| john curl |
| Calm down Arthur! I said 'alleged' BECAUSE I have NOT personally tested them to ascertain how well they damp vibration. I suspect, in fact I'm pretty sure that they do what they claim. It is not for me to prove ANYTHING to you. I'll I can do is suggest that people TRY things before they TRASH them. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
| Of course the military uses "tweaks." The steath fighter and stealth bomber are good examples of how extensively "tweaks" are sometimes employed to attain a level of performance impossible without them. The aircraft are both "flying tweaks," if you will, with completely new technology (then) developed to obtain "low prob of intercept" (to use the military venacular). (The big challenge was to actually make the aircraft fly, as they were quite unstable in flight due to the primary goal of LPOI). But theory (and measurement) was only (a small) part of the puzzle, as Trial & Error dominated the development of these amazing weapon systems. Tweaking the wing and fuselage geometry and development of the "correct" skin materials/paint and learning to apply them in the correct manner took many years of trial and error. In fact, without the tweaking you get nada, or at most just acceptable results. Really no different from development of a "high end "amplifier or speaker. Some might call it "engineering development," others might call it "tweaking." |
|
|
| SY |
| As a guy who actually worked for Ben Rich, I'm somewhat familiar with the sorts of things you're talking about. I've got a vision in my head about an engineer who would go to Ben and say, "Look, I can't really measure any difference in RCS when I put this funny rock on the rudder, but I feel like it's making the plane more invisible. And I can certainly measure the effect of the rock on the aerodynamics." That engineer would be using a colostomy bag for the next ten years. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Calm down Arthur! I said 'alleged' BECAUSE I have NOT personally tested them to ascertain how well they damp vibration. I suspect, in fact I'm pretty sure that they do what they claim. It is not for me to prove ANYTHING to you. I'll I can do is suggest that people TRY things before they TRASH them. |
I have personally tried Brilliant Pebbles and have found them to be phenomenally effective. The trashing Geoff Kait receives as a result of ignorance is exceedingly bothersome to me. FWIW, I use the word ignorance in its purest sense, although the pejorative sense, not surprisingly, is applicable as well.
I stumbled across this site while searching for information regarding the Great Randi challenge. The assertion that Mr. Kait could prove the effectiveness of his Brilliant Pebbles by simply submitting to this challenge again shows their ignorance. This challenge has no applicability to Mr. Kait's product. If the Randi Challenge were applicable, and administered fairly, Geoff Kait truly would be laughing all the way to the bank.
For the skeptical, I would be more than happy to participate in any applicable blind test if fairly administered. |
|
|
| andy_c |
| quote: | Originally posted by andy_c
While it's true that tweaks and mods of military hardware are often done... |
| quote: | Originally posted by andy_c
I can't get into specific detail, but things like microwave absorber materials are used, that might be described as "tweaks"... |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I spoke to Jack Bybee about this subject, a few minutes ago, (that tweaks aren't used by the military) He broke into incredulous laughter! |
John, we're going around in circles with this. I'll repeat this a third time. Let's define a "tweak" as "a mod that's put in after hardware is designed and built. The distinction I'm getting at here is the means by which such tweaks are verified. It's been my experience from 20 years in the defense business that such mods are never put into military hardware without validation by measurements. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
SY - thanks for making my point. It all depends on what you call a thing - if you call it a "rock" it sounds preposterous (I have never called them "rocks" myself). But if you call something "special absorbant paint" it sounds plausible (at least to the generals who were paying for the stealth aircraft). Or is the Lockheed engineer who developed the "special absorbant paint" now wearing a colostomy bag?
GK |
|
|
| andy_c |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wellfed
Isn't the nature of the audio beast subjective? How can one objectively measure love? |
One could certainly make that argument, and it's a valid one, certainly worthy of a lot of discussion. My point was not to claim otherwise. Rather, I'm saying that the comparison of the subjective high-end audio business to the aerospace and defense business is not valid. The defense business is a measuremen-oriented culture, while the high-end audio business is not. To say "we do it like they do" is a distortion of the facts.
I've got to get to work now, so it will be some time before I can respond further. |
|
|
| RHosch |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I might point out that 'tweaks and mods' are regularly used by the military-industrial complex, BUT they are classified if they work!
This is not accurate, according to my sources. Tweaks, cryoing, etc are used in any effort to get ahead of a potential enemy.
I spoke to Jack Bybee about this subject, a few minutes ago, (that tweaks aren't used by the military) He broke into incredulous laughter! |
I'm sorry John, but your suggestion is highly misleading. The military and contractors indeed use tweaks to improve performance, but as andy_c correctly pointed out this is only the case when objective measurements confirm the efficacy of the modification. Like andy, I have personal experience in this area, and you are simply wrong.
I don't care what Mr. Bybee says... in fact, his monetary interests are tied to this mystique around his background that he has created. For this reason, I give much less weight to his words than to other similar people in the field (which I work with and interact with on a daily basis).
Once again, if a tweak is used, you can rest assured that there is ample data to back up its use. I've personally witnessed engineers chase secondary radar signature artifacts to many places right of the decimal point, and not once was an unscientific approach taken. The same is true in my projects.
| quote: | | Neither of these devices are MAGIC! They work, based on sound engineering/ physics principles. Read the 'white papers' on these two devices before criticizing them. |
Two assumptions there John. One, that we haven't read the white papers. Two, that these devices work. The engineering/physics principles you claim these devices are based on also predict that any effects will be orders of magnitude below audibility.
Besides, following the lead of the military, we would expect measurable results from a device based on physics and not on never-never-land fancy. A jar of rocks effectively absorbing airborn acoustic vibrations (or mechanical ones at that)??!? C'mon John. Phyiscs says that if this is the case, the rocks will covert that energy to heat. We can measure temperature to a stunning degree of accuracy. Any absorbent effect these rocks have should be easily observed by simply taking their temperature. Where are these results? Where's the beef? |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wellfed
Isn't the nature of the audio beast subjective? How can one objectively measure love? |
Music enjoyment (or lack theroff) is subjectively. The reproduction of sound signals by technical means can be defined and measured.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
[snip](The big challenge was to actually make the aircraft fly, as they were quite unstable in flight due to the primary goal of LPOI). But theory (and measurement) was only (a small) part of the puzzle, as Trial & Error dominated the development of these amazing weapon systems. Tweaking the wing and fuselage geometry and development of the "correct" skin materials/paint and learning to apply them in the correct manner took many years of trial and error. [snip] |
This is utter horse manure. Before you built a prototype fighter or bomber you can be sure that everything has been carefully calculated and simulated. The 'science' of stealh is nothing special, in fact the theory is many decades old and depends on simple reflection and absorbtion. It is indeed the conflict between stealth and manoueverability and speed that makes it hard to have both stealth AND performance. That's why it took awhile before the required technology was available and affordable.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I spoke to Jack Bybee about this subject, a few minutes ago, (that tweaks aren't used by the military) He broke into incredulous laughter![snip] |
That only shows that this guy is able to laugh. If your report is accurate, of course, which we have no way of verifying right now.
