@ John Curl,
well i´ve never published a paper myself, so if that´s required it takes me out of the game also.
But what puzzles me most is the total unwillingness to develop modified test designs to avoid repeating the same errors (or to put the old structures under test) and that contradicts every scientific routine and goal.
Wishes
well i´ve never published a paper myself, so if that´s required it takes me out of the game also.
But what puzzles me most is the total unwillingness to develop modified test designs to avoid repeating the same errors (or to put the old structures under test) and that contradicts every scientific routine and goal.
Wishes
so high end cables are sold without marketing?
"word of mouth" is in fact the most desirable method, the creation/encouagement which is worked at hardest by marketing people
and don't let Mr Curl snow you on the publications - just ask him for a complete bibliography - refereed articles won't require removing mittens to count
Last edited:
Marketing attracts attention to a previously unknown brand. People arent buying the products in any significant degree based solely on marketing.
I dont know a single person who baught something without trying it themselves first.
And no amount of marketing has ever predicted what exactly a person will hear in their system.
In other words, a company may intentionally try to deceive (and many of them DO). But the population must also be willing to buy the tripe. And I think the rule more than the exception is that they dont.
I dont know a single person who baught something without trying it themselves first.
And no amount of marketing has ever predicted what exactly a person will hear in their system.
In other words, a company may intentionally try to deceive (and many of them DO). But the population must also be willing to buy the tripe. And I think the rule more than the exception is that they dont.
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't understand. You seem to be implying it's human impossible with practice and learning to ever 'see the trick', that sleight of hand forever remains outside the bounds of human perceptual capability. This is the same claim made for DBTs.
Given the extreme degree to which some here dismiss the senses it makes me wonder why they're replying to posts that may or may not exist, and what evidence of the senses they'ld consider proof. Down the solipsist hole...
@ champ04,
to dismiss the observations of thousands (or only one single person) isn´t part of the scientific methodology (obviously it is often done in the name of science, but that isn´t necessarily _real_ science ), but to accept these observations as a fact is a totally different thing.
Science is simply based on reliable routines to establish facts (if possible, or more philosophically based is trying to falsficates hypothesis by these routines) and therefore a basic set of requirements is mandatory.
But to just dismiss an observation is quite often just bad science.
Unfortunately a real dilemma exists, as we don´t know (exactly) what people percept if we don´t do controlled tests, but otoh we either don´t know if they percept in the _same_ way as before if we do controlled tests.
We have wrt to these questions to rely on humans as detectors and that is different than doing tests with just "things" .
Ideally _good_ (or so to speak _real_) science tries to find solutions for this dilemma but that first of all requires to deal with human imperfection under test conditions.
Wishes
to dismiss the observations of thousands (or only one single person) isn´t part of the scientific methodology (obviously it is often done in the name of science, but that isn´t necessarily _real_ science
), but to accept these observations as a fact is a totally different thing.Science is simply based on reliable routines to establish facts (if possible, or more philosophically based is trying to falsficates hypothesis by these routines) and therefore a basic set of requirements is mandatory.
But to just dismiss an observation is quite often just bad science.
Unfortunately a real dilemma exists, as we don´t know (exactly) what people percept if we don´t do controlled tests, but otoh we either don´t know if they percept in the _same_ way as before if we do controlled tests.
We have wrt to these questions to rely on humans as detectors and that is different than doing tests with just "things" .
Ideally _good_ (or so to speak _real_) science tries to find solutions for this dilemma but that first of all requires to deal with human imperfection under test conditions.
Wishes
Last edited:
most of us have a model of the world where we don't beileve (most) of our friends have quarters hidden in their ears - prompting us to "look for the trick" - just because some observations are in confilct doesn't mean giving up the model but rather devising tests that we hope will refine the model and reveal perceptual tricks
I am sorry to say that I have only one participation in a peer reviewed paper, and only one patent (audio) in my name. However, I have participated in and given a number of papers to the AES, IEEE, 'HiFi News' 'Audio', and 'Audio Amateur'. Each of these 'papers' were heard or read by virtually every professor interested in audio on the planet. IF I really screwed up, they would come after me like a ton of bricks.
Why I mention making a paper, is its PREPARATION. You can't just sit around, nursing a beer with your friends and state your opinion.
You have to do some research, get some results, and then put them in a way that they can be published. Only the most foolish would do this lightly. Usually, it takes 100's of measurements, research of previous findings, and associate review of your work in progress, BEFORE put it out to the public. This is worth it, because you really become to understand your subject at hand, be it capacitors, circuit topologies, etc.
Of course, sometimes you get laughed at. I was teased (behind my back) as the guy over-interested in capacitors, for some years. And so it goes, but it is worth it.
Why I mention making a paper, is its PREPARATION. You can't just sit around, nursing a beer with your friends and state your opinion.
You have to do some research, get some results, and then put them in a way that they can be published. Only the most foolish would do this lightly. Usually, it takes 100's of measurements, research of previous findings, and associate review of your work in progress, BEFORE put it out to the public. This is worth it, because you really become to understand your subject at hand, be it capacitors, circuit topologies, etc.
Of course, sometimes you get laughed at. I was teased (behind my back) as the guy over-interested in capacitors, for some years. And so it goes, but it is worth it.
This has never been argued, my experience wth the non-technical audiophile is that they have no interest at all in exploring any one of a number of perfectly well known reasons for amp-cable-speaker mismatch. Mostly plug and play. I've been there with oscillating amplifiers, etc.
I still think I proposed a DBT that eliminates many of the usual complaints while remaining DB. Met with instant dismissal, of course.
Plenty of science at work there (and stealth performance enhancing drugs).
Last edited:
See, that's part of the big confusion. Because of lack of knowledge about psycho-acoustics, lack of knowledge how people and people's brains tick, any criticism is interpreted as being called stupid. That is Not True!
I and everybody else on this planet ticks in much the same way. If you think I call anybody stupid because they ignore these psycho-acoustical etc factors, I would be calling myself stupid as well. Can't we get away from thinking that any attempt to explain factors that people are unaware of automatically make them assume they're called stupid? Because it isn't true! Man!
jd
I fooled a terrific magician once by pretending to do a French drop, but actually grabbing the coin. And in a wonderful Penn and Teller video, an Indian magician they visit totally fools them with classic Cups and Balls by NOT making the moves a magician expects. It's knowing your audience.
Humans LOVE self-deception; all humans, including magicians- magicians just happen to know some of the mechanics of it to achieve specific entertainment goals. Same with a sensory scientist- we use blind testing on ourselves, too, because we're aware of the way brains deceive us and we understand that we have 'em, too. It's not a matter of being "stupid," it's a matter of being human.
Nice.
But the question isn't whether someone can be fooled, it's whether learning to see through deception is impossible in principle. It's the difference between seeing DBTs as only a tool or as the only tool. In your examples, could those fooled eventually have seen through the deception with repetition (learning) or was revealing the trick the only way?- Status
- Not open for further replies.