Is this it John? Is this how you will evade the conclusions? The facts that Rich and jneutron pointed out the errors in the theory and jneutron pointed out the error in this theoreticians attempted physical experiment? The fact that John Atkinson (of Stereophile, who would have a vested interest in this turning out to be real) could not duplicate, nor any one else, in 20+ years, including Hawksford himself (using steel wires, of all things). The fact that it could only appear in a HiFi rag, not a peer reviewed journal, never to be published, like all his other work?
As if your desperate appeals to authority and every other fallacy cannot be read by all in the AA archives?
Is this how desperate you are for your beliefs to be true?
I don't want to accept p; therefore, p isn't true.
Sad.
cheers,
AJ
Why is it that the Brits seem so lax in getting peer review outside of their "club"? Hawksford's article is flawed at the very basic level as was Ben Duncan's. Also why do these flawed results just keep propagating?
Yes, Scott, all my friends are flakes. However, it doesn't matter what the results are, or how accurate they are, Dr. Lipshitz et al would consider it inaudible, in any case.
It is surprising that people actually think that peer review really fixes problems. We all, when we write a paper, always give it to our associates, in advance, before publishing. We don't like mistakes either. However, to make a monkey proof experiment that cannot be criticized in some way, especially when it is pioneering, is just about impossible. Someone, somewhere, will pull it apart, usually in print. Usually, they make a big thing out of something small.
For example, I once saw a criticism of early fossils of birds, by someone making a crude copy it and showing it around the his cronies. This was suppose to show that the first finding perhaps 150-200 years ago, was faked in the same way. No other 'proof' was necessary. Sound familiar?
It is surprising that people actually think that peer review really fixes problems. We all, when we write a paper, always give it to our associates, in advance, before publishing. We don't like mistakes either. However, to make a monkey proof experiment that cannot be criticized in some way, especially when it is pioneering, is just about impossible. Someone, somewhere, will pull it apart, usually in print. Usually, they make a big thing out of something small.
For example, I once saw a criticism of early fossils of birds, by someone making a crude copy it and showing it around the his cronies. This was suppose to show that the first finding perhaps 150-200 years ago, was faked in the same way. No other 'proof' was necessary. Sound familiar?
Last edited:
Foreget the mathematics. what Malkolm tried to show was that there is an advantage using solid core cable with a diameter smaller then a bit less then 1mm diameter because that is the skin depth at 20kHz. that was my state of the art at that time and i still use small diameter teflon insulted cable for internal wiring when i am on a budjet. cable contruction is of cause important too and the effect of cable spacing is bigger then the skin effect most of the time. i have since moved on to litz wire. Boys, that paper is ages old and put Malkolm in an uncomfortable position. I could imagine that the least he wants is making cable manufactures rich that use his paper as argument. Still he had the balls to try something, as flawd as it may be. I think critisising that paper comes to late.
Not to mention the physics, the logic, the repeatability, the audibility, etc, etc.
Yes, i do not measure cables any more, i just listen and do not care about double, triple or quadruple blind abcde tests. This things can not be resolved. You hear a difference or you hear no difference. Then a test is setup tp prove your position. Pathetic.
Use 1.5qmm Radio Shack cable and be happy how much money you have safed. It passes all so called scientific tests with flying colours.
Use 1.5qmm Radio Shack cable and be happy how much money you have safed. It passes all so called scientific tests with flying colours.
What's rather telling is that Hawksford, who is not the least bit shy of publishing, never bothered to publish this earth-shattering revelation outside of the hobbyist audio press.
se
No you don't, so please stop repeating this fallacy ad nauseum.
You see, you know...and then somewhere in there, yes, you listen to the sound field as well.
Completely swamped by all the "other" stuff.
The sooner you read and understand the ear/brain hearing process (which involves plenty "other" factors besides the sound field), then accept, rather than reject, that yes, it applies to you too....the sooner we can come to an understanding and agreement of what is being "heard".
Hi Steve, could be a good time that YOU publish a definitive parer on the subject. We will then pull it apart and spice our comments with as much zynisism as posible. Could it be that some people here have very bad hearing and that is the reason the tests fail ?
In your case of cause no problem. Those ears are big!
In your case of cause no problem. Those ears are big!
That could be why you fail. Or it could be the imagination suppression factor.
Who knows?
Neither matters when the conclusion will simply be evaded.
Along with reading about/learning the ear/brain hearing process, perhaps you could throw in some basic rules of logic. Such as one cannot prove a negative.
Just a suggestion.
Step right up and put your hearing to a test or run away. All in fun or not does not matter It just does not happen.
It's just plain ** and wrong and has no use to anybody. The arguement that people were using small diameter Litz wire "by listening" and it was OK for Malcomb to find some apologetics for this is just plain stupid.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.