Why? Even if they don't meet your standards, you must still control for subjective ambiguity one way or another. Any answers to your questions don't change that.
se
That will never happen. They like talking about DBT'ing to stuff their shirts but having them know the answers to your question and better yet, all of them agreeing on that answer??? Yeah,,,Sure Thing.
They will do what they always do when someone has a valid, intelligent, and necessary question. Breeze right on over it and continue slinging the same pile of mud back and fourth like they have been for the last 15,000 posts.
And I am sure some rocket scientist like Dan will ask me what I have contributed to the thread. Even though we all know a legitimate contribution would make for some progress and no progress has been made since post one.
Last edited:
Youtube is blocked here, I'll take a look when I can be bothered to fire up the VPN.
Equivocation - you introduced 'instrument' in your previous argument, now that's been withdrawn? And your argument doesn't wash with me, measurement in QM for example is something very specific and not defined by 'record'. Back to physics class for you
Fallacious reasoning from the particular to the general.
I can only say 'you need to get out more'. Just because the guys in your street don't appreciate philosophy, it doesn't follow that everyone everywhere does not. Here for example, I'm talking to guys and girls in the local park on a regular basis, in English and they lap up this stuff. Especially the gals, which is great because they're so cute
No kidding. Just another shred of evidence (if another be needed) that the future is in the East.Yep, T9. It works in a similar way, you've got the idea.
Well I haven't yet established my standards, I'm curious as to what yours are. I am yet to be convinced that total control of subjective ambiguity is possible, so since you said that accuracy is necessary (I agree) its your phrase that needs to be pinned down. Given that I agree, answers don't change that, please give them.
Ah, but how do we know Fermat actually proved his theorem? Just cause he said so?
Wiles used twentieth century mathematics, so whilst cool that he did it, the big question remains, how did Fermat do it? But, as I said, if he did it in the woods and no-one was there to see it...did he actually do it? (just because wiles proved it does not mean fermat did)
Dunno what VPN is, but have a listen (look), trust me it's worth it.
But then again, we have established that my humour bar is lower than yours so mebbe not!!
Equivocation - you introduced 'instrument' in your previous argument, now that's been withdrawn? And your argument doesn't wash with me, measurement in QM for example is something very specific and not defined by 'record'. Back to physics class for you
Bzzt. Here is what I said And are there really vibrations if there is no 'instrument or measurement' to detect it? It quite clearly states measurement.
What collapses the waveform?? A measurement of some description. Sight, touch, instruments, consciousness??...mebbe not the ears tho
Fallacious reasoning from the particular to the general.
I can only say 'you need to get out more'. Just because the guys in your street don't appreciate philosophy, it doesn't follow that everyone everywhere does not. Here for example, I'm talking to guys and girls in the local park on a regular basis, in English and they lap up this stuff. Especially the gals, which is great because they're so cute
I did expect you to use that example actually, it is an interesting one eh! I too theorized (without any way of testing it) that the 'east' would be far more receptive to this stuff than the west (ditto existence of soul, anything beyond death etc etc)
Still, just cause you find it interesting in your street does not make it interesting in the majority of streets. where do we go now??
(just tried bringing it up in my local pub...was told F*ck off poofter...one particularly nasty brute said to me 'I refute your thoughts that we may not exist thus', and punched me in me frickin eye!)
10/4 buddy, thanks for the data.
Yes, if you can get them. Usually in well funded DBTs the listeners are trained and have passed standard audiometry tests. If you can't get them I suppose any random selection of "cable believers" would do nicely - if any of them would be brave enough to put their hands up for the challenge.
Two: A vs. B when sighted, A or B vs. X when blind.
At or above 95% confidence is the normal threshold used in DBTs in science research.
Yes I participated in a blind 'speaker cable test at least 15 years ago. It was conducted by a hi fi shop and the test subjects were the local audio club including me. The cables were manually switched behind curtains, the testing was done in batches of 3; second cable was always the "control" so the task was to identify whether the first and third cables were the same or different to the second cable.
