Isn't theorizing an acceptable aspect of science? I'm no science expert but...
Certainly, "scientists" have developed theories that were only proven after the fact. Black holes come to mind.
And I'm still scratching my head about the HOLCO resistor comment--I had planned to purchase ladder attenuators made with HOLCO resistors (thanks Frank, now I don't know what I'm going to do: ).
JF
Certainly, "scientists" have developed theories that were only proven after the fact. Black holes come to mind.
And I'm still scratching my head about the HOLCO resistor comment--I had planned to purchase ladder attenuators made with HOLCO resistors (thanks Frank, now I don't know what I'm going to do: ).
JF
"If you want to do an actual experiment, I'll be happy to give you a protocol that includes better control of variables. If you follow the protocol, you could even get it published in a reputable journal and make a nice name for yourself."
Stuart, please inform me on what is regarded as correct procedure.
"Here's a fatal one: the guy who makes the judgement "rattle" or "no rattle" knows what cord is in place and (presumably) has control of the volume knob and other system/room variables."
Like I said the volume level was reliably fixed and there were NO other changes to the system or room - we sat in the same places too.
The judgement about the windows rattling is not a subjective judgement - clearly the windows did not rattle without the lead, and clearly did rattle with the lead - black and white to the both of us.
I fully know that this outcome seems strange on first view, but also remember so does the concept of changing the flavour of wines - and that concept has been proven and reported on in an informal sighted test by a well regarded wine judge that you referred me to - I expect that you can recall this.
Interesting too that he came to the same wine flavour change conclusions as others without being cued on what kinds of changes to expect.
Eric.
Stuart, please inform me on what is regarded as correct procedure.
"Here's a fatal one: the guy who makes the judgement "rattle" or "no rattle" knows what cord is in place and (presumably) has control of the volume knob and other system/room variables."
Like I said the volume level was reliably fixed and there were NO other changes to the system or room - we sat in the same places too.
The judgement about the windows rattling is not a subjective judgement - clearly the windows did not rattle without the lead, and clearly did rattle with the lead - black and white to the both of us.
I fully know that this outcome seems strange on first view, but also remember so does the concept of changing the flavour of wines - and that concept has been proven and reported on in an informal sighted test by a well regarded wine judge that you referred me to - I expect that you can recall this.
Interesting too that he came to the same wine flavour change conclusions as others without being cued on what kinds of changes to expect.
Eric.
Eric,
All you need is one more person providing suggestions.
The only concern I have with your "rattling windows" is that somehow the volume changes. However, don't you have access to a db meter? That way you could verify that the signal levels are the same (meaning the signal at say 1khz, obviously something "improves" the low frequency response).
JF
All you need is one more person providing suggestions.
The only concern I have with your "rattling windows" is that somehow the volume changes. However, don't you have access to a db meter? That way you could verify that the signal levels are the same (meaning the signal at say 1khz, obviously something "improves" the low frequency response).
JF
Originally posted by johnferrier
Eric, All you need is one more person to give suggestions, right?
John, intelligent and polite suggestions like yours always are, are most welcome.
The only concern I have with your "rattling windows" is that somehow the volume changes. However, don't you have access to a db meter? That way you could verify that the signal levels are the same (meaning the signal at say 1khz, obviously something "improves" the low frequency response).
We do have a dBA meter, but did not bother to use it.
The digital volume control was not touched during the experiments.
By whatever exact mechanisms, slightly changing at least the L, C and R values of the 240V power feed caused consequential downstream sonic changes.
Eric.
Eric, All you need is one more person to give suggestions, right?
John, intelligent and polite suggestions like yours always are, are most welcome.
The only concern I have with your "rattling windows" is that somehow the volume changes. However, don't you have access to a db meter? That way you could verify that the signal levels are the same (meaning the signal at say 1khz, obviously something "improves" the low frequency response).
We do have a dBA meter, but did not bother to use it.
The digital volume control was not touched during the experiments.
By whatever exact mechanisms, slightly changing at least the L, C and R values of the 240V power feed caused consequential downstream sonic changes.
Eric.
Yes and no. It's legitimate for a physicist to propose a testable theory, based on a well-established physical principles, with a deep understanding of what went before. If the theory is consistent with what's known and makes an interesting prediction or explains real experimental stuff unaccounted for by previous theory, someone is likely to test it. The young and unknown (in 1905) Einstein is a shining example of that principle.
