@ SY,
that´s your statement:
"Burden of proof rests on claimant. Burden of proof especially rests on claimant when making extraordinary claims. Contra Jakob, it is not the responsibility of physicists to spend time testing perpetual motion machines when the guys peddling them won't provide data nor details on experimental design. Likewise, when fabulous claims of non-mundane audibility are put forth, it is the responsibility of claimants to present evidence, not of the engineering community to spend time and effort debunking them."
and that´s your quote from my post:
"everything is fine, if you insisted that the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimant (whatever claim he´s made), but if somebody present the _claim_ that the didn´t hear something than he has to show that it wasn´t only due to the fact that he doesn´t want to hear something. (a bit exaggerated for clearness, more unintentionally it would be just the well known expectation bias of )"
So, where is the contradiction? I simply can´t see any.
Wishes
that´s your statement:
"Burden of proof rests on claimant. Burden of proof especially rests on claimant when making extraordinary claims. Contra Jakob, it is not the responsibility of physicists to spend time testing perpetual motion machines when the guys peddling them won't provide data nor details on experimental design. Likewise, when fabulous claims of non-mundane audibility are put forth, it is the responsibility of claimants to present evidence, not of the engineering community to spend time and effort debunking them."
and that´s your quote from my post:
"everything is fine, if you insisted that the burden of proof is on the shoulder of the claimant (whatever claim he´s made), but if somebody present the _claim_ that the didn´t hear something than he has to show that it wasn´t only due to the fact that he doesn´t want to hear something. (a bit exaggerated for clearness, more unintentionally it would be just the well known expectation bias of )"
So, where is the contradiction? I simply can´t see any.
Wishes
You're telling me that I need to prove that I can't hear, for example, the differences between two competent interconnects when someone (with no actual evidence ) claims that there are audible differences. Or is it just the tortured sentence structure that leaves the reader to believe that this is your statement?
If _you_ make the claim, that _you_ can not hear a difference (for example absolute polarity), then you should show that you haven´t been just deluded by your own bias.
There is no contradiction.
Wishes
P.S. Maybe it a sort of bias that lead to these misinterpretations?
Last edited:
Excuse me, I have some perpetual motion machines to test. After all, I claimed they don't work, so the burden is on me.
Sheesh.
If you do an experiment (in our case a listening experiment; last time i looked this was diyaudio not diyperpetual whatever
) and want to argue with the results, then you have to show that it was an useful experiment. It is as simple as that.If you don´t want (or can´t) do useful experiments, then just avoid arguing with results of experiments.
Wishes
I never have argued with the results of experiments. I do argue with the notion that doing any old thing with no control, peeking and all, constitutes an "experiment."
testing 1,2,alpha,epsilon
umm... I think we have a contorted inversion of null/alternative presumption here. Part of doing USEFUL "experiments" is setting up the CORRECT hypothesis. Either that, or your choice of "experiment" (in this case, an uncontrolled listening test) is poorly considered and seems incredibly naive
From Wiki
Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In statistical hypothesis testing two hypotheses are compared, which are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that there is some kind of relation"
Jakob2 would have everything that IS status quo being the alternative and any claims of NEW/Difference as the null...
If you do an experiment (in our case a listening experiment; last time i looked this was diyaudio not diyperpetual whatever
If you don´t want (or can´t) do useful experiments, then just avoid arguing with results of experiments.
Wishes
umm... I think we have a contorted inversion of null/alternative presumption here. Part of doing USEFUL "experiments" is setting up the CORRECT hypothesis. Either that, or your choice of "experiment" (in this case, an uncontrolled listening test) is poorly considered and seems incredibly naive
From Wiki
Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In statistical hypothesis testing two hypotheses are compared, which are called the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the hypothesis that states that there is no relation between the phenomena whose relation is under investigation, or at least not of the form given by the alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis, as the name suggests, is the alternative to the null hypothesis: it states that there is some kind of relation"
Jakob2 would have everything that IS status quo being the alternative and any claims of NEW/Difference as the null...
@ auplater,
is this a club meeting of the "strawman" fellows?