You don't get it, do you John? Hearsay, hearsay, more hearsay.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by andy_c
One could certainly make that argument, and it's a valid one, certainly worthy of a lot of discussion. My point was not to claim otherwise... |
Thank you Andy for your courteous clarification.
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
...The reproduction of sound signals by technical means can be defined and measured.
Jan Didden |
What means are there to measure the increase in resolution and 3-D effect Brilliant Pebbles effect in my system? I would really like to unequivocally put to death the unwarranted insinuations and nasty, libelous accusations that people, in their ignorance, direct against Geoff Kait. If these accusers were to listen to what Brilliant Pebbles do in my home they would either be humbled or shamed depending on the degree of their vitriol. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
Jan, again I have to thank a member of the forum for agreeing with
me, twice in one hour no less. I inferred the technology was not recent and that the stealth aircraft were unstable in flight (due primarily to the unique geometry required for stealth) requiring computer-controlled flight. So where's your beef?
You might feel confident that "everything has been calculated and simulated," but allow me to set you straight on this - it is not true at all, as demonstrated by the very high number of crashes of the stealth bomber early on due to miscalculations of center of gravity and perhaps other reasons. You might not remember the crashes but I do. Someone here can probably fill in the details. |
|
|
| geoffkait |
Newspaper story on 1998 crash of B-1 in Kentucky:
MARION, Kentucky (CNN) -- Flying unmanned after its crew ejected safely, an Air Force B-1B bomber plowed into a muddy cow pasture and exploded Wednesday in rural western Kentucky.
The unarmed plane barely missed a farmhouse, crashing about four miles from Marion, a farming community of about 3,300 people near the Ohio River. No one on the ground was hurt, and all four crew members survived.
Two crew members were found walking along a road, where they were picked up by a passerby in a car. A third was found walking in a nearby field. The fourth crew member's parachute caught in a tree, and he suffered head and neck injuries.
Randy Rushing, a volunteer firefighter responding to the crash, said he picked up Sabella when he found him in the field. "He mainly said that something went haywire," Rushing said.
Note: This was the sixth crash of the B-1, most if not all of which were design related -- Guess they need to go back and run some more simulations. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Hearsay, hearsay, more hearsay. |
Jan, assuming Jack Bybee did what he says he did in the Navy, which was to experiment and find ways, using the best of his knowledge, to reduce noise in sonar electronics systems, how would you characterize that work?
Is Jack's past work, assuming I've described it sufficiently correctly, so dissimilar to what people like John do in the audio field?
Just curious. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
From Jack Bybee's website. I assume Jack either approved or wrote the following?
| quote: | | Jack Bybee, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity, developed a series of esoteric wire and power purification technologies for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet. Even the battery stored DC power used in these submarines required special filtration to lower the noise floor to a level that did not compromise sonar performance. Many of the military applications of this technology are still classified; however, continuing research has led Jack Bybee to the development of solutions specific to power and audio/video circuits: the Bybee Quantum Purifiers. |
|
|
|
| janneman |
Tom,
I am always operating from the principle that people are honest and really say what they mean, even in the face of counter-indications. Call me a sucker.
But we don't even know why the guy laughed. Did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they used tweaks? Or did he laugh because he found it hilarious that anybody could believe they didn't use tweaks? Did he even get the question? I don't want to ridicule anybody, just to try to make it clear that is ridiculous to expect people to shell out money for tweaks that seem not to be able to do what they claim on the face of it, just on the strength of 'I personally know the guy and he told me it's allright'. Gimme a break!
This guys says (or so John thinks) that they DO use tweaks. Other authoritive guys on this forum say the contrary. I have 35 years of Air Force engineering behind my belt. DoD do not use tweaks as we understand them in audio: green pens, capacitors without isolating jackets, brilliant pebbles, oxygen-free listening rooms, WITHOUT any substantiated verification and testing.
A good engineer can have an idea to 'tweak' for instance a radar log amp by, say, adding an extra nested feedback loop. IF his boss grants him the time and cost to built and test one, he then proceeds to fully characterize the new amp, test it in all sorts of environements, asks his peers to review the data (and they will be VERY critical), and if he is really good he has an improvement. It is also called 'not fooling yourself'. But, if the old amp foots the bill, it is extremely unlikely that his boss will let him loose. Unless it is a cost+ contract, then his chances are better.
Now, I have also come across sompanies that had a monopoly in a particular field. They have been caught by skipping on the testing and characterizing, because, hey, you need them anyway. I would group these under the general heading of charlatans, at least as far as their moral standing is concerned.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
From Jack Bybee's website. I assume Jack either approved or wrote the following?
quote:
Jack Bybee, a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum mechanics and superconductivity, developed a series of esoteric wire and power purification technologies for the passive sonar systems of the U.S. Navy’s atomic submarine fleet. Even the battery stored DC power used in these submarines required special filtration to lower the noise floor to a level that did not compromise sonar performance. Many of the military applications of this technology are still classified; however, continuing research has led Jack Bybee to the development of solutions specific to power and audio/video circuits: the Bybee Quantum Purifiers.
Yeah, military classified, but of course it's OK to sell it to audio people. Can I have my turn at hilarious laughing now?
One other thing: I am SURE the Navy have tested his technology to death before applying it. Are there any tests for the audio side of it, somewhere?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| Well, your military electronics experience is more perspective than I can offer. I hear what you're saying, Jan. |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
SY - thanks for making my point. It all depends on what you call a thing - if you call it a "rock" it sounds preposterous (I have never called them "rocks" myself). But if you call something "special absorbant paint" it sounds plausible (at least to the generals who were paying for the stealth aircraft). Or is the Lockheed engineer who developed the "special absorbant paint" now wearing a colostomy bag?
GK |
If I had RCS measurements showing an improvement with a rock, I could call it any damn thing I want. If I don't, I'm wearing the bag.
Jan's post accords with my experience at Lockheed- the stuff we dealt with in aerospace was done systematically, tightly, and with proper measurements and controls. It was sometimes improvised, it was sometimes empirical, but it was ALWAYS data-driven. Hard data. A magic doodad just makes the gullible audiophile a little poorer. An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| And what will the psychoacoustical explanation for this guy's experience be? |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
And what will the psychoacoustical explanation for this guy's experience be? As he seems to have problems maybe some of the self-delusional experts will offer advice. |
Bad soldering?
In any case, I'm delighted to see that SOME people are keeping an open mind. |
|
|
| janneman |
Exactly SY.
But of course there is something on the Bybee issue that hasn't been mentioned. I can accept, because it is measurable, that this person has found a very clever way to lower the noise from a DC source. I know how small the received signals are from sonar, especially at the edge of the range (and that's were you want your enemy to stay). So, extremely low noise supplies will help to wring that extra few yards of range out of the system. That is measurable, I guess.