I don't recall what the overall results for the test were but do recall getting 19 out of 20 correct myself.
Here is an interesting link demonstrating there may be some relatively straightforward reasons why compnent interconnects may sound different.http://www.soundstage.com/articles/pete01.htm
Ah, I see you use similar debating techniques to SY - to wit, deflection.
<snipped out tangential stuff>
Virtual Private Network - a secure way of using a proxy. But I'm not yet convinced that I really should trust you, given all the debating tricks you've used so far...
Yes, I am fully aware of what you originally said. You included 'instrument' and then the next time, this word 'instrument' was conspicuous by its absence. So that's equivocation.
Err, wouldn't we need evidence that it has indeed collapsed before asking such a question? I mean, 'an actual observable collapse' (to borrow Steve Eddy's phrase and adapt it a bit). I pose this question in the hope that you might begin to see the Catch22
That's not quite such a popular philosophical topic as its by and large speculation.
Still, just cause you find it interesting in your street does not make it interesting in the majority of streets. where do we go now??
You could always revise your original claim that such philosophy has died out by qualifying it with 'in the Westernized world' or something like that.
Cool, because I haven't ever said you have claimed such. So, back to my questions... pretty please
Any comments on Pete Goudreau's article in soundstage magazine?
SoundStage! Pete's Place - JPS Labs Superconductor Interconnects: A Technical Discussion (09/1998)
SoundStage! Pete's Place - JPS Labs Superconductor Interconnects: A Technical Discussion (09/1998)
Scanned it fairly quickly. Couldn't see any description of him using controlled listening tests. Happy to be told otherwise.
Seems like the usual "fantastic results from these $295 cables" type story. Impressive amount of technical text, nifty diagrams and engineering speak. But without controlled listening its all just hearsay. But you knew we'd say that, didn't you?
Ah, I see you use similar debating techniques to SY - to wit, deflection.
with wit...corrected your post hahaha. hope you don't mind?
Virtual Private Network - a secure way of using a proxy. But I'm not yet convinced that I really should trust you, given all the debating tricks you've used so far...
I do hope that was a joke.
maybe if you'd given a different example, I would have used instrument, and measurement would have been absent. I thought the word 'or' allowed that?? Unless it means 'and', or 'with'.
Back to the dictionary for me to brush up on basic english..unless it was those verbs again being unreliable?
Err, wouldn't we need evidence that it has indeed collapsed before asking such a question? I mean, 'an actual observable collapse' (to borrow Steve Eddy's phrase and adapt it a bit). I pose this question in the hope that you might begin to see the Catch22
T9, 10'4, and now catch 22. what's with all these numbers suddenly
Don't we do that everyday? (have evidence of it's collapse) this keyboard feels pretty real, and I am reasonably sure it was real before I ever touched it.
Besides, what is the point of even talking about quantum theory? For any theory to be useful it has to be able to predict phenomena, find a use in the real world.
All this gumph about things being in to places at once. The only test of a theory is if it is useful.
I did. I added that I forgot to mention the 'guy in the street'. I then went on to explain that I did, in fact, mean 'over here'...it would be interesting (lies, damn lies and statistics and all that) to find out how the pie actually slices...the prime ministers cabinet secretary would have a field day with that one. Raw numbers, by country, wonder how many other ways the numbers could be cooked.
For the life of me, the characters name escapes me right now.
Scanned it fairly quickly. Couldn't see any description of him using controlled listening tests. Happy to be told otherwise.
Seems like the usual "fantastic results from these $295 cables" type story. Impressive amount of technical text, nifty diagrams and engineering speak. But without controlled listening its all just hearsay. But you knew we'd say that, didn't you?
I posted this link with the naive aim of providing something constructive to get away from the petty point scoring that bedevils this thread. The article needs and deserves more than a quick scan and certainly more respect than this poster gives it, as it demonstrates some technical reasons why there will be differences caused by interconnects which fall outside the usual "analysis" that we see.
