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

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Well the devil is in the details. So please do go on and answer the rest of my questions.

Why? Even if they don't meet your standards, you must still control for subjective ambiguity one way or another. Any answers to your questions don't change that.

se

[olblueyez]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

It seems that 'actual audible difference' here is crucial to your arguments. So let's look much closer at this phrase.

Please say what is meant by 'actual audible difference'. Do you mean that a rigorous DBT/ABX test must be performed? With trained listeners? With how many choices? And the null hypothesis must be rejected? With what level of significance? Seeing as accuracy is what we want then we really do need to pin this phrase down.

That will never happen. They like talking about DBT'ing to stuff their shirts but having them know the answers to your question and better yet, all of them agreeing on that answer??? Yeah,,,Sure Thing.

They will do what they always do when someone has a valid, intelligent, and necessary question. Breeze right on over it and continue slinging the same pile of mud back and fourth like they have been for the last 15,000 posts.

And I am sure some rocket scientist like Dan will ask me what I have contributed to the thread. Even though we all know a legitimate contribution would make for some progress and no progress has been made since post one.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by terry j

(please have a look, fantastic)

Youtube is blocked here, I'll take a look when I can be bothered to fire up the VPN.

Fits the definition of measurement. A record.

Equivocation - you introduced 'instrument' in your previous argument, now that's been withdrawn? And your argument doesn't wash with me, measurement in QM for example is something very specific and not defined by 'record'. Back to physics class for you

Yeah, I left out 'amongst the everyday people'. Try this stuff with the 'guy on the street', watch the eyes glaze over.

Fallacious reasoning from the particular to the general.

I can only say 'you need to get out more'. Just because the guys in your street don't appreciate philosophy, it doesn't follow that everyone everywhere does not. Here for example, I'm talking to guys and girls in the local park on a regular basis, in English and they lap up this stuff. Especially the gals, which is great because they're so cute No kidding. Just another shred of evidence (if another be needed) that the future is in the East.

Think I got it. Obviously not a keyboard with twenty thousand characters. I've never texted, but the same sort of thing can happen there too?? (type a letter and a progressively smaller list of possible words come up the more letters you type in....I think)

Yep, T9. It works in a similar way, you've got the idea.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

Why? Even if they don't meet your standards, you must still control for subjective ambiguity one way or another. Any answers to your questions don't change that.

se

Well I haven't yet established my standards, I'm curious as to what yours are. I am yet to be convinced that total control of subjective ambiguity is possible, so since you said that accuracy is necessary (I agree) its your phrase that needs to be pinned down. Given that I agree, answers don't change that, please give them.

[terry j]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

What gave you the impression that I'm an English major? I believe your statement that they mean the same actually means 'they mean the same TO ME'. They didn't for example mean the same to Andrew Wiles whose first proof of Fermat's Last Theorem convinced him but did not convince another guy who found a hole in it.

Ah, but how do we know Fermat actually proved his theorem? Just cause he said so?

Wiles used twentieth century mathematics, so whilst cool that he did it, the big question remains, how did Fermat do it? But, as I said, if he did it in the woods and no-one was there to see it...did he actually do it? (just because wiles proved it does not mean fermat did)

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Youtube is blocked here, I'll take a look when I can be bothered to fire up the VPN.

Dunno what VPN is, but have a listen (look), trust me it's worth it.

But then again, we have established that my humour bar is lower than yours so mebbe not!!

Equivocation - you introduced 'instrument' in your previous argument, now that's been withdrawn? And your argument doesn't wash with me, measurement in QM for example is something very specific and not defined by 'record'. Back to physics class for you

Bzzt. Here is what I said And are there really vibrations if there is no 'instrument or measurement' to detect it? It quite clearly states measurement.

What collapses the waveform?? A measurement of some description. Sight, touch, instruments, consciousness??...mebbe not the ears tho

Fallacious reasoning from the particular to the general.

