also addressed this one, so tie them together.
For sure. Hardly a startling finding. (boy this thread moves fast!) but rdf HAD A PROBLEM WITH SUCH A SIMPLE INTERPRETATION AS that (sorry, clumsy fingers)..reckon I could find it now?
Simple effect, obvious conclusion. Ask RDF andre, rather than me. A simple enough example of the need for double blind testing for me, but it seems to be all deep and meaningful for rdf.
Funny really, especially given that he is usually way ahead of the game. mehh, it happens.
jakob gave his interpretation of what rdf meant, rdf did not dispute it, boiled down to nothing more than a 'disbeliever in the room'.
storm in a teacup really. Trouble is it seemed to set him off on this latest round of cryptic posting, which is a pity as I'd rather hear what he has to say than mystic mumbo jumbo crap.
Good question. In my imagination most cablephiles would probably say, "yes I do believe in human psychology, but it is not the explaination for what is going on with me when I hear the differences. I know I can be fooled in other areas but not with cable sound." So I think they do believe, but somehow it just doesn't apply to them in this case. I actually think they are just trying to protect their sanity.
Sorry guys i´m a bit behind, but let me start with this one.
If you recall the numerous descriptions of listening tests that were done single blinded with friends and had positive results, you´ll most likely remember that other posters inevitable will point to the fact that the helping friends could have given hints (never failed to mention the "clever hans" ) even if they didn´t want to, because all this could happen on a unconscious level.
Afair especially SY never failed to adress this point, and even without knowing that it had happen the sheer possibility was already enough and in fact this observation (that experimenters were able to influence the results) was the reason for the introduction of the double blind test procedure.
So we have every imagination stretched out to consider even totally unlikely ways of hidden hints that could have favored a positive result.
(And really surprising that it would need "xray mind control" in this case was never mentioned
)So obviously we should believe that this influence is in a wondrous way restricted to favor a positive result but that it in no way could favor a negative result. (assumed that no xray mind control takes place
, funny that suddenly no other unconscious way of influence is even thinkable) .Is there any hard evidence for this? I mean a normal reasonable assumption would be, that an influence could work in every direction and should therefore be avoided.
A step further would be to dig deeper into the archives to see, if there were already studies done on this topic. As posted before, i have a weak memory that this "anecdote" rdf refers to, isn´t just an anecdote; at least very similar experiments were indeed executed.
So, while i admit that the "disbeliever among us" argument seems to be a weak excuse it has a real background, and the scientific approach would be to avoid all possible confounders, all the more if there is hard evidence that it could be a _real_ confounder.
Wishes
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.