The problem starts when you apply this quiet-DC technology to audio. You can still measure the DC noise improvement, but YOU CANNOT PROVE IT MAKES IT SOUND BETTER, even if you believe it honestly.
So our brilliant Mr Bybee is convicted to try to peddle his stuff on word of mouth and the reputation of people like John. And that's a pretty dismal state for an engineer to be in, I would think.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
And what will the psychoacoustical explanation for this guy's experience be? |
Did you see the follow-up post: you need to burn them in, 40 hrs ususally does it!
Haha, that's humor!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Bad soldering?
In any case, I'm delighted to see that SOME people are keeping an open mind. |
Bart Hughes, the Amsterdammer mentioned in the article, was known at the time as "Johnny the Self-Kicker'. He was well known for having drilled an extra hole in his forhead. Of course, the skin grew over it, so you couldn't see it, but apparently one could feel it. I never had the honor, at that time my parents were convinced that Amsterdam was bad for my mental health. So I went into audio. I don't think Amsterdam could have done as much damage to my mental health, though.:D
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Sheldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Did you see the follow-up post: you need to burn them in, 40 hrs ususally does it!
Haha, that's humor!
Jan Didden |
This makes perfect sense and can be verified by careful blind testing (if you substitute "get used to them" for "need to burn them in"). |
|
|
| john curl |
| Jan, you don't have to be abrasive about it. Actually, Bybee devices have been measured, and Bybee once showed this noise reduction in a graph generated by an AC power line analyzer. The change was pretty small, but I have heard the difference in what they do, often enough. What amazes me IS when the Bybee device actually negatively effects the sound in some locations in some systems, including mine. Why? |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sheldon
This makes perfect sense and can be verified by careful blind testing (if you substitute "get used to them" for "need to burn them in"). |
Yes, agreed from that perspective. That is also an experience I have. You gradually get to know new attributes of your system over time. Then if there is another change (or you go back) then THAT sounds not quite right, if the chance is large enough.
But how would you blind test it? Do a blind test after 'burn in' assuming that it shows that the earlier configuration (without the purifiers) now sounds bad? That way you can 'prove' that anything is an improvement.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| geoffkait |
"An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die."
What actually happened was that many people did die in the 7 crashes of the Stealth bomber and in many crashes of the stealth fighter. And not because of tweaks (as you say). Most of the bomber crashes were proven conclusively to have resulted from problems with the calculations in the flight computer. One occurred as recently as few years ago in Indian Ocean, don't know what happened there but I can Guess :-) These mistakes, unfortunate as they were, occurred because the system of development, measurement, testing, etc. was flawed. If you want to find a similar tragic failure of "the system" look no further than the Challenger disaster or even the recent shuttle disaster (how soon they forget).
We do know one of the 7 stealth fighters that crashed was shot down (so we can't blame Lockheed for that one) and one suffered a wing falling off during an air show, not exactly a stellar performance, eh? In the case of the stealth fighters, the Air Force says the crashes were due to pilot fatigue and/or disorientation. Right. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jan, you don't have to be abrasive about it. Actually, Bybee devices have been measured, and Bybee once showed this noise reduction in a graph generated by an AC power line analyzer. The change was pretty small, but I have heard the difference in what they do, often enough. What amazes me IS when the Bybee device actually negatively effects the sound in some locations in some systems, including mine. Why? |
John, apologies if I sounded abrasive, not intentionally so.
And it is interesting you can measure noise reduction in a power line test setup, my question was, how to prove with reasonable confidence that it improves the sound.
It comes back to that, doesn't it? Same as those pebbles and stones. Some measurements (at least for the stones) but nothing at all on the effect on audio, and that's what counts. No blind tests. I think it is an opportunity missed, that is, if you have confidence in your own products.
I looked at the Bybee website, read a review, and apparently they are supposed to work by absorbing certain frequencies. The idea being (if I got it right) to reduce the 1/f noise below 2kHz which would clean up the sound. But how do these things know the difference between noise and the sound signal? If we knew that, straightforward engineering could do the trick, and we ALL would be much happier (except maybe Mr Bybee;) )
Jan Didden |
|
|
| geoffkait |
breaking news today, 14 Sept 2004 (subtitled "trust me, we definitely have the weight problem fixed this time")
enjoy, GK
Lockheed says fighter jet weight issues resolved
Tue Sep 14, 2004 02:09 PM ET
By Chelsea Emery
NEW YORK, Sept 14 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) on Tuesday said it has whittled down one version of its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet by 2,700 pounds, putting the design on track to meet or exceed all performance requirements and easing concerns that weight problems could derail the program.
Investors, analysts and aerospace executives have worried that federal budget constraints could cause the U.S. Air Force to reduce its planned purchase of the JSF. Concerns about the weight of the short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) version of the F-35 only exacerbated fears about the outlook for the supersonic stealth aircraft.
"It's quite important because there's been so much publicity about the overweight condition of the aircraft," said Paul Nisbet, analyst for research firm JSA Research Inc. "It's good news for stockholders because it would take away one of the reasons that could be used to cancel the program, or cut it way back." |
|
|
| Sheldon |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Yes, agreed from that perspective. That is also an experience I have. You gradually get to know new attributes of your system over time. Then if there is another change (or you go back) then THAT sounds not quite right, if the chance is large enough.
But how would you blind test it? Do a blind test after 'burn in' assuming that it shows that the earlier configuration (without the purifiers) now sounds bad? That way you can 'prove' that anything is an improvement.
Jan Didden |
Sorry, being a bit tongue in cheek. Can't really do a proper blind test. But one might be able to show for most subjects that the impression of "worse" would weaken after adjusting to the change for a time.
BTW, for me, the issue is not that various tweaks can't change or improve the sound because that's hard to rule out. The fact that that the explanations provided are patent nonsense doesn't mean something can't have the stated outcome- it could still work for perfectly mundane reasons. The issue for me (and sounds like for you) is what's the likelyhood something will be worth the time and money spent trying it? The goofier the explanation, the less likely I'll try it. We all play the odds every day. I like them as much in my favor as possible.
