Your post 40789 says otherwise. See my Linear Audio article for an explanation of the "wife in the next room" version.
quite
Adverb
To the utmost or most absolute extent or degree; absolutely; completely: "it's quite out of the question".
Synonyms
entirely - completely - wholly - altogether - utterly
Dan.
Try Ferrites For Yourself Stuart....FFS...
Dan.
"I asked to replay a particular favorite track that had played a few minutes earlier" because I was out of the garage for the most of it and wanted to hear it for myself on this system....nothing more than that and no pre suggestions given.
Dan.
Rule of economics suggests that chance, of you becoming a victim of a 2-for-1 hit, doubled.
@SY: He, who is about to say the truth, should keep one foot in the stirrup - Dzenghis Khan the Younger.
jan
... which of course is one of the best examples of cueing I've seen in a long time. Sorry Dan, it is what it is.
jan
Yes, and with the "Clever Hans" effect, not even the person giving the cues is aware of it.
se
The DBLT is an interesting approach to see if there is a cause and affect. Works for many physical issues where the brain is not coupled to the mind/memory/culture/upbringing/hearing/ listening/ phyco issues. I think becuase it works well in other areas, it is a Belief that it works as well everywhere.
I said this last year ---> If you did a meta-data study of listening experiences across all ages, sexes and equipment and time and found there are good correlations that support a general concenious.... why stick to opposite conclusions from some DBLT? What would the odds be of that meta-data being false?
Just a thought.
Thx-RNMarsh
I said this last year ---> If you did a meta-data study of listening experiences across all ages, sexes and equipment and time and found there are good correlations that support a general concenious.... why stick to opposite conclusions from some DBLT? What would the odds be of that meta-data being false?
Just a thought.
Thx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Very high, if you accept as "data" the sort of anecdote that feeds fashion audio, paranormalism, and quack medicine. Bull**** will always outnumber careful, solid research. And there's always a rationalization waiting for why the bull**** should be believed.
That was the proposition of Dr. Hans van Maanen in his Linear Audio Editorial. He suggested to do a statistical analysis on all 'subjective, anecdotal reports' and felt that there was a clear conclusion that would emerge.
OTOH, I think it was Anatoly France who once said: "If 50 million people believe in something that is wrong, it is still wrong".
You should read that history of the Mars channels. It's just one page. Eye opening to say the least.
jan
Last edited:
I don't see that working.
All humans are prone to bias. And I presume all those who would be part of your meta-data study would be humans too. So I don't see how any meaningful general conclusions as to audibility could possibly come from any correlations the study. I mean, I could just as well say that there's a good correlation to humans being biased listeners.
So I don't see this issue moving any further down the road without controlling for bias. Or as SY would say, no peeking.
se
That was the proposition of Dr. Hans van Maanen in his Linear Audio Editorial. He suggested to do a statistical analysis on all 'subjective, anecdotal reports' and felt that there was a clear conclusion that would emerge.
OTOH, I think it was Anatoly France who once said: "If 50 million people believe in something that is wrong, it is still wrong".
You should read that history of the Mars channels. It's just one page. Eye opening to say the least.
jan
OTOH, I think it was Anatoly France who once said: "If 50 million people believe in something that is wrong, it is still wrong".
You should read that history of the Mars channels. It's just one page. Eye opening to say the least.
jan
Speaking of astronomy, it's somewhat ironic that Dr. van Maanen shares a surname with the astronomer Adriaan van Maanen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia who made meticulous measurements of what he was certain were "proper motions" of what he believed to be stars in what were then thought to be gaseous/stellar nebulae in our galaxy. Hubble in the meantime noticed that some variable stars in nearby "nebulae" were Cepheid variables, which have a fairly narrow range of absolute magnitudes, and which allows them to be used as distance indicators, and to his surprise placed them in nearby galaxies, but at vastly greater distances than had been imagined.
I was told many years ago that van Maanen's plate measuring engine was still in the basement at the observatory offices, with a sign on it saying not to touch.
Point taken, though admittedly I didn't disassemble to see if the lies were on the outside or through and through.
This stuff really makes me feel sorry for John. He is horribly ill-used by his "friends."
The kicker is that stuff born out of secret research seems to just walk out of said secret establishment and used in audio equipment? Why of all places audio equipment?
If all those fellows with Ph.Ds in lab coats are doing research in QM and spending big bucks and have a hard time getting real world results and openly discuss at least some aspect of their work and research, how o how o how does someone walk out of a secret lab with magic dust and decide to place them in a consumer product and gives nothing as proof as to its veracity??? As a rank amateur on this forum, this is baffling to me.
If all those fellows with Ph.Ds in lab coats are doing research in QM and spending big bucks and have a hard time getting real world results and openly discuss at least some aspect of their work and research, how o how o how does someone walk out of a secret lab with magic dust and decide to place them in a consumer product and gives nothing as proof as to its veracity??? As a rank amateur on this forum, this is baffling to me.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.