I thought these articles were interesting:
Placebos work, even when patients are in the know, study finds - Los Angeles Times
Placebo Effect Works Without the Bluff : Discovery News
Is it possible a pleasant salesman could sell a highly-rated amp that's not really special? Even so, placebo effect isn't simple anymore.
For GSR, it may be difficult to make the probes "squeeze-proof". I suggest using small cups of water with the fingers dipped in may work. I'm interested in the results of a structured test, is there one in the works?
BTW, how does digital sound change the stereo timing if both channels are recorded with the same clock?
- keantoken
Placebos work, even when patients are in the know, study finds - Los Angeles Times
Placebo Effect Works Without the Bluff : Discovery News
Is it possible a pleasant salesman could sell a highly-rated amp that's not really special? Even so, placebo effect isn't simple anymore.
For GSR, it may be difficult to make the probes "squeeze-proof". I suggest using small cups of water with the fingers dipped in may work. I'm interested in the results of a structured test, is there one in the works?
BTW, how does digital sound change the stereo timing if both channels are recorded with the same clock?
- keantoken
KBK, in your science, how do you objectively determine the answer to a question for certain? That is what I think science is about at it's basics. In this sense it's very simple. Construct an experiment so you'll know for sure. If we simply go by this it shouldn't be difficult unless someone insists that objective reality doesn't exist or something like that.
- keantoken
- keantoken
What Jack said.
Certain characteristics of reproduced sounds cause physiological changes in listeners.
Sometimes these changes can be caused by characteristics of reproduced sounds which the listeners can not identify.
He said that using fairly simple means anyone motivated can identify these characteristics.
He said he did it using galvanic skin response as a proxy for comfort and discomfort.
He did not say in any detail how he went about it.
Have I missed anything?
What's all the fuss about?
This is definitely in the realm of DIY, which is neat.
Instead of going nutso, it might be worthwhile to ask him some sensible questions.
Certain characteristics of reproduced sounds cause physiological changes in listeners.
Sometimes these changes can be caused by characteristics of reproduced sounds which the listeners can not identify.
He said that using fairly simple means anyone motivated can identify these characteristics.
He said he did it using galvanic skin response as a proxy for comfort and discomfort.
He did not say in any detail how he went about it.
Have I missed anything?
What's all the fuss about?
This is definitely in the realm of DIY, which is neat.
Instead of going nutso, it might be worthwhile to ask him some sensible questions.
Exactly, peace now as said FrankWW, all this is not about black magic. Contestation is pointless before any result.
Better to use the energy of the crowd for thinking of the definition of a flawless experimentation protocol. If it's results are repeatable, and linked to something, then a big discussion will be justified.
But I guess it's not for to morrow, this domain (GSR or EEG) can be perturbated by many external factors, then a lot of subjects will be required, then the analyse of the results more complicated, without even thinking of the test modalities.
It's a big task, and the promoter has to be courageous, especially if he symbolizes a commercial company.
Better to use the energy of the crowd for thinking of the definition of a flawless experimentation protocol. If it's results are repeatable, and linked to something, then a big discussion will be justified.
But I guess it's not for to morrow, this domain (GSR or EEG) can be perturbated by many external factors, then a lot of subjects will be required, then the analyse of the results more complicated, without even thinking of the test modalities.
It's a big task, and the promoter has to be courageous, especially if he symbolizes a commercial company.
Try it then
However, the initial test results were convincing enough for me to invest in developing the product, and certainly the subjective reports are indicative of a very high level of sound quality as well as absence of listener's fatigue.
In all honesty, I didn't think (and still don't) that publishing a paper was as important as building the proof of concept, which is what I did.
So, it's not yet for publication in scientific journals. You know what? Until I get the funding to fully validate and prove this research in the accepted double blind format, I simply won't try to publish in a formal way. Call me lazy, I call it being pragmatic.
However, I don't feel the above should preclude me from alerting others to the possibilities offered by GSR testing and to suggest their inclusion of such in their tests, double-blind or not.
And it won't stop me from pointing out that if you're only looking to determine if a form of sonic stimulus can be consciously noticed, you may be missing out on what could be a very valuable indicator for long-term listenability.
BTW: I will hereby go on record and ADMIT once and for all that yes, I did go into business for the purpose of trying to SELL my speakers and hopefully make some money.
However, this forum is not the first place where I would try and advertise; my guess is most of the people here are DIY and are not all that interested in buying pre-built speakers.
OK, so then what am I doing posting on these DIY forums?