Sheldon
Thinking a bit more about it, there is an issue that is important to me beyond something working or not. I don't have a big problem with someone saying "I tried this and it works", even if I think it unlikely. As others have said here, there's not necessarily a requirement to back it up with valid test data. However, many of these things are accompanied by scientific sounding explanations of why it works the way it does. In that case, I think it's entirely fair and in the scientific tradition to demand data or revelant citations of prior data. Otherwise, the author is missapropriating public trust in established scientific principles. That should be challenged. |
|
|
| john curl |
| Jan, Jack Bybee is moderately well off, he gets himself INTO TROUBLE, from his wife, for investing time and money into making audio products. He does most of it in his garage, these days. He was born in 1929, a long time ago, and he doesn't have to do anything, except for the love of audio. He also likes cars, boats, good food and wine, but audio is where he puts his extra effort, in order to improve audio systems. He could care less if someone doesn't want to try his stuff, and he offers a moneyback guarantee. What more can you expect? Double blind tests? Heck I don't even do them with my amps, anymore. Better measurements? Even I don't even have the test equipment in order to measure them properly. A clear explanation of how they probably work? It's either poorly understood or classified. There are no papers out there that give a definitive explanation as to how these devices work. Still, I use Bybee devices in my audio and video equipment. They work for me, and they work for many others, BUT I have been in situations where they DIDN'T WORK in a positive way, but actually made the sound too soft. Why? I can't be sure. Still they did SOMETHING, when they should not have made any difference, given typical measurements, any more that a few inch piece of wire. |
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
Did you see the follow-up post: you need to burn them in, 40 hrs ususally does it!
Haha, that's humor!
Jan Didden |
This is the typical listening duration for adjusting the hearing "sensation" to meet the anticipatated result.
It's not anything burning in - it's learning in ....
A glass of wine often speeds up the process ;-)
/ |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by geoffkait
"An unproven "tweak" on a fighter jet can mean people die."
What actually happened was that many people did die in the 7 crashes of the Stealth bomber and in many crashes of the stealth fighter. And not because of tweaks (as you say). Most of the bomber crashes were proven conclusively to have resulted from problems with the calculations in the flight computer. One occurred as recently as few years ago in Indian Ocean, don't know what happened there but I can Guess :-) These mistakes, unfortunate as they were, occurred because the system of development, measurement, testing, etc. was flawed. If you want to find a similar tragic failure of "the system" look no further than the Challenger disaster or even the recent shuttle disaster (how soon they forget).
We do know one of the 7 stealth fighters that crashed was shot down (so we can't blame Lockheed for that one) and one suffered a wing falling off during an air show, not exactly a stellar performance, eh? In the case of the stealth fighters, the Air Force says the crashes were due to pilot fatigue and/or disorientation. Right. |
Well, the challenger disaster was the result of management budging for political and economic pressure and refusing to listen to engineering. That is blameable.
The other thing may well be due to a software fault that escaped detection. It is well known that it it IMPOSSIBLE to exhaustively test complex software. Although it can be blameable, if the testers could have been reasonably expected to find that particular bug, it is something of another dimension than the avoidable challenger disaster.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jan, Jack Bybee is moderately well off, he gets himself INTO TROUBLE, from his wife, for investing time and money into making audio products. He does most of it in his garage, these days. He was born in 1929, a long time ago, and he doesn't have to do anything, except for the love of audio. He also likes cars, boats, good food and wine, but audio is where he puts his extra effort, in order to improve audio systems. He could care less if someone doesn't want to try his stuff, and he offers a moneyback guarantee. What more can you expect? Double blind tests? Heck I don't even do them with my amps, anymore. Better measurements? Even I don't even have the test equipment in order to measure them properly. A clear explanation of how they probably work? It's either poorly understood or classified. There are no papers out there that give a definitive explanation as to how these devices work. Still, I use Bybee devices in my audio and video equipment. They work for me, and they work for many others, BUT I have been in situations where they DIDN'T WORK in a positive way, but actually made the sound too soft. Why? I can't be sure. Still they did SOMETHING, when they should not have made any difference, given typical measurements, any more that a few inch piece of wire. |
Well, seems like he is having fun, and I can envy him for it (just a few more years!). And he can do it the way he wants, with/without testing, in his garage, in his loft whatever. He sounds like a likeable guy.
BUT, that doesn't oblige me or anyone else to treat his devices different from any other similar ones.
Sheldon above wrapped it up nicely IMO. You've got to make choices, you try to weed out the outright crackpots and take your chances with the rest. If the sellers have a strong case, I guess they will try to show results in independent testing. If not, OK with me, but then my choices will be different.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| FrankWW |
Jan,
| quote: | quote:
Originally posted by Wellfed
Isn't the nature of the audio beast subjective? How can one objectively measure love?
Music enjoyment (or lack theroff) is subjectively. The reproduction of sound signals by technical means can be defined and measured.
Jan Didden
|
Discussion on this thread often becomes hyberbolic when measurement and subjectivity are brought together.
Nonetheless, it seems reasonable that if folk are claiming to hear a difference in sound quality, that there must be something to measure.
In another thread a while back we mentioned masking effects. These are a nice example of conjunction of measurement, subjectivity, and theory.
It would seem to me an awful lot of the argument we've read in this thread moves in thiis fashion:
"I can hear it."
"Well we can't measure it!"
And eventually, sometimes, it ends up at, "So's your old lady!"
I think there's not enough examples of kinds of phenomena which lead to defined examples of subjectively experienced, and objectively measured, good and bad sound.
Earl Geddes is on to something:
http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm
Deliberately create deficiencies in the sound and measure what the reaction is. Now we've created data for engineers and designers to work with.
Geddes designs speakers and he's doing the research because he needs the data because otherwise his design efforts will be less than optimal. There is no point in optimizing something which is subjectively irrelevant when there may well be some other parameters which are subjectively pertinent and need improvement..
The codec developers and cell phone companies like Nokia are heavily into this type of research, also, but for different reasons. They are trying to optimize doing the most with the least band width expenditure.
I kind of sympathize with the Shakti stones guy because perhaps for some applications in some places his device makes a diference but what the heck is it? I doubt if all subjective deficiencies have been catalogued.
If it does, will it make a difference that matters in a Walmart boombox or in one of John Curl's creations? |
|
|
| janneman |
Frank,
If Geddes interests you, how about this one:
What is interesting that the research team consists of equal numbers of engineers and psychologists...
Jan Didden |
|
|
| analog_sa |
I've always found the effects of solder composition on sound to be a bit contentios but if you have found otherwise, who am i to argue :)
Btw i seem to vaguely remember that a well known speaker manufacturer incorporates the Bybees into their crossovers. |
|
|
| RHosch |
| quote: | Originally posted by analog_sa
Btw i seem to vaguely remember that a well known speaker manufacturer incorporates the Bybees into their crossovers. |
Ah, well there's all the proof we need right there. I mean, if some speaker designer does something then it must be due to real, physical, repeatable reasons. None of them are interested in market perception, sales, or any of that bunk. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
Ah, well there's all the proof we need right there. I mean, if some speaker designer does something then it must be due to real, physical, repeatable reasons. None of them are interested in market perception, sales, or any of that bunk. |
Which is not to say a high end speaker manufacturer is not interested in producing better sound.