I can only repeat; if one does an experiment/test he has to show (and of course to ensure) that it is an useful experiment/test. Means, as posted numerous times before, that it has to be an objective, reliable and valid test.
And, if any categorical or generalized conclusion should be drawn, than these must be supported by the test.
For example, if SY has shown that his perpetual moving machine doesn´t work, he can´t conclude, that no audible difference between two interconnects exists.
Wishes
is this a club meeting of the "strawman" fellows?
I can only repeat; if one does an experiment/test he has to show (and of course to ensure) that it is an useful experiment/test. Means, as posted numerous times before, that it has to be an objective, reliable and valid test.
And, if any categorical or generalized conclusion should be drawn, than these must be supported by the test.
For example, if SY has shown that his perpetual moving machine doesn´t work, he can´t conclude, that no audible difference between two interconnects exists.
Wishes
If _you_ make the claim, that _you_ can not hear a difference (for example absolute polarity), then you should show that you haven´t been just deluded by your own bias.
[snip]
But Jakob, how can anyone proof that they don't hear a difference?? The only way to disprove the hypothesis that no difference can be heard is to proof that it can be heard. That proof should be done by those claiming there is a difference, no?
jd
Yours, not mine
Seems to me many of those skeptical of these claims of cable difference have, for the most part, been arguing that what has been presented as some sort of "data" supporting their position does not represent any sort of test, other than what they can hear for themselves and anyone who cares to believe their opinions.
Many of the "believers", I believe, also go beyond this point and claim their opinions to be factual. Some of the experts go so far as to assign physical processes to these beliefs as causation, and condemn and patronize those who object to such characterizations. I don't believe this is valid.
That's all.
@ auplater,
is this a club meeting of the "strawman" fellows?
I can only repeat; if one does an experiment/test he has to show (and of course to ensure) that it is an useful experiment/test. Means, as posted numerous times before, that it has to be an objective, reliable and valid test.
And, if any categorical or generalized conclusion should be drawn, than these must be supported by the test.
For example, if SY has shown that his perpetual moving machine doesn´t work, he can´t conclude, that no audible difference between two interconnects exists.
Wishes
Seems to me many of those skeptical of these claims of cable difference have, for the most part, been arguing that what has been presented as some sort of "data" supporting their position does not represent any sort of test, other than what they can hear for themselves and anyone who cares to believe their opinions.
Many of the "believers", I believe, also go beyond this point and claim their opinions to be factual. Some of the experts go so far as to assign physical processes to these beliefs as causation, and condemn and patronize those who object to such characterizations. I don't believe this is valid.
That's all.
Nice try. It's been a subset of the 'objectionists' loudly proclaiming the 'thousands' of tests and trials conclusively proving it's all froo and using that as a jumping-off point for all manner of dilettante psychoanalysis. Who was it that recently proposed a Grand Unified Theory of $$$$$$ubjectivity?
I think what jakob is saying is when you set out to achieve a null, a result asserted continuously by many here, the experimental protocol must be pristine. To use a trivial example of one that isn't, SY with a police whistle. Pants on or off.
I think what jakob is saying is when you set out to achieve a null, a result asserted continuously by many here, the experimental protocol must be pristine. To use a trivial example of one that isn't, SY with a police whistle. Pants on or off.
Last edited:
It's hard to figure out what Jakob is saying. English is not his Muettersprach, so I can certainly be tolerant of what appears to be dense, twisted syntax and not conclude that he's dancing furiously. But if indeed your interpretation is correct, auplater hit it dead center: he is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Even a "pristine" experimental protocol still cannot prove a negative.
BUT... the presumption is still that the same engineering practice that lands a probe on Jupiter, detects single particle events, and whizzes our words and pictures around the world is sufficient to analyze a hifi system. And that there is still ZERO evidence, despite thousands and thousands of claims, that there's any "there" there. And after many, many (I don't know the number) good-if-not-perfect tests with null results (all of which cannot suffer identical defects) I'm probably nuts to actually bother to test yet one more person. Though I still will, in a slight glimmering of hope that there will be something to find.
I don't think a null has been asserted, rather it has been asserted that a non-null hasn't been proven (generally speaking, for the sake of discussion), and that those studies that have been done, have not proven a non-null.