As an example only, skin effect is routinely pooh poohed as having an effect at audio frequencies, this article while not attempting to prove this does provide analysis which might lead one to suspect that this may be relevant to the performance of a music system after all.
Note I do not say the article proves there are audible differences, I did not post it to prove that the reviewer heard what he said he did...
Well I'd be happy for others to comb through the detail. Its a free world, some of us have the inclination / knowledge / time to do so, others don't. No big deal surely (and at least I looked at it, which is more than some people do when links are posted).
The technical claims made, explanations etc may be perfectly valid. But it doesn't advance the debate: some things may objectively measure better than other things. However, the claim made was superior audibility, thats clear. The author recommends that people audition the cable because it was superior in his system. His descriptions are not "maybe yes, maybe no" but clearly heard differences. Those claims require a controlled listening test which (as far as I can see) were not done.
OK.
Last edited:
I guess I'm just dumb but, what do the technical merits of the paper have to do with blind testing? Are you saying you would want to see blind testing included in the article because you don't understand the technical aspects of the paper?
What do you think about the technical merits of the contents of the paper?
Anyone?
Beuller?
Last edited:
No. I'm saying that there are claims in the paper that are about the audibility of cables (amongst other discussions). Such claims are ideally tested with controlled listening tests. As far as I can see, the listening test(s) done by the author were sighted, uncontrolled tests. Accordingly, for all the reasons that have already been expressed on this thread, they don't have as much weight as they would if they were undertaken as controlled listening tests.
I can make no comments about the other aspects of the paper (those claims that don't relate to audibility of cables). Perhaps someone who is an expert in that field could make a comment.
@ boconnor & auplater,
unfortunately it is quite seldom shown in the audio field that a test was objective, reliable and valid and that is really hard to understand.
As we have to rely on the subjective evaluation of participants in a specific test, it is not sufficient to have shown (somewhere somehow) that a test protocol itself could provide useful results.
If the experimenter does not use positive and negative controls, he can only state if the null hypothesis could be rejected or not, but is not able to conclude about the reasons for the specific outcome of the test, because no test data exist on that a conclusion could be based on.
Wishes
unfortunately it is quite seldom shown in the audio field that a test was objective, reliable and valid and that is really hard to understand.
As we have to rely on the subjective evaluation of participants in a specific test, it is not sufficient to have shown (somewhere somehow) that a test protocol itself could provide useful results.
If the experimenter does not use positive and negative controls, he can only state if the null hypothesis could be rejected or not, but is not able to conclude about the reasons for the specific outcome of the test, because no test data exist on that a conclusion could be based on.
Wishes
@ abraxalito,
therefore i carefully omitted to mention "sound".
For practical reasons we should avoid to mix this topic with more general consideration about constructivism .
We present different stimuli and are trying to find out if a listener is able to detect the difference. To draw some more generalized conclusion from results (what normally is the goal of any scientific test work) it should be carefully worked out what question should be under examination, this should lead to some hypothesis and to a suitableproper method to test these hypothesis.
Normally this operationalization process should be well documented is part of the confirmation that the test is objective, reliable and valid (i.e. means that it fulfills the scientific requirements).
Unfortunately in audio tests a lot of this work is often missing.
Wishes
therefore i carefully omitted to mention "sound".
For practical reasons we should avoid to mix this topic with more general consideration about constructivism .
We present different stimuli and are trying to find out if a listener is able to detect the difference. To draw some more generalized conclusion from results (what normally is the goal of any scientific test work) it should be carefully worked out what question should be under examination, this should lead to some hypothesis and to a suitableproper method to test these hypothesis.
Normally this operationalization process should be well documented is part of the confirmation that the test is objective, reliable and valid (i.e. means that it fulfills the scientific requirements).
Unfortunately in audio tests a lot of this work is often missing.
Wishes
- Status
- Not open for further replies.