I'm hoping to pass along some information on a form of testing that could be beneficial and help bridge the gap between objectivism and subjectivism. I think a better balance is necessary to get a more complete picture.
SO:
for those of you who have the means and the time to do so, I would encourage you to keep an open mind and get a GSR system and then devise your own tests. This field is ripe for exploration, and could certainly benefit if others here would do it with the required scientific rigor and then publish results either proving or disproving what I have presented.
And you run the risk of getting a better handle on why some amplifiers, cables, capacitors and resistors seemingly sound better to some people. Or you may be able to triumphantly prove it's all related to the state of stress of the test subjects and that in truth, it's all in our little subjective heads. Great! Have at it!
You want publishable scientific procedures?
Do It Yourself !!
Listen, I wouldn't yet try to formally publish results, because I ran only single blind tests and even though I was out of view in an adjacent room, it still wasn't full double blind... it's true! I admit it! I had advance knowledge of what filter sets were being auditioned.
However, the initial test results were convincing enough for me to invest in developing the product, and certainly the subjective reports are indicative of a very high level of sound quality as well as absence of listener's fatigue.
In all honesty, I didn't think (and still don't) that publishing a paper was as important as building the proof of concept, which is what I did.
So, it's not yet for publication in scientific journals. You know what? Until I get the funding to fully validate and prove this research in the accepted double blind format, I simply won't try to publish in a formal way. Call me lazy, I call it being pragmatic.
However, I don't feel the above should preclude me from alerting others to the possibilities offered by GSR testing and to suggest their inclusion of such in their tests, double-blind or not.
And it won't stop me from pointing out that if you're only looking to determine if a form of sonic stimulus can be consciously noticed, you may be missing out on what could be a very valuable indicator for long-term listenability.
BTW: I will hereby go on record and ADMIT once and for all that yes, I did go into business for the purpose of trying to SELL my speakers and hopefully make some money.
However, this forum is not the first place where I would try and advertise; my guess is most of the people here are DIY and are not all that interested in buying pre-built speakers.
OK, so then what am I doing posting on these DIY forums?
I'm hoping to pass along some information on a form of testing that could be beneficial and help bridge the gap between objectivism and subjectivism. I think a better balance is necessary to get a more complete picture.
SO:
for those of you who have the means and the time to do so, I would encourage you to keep an open mind and get a GSR system and then devise your own tests. This field is ripe for exploration, and could certainly benefit if others here would do it with the required scientific rigor and then publish results either proving or disproving what I have presented.
And you run the risk of getting a better handle on why some amplifiers, cables, capacitors and resistors seemingly sound better to some people. Or you may be able to triumphantly prove it's all related to the state of stress of the test subjects and that in truth, it's all in our little subjective heads. Great! Have at it!
You want publishable scientific procedures?
Do It Yourself !!
Unhealthy responses
So what?
That doesn't mean that my tests are not valid, just that I have not published them so far, in part because they're single blind, in part because I don't want to give away certain trade secrets, and mostly because I would rather spend my time on trying to line up dealers and sell to viable customers.
However, none of that is relevant to the subject at hand, which is that GSR testing could be a very valuable adjunct and help determine how our subliminal system is reacting to a variety of sonic stimuli, and possibly to quantify the physiological response to various forms of distortion.
Waki, you are not required to like me, or my approach, nor to believe me. But from reading your vitriolic attacks and posts to me and even others like SY,(who mostly seems to agree with you) it sure looks like you're pretty upset and looking to vent some anger.
I'd wager your stress level is sky-high. Better chill out, or you're headed for major health problems. (I speak from first hand experience, it happened to me).
Please, get some help before you harm yourself.
OK, so I'm a salesman (with a BSEE) and I haven't yet published a scientific paper to back up what I say in my commercial materials. And my H3 speakers are expensive because I want to recover my investment.
So what?
That doesn't mean that my tests are not valid, just that I have not published them so far, in part because they're single blind, in part because I don't want to give away certain trade secrets, and mostly because I would rather spend my time on trying to line up dealers and sell to viable customers.
However, none of that is relevant to the subject at hand, which is that GSR testing could be a very valuable adjunct and help determine how our subliminal system is reacting to a variety of sonic stimuli, and possibly to quantify the physiological response to various forms of distortion.
Waki, you are not required to like me, or my approach, nor to believe me. But from reading your vitriolic attacks and posts to me and even others like SY,(who mostly seems to agree with you) it sure looks like you're pretty upset and looking to vent some anger.
I'd wager your stress level is sky-high. Better chill out, or you're headed for major health problems. (I speak from first hand experience, it happened to me).
