Personally, I couldn't care less what anyone buys or sells. But when Jack says,
And to be honest, I've lost track of what "GSR" is.
One other thing... he may have been conducting the test with old Mantovani records. I know it'd put me to sleep...
That tells me he hasn't done the testing. I mentioned this before and it seemed to be ignored.
OK, so he has done some tests. But what he hasn't shown is what the relaxation response has to do with hi-fi perception and enjoyment. Without that, the above is meaningless.
And to be honest, I've lost track of what "GSR" is.
One other thing... he may have been conducting the test with old Mantovani records. I know it'd put me to sleep...
Last edited:
If by "informally," you mean "with no presentation of methods, controls, or data," then I'd agree. The Oohashi group was most likely wrong, but they met the standards it takes to get a paper published. Jack has not.
Oh, it's poorly written regulations, is it? Those regulations, there a ****er aren't they?
'It's got nothing to do with truthful'. Why? They paid to get it published. If it was any good (in the public interest), somebody would have published it for free. In fact, they'd have competed for the opportunity, if they'd been permitted to.
I should have said:
'That's because they believe there's a risk of the truthfulness being compromised by an interested party subsidising the publication.' That of course, doesn't mean that the research wasn't subsidized by interested parties.
It's hilarious, actually, to see you two in agreement.
USC=it's the law.
The article is marked as an advertisement, yes or no?
Keep talking. The further you go down this road, the more opportunity I get to repeat my message. This article, which purports to be research, is, in fact, legally, an advertisement. Because somebody more responsible than either of you two, insisted that we be informed of the fact.
Why would they do that?
To impede the dissemination of information?
No. To impede the possible dissemination of disinformation and to prevent the publication of inaccurate material in professional journals under the guise of research when the authors actually paid for the privilege of having it published.
I'm not saying that the information in the article is untrue, I'm just saying that it falls into the same category, legally, as the the 'research' conducted by the tobacco industry.
Everything you read has to be evaluated in terms of it's provenance. Go read Stuart Brand's 'The Media Lab' and clue yourselves up on on the significance of information in the digital age. It was only published 25 years ago. The US government has gone out of it's way to point out to you that this information may be unreliable because of commercial interest. Ignore it if you wish, but don't try and tell me it's 'misleading legal boilerplate'.
w
'It's got nothing to do with truthful'. Why? They paid to get it published. If it was any good (in the public interest), somebody would have published it for free. In fact, they'd have competed for the opportunity, if they'd been permitted to.
I should have said:
'That's because they believe there's a risk of the truthfulness being compromised by an interested party subsidising the publication.' That of course, doesn't mean that the research wasn't subsidized by interested parties.
It's hilarious, actually, to see you two in agreement.
USC=it's the law.
The article is marked as an advertisement, yes or no?
Keep talking. The further you go down this road, the more opportunity I get to repeat my message. This article, which purports to be research, is, in fact, legally, an advertisement. Because somebody more responsible than either of you two, insisted that we be informed of the fact.
Why would they do that?
To impede the dissemination of information?
No. To impede the possible dissemination of disinformation and to prevent the publication of inaccurate material in professional journals under the guise of research when the authors actually paid for the privilege of having it published.
I'm not saying that the information in the article is untrue, I'm just saying that it falls into the same category, legally, as the the 'research' conducted by the tobacco industry.
Everything you read has to be evaluated in terms of it's provenance. Go read Stuart Brand's 'The Media Lab' and clue yourselves up on on the significance of information in the digital age. It was only published 25 years ago. The US government has gone out of it's way to point out to you that this information may be unreliable because of commercial interest. Ignore it if you wish, but don't try and tell me it's 'misleading legal boilerplate'.
w
Hey, Waiki, I think you're a becoming a little overwrought on the subject of the "advertisement". It's exactly how SY says it is.
Take a look here:
"page charges" journals - Google Search
~900,000 entries in google search "page charges" journals
Not only does some poor bastard have to work his *** off doing the work, writing it up, dealing with referees comments and the editors' demands, until finally, they say, "OK, we'll publish it, but you gotta pay us, first."
Hey! check this out:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/apccomparison/
Take a look here:
"page charges" journals - Google Search
~900,000 entries in google search "page charges" journals
Not only does some poor bastard have to work his *** off doing the work, writing it up, dealing with referees comments and the editors' demands, until finally, they say, "OK, we'll publish it, but you gotta pay us, first."
Hey! check this out:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/apccomparison/
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. Nearly every reputable scientific journal has page charges. Over the years, I've published in (among others) Macromolecules, Environmental Health Perspectives, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, Applied Spectroscopy, Journal of Physical Chemistry, Journal of Polymer Science, Synthetic Metals, and Journal of Chemical Physics. Every one of them has page charges. So does Physical Review, Nature, Science, and every other first rank peer-reviewed scholarly journal I'm aware of.
It's certainly OK not to have a working knowledge of how scientific research and peer review work. It's not OK to say incorrect things after being corrected by those of us with extensive first-hand experience.
I grant you have first hand experience of publishing, SY, but I simply can't believe that page charges are levied in every case, and be that as it may the US government chooses to advise us that in the case where page charges are levied the publications should be regarded as advertisements.
In fact looking at the IEEE 'TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY' I have this: TVT Page Charges
'This voluntary page charge is not obligatory nor is its payment a prerequisite for publication'
Perhaps you simply never had much that anybody really wanted?
w
In fact looking at the IEEE 'TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY' I have this: TVT Page Charges
'This voluntary page charge is not obligatory nor is its payment a prerequisite for publication'
Perhaps you simply never had much that anybody really wanted?
w
Believe it. It's universal in scientific publications (I can't comment about engineering journals- I'm a scientist, not an engineer). This includes invited papers, where certainly the editors want the paper!