I have argued many times, that what is often called 'dillettante psychoanalysis' can be shown to be accepted and known effects in normal humans, with just a few hours of serious research.
I've been quoting studies and recommending reading ad nauseatum but apparently it's preferred to use the phrase 'dilletante psychoanalysis' than actually checking where the beef is.
jd
Last edited:
Please consider two possible scenarios:
1.) guy (believing that absolute polarity is audible) does a sighted test, and claims that he had heard a difference.
Forum chorus sings, "totally flawed, bias, delusion whatever, double blind must happen"
2.) guy (strongly believing that absolute polarity is inaudible) does a sighted test and claims, that he had not heard a difference
Forum chorus sings, "great one, confirmation of a well known fact, no bias influence thinkable, nothing else must be done"
Do you see the problem?
Of course you are right, it might be, that absolute polarity is inaudible and furthermore it might be, that guy no.2 is not able to detect the difference in absolute polarity, but at least that his bias will be taken out of the game is absolutely mandatory.
And, normally with positive controls it should be ensured, that he is a decent listener.
Wishes
Yes. Poor analogy. I'll fix it for you (noting, of course, that absolute polarity HAS been established to be audible in DBTs and, unlike cable direction, silver vs copper, whatever, is easily and trivially measurable- which dooms the analogy before even beginning):
1.) guy 1 (believing that absolute polarity is audible) does a sighted test, and claims that he had heard a difference.
Forum chorus sings, "totally flawed, bias, delusion whatever, double blind must happen"
2.) guy 2 (strongly believing that absolute polarity is inaudible) does a sighted test and claims, that he had not heard a difference
Forum chorus sings, "great one, confirmation of a well known fact, no bias influence thinkable, nothing else must be done"
3) guy 3 runs a DBT, can't hear it.
Forum chorus sings, "DBTs are no good, there's stress, you hurt my toe, it's not natural..."
4) guy 4 runs a DBT, can't hear it.
Forum chorus sings, "DBTs are no good, there's stress, you hurt my toe, it's not natural..."
5) guy 5 puts up $10,000 to anyone who can show that they hear polarity.
Forum chorus sings, "DBTs are no good, there's stress, you hurt my toe, it's not natural..."
6) guy 6 runs a DBT, can't hear it.
Forum chorus sings, "DBTs are no good, there's stress, you hurt my toe, it's not natural..."
Keep repeating until you're at guy 100 or so. And at that point, none of the other 100 or so guys who are claiming audibility have put forth the slightest shred of evidence, and anyone with even a slight residue of common sense has moved on to actual significant issues...
Jakob,
If case # 2 would happen, it would NOT be taken serious by the 'sceptics', don't worry. I would be the first to say that.
Case # 1 yes, those are the arguments. And as I said earlier, those arguments have deliberately been ignored.
There have been many cases where bias, psychological factors, what have you, have been discussed in threads related to the uncontrolled/controlled test discussion. When that happened, the uncontrolled/ anecdotal test proponents were silent and absent. When the discussion on bias etc petered out, pop! there were the uncontrolled/anecdotal proponents continuing as if nothing had been discussed at all. The horse and the water and all that.
jd
jan, you really believe no one understands? Where I struggle with it is, for example, my latest project. It's directly counter to my every expectation and preference; it's PP instead of SE, low FB instead of NFB, triode-connected pentode instead of triode, $50 of '60s jukebox iron with a dozen taps instead of the nice James stuff laying about, LC power supply instead of low DCR, huge electrolytics in the PS instead of poly. And the terrific sound quality is kicking my backside. So, at least on the basis of expectation, here are strong biases shattered one after another by sound. How should I reconcile this with claims I'm completely its dupe?
SY, I see you chose Jupiter instead of Mars.
You're down playing half the equation, the perceptual side. To determine if cables are audible at all is one thing, audible above mundane another, audible as clearly as holding up a black vs. white card a third still. It appears obvious different targets entail different protocols and restrictions. A McDonalds might be a perfectly adequate venue for differentiating between a Wild Irish Rose and a Mad Dog 20/20 but it has limitations for anything subtler.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.