My, I'm feeling sleepy. |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | | there's all the proof |
It ain't proof and it won't increase the perceived value as most potential customers simply won't pay attention. It may, otoh, aid the sound... |
|
|
| RHosch |
| Even well respected and intelligent "experts" in the field do strange things at times... strange things that have no basis in reality that is. Even the most educated and experienced are subject to the forces of perceptual and psychological biases. That they often claim otherwise is even more reason to remain skeptical of their claims. |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
| quote: | ABX testing is NOT the standard for serious evaluation of small audio differences.
JJ is a bright guy, BUT he never told us how he did his BLIND TESTS, as it was a company secret, AND he made derisive comments about the ABX tests as they are typically done, over the years.
|
He may have been derisive about how some ABX tests were done but he used to be a regular on rec.audio.opinion and spoke in defense of ABX and how it is indeed a very good way to determine if small audio differences were present.
Do a Google search for JJ+ABX and you find many posts of his on the subject.
Hot damn! I seem to have gotten this quote thing down.
Next, spelling! |
|
|
| Variac |
It is kind of discouraging that those that can hear differences seem to be adament about the subject - almost arrogantly so.
(not necesarily those in this discussion)
Seldom do they say that they were fooled on one thing or another. I suppose that some might think that this gives them credibility, but I would be more impressd if they were LESS decisive- admitting that perhaps in some cses they were wrong- or fooled or changed their minds.
It has been proven to me over and over in life that people can make perceptual mistakes. To claim that all differences are clear and obvious is a signifier of people deluding themselves.
To bring up the cable directionality test again- here was a blind study that allowed the participants to spend any amount of time and try them in any manner that they wanted. It seems that this would be a fair test even for the anti Peliconist group. I can't see how this has the problems that some claim the ABX tests have.
they could burn them in or not.... they could listen to them for hours or minutes. They could label them with their own arbitrary labels so that they knew when they were listening to one or the other.
To me, the participants were very very confident of their abilities to discern directionality in cables, yet were unable to do so.
Now of course one can say that the results are only for that particular cable, and that is true. Yet the results say to me that I would be better off spending my time on other issues.
I am very greatful to the members and participants who did this test. Perhaps we can organize others. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
This is kind of surprising to read to me:
| quote: | | Seldom do they say that they were fooled on one thing or another. |
I can only speak for myself but I've never been fooled by my auditory senses so far...
When there's no difference that I can perceive I'll tell it just the same.
| quote: | | I can't see how this has the problems that some claim the ABX tests have. |
It has a huge problem, actually more than one:
- 2 test candidates. (I happened to be one of the volunteers)
- one kind of wire coming off the same spool, same for both candidates.
- test doesn't meet ABX requirements at all.
Conclusion of that test: both testers said they couldn't detect a difference one way or the other.
My conclusion: Maybe that wire is not directional.
After all, who claimed every wire is directional? Not me.
If every wire is in fact directional (Who knows?) then there must be some correlation to the way it is manufactured? Is there?
BTW, after my testing was done I passed the wire to other people whom I happen to know are also capable of telling directionality of wire apart, if any.
They couldn't detect any difference with that wire no matter how we tested.
It seems to me the wrong conclusions are drawn and to this day nobody ever told anyone if the wire was directional or not...Not to my knowledge anyway.
How would you know unless another parallel test was run that came up with a positive identification?
Was there?
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| SY |
Variac: I've got these very cool multiposition Shallcross switches, perfect for doing a blind test comparing Radio Shack-level components to Audiophile Approved ones. And Peter Daniel offered to help with fabricating boxes. My idea was to build some simple passive high-pass filters (with an f3 of something like 15 Hz) using fancy and cooking-grade parts (trimmed for identical response and level) and have the switch positions randomized. The person doing the test would have to sort which were which. He could switch rapidly or slowly. Long listening sessions or brief ones. Complete control of source material, sequence, volume, and listening environment. The tester could do anything he wanted except measure.
I had called for some donations of fancy parts, universally recognized among the fashionable as being top-drawer (I'd buy 'em, but I can't afford 'em). Fdegrove was willing to donate a couple of resistors, but I needed more and some fancy caps, too. I'm still willing to donate my switches and construction time to the cause if anyone is willing to step up to the plate and get me some fancy Rs and Cs. |
|
|
| FrankWW |
Jan, that's interesting. I take it that's an AES article? My local U doesn't carry the journal, alas!
I'd sure like to read it and the preceding paper.
Do you have a URL?
I wonder what the distortion components were?
Incidently, Geddes's wife Lidia Lee, the other part of Gedlee, is a psychologist specializing in audiology. Same structure as the Cambridge-Nokia team. |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by janneman
I looked at the Bybee website, read a review, and apparently they are supposed to work by absorbing certain frequencies. The idea being (if I got it right) to reduce the 1/f noise below 2kHz which would clean up the sound. But how do these things know the difference between noise and the sound signal? |
The answer of course is, they don't know the difference between noise and the sound signal. Any reduction in noise will be accompanied by the same reduction in signal.
And you can't trust the Bybee website for information anyway. John has said several times in the past that the information there about the QPs is intentionally misleading.
se |
|
|
| Variac |
First Frank, I admire you for taking the time and effort to take the test, as well as those that put it together-SY
was involved -correct? | quote: | | "I can only speak for myself but I've never been fooled by my auditory senses so far...When there's no difference that I can perceive I'll tell it just the same." |
I'm not sure what you mean. Of course I know you would honestly report the results.
My point is that maybe after extended listening - or maybe after a double blind test of
some sort, that you might have changed your mind once or something....
If there is no difference that you PERCEIVE, isn't it possible that you are being fooled ?
How do you know you are right when you don't perceive a difference? Or you do?
I recently read a study of various personality traits- People with basically no sense of humor think that they have a fine sense of humor. How can this be? Well.... they don't know what a sense of humor is! How do you know if you are being fooled if you are being fooled? Well if you are fooled- you don't I guess.
| quote: | | " one kind of wire coming off the same spool, same for both candidates. . |
Doesn't this make the test more fair-that you had wire manufactured in the same way? After all,
there is no way to test if all wire is directional or not. All we can try to determine is whether the wire under test is directional, not that all wires are. It is meaningful to me that this type of wire just happened to be non directional. certainly not proof that wire isn't directional, but an indication, no?
Since you have| quote: | | never been fooled by my auditory senses so far" |
then you are confident that the wire is nondirectional.So now we have a bit of imnformation. There seems to be wire which is non directional
| quote: | | If every wire is in fact directional (Who knows?) |
Well, you should know, since you have "never been fooled by my auditory senses so far"
| quote: | | BTW, after my testing was done I passed the wire to other people whom I happen to know are also capable of telling directionality of wire apart, if any. They couldn't detect any difference with that wire no matter how we tested. |
You "happen to know?" how has this been established? This doesn't sound very rigorous. What tests were done?
Isn't it POSSIBLE that they have been fooling themselves and others?
Now we know that there were in fact more than 2 people that could NOT perceive any difference. More evidence.
