I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

[BudP]

I attended the local NW AES meeting on Thusrday evening, yes they did let me in even though they are well aware of the confusion I can cause. Dr.Toole and Dr. Olive were the guest speakers. Dr Toole gave a fine talk, but it was generalist in nature. Sean Olive provided real nuts and bolts about what kind of situation you MUST create to get results that match between testing objectively and subjectively, just for frequency response differences.

He has some neat software he thought might be released to the world, that takes particular pieces of music and alters the FR in increasing numbers of segments. He allowed us to get an idea of just how well trained his test subjects really are, by stepping through the first five sectors. One point of change, two, three etc. I passed the first two and failed miserably on the rest and this through Genelec monitors that Dr Olive thinks very highly of. I could easily tell there were differences in FR presentation but lost track of where they were occurring. Their test subjects can routinely find 36 sectors of difference.... and not loose track, for better than 90% of the time.

Dr Olive did provide an insight into how rigorous their training program is and how rigorous their methodology is. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to accept the DBT that we are proposing as anything better than anecdotal, in the face of what real DBT's are comprised of.

Bud

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by Jakob2

it makes me wonder why Shanefield insisted that Johnsen should at least do single blind tests

Huh? Where does he do that? A direct quote form the article please, no subjective interpretations, thanks.

Originally Posted by Jakob2

Johnsen book is clearly not aimed at the scientific community but more to the music listeners.

So the "scientific community" doesn't listen to music?
"Music listeners" can't be part of the scientific community? There is mutual exclusivity?
You were concerned with Dr. Shanefield's logic and reasoning?

Originally Posted by Jakob2

His reasoning about the logic of any delusion argument is strange indeed.
"By the way, people who don't hear the effect do not need to do blind experiments, according to the way I see the logic. Only people who claim to hear something need the blindness, to be sure it's not imagination. (If you don't hear it, how can it be imagination? Of course, you might be somehow suppressing your normal perceptions, but a blind test wouldn't help that.)"

I'm sorry, but there is nothing unreasonable or illogical about those general statements whatsoever. The burden is squarely on the shoulders of the claimer, not the rational disbeliever. Formal rule of logic: can't prove a negative. We can't prove that you can't "hear it". You must prove that you can.

Originally Posted by Jakob2

One can percept something non existent because one believes it is existant.

Yes, sure. Just read this or any subjectivist thread.

Originally Posted by Jakob2

Otoh, one can not percept something existent because one believes it is not existent.

Eh?
If I believe that I can't hear above 14k and then proceed to hear a 16k tone.....??

Originally Posted by Jakob2

In german this behaviour is called "Hypothesen-Raten" (translated guess of hypothesis) but the correct phrase is "demand characteristics".

I think I have the phrase you are looking for and will use it (often) from now on.

Originally Posted by Jakob2

If motivation is too strong it could lead to higher stress, which could affect the test results, especially if the conditions were unfamiliar.

was ist Deine Ausrede?

cheers,

AJ

[scott wurcer]

Originally Posted by BudP

Dr Olive did provide an insight into how rigorous their training program is and how rigorous their methodology is. I don't see how anyone is going to be able to accept the DBT that we are proposing as anything better than anecdotal, in the face of what real DBT's are comprised of.

Bud

Bud,

I got the impression that folks here were claiming this level of acuity. The most trivial changes were obvious virtually 100% of the time. BTW I don't think the training of the listeners is a measure of the rigor of a DBT. In fact I would think requiring highly trained listeners would invalidate a DBT as pertaining to an untrained individual, what a can of worms. We are back to "if you cared enough to train yourself, the differences would be obvious".

[SY]

Bud: Au contraire. It will still be just as well-controlled, we're just looking for a much simpler thing- can TG distinguish between two wires. If he can, I will guarantee that this will be publishable. If he can't, well, just one more test to provide the religious with opportunities to make creative excuses.

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

Sad actually, in a couple of months Matti Otala will again have discovered that amplifiers have PIM and it creates in-harmonic frequencies and the establishment supressed him to take the credit.

I was expecting a scathing response from JC way before that, including words like "libel", etc.
Looks like you got a pass, though maybe not for Christmas dinner.

Originally Posted by Brett

Hey AJ, do you have a link for this as I'd be interested in reading it.

Scattered about, some probably lost in the AA archives. Here is what I could find: Propeller Head Plaza: Hmmmm. by jneutron
and of course http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_24_r.pdf

A Google search of jneutron and "Essex Echo" or "Hawksford" will lead to some rather hilarious exchanges with jneutron, Curl and Risch over on (the appropriately named) Audio "Asylum". But you were already warned by JC .

cheers,

AJ

[rdf]

Originally Posted by SY

If we are to accept the analogy as apt, then TG is already ruined since he's ware that I am highly skeptical of the non-mundane cable claims. And in fact, so is any audiophile. Wow! You have created the perfect, hermetic, universal excuse!

No, it means you're ruined as a test administrator. Again, a mindlessly trivial hurdle to overcome so the insistence you da man is as curious as it is unnecessary.

[rdf]

Originally Posted by scott wurcer

I got the impression that folks here were claiming this level of acuity. The most trivial changes were obvious virtually 100% of the time.

Who held those positions?

[AJinFLA]

Originally Posted by BudP

they are well aware of the confusion I can cause.

To who?

Originally Posted by BudP

I passed the first two and failed miserably on the rest and this through Genelec monitors that Dr Olive thinks very highly of. I could easily tell there were differences in FR presentation but lost track of where they were

But the wire hearers already have a lifetime of training to perceive these witch effect differences, just like you could hear (real) differences. Tom won't be asked to decide which is "better"/where. A difference will suffice.
He will also train himself under blind conditions prior to the actual test (just like the Harmon guys. Well, maybe not quite).
Btw, what did you think of the Genelecs themselves?

cheers,

AJ

[SY]

Originally Posted by rdf

Again, a mindlessly trivial hurdle to overcome so the insistence you da man is as curious as it is unnecessary.

Short memory.

I don't believe cables make a difference, any input?

It would have been lovely if one of the faith-based had stood up and offered to administer a properly controlled test. Unfortunately, they're all too busy creating excuses and constructing questionable analogies to stoop to actually try to prove their point. Except JC, of course, who's too busy running away.

[Brett]

Originally Posted by AJinFLA

Scattered about, some probably lost in the AA archives. Here is what I could find: Propeller Head Plaza: Hmmmm. by jneutron
and of course http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_i...ritic_24_r.pdf

A Google search of jneutron and "Essex Echo" or "Hawksford" will lead to some rather hilarious exchanges with jneutron, Curl and Risch over on (the appropriately named) Audio "Asylum". But you were already warned by JC .

cheers,

AJ

Thanks for replying. I have that AC issue, but had forgotten it was in there; re-reading now.

I was also sent another link via email to a different thread, which I will read in full later. I'll also do some further searching; PropHead is nothing if not entertaining.

I'll just ignore the comment by JC above, as he most definitely has a dog in that fight from a quick perusal of the threads I have read so far, and I see through the ploy.