On the other hand, if a garage tinkerer with only a superficial knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and none of quantum mechanics comes up with an unsupported hypothesis that subjecting a 2 ton mass of technicium to the bombardment of cyclotron-intensity gamma rays will cause a self-supporting nuclear fusion reaction, it's doubtful that someone reputable is going to bother with it.
Writing a detailed and complete protocol (and following it!) is a pretty big expenditure of time. Are you asking out of curiosity/ desire to debate, or are you actually going to do a real experiment?
Yes, I Am perfectly Serious About All Of This.........
Originally posted by SY [/i]
Yes and no. It's legitimate for a physicist to propose a testable theory, based on a well-established physical principles, with a deep understanding of what went before. If the theory is consistent with what's known and makes an interesting prediction or explains real experimental stuff unaccounted for by previous theory, someone is likely to test it. The young and unknown (in 1905) Einstein is a shining example of that principle.
Do current physics theories explain all ?
Are gravity and magnetism fully explained yet ?
On the other hand, if a garage tinkerer with only a superficial knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and none of quantum mechanics comes up with an unsupported hypothesis that subjecting a 2 ton mass of technicium to the bombardment of cyclotron-intensity gamma rays will cause a self-supporting nuclear fusion reaction, it's doubtful that someone reputable is going to bother with it.
Of course, silly suggestions don't count.
Writing a detailed and complete protocol (and following it!) is a pretty big expenditure of time. Are you asking out of curiosity/ desire to debate, or are you actually going to do a real experiment?
Yes, I do need to do a bunch of verifiable and publishable testing, so your advices and tips in this direction are appreciated, and will be likely heeded in the name of science, repeatability and peer review.
I have done the garage tinkering, sonics A/B testing on dozens of systems and subjects, and the results are informally well proven and perfectly consistent to the point that subjects describe sonic changes in the same terms and without prior suggestion from me except to say that the subject may or may not hear a sonics change.
Along the lines of Franks comments regarding the Holco resistors I am getting consistently same descriptions from various subjects regardless of the live or replay audio system (or guitar, or keyboard, or microphone etc...........).
Stuart, by this I mean that I find that there is a consistent change identifiable and described by all subjects.
I fully understand that my task now is to scientifically quantify these changes, hence my request for suitable wave file anaysis software.
Eric.
Originally posted by SY [/i]
Yes and no. It's legitimate for a physicist to propose a testable theory, based on a well-established physical principles, with a deep understanding of what went before. If the theory is consistent with what's known and makes an interesting prediction or explains real experimental stuff unaccounted for by previous theory, someone is likely to test it. The young and unknown (in 1905) Einstein is a shining example of that principle.
Do current physics theories explain all ?
Are gravity and magnetism fully explained yet ?
On the other hand, if a garage tinkerer with only a superficial knowledge of the laws of thermodynamics and none of quantum mechanics comes up with an unsupported hypothesis that subjecting a 2 ton mass of technicium to the bombardment of cyclotron-intensity gamma rays will cause a self-supporting nuclear fusion reaction, it's doubtful that someone reputable is going to bother with it.
Of course, silly suggestions don't count.
Writing a detailed and complete protocol (and following it!) is a pretty big expenditure of time. Are you asking out of curiosity/ desire to debate, or are you actually going to do a real experiment?
Yes, I do need to do a bunch of verifiable and publishable testing, so your advices and tips in this direction are appreciated, and will be likely heeded in the name of science, repeatability and peer review.
I have done the garage tinkering, sonics A/B testing on dozens of systems and subjects, and the results are informally well proven and perfectly consistent to the point that subjects describe sonic changes in the same terms and without prior suggestion from me except to say that the subject may or may not hear a sonics change.
Along the lines of Franks comments regarding the Holco resistors I am getting consistently same descriptions from various subjects regardless of the live or replay audio system (or guitar, or keyboard, or microphone etc...........).
Stuart, by this I mean that I find that there is a consistent change identifiable and described by all subjects.
I fully understand that my task now is to scientifically quantify these changes, hence my request for suitable wave file anaysis software.
Eric.
Gravity is well-understood, but has not yet been incorporated into a unified theory with quantum mechanics. That's a very active research field. We do understand it well enough to throw a multiton hunk of metal at just the right angle and speed to hit Mars at predetermined time on a routine basis. Magnetism is quite fully understood and has been for more than a century.