What happened to the wire?- we could have a lot more people test it since it still exists. I'm willing to give it a go. I don't have as much confidence in my abilities as you though. Perhaps others that are more confident would like to try it too.
Myself, I wopuld love to hear some cable that you and your friends find to be directional so I could give it a try.
EDIT: Yeah, I also wonder how they measured "Sense of Humor":D |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
| quote: | | I've always found the effects of solder composition on sound to be a bit contentios but if you have found otherwise, who am i to argue |
A rational man. |
|
|
| john curl |
| Jan, Steve is being 'inadvertently' misleading. Jack Bybee does not intentionally lie on his website, and over the years, I have tried to get him to clean it up. It was first written by his former business partner who was a CFO for Linear Technology at the time. Jack should have edited it better, from the get-go. Still, it is vague, and it will remain so. The 1/f noise is real, however, and well could be what is most easily measured. I don't know, nor does SE, whether the signal is lost with the 1/f noise. The fact that it does anything at all is a minor miracle. ;-) |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Jack Bybee does not intentionally lie on his website... |
Ah. So he's he's unintentionally lying on his website?
Here's what you yourself said:
I know that Jack's descriptions are' inaccurate' or misleading.
Ok, so you say that they are in fact inaccurate or misleading.
Those words were followed by these words:
They apparently are meant to conceal the operating mechanism from others as well a talk generally about his devices.
Ok. So the descriptions are inaccurate or misleading. And this was done for a specific intended purpose.
I've never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but if you say something inaccurate or misleading for a specific intened purpose, does that not make it intentional?
Oh, and what's that word we use for people who intentionally use inaccurate or misleading information in the course of convincing people to part with their money?
| quote: | | The 1/f noise is real, however, and well could be what is most easily measured. I don't know, nor does SE, whether the signal is lost with the 1/f noise. |
Please, John. The resisor in the ceramic tube with the goop painted on it would have to be prescient to remove noise without also removing signal.
And by the way, there's at present not one shred of evidence that the thing even reduces 1/f noise.
se |
|
|
| SY |
Variac, my rôle in the wire fiasco was peripheral- the driving force was Steve Eddy. He is MUCH more fascinated by wire claims than I am. That's his second-biggest personality defect, the biggest being that he prefers not to work with tubes.
Interesting how Steve and John Curl share that same nasty blind spot. Has anyone ever seen them in the same room? Hmmm....? |
|
|
| Bratislav |
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
Doesn't this make the test more fair-that you had wire manufactured in the same way? After all,
there is no way to test if all wire is directional or not. All we can try to determine is whether the wire under test is directional, not that all wires are. It is meaningful to me that this type of wire just happened to be non directional. certainly not proof that wire isn't directional, but an indication, no?
Since you have then you are confident that the wire is nondirectional.So now we have a bit of imnformation. There seems to be wire which is non directional
|
The very straightforward part two of this (failed) experiment would be to ask Golden Eared Ones about the SPECIFIC wire that DID exhibit the directionality (in their experience), and repeat the test in the same way (someone carefully cuts out samples from a single spool and mails them to Golden Eared Ones for testing).
The problem is twofold - GEO's will pick the wires where directionality can be VISUALLY detected (like most braided cables), or have printing/extrusion artefacts that can be used for the same purpose,
OR
GEOs will simply say "I have nothing to prove to any of you pelicans", declare victory and go and have a drink of their choice. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by RHosch
Even well respected and intelligent "experts" in the field do strange things at times... strange things that have no basis in reality that is. Even the most educated and experienced are subject to the forces of perceptual and psychological biases. That they often claim otherwise is even more reason to remain skeptical of their claims. |
Yes. Most experts, real or perceived, are just like people;)
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by FrankWW
Jan, that's interesting. I take it that's an AES article? My local U doesn't carry the journal, alas!
I'd sure like to read it and the preceding paper.
Do you have a URL?
I wonder what the distortion components were?
Incidently, Geddes's wife Lidia Lee, the other part of Gedlee, is a psychologist specializing in audiology. Same structure as the Cambridge-Nokia team. |
Send me an email through the forum |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Steve Eddy
The answer of course is, they don't know the difference between noise and the sound signal. Any reduction in noise will be accompanied by the same reduction in signal.
And you can't trust the Bybee website for information anyway. John has said several times in the past that the information there about the QPs is intentionally misleading.
se |
Well, I didn't want to be so harsh with all the sensitivity floating around here, but I also noted Mr B was quite ambiguous on the technology, basically saying gee, I really don't know how it works, but it does.
That's his predicament of course. If he explains it technically, he will be attacked because you can be sure it will have a weak basis. If he doesn't say how it works, they will think it is a tweak/placebo.
Not an easy life in this business:D
Jan Didden |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
[snip] Jack should have edited it better, from the get-go. Still, it is vague, and it will remain so. [snip] |
I wouldn't expect otherwise, John.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Variac
To bring up the cable directionality test again- here was a blind study that allowed the participants to spend any amount of time and try them in any manner that they wanted. It seems that this would be a fair test even for the anti Peliconist group.
|
Cable (and especially wire) directionality is an interresting issue. I have so far failed to reliably identify it, except in cables where the actual contruction is "directional" (eg cables with screens grounded only on one side), but I do observe it in wiring Amplifiers and making cables, as it does not really increase effort. It's one of those things where I am highly skeptical but apply it anyway, "just in case"...
I cannot as such remember the test, but it strikes me as a poor choice of subject. In order to be valid the test would have to use cables that are generally rekoned to be genuinely directional and ensure that both cable quality and system quality is such that the difference would be actualy able to show up.
I find that using the "wrong" speaker cable can drastically reduces the audibility of other small changes, as does the "wrong" interconnect somewhere. Of course, most speakers are also bad enough.
Sayonara |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | My point is that maybe after extended listening - or maybe after a double blind test of |
If that would have happened I would have reported it. It didn't happen.
| quote: | | If there is no difference that you PERCEIVE, isn't it possible that you are being fooled ? |
It's always possible, it just hasn't happened yet. When there's is some doubt in my mind I usually rerun the test under the same conditions some time later on.
Sometimes it remains unclonclusive but that's rather rare.
| quote: | | How do you know you are right when you don't perceive a difference? Or you do? |
The same way you know you're right about other things, your perception is either confirmed by actual fact, other participants results or both.
That was the point I was trying to make: so far there's no one that actually could say to either of us: you guys are right or wrong.
| quote: | | Doesn't this make the test more fair-that you had wire manufactured in the same way? |
It is fair in that both candidates had the same material to test: one piece of the same wire.
It does limit the test to that piece of wire and nothing else however.
| quote: | | There seems to be wire which is non directional |
I repeat, no one made any claims that I know of that stated that ALL wire is per definition directional.