I could make a few comments about the wisdom of government regulators and the laws of unintended consequences, but that would not be in accord with forum rules.
In a pure analog system, the differences between inter-channel signals can be repeatedly accurate to the millionth of a second, or less.
Even in a tube amp that rolls off at 15khz.
However, in a digital system, the frequency response is dictated by nyquist and ..this..combined as an inter-channel the accuracy is dictated by the clocking and other associated issues. The kinds of issues and understandings that the high end designers don't share information on--as this is how they make their money. lore and knowledge that is outside the norm.
In this one CRITICAL specification of two ears in a stereo image produced by two analog channels, the analog 15khz roll off tube amp absolutely slays the Sony DSD or any other digital system known to be used or speculated on in the world of audio. It just beats those digital systems to death in ways that are beyond the pale.
Specifications and, distortion tests and similar connected criteria have to be in engineering terms, yes..but those must first and foremost..WITHOUT EXCEPTION...be relevant to the human hearing system.
Not to engineering number systems that look nice an neat to linear minds. Those points can be near irrelevant (even detrimental in the hands of the ill informed or unaware), if improperly used or employed.
Essentially that is the disconnect here in this thread. and 100 others like it.
The incapacity to investigate phenomena.
The same one that rears it's head on this forum, full of engineers who are literally trained to be dogmatic and religious. Try to understand that engineering literally is dogmatism.. it was planned, built, and executed that way on purpose. So that 'builders' would not be 'experimenting' with people's lives, as they build things.
Whereas the theoretician was trained to EXPLORE and understand that: there are no laws, only theory. THAT..is the REAL and ACTUAL truth of science and reality.
Which is why those who do so (engineers, their linear minds attracted to the complementary vocation) live in a 'negative proofing' type of world. They can't (in many cases) TRULY innovate... so they protect their territory, emotionally and mentally ---by attacking that which they cannot reach. The psychology of being angry over that which one does not understand. Happens every day.
It is not an issue of technical or scientific aspects, it is an issue of baseline psychology and the group mind of engineers in their comfort zone who will unilaterally attack anything that takes them out of that comfort zone.
Psychology 101 class. Plain and simple.
I will receive little to no support form those who know and understand the truth of what I'm saying. They will remain silent.
For they know the linear dogmatic engineering mind will hone in on my remarks like a dog on a bone and try to chew me to pieces ....with little to no thought of the depths of the matter on their part.
More than anything, it is sad.
It is the same blindness on the one linear thinking side, every time. There has been little to no movement (on that aspect) in this forum since I came here, which is why I spend so little time here these days.
"When you're one step ahead of the crowd you're a genius. When you're two steps ahead, you're a crackpot."
--Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
May god help you if you are two-three-four steps ahead on this forum... and you attempt to share it, in some way. You'll be torn to ribbons by an angry crowd.
Last edited:
"I'm a scientist, not an engineer"
From what I've seen from you over the years, I seriously doubt that. You seemingly have far too much comfort in the theories of science, to the point that you always call them 'laws'.
which by the very basic and fundamental tenants of 'real science'--- is patently insane.
What really p*sses me off is when people who really should know better give succour to the subjectivists in order to display either their trivial erudition or their even-handedness.
Peter Aczel, nice man that he was, and an honest reviewer, fought a losing battle with these creeps because of what he was, a nice man. He just simply didn't appreciate that these weren't scientists or engineers, and they weren't playing by the same rules as he was. In fact they weren't playing by any rules at all.
So when somebody says to me 'Believe it', I say, 'Never happen'. This is wakibaki you're talking to.
w
Peter Aczel, nice man that he was, and an honest reviewer, fought a losing battle with these creeps because of what he was, a nice man. He just simply didn't appreciate that these weren't scientists or engineers, and they weren't playing by the same rules as he was. In fact they weren't playing by any rules at all.
So when somebody says to me 'Believe it', I say, 'Never happen'. This is wakibaki you're talking to.
w
Awfully clever of you to include that statement. Clever indeed.
Wake up, KBK. "High end designer" started this thread. I sure didn't.
"If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything"
-- Mom
Aren't platitudes nice? Handy to boot.
I'm not an engineer. Maybe I do have some "linear mind" or whatever you prefer to call it. All I was wanting was some proof of concept. I didn't get a "Sorry, proprietary info." I didn't get a "Ancient Chinese secret." I didn't get a "Test results are pending. Stay tuned." I get some third party armchair psychoanalyzing.
It's not "negative proofing" I'm looking for. It's positive proof. And so... those who know and understand the truth of what I'm saying. They will remain silent.
Unless you have some proof of concept.
KBK, ad hominem attacks on anothers character doesn't reflect well on your own, and also seems to support the idea that you are unable or unwilling to back up your proposition with any sort of supporting evidence.
From reading your previous post, the one thing I gather is that yourself, like most of society, don't understand the term "Law" as applied to the scientific realm. When you don't know the context in which the words are used, they can have very different meanings than you may understand. Perhaps you should do some studying of semantics and epistemology. Just my thoughts.
I am in no way taking sides on either side of the original information presented, just trying to steer things back to the original topic of discussion.
And KBK, you may be right about some of what you are saying/thinking, but you need to present it in a way that others understand, and that what they understand is the same as what you understand.
Peace,
Dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.