One of the really beautiful results in physics is the incorporation of special relativity into electric field equations- magnetism just pops out. I remember working through the equations back in college, "Benefit" blasting through my Koss ES 'phones, late at night. I was moved almost to tears.
Here's the basics of a minimum-grade experiment; the devil is in the details:
1. Have the power cords and their connections completely obscured from view. It should be impossible for the experimenter to determine visually which cord is connected at any given time during the experiment. Verification by a sleight-of-hand expert can be very helpful, especially from a mentalist.
2. Have an independent party determine a random series of As and Bs- 10 coin flips will be a pretty good way to do this if you're doing 10 trials. The party makes up a code sheet with the predetermined order; this is kept out of view of the experimenter, preferably in a room from which the experimenter is barred during the duration of the experiment.
3. For each trial, the experimenter is escorted from the room by a second independent party, who remains with him. The first independent party connects the appropriate cord, then makes sure that the visual cues are properly obscured. He leaves the area, and the experimenter is escorted back by the second independent party. If there is no change in connection between any two or more consecutive trials, the same cord is still disconnected, then reconnected.
4. The second party and the experimenter play the appropriate musical passage or test signal, and the experimenter records "rattle" or "no rattle" on his score sheet. It is imperative that no-one aware of the connection is in the room at the same time as the experimenter!
5. At the end of the desired number of trials (say, 10), the experimenter hands the second party his score sheet and leaves the area. The first party and second party than compare the score sheet to the code sheet and determine the score, which is then announced in public to great celebration or great hilarity.
There are other ways to do this, but this is a relatively simple approach.
One of the really beautiful results in physics is the incorporation of special relativity into electric field equations- magnetism just pops out. I remember working through the equations back in college, "Benefit" blasting through my Koss ES 'phones, late at night. I was moved almost to tears.
Here's the basics of a minimum-grade experiment; the devil is in the details:
1. Have the power cords and their connections completely obscured from view. It should be impossible for the experimenter to determine visually which cord is connected at any given time during the experiment. Verification by a sleight-of-hand expert can be very helpful, especially from a mentalist.
2. Have an independent party determine a random series of As and Bs- 10 coin flips will be a pretty good way to do this if you're doing 10 trials. The party makes up a code sheet with the predetermined order; this is kept out of view of the experimenter, preferably in a room from which the experimenter is barred during the duration of the experiment.
3. For each trial, the experimenter is escorted from the room by a second independent party, who remains with him. The first independent party connects the appropriate cord, then makes sure that the visual cues are properly obscured. He leaves the area, and the experimenter is escorted back by the second independent party. If there is no change in connection between any two or more consecutive trials, the same cord is still disconnected, then reconnected.
4. The second party and the experimenter play the appropriate musical passage or test signal, and the experimenter records "rattle" or "no rattle" on his score sheet. It is imperative that no-one aware of the connection is in the room at the same time as the experimenter!
5. At the end of the desired number of trials (say, 10), the experimenter hands the second party his score sheet and leaves the area. The first party and second party than compare the score sheet to the code sheet and determine the score, which is then announced in public to great celebration or great hilarity.
There are other ways to do this, but this is a relatively simple approach.
Stuart,
Your procedure is more rigorious that a similar one I did with my wife regarding the difference with an AC isolation transformer I now use. I agree with your enhanced procedure, except I recommend 25 times. It takes longer but will be more statistically valid.
However, with my wife, I did only do it 10 times. (I had a hard enough time keeping her involved that long...) Any way, this is the funny part, she picked the configuration without the isolation transformer 8 out of 10 times. : )
Like I said, I knew it would be better for her to leave the room, but I had her just look away. I did toss a coin to chose the configuration. But I really like you idea of having a third party involved.
My wife thought she could hear a difference, but wasn't sure what way was the better sounding way... Anyway, this is why I recommend 25 times. Because 8 out of 10 seems conclusive, but now I wish I had taken more time for a few more. (Of course, had it been 8 out of 10 the way I thought it would go, then I might not worry about it so much...) But I had read that as a ball park figure, 25 times is statistically valid. Now of course, it depend upon the test...
As I posted yesterday, I am going to try this again with my sister who plays and teaches piano. I'll try to involve a third party (maybe a niece or nephew) as you suggest.
I will add, that I think the isolation transformer (1.2kVA power conditioner) makes the system sound more musical. One subjective example: it seems like orchestral horns have the right brassiness, rather than kind of an added odd harmonic on top of the sound (without the transformer). Now, if this was a measurement thread, I wouldn't describe this, but since this is a subjective thread...the "Mr Feedback rattles windows" thread, ah it's okay.