Saying that the DUT is in fact non-directional based on 2 candidates' listening test is merely jumping to conclusions IMO.
| quote: | | You "happen to know?" how has this been established? |
From experience over the past 10 to 15 years I think I could say that to me at least this is established well enough to give a good degree of confidence, yes.
Rigourous it is not but then it doesn't matter within the confines of this particular test anyway.
Neither did it influence my reported results, it was just a confirmation to me personally to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.:xeye:
| quote: | | What happened to the wire?- we could have a lot more people test it since it still exists. |
My part of it should still be here somewhere. We were told there was no need to send it back.
| quote: | | I don't have as much confidence in my abilities as you though. Perhaps others that are more confident would like to try it too. |
Rome wasn't built in one day, Mark....;) (Where's that humour meter?)
| quote: | | Myself, I wopuld love to hear some cable that you and your friends find to be directional so I could give it a try. |
Cable and wire are two different things....
Frankly, I don't care much about wire directionality....it disappears after the wire's been used (read: run in, read also: it has become really directional now?) and I'm not in the habit of unsoldering wires just to put them in back in backwards anyway....( Humour meter, please)
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
http://www.avrev.com/news/0904/13.tara.html
"Police raided the offices and warehouse of Ashland, Oregon-based high-end
audio cable company Tara Labs last week, according to news sources.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/091304taralabs/
"Long known through its advertising as the maker of "the cable that God
uses," TARA Labs was unable to invoke divine intervention to prevent law
enforcement officials from seizing more than $600,000 in inventory, along
with computers and company records in a day-long action." |
|
|
| Prune |
All I can say is,
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | [i]Originally posted by Arthur-itis [snip]TARA Labs was unable to invoke divine intervention to prevent law
enforcement officials from seizing more than $600,000 in inventory, along
with computers and company records in a day-long action." [/B] |
That's $600.000 in Recommended Resale Prices. I have it from hearsay that it actually is $166,87 in replacement value.:angel:
Jan Didden |
|
|
| analog_sa |
Humour meter, please
Frank, i hope you don't mind me borrowing... |
|
|
| Steve Eddy |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
Variac, my rôle in the wire fiasco was peripheral- the driving force was Steve Eddy. He is MUCH more fascinated by wire claims than I am. That's his second-biggest personality defect, the biggest being that he prefers not to work with tubes. |
Hey now! You can't go saying that anymore. You know I've got a pair of ECC86s here that I've been working with!
By the way, the other night I plucked the JFETs out of the follower circuit and dropped in the ECC86 as a direct replacement. So far everything seems to be working just fine.
se |
|
|
| john curl |
I feel sorry for the people at Tara Labs. Sounds like a 'whistle blower' action just to make trouble. You know, like your ex wife turning you into the IRS, Internal Revenue, or whatever they call it in your country. ;-) Many of you here apparently have little or no understanding of what it costs to run a small business. Even if Tara bought its cable at the lowest possible price, it would still have to be terminated and this takes time and money, unless it is done like the cheap, throwaway cables. I hope the best for them, as I doubt that they did very little wrong, and as they were kind enough to send me cables after the firestorm destroyed all of my possessions.
I still have their cables in my lab. They are well made and 'measure' well, but they have a problem of being too STIFF, and ripping out connectors on the back of my TV and other cheaply made equipment. In fact, that is what is keeping me from using them today. My CTC preamp is strong enough, but my sources, Sony SACD, Fisher tube FM, Nak cassette player, etc have connectors mounted too weak to be safe from being bent or ripped out by this rather stiff cable. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
I feel sorry for the people at Tara Labs. [snip] I hope the best for them, as I doubt that they did very little wrong, and as they were kind enough to send me cables after the firestorm destroyed all of my possessions. [snip] |
I'm with you John, I also doubt that they did very little wrong (sorry, the temptation was too great. Humor me please).
But you are right, it's easy to snicker about other people's misfortune. I shouldn't have. Sorry.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| SY |
| quote: | | But you are right, it's easy to snicker about other people's misfortune. I shouldn't have. Sorry. |
How do you say "Schadenfreude" in German? |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
Well, they shouldn't have said "Made in USA" if they are using cable from somewhere else.
The question is-were they merely repackaging cables from overseas?
Or were they taking cable material made elsewhere and doing something significant to it?
Also, the material can be custom made overseas, can't it? It doesn't necessarily mean that you can go to Asia and get the same thing TARA sells for a third of the price from the same company that makes it for TARA, does it? |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
You know, like your ex wife turning you into the IRS, Internal Revenue, or whatever they call it in your country. |
Speaking from experience, eh John? ;) :crackup: :fight: |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
How do you say "Schadenfreude" in German? |
This is the second forum tonight I saw someone use that word.
What does Schadenfreude mean, anyway? Is that like Sigmund Freud? |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
Schadenfreude means basically this:
A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.
Schadenfreude comes from the German, from Schaden, damage + Freude, joy
Knowing SY a little it wouldn't surprise me one iota if he also had Wittgenstein in mind....Among other things.
Cheers, ;) |
|
|
| Prune |
I like this quote: "the meaning of a word is its use in the language." Can it be? A philosopher actually makes some sense for a change... |
|
|
| janneman |
It's even worse. A word can mean a different thing in a different context even in the same language. Words have no intrinsic meaning, the meaning is created as soon as they are used.
Example of hypothetical conversation:
"I was thinking of giving John a kite for his birthday"
"He already has a kite, he will want you to take it back to the store"
Question: to which kite does it refer (assuming it does refer to a kite)? Try to catch that in formal grammar rules!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
You can catch it. But you need a context-sensitive grammar! (everyone remember their Chomsky hierarchy? :) )
Seriously though, words do not have a single meaning, but they do have meaning, otherwise there would be no way to communicate. It's just that this meaning heavily depends on context. But our brains are wired with the same fundamental grammatical algortithms regardless of language, as has been shown by studying people and languages. Though some languages couldn't seem more different, on closer look it turns out there are deep structural similarities.
The philosophical problem of how the meaning of words (and anyting else we think) relates to 'reality' is very simple to answer -- it is mapped to the world by the neural correlates of our thoughts about this thing. This also applies to other mental concepts, such as consciousness (that is why it makes sense for neuroscientists to study consciousness). Who knows, maybe even qualia will become things that can be studied, and pulled out of the realm of the purely subjective. |
|
|
| janneman |
I see we read the same books...
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| Well we had to learn about Chomsky in computer science, as formal grammars have corresponding automata that recognize them, and are the foundations behind the theoretical side of computer languages and algorithms. On a more genral note, I was amazed at the parallels between algorithms and heuristics used in computer science/AI, and those I learned about in cognitive psychology as proposed for how humans reason. This is doubly amazing when considering that in some of these cases the results were arrived at completely independently by each discipline. |
|
|
| janneman |
Well, I am not convinced that there actually is much of a parallel. Traditionally AI has been operating on the premise, conciously or not, that human reasoning mimics the way computers 'reason' (or vice versa). Current resarch however suggest that this is not true, and that there is a fundamental difference between computer 'reasoning' and human reasoning.