Please, get some help before you harm yourself.
Agreed
We can spend our time arguing ... or we can test the concept and devise better and better tests, some of which may be of sufficient rigor to be published.
That is a very good suggestion, and it is exactly what I hope can be accomplished.
We can spend our time arguing ... or we can test the concept and devise better and better tests, some of which may be of sufficient rigor to be published.
Yet, Jack, what we see is someone who does a test of which he himself says that it cannot withstand the rigors of scientific reliability, but states he himself is convinced, throws in a few 'maybe' and 'could it be'-s and at least makes the connections to his products. Clearly you have no intention to establish these issues with reliable controlled tests. So in the end, isn't it to be considered a marketing ploy, albeit a smart one?
For example, how is this different from: "I replaced cable A with cable B, and while this wasn't a DB test, the difference was like night and day, so it is clear that green-striped cables diminish wow & flutter, and by the way the cables I make have these latest insights build-in"?
If it isn't a marketing ploy, if you really are interested primarily in the facts of it, where's the controlled follow-up?
jan didden
There's more than just not being in the room to make a controlled test. Jack, if you're interested in actually running a rigorous test to make your claims more solid (or, frankly, to see if they actually hold up, assuming you're interested in finding out what's real rather than having a marketing story), please PM me. If not, I can certainly understand that the gimmick can be more important to a young business than actual data.
I have to admit that I'm curious to hear your speakers. Some of the better ominis I've heard over the years had a striking quality to them which I found compelling. Too bad you're a thousand miles away.
I have to admit that I'm curious to hear your speakers. Some of the better ominis I've heard over the years had a striking quality to them which I found compelling. Too bad you're a thousand miles away.
What's wrong with you guys - did you not read or understand what Jack said? He isn't interested in doing a rigorous, scientifically approved test - he is convinced enough by the results that he has observed & is moving forward with it in the form of a product(s).
He has given the information here for all to do with what they will - use it for their own informal tests or produce the rigour necessary to prove or disprove the premise. I, for one, am thankful for his posting & interested in his method. I have been part of an experiment that used GSR in college & I've also used them since in biofeedback application. They seem to me a very sensitive way of sensing stress/relaxation. Waki, Jack's advice is good - you might find it beneficial to your health to invest in (or DIY) a GSR device as a means of learning to relax more.
He has given the information here for all to do with what they will - use it for their own informal tests or produce the rigour necessary to prove or disprove the premise. I, for one, am thankful for his posting & interested in his method. I have been part of an experiment that used GSR in college & I've also used them since in biofeedback application. They seem to me a very sensitive way of sensing stress/relaxation. Waki, Jack's advice is good - you might find it beneficial to your health to invest in (or DIY) a GSR device as a means of learning to relax more.
The review on that page from Kodwo Eshun is a classic of the genre.
edit: GSR is the most unreliable one of all physiological variables.
See (the references in): Hypersonic effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
I have used it & it does seem to correlate with the relaxation state of mind of the subject.
edit: GSR is the most unreliable one of all physiological variables.
Thanks, I wouldn't have thought to check Wikipedia for this
OK, I can see how all factors seem to point to some IMD as the effective cause of the sonic difference. So the title of this thread is doubtful but it is still an interesting area - does this IMD have a psychoacoustic benefit? What IMD is most beneficial to the sound?
No, I'm not opposed to it - I just find it amusing that people who normally object to scientifically structured tests may be happy to undergo more invasive testing because they believe the results may vindicate them.jkeny said:
No, that is not how scientific publishing works. Publishers want to make money, so like to make page charges. However, they also generally consider submitted articles on their merits so paying a page charge does not affect the likelihood of publication. It affects things like how many 'free' offprints the author is sent afterwards. For any reputable journal about the only thing you can deduce from the fact that pages charges have been paid is that the research was well funded. The legal statement may be required by US law, but it is based on a misunderstanding.wakibaki said:
Are you talking about DBT tests here? Have you ever conducted one that was rigorous enough to be said to be "scientifically structured"?
Perhaps you are talking about measurements only tests where there is no listener involved?
I also don't know what is "invasive" about GSR testing (two finger pads attached)?
Yes; they are more scientific than sighted listening with your mates because some attempt has been made to eliminate interference.jkeny said:
I accept it was a poor choice of word. My point is that if having your hearing tested by DBT is too 'stressful' to give a satisfactory result (the usual reason given by the anti-DBT lobby) then being hooked up to things which claim to look inside your brain and detect your real emotions would surely be even more stressful?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.