I can only say 'you need to get out more'. Just because the guys in your street don't appreciate philosophy, it doesn't follow that everyone everywhere does not. Here for example, I'm talking to guys and girls in the local park on a regular basis, in English and they lap up this stuff. Especially the gals, which is great because they're so cute No kidding. Just another shred of evidence (if another be needed) that the future is in the East.

I did expect you to use that example actually, it is an interesting one eh! I too theorized (without any way of testing it) that the 'east' would be far more receptive to this stuff than the west (ditto existence of soul, anything beyond death etc etc)

Still, just cause you find it interesting in your street does not make it interesting in the majority of streets. where do we go now??

(just tried bringing it up in my local pub...was told F*ck off poofter...one particularly nasty brute said to me 'I refute your thoughts that we may not exist thus', and punched me in me frickin eye!)

Yep, T9. It works in a similar way, you've got the idea.

10/4 buddy, thanks for the data.

[boconnor]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

Do you mean that a rigorous DBT/ABX test must be performed? With trained listeners?

Yes, if you can get them. Usually in well funded DBTs the listeners are trained and have passed standard audiometry tests. If you can't get them I suppose any random selection of "cable believers" would do nicely - if any of them would be brave enough to put their hands up for the challenge.

With how many choices?

Two: A vs. B when sighted, A or B vs. X when blind.

And the null hypothesis must be rejected? With what level of significance?

At or above 95% confidence is the normal threshold used in DBTs in science research.

[Robert F]

Originally Posted by SY

I feel like I'm in a roomful of priests discussing sex. With adult women, that is. There seems to be little connection between many of the comments and the reality of sensory testing.

Show of hands: how many people here have actually participated (as administrator, experimental designer, researcher, or test subject) in controlled sensory testing of any sort? If yes, can you describe the experience?

Yes I participated in a blind 'speaker cable test at least 15 years ago. It was conducted by a hi fi shop and the test subjects were the local audio club including me. The cables were manually switched behind curtains, the testing was done in batches of 3; second cable was always the "control" so the task was to identify whether the first and third cables were the same or different to the second cable.

I don't recall what the overall results for the test were but do recall getting 19 out of 20 correct myself.

Here is an interesting link demonstrating there may be some relatively straightforward reasons why compnent interconnects may sound different.http://www.soundstage.com/articles/pete01.htm

[Steve Eddy]

Originally Posted by abraxalito

I am yet to be convinced that total control of subjective ambiguity is possible...

I don't recall ever claiming that it was.

se

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by terry j

Ah, but how do we know Fermat actually proved his theorem? Just cause he said so?

Ah, I see you use similar debating techniques to SY - to wit, deflection.

<snipped out tangential stuff>

Dunno what VPN is, but have a listen (look), trust me it's worth it.

Virtual Private Network - a secure way of using a proxy. But I'm not yet convinced that I really should trust you, given all the debating tricks you've used so far...

Bzzt. Here is what I said And are there really vibrations if there is no 'instrument or measurement' to detect it? It quite clearly states measurement.

Yes, I am fully aware of what you originally said. You included 'instrument' and then the next time, this word 'instrument' was conspicuous by its absence. So that's equivocation.

What collapses the waveform??

Err, wouldn't we need evidence that it has indeed collapsed before asking such a question? I mean, 'an actual observable collapse' (to borrow Steve Eddy's phrase and adapt it a bit). I pose this question in the hope that you might begin to see the Catch22

I did expect you to use that example actually, it is an interesting one eh! I too theorized (without any way of testing it) that the 'east' would be far more receptive to this stuff than the west (ditto existence of soul, anything beyond death etc etc)

That's not quite such a popular philosophical topic as its by and large speculation.

Still, just cause you find it interesting in your street does not make it interesting in the majority of streets. where do we go now??

You could always revise your original claim that such philosophy has died out by qualifying it with 'in the Westernized world' or something like that.

[abraxalito]

Originally Posted by Steve Eddy

I don't recall ever claiming that it was.

Cool, because I haven't ever said you have claimed such. So, back to my questions... pretty please