For one thing, computer reasoning is in the last analysis deterministic and depends on the program. Even the latest chess programs, which look a lot like humans and 'seem' to create solutions that the programmers have not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of the program.
It becomes more and more clear that humans are fundamentally different, and that there is no general program according to which humans reason. Human brains develop along the lines of classical evolution, i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. It can be argued that the 'program' of the brain is contained in its interconnected neurons and areas (neuronal groups), and these develop dynamically during the human development. What works in a certain situation is kept, what doesn't work evolves into something else.
Apparently, there are many different ways to interconnect the brain areas on the way to a functioning and mature human being. Although most humans show a certain behaviour that is not widely different from individual to individual, no two brains are physically the same. So it looks like the 'program' of the brain is not predefined and develops and evolves depending on the need of the situation, both short term and long term.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | Traditionally AI has been operating on the premise, conciously or not, that human reasoning mimics the way computers 'reason' (or vice versa). |
This traditionallity means 40s-60s, not 90s and onwards.
| quote: | | Current resarch however suggest that this is not true, and that there is a fundamental difference between computer 'reasoning' and human reasoning. |
Yes, if you compare human reasoning to M$ Word or a classical algorithm chess program (essentially mini-max with alpha-beta pruning, or some related derivative). Human reasoning is perfectly understandable when you realize that humans are boundedly rational, which means having to take into consideration time and mental resources available, and make the use of heuristics which enormously speed up processes but have a chance of failure (ineed this is all too common in today's world, as these were evolved for optimality in a tribal foraging society). Though bounded rationality is a concept from economics back in the, I think 60s or something, only recently has it begun to be considered in AI.
| quote: | | For one thing, computer reasoning is in the last analysis deterministic and depends on the program. |
While computers are structured very differently from brains, and implemented on totally different substrates, physics and information theory are the fundamental limits of both.
As I said before, your brain is implemented by the same physical laws implementing a computer. To claim otherwise is to invoke divinity and the paranormal. Any finite physical system can be mapped to a formal automaton (either with or without indeterminism), and thus the theorietical limits of computational power are the same.
Stochastic algorithms use randomness; this quickly growing field of study is described here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...5858097-6864000
A sufficiently good pseudorandom (i.e. really deterministic) number generator has never been shown to fail as a substitute for a true random nubmer generator (such as a sensor monitoring Johnson noise in a resistor). Indeed, theoretically computational power is not changed either way. I've asked several professors here (only some of them in computer science), whether they think that replacing quantum randomness in the brain with a pseudorandom deterministic generator actually changes anything. The answer matches that given by Penrose -- no (that's why Penrose thought there must be something more -- specifically, non-computational theory more fundamental than quantum theory -- very very few physicists agreed).
| quote: | | Even the latest chess programs, which look a lot like humans and 'seem' to create solutions that the programmers have not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of the program. |
Even the latest humans, which look a lot like the previous versions and 'seem' to create solutions that evolution has not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of their biology and sociology.
| quote: | | It becomes more and more clear that humans are fundamentally different, and that there is no general program according to which humans reason. |
Sure there is. The program is non-deterministic, sure, but it is still computational -- it is the program we call the laws of physics, with initial conditions the data on which it runs. Non-determinism can be added to computers by replacing pseudorandom number generators with ones that are truly random by monitoring the product of quantum events (say a resistor's Johnson noise). But in formal logic that does not increase computational power. There are proofs that both FSA and Turing Machine-equivalent automata have identical power whether they are non-deterministic or not.
Your post continues arguing on the wrong level of abstraction and is thus supplanted by the lower one. I've said this a million times, and I'll say it again: sociology reduces to psychology reduces to neurology reduces to biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics. Very few biologists would argue that biology does not reduce to chemistry, and the same goes for the other components. It's just that some people seem not to like the big jump from one extreme to the other. That is what I call closed mindedness. |
|
|
| janneman |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prune
[snip]Human reasoning is perfectly understandable when you realize that humans are [b]boundedly rational, which means having to take into consideration time and mental resources available, and make the use of heuristics which enormously speed up processes but have a chance of failure (ineed this is all too common in today's world, as these were evolved for optimality in a tribal foraging society). [snip]
Indeed, I fully agree, in the sense that the laws of physics apply to this universe, including human reasoning. What I was driving at is that the process of reasoning has long been thought to be somewhat analogous to a computer or indeed a Turing Machine. That now appears to be much more dynamic and can evolve and change as a result of external pressures. It's like a TM that changes it's rules midway, to get faster to results. It still would be bound by the physical etc laws, would still be understandable in terms of its (logical) processes, but unless the midway change was predictable (and I pose that it wasn't), we cannot predict the way it eventually gets to it's results.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prune
[B][snip]
While computers are structured very differently from brains, and implemented on totally different substrates, physics and information theory are the fundamental limits of both.
Agreed, but that was not my point.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prune
[B][snip]
Even the latest humans, which look a lot like the previous versions and 'seem' to create solutions that evolution has not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of their biology and sociology.
Yes
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prune
[B][snip]
Sure there is. The program is non-deterministic, sure, but it is still computational -- it is the program we call the laws of physics, with initial conditions the data on which it runs. Non-determinism can be added to computers by replacing pseudorandom number generators with ones that are truly random by monitoring the product of quantum events (say a resistor's Johnson noise). But in formal logic that does not increase computational power. There are proofs that both FSA and Turing Machine-equivalent automata have identical power whether they are non-deterministic or not.
Again, agree, this was not my point, which I clearly made poorly. I think the issue here is predicability, on two levels.
Firstly, the reasoning of humans can not be predicted, as it changes dynamically and has indeed stochastic elements in it. On the second level I think the question is, can we built stochastic and/or ramdom 'processors' that can be expected to - roughly - process information and come to the same or similar results as a human would, in everyday life. In other words an automatum that cannot be distinguish from a human being in everyday life, not just chess or calculation.
Is that the right way to pose the question?
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | What I was driving at is that the process of reasoning has long been thought to be somewhat analogous to a computer or indeed a Turing Machine. |
At a high level, it is not. But the idea of a TM is not a high level thing either, but a mathematical abstraction.
| quote: | | That now appears to be much more dynamic and can evolve and change as a result of external pressures. |
Formally, recently it was shown that looking at a body interacting with its surroundings as it performs information processing, it can indeed not be encapsulated by a TM even if when isolated from the environment it can. However:
1) This is because you are not taking into account the environment. The whole interacting system (again, you don't need to take the whole universe, just use light cones to bound it, and indeed any real systems are even much more practically bound in that respect) comprising of that body(ies) and environment, is still mappable to an automaton.
2) Any device can be | | | |