JF
Your procedure is more rigorious that a similar one I did with my wife regarding the difference with an AC isolation transformer I now use. I agree with your enhanced procedure, except I recommend 25 times. It takes longer but will be more statistically valid.
However, with my wife, I did only do it 10 times. (I had a hard enough time keeping her involved that long...) Any way, this is the funny part, she picked the configuration without the isolation transformer 8 out of 10 times. : )
Like I said, I knew it would be better for her to leave the room, but I had her just look away. I did toss a coin to chose the configuration. But I really like you idea of having a third party involved.
My wife thought she could hear a difference, but wasn't sure what way was the better sounding way... Anyway, this is why I recommend 25 times. Because 8 out of 10 seems conclusive, but now I wish I had taken more time for a few more. (Of course, had it been 8 out of 10 the way I thought it would go, then I might not worry about it so much...) But I had read that as a ball park figure, 25 times is statistically valid. Now of course, it depend upon the test...
As I posted yesterday, I am going to try this again with my sister who plays and teaches piano. I'll try to involve a third party (maybe a niece or nephew) as you suggest.
I will add, that I think the isolation transformer (1.2kVA power conditioner) makes the system sound more musical. One subjective example: it seems like orchestral horns have the right brassiness, rather than kind of an added odd harmonic on top of the sound (without the transformer). Now, if this was a measurement thread, I wouldn't describe this, but since this is a subjective thread...the "Mr Feedback rattles windows" thread, ah it's okay.
JF
Thanks Stuart,
Ok, this test procedure is easy enough to implement, and I agree for relatively subtle sonic differences this method is required to reliably establish audibility for one or more listeners (subjects).
Rattling or not rattling windows is of course clearly and definitivly apparent, and in this case we did not bother with formal testing protocols except for those I have described, such were the abundently clear results on the day.
Eric.
Ok, this test procedure is easy enough to implement, and I agree for relatively subtle sonic differences this method is required to reliably establish audibility for one or more listeners (subjects).
Rattling or not rattling windows is of course clearly and definitivly apparent, and in this case we did not bother with formal testing protocols except for those I have described, such were the abundently clear results on the day.
Eric.
Just a thought......
Eric,
If you have a micrometer or vernier calliper you might want to try measuring the thickness of the power cord pins.
What I'm thinking (And I didn't see the start of this thread before it was moved, so I'm not 100% certain of the observations) is that maybe the "good" power cord has thicker pins, and is making better contact with the power socket.
I had two disks in an external cabinet die today (luckily on a server I'm setting up not the live one) they were coming up as powerfailed in the unix log. The disks were still spinning and the power leds were on. I pulled it off, and checked the power at the disk drive connector. The +5V was +4.62V +12V was +11.8V, I figured the 12V wasn't a problem but that the 5V was.
I wiggled the wires that came from the mains socket/fuse holder to the SMPS and measured again. +5V rail +5.00V! plugged it back into the server and all is well. I'm not 100% convinced it was a bad connection, but it sure looks like it at the moment. I'll see how it goes for the next few days.
Tony.
Eric,
If you have a micrometer or vernier calliper you might want to try measuring the thickness of the power cord pins.
What I'm thinking (And I didn't see the start of this thread before it was moved, so I'm not 100% certain of the observations) is that maybe the "good" power cord has thicker pins, and is making better contact with the power socket.
I had two disks in an external cabinet die today (luckily on a server I'm setting up not the live one) they were coming up as powerfailed in the unix log. The disks were still spinning and the power leds were on. I pulled it off, and checked the power at the disk drive connector. The +5V was +4.62V +12V was +11.8V, I figured the 12V wasn't a problem but that the 5V was.
I wiggled the wires that came from the mains socket/fuse holder to the SMPS and measured again. +5V rail +5.00V! plugged it back into the server and all is well. I'm not 100% convinced it was a bad connection, but it sure looks like it at the moment. I'll see how it goes for the next few days.
Tony.
mrfeedback said:
sorry to disappoint you, Eric. I am no expert on statistics (or anything else for that matter). My knowledge about statistics is very dated (back to my colledge days) and far less than superfacial. all I remember about software for stats is SAS which I was told then was the caddilacs (or should it be Benz?) of stats software packages.
Hope it helps.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.