I got Vol. 3 Friday and it's amazing how varied the opinions are even among the "white hats". Dick Marsh even said something that made me cringe, more later (as John says).
Nope. Try again.John, it has nothing to do with causations. It all is about correlation, nothing more, Just results of experiments that have no explanation. You reaction speaks against your statement about scientists: you are trying already to argue prior to reading conditions of the problem.
It certainly appears that way. He clearly wishes reasonable criticisms of sloppy work begone, not to exist.
What did you expect? Specific criticisms are not unconditional acceptance.
You've still not made your case.Nothing got me mad, Stuart. It got me arguments that scientists are biased people, stubborn believers.
See how you are biased?
I repeated many times that I don't mean any theories, I ignore Radin's musings, but draw attention to experiments and results of plain andd dumb statistical analysis, but you are like always wearing earplugs continue arguing against some kind of post-hoc cherry-picked weak tea.
You even refuse to understand conditions of the problem!
It is possible to formulate any theoretical construct one wishes, run a statistical analysis on any dataset to support such a construct, and publish on the web a really good page explaining the phenomena such that many gullible people will believe it. Nature of the human beast.
A good scientist will examine the statements, look at the construct, then examine closely the statistical analysis. A good scientist will usually spot when the analysis was designed to support a foregone conclusion.
Agreed.
Note that we are not explaining "inconvienient evidence", but rather,You see? You always have an explanation that is very convenient, for inconvenient evidences.
falsification of statistics via statistical evidence cherry picking, and implied causation.
Religion plays no role in my thinking on this subject. Is there any possibility that you can discuss intelligently the topic without resorting to attacking? You have called me a liar, you've called scientists as a whole arrogant, now you are claiming I am a "religious believer". \
Try actual discussion, that would be better. Not attacking in liu of.
That is a significant problem nowadays as a result of the web. To me, the biggest problem is people are losing the ability to be able to discern fact from fiction in google searches.
Your use of the term ABX mafia is unwarranted. Please discuss facts.
One such fact: I happen to agree that existing test methodology is insufficient for the task.
Total agreement.
Cheers, j
elaboration.
Cases in point:
1. Publication of a cell phone causes brain cancer link. It was "proven" statistically that cell phones cause brain cancer because more cancers happen on the side of the brain closest to the ear people use for calls. Since the researchers "accidentally forgot" to include the actual statistical data in their published account, mass hysteria in the general population resulted. Turns out the sample size was 99 cases of brain cancer, and 50 were on the side of the head the user preferred to use, 49 were on the other side. That concern still rages on..
2. Childhood lukemia (IIRC) was linked to powerlines statistically, as there was an increased level of occurance wherever a school was near power transmission lines. Turned out, many powerlines were located based on a decision to give the right of way because the land was contaminated. Yet the decision to put the schools nearby missed that "datapoint". And still, some point to the link between e/m fields and cancer..
3. Immunization and autism...
4. Aluminum and alzheimers..
The list goes on.
It is very important to understand the underlying data, experimental design, methodology, data analysis techniques... Without that care, you see what transpires..when a good scientist reads about an experiment, they will also consider how it was done. It must be of a level sufficient to satisfy the scientific method. Otherwise, questions MUST be asked.
Calling any group of humans closed minded, arrogant, liars, conspirators as an argument "technique" in liu of reasonable discourse.. will be taken to task..
j
Cases in point:
1. Publication of a cell phone causes brain cancer link. It was "proven" statistically that cell phones cause brain cancer because more cancers happen on the side of the brain closest to the ear people use for calls. Since the researchers "accidentally forgot" to include the actual statistical data in their published account, mass hysteria in the general population resulted. Turns out the sample size was 99 cases of brain cancer, and 50 were on the side of the head the user preferred to use, 49 were on the other side. That concern still rages on..
2. Childhood lukemia (IIRC) was linked to powerlines statistically, as there was an increased level of occurance wherever a school was near power transmission lines. Turned out, many powerlines were located based on a decision to give the right of way because the land was contaminated. Yet the decision to put the schools nearby missed that "datapoint". And still, some point to the link between e/m fields and cancer..
3. Immunization and autism...
4. Aluminum and alzheimers..
The list goes on.
It is very important to understand the underlying data, experimental design, methodology, data analysis techniques... Without that care, you see what transpires..when a good scientist reads about an experiment, they will also consider how it was done. It must be of a level sufficient to satisfy the scientific method. Otherwise, questions MUST be asked.
Calling any group of humans closed minded, arrogant, liars, conspirators as an argument "technique" in liu of reasonable discourse.. will be taken to task..
j
Last edited:
SY,
Let's talk about the limits of ABX testing. As you are aware there have been many faulty experiments where there was a factor that the experimenters were unaware of that affected the results. It was only when such factors come to light that the issue is clarified.
The classic audio example was when it was shown that people liked low bandwidth music better than full range. Harry Olson constructed an acoustical filter version using a live band and demonstrated that the other seriously done experiments were in error. They had not understood the distortion products in their experiment.
That is why it should be well understood you can not disprove negative results. So even though we may find humor in DB pseudo-science papers, the possibility always exists that something real may be there. As time is finite (at least as most of us are concerned) we may wish to restrain our activities to something more productive. However expecting others to behave the same is quite possibly irrational!
Jan,
One of the adages of the advertising business is that mass production requires mass markets and to get that requires mass advertising. Advertising is used to not just announce products but to influence perception. Now if you read the Phlogiston wiki entry you can see how what was accepted fact is today's nonsense.
Being human involves imperfect senses and logic, so being fooled or making mistakes is just part of existence. When commonly accepted facts and opinions are presented as the same it becomes more difficult to distinguish them. Does the Earth really revolve around the Sun? Or is it not a true circle but a modified exponential yielding to Fourier analysis?
Scott,
White Hats? What a confession of bias!
Now when we listen to stuff here, we usually use an AB switch and some things everyone can hear, so we generally accept it as good data. The there are things some of use hear and Dave didn't. (So Dave now works for someone else doing speaker on stick gigs.) So Dave was not convinced about such data, but those of us who thught it was clear would base design decisions on that data.
Then there are those things that you kind of think you hear, but aren't really sure. If it costs nothing to add that to a design it will go in. If there is expense involved it may not.
Now then there are cases where there are clear measurements showing something is going on, but is at the maybe I hear something level. One of the limits to the testing is the actual switching mechanism. So for those cases we implement the change to a system and listen to it for a long while. The change is then removed unannounced. If anyone notes that things have changed then that counts around here as a positive result.
Now we do measurements all the time. We also do ones that other folks don't do. Those are of course the ones I think are important and we really don't tell anyone else what they are. But other folks can tune a stadium in a day or two and it takes my crew two weeks. Now the result is that In the first year of operation (Meaning we still maintain it under warranty) complaints are below .08% for out worst results.
Now we would not be doing what we do if it were not for our listening experiments and the experience of others who I trust, no matter what their method of investigation is (or was.)
ES
Let's talk about the limits of ABX testing. As you are aware there have been many faulty experiments where there was a factor that the experimenters were unaware of that affected the results. It was only when such factors come to light that the issue is clarified.
The classic audio example was when it was shown that people liked low bandwidth music better than full range. Harry Olson constructed an acoustical filter version using a live band and demonstrated that the other seriously done experiments were in error. They had not understood the distortion products in their experiment.
That is why it should be well understood you can not disprove negative results. So even though we may find humor in DB pseudo-science papers, the possibility always exists that something real may be there. As time is finite (at least as most of us are concerned) we may wish to restrain our activities to something more productive. However expecting others to behave the same is quite possibly irrational!
Jan,
One of the adages of the advertising business is that mass production requires mass markets and to get that requires mass advertising. Advertising is used to not just announce products but to influence perception. Now if you read the Phlogiston wiki entry you can see how what was accepted fact is today's nonsense.
Being human involves imperfect senses and logic, so being fooled or making mistakes is just part of existence. When commonly accepted facts and opinions are presented as the same it becomes more difficult to distinguish them. Does the Earth really revolve around the Sun? Or is it not a true circle but a modified exponential yielding to Fourier analysis?
Scott,
White Hats? What a confession of bias!
Now when we listen to stuff here, we usually use an AB switch and some things everyone can hear, so we generally accept it as good data. The there are things some of use hear and Dave didn't. (So Dave now works for someone else doing speaker on stick gigs.) So Dave was not convinced about such data, but those of us who thught it was clear would base design decisions on that data.
Then there are those things that you kind of think you hear, but aren't really sure. If it costs nothing to add that to a design it will go in. If there is expense involved it may not.
Now then there are cases where there are clear measurements showing something is going on, but is at the maybe I hear something level. One of the limits to the testing is the actual switching mechanism. So for those cases we implement the change to a system and listen to it for a long while. The change is then removed unannounced. If anyone notes that things have changed then that counts around here as a positive result.
Now we do measurements all the time. We also do ones that other folks don't do. Those are of course the ones I think are important and we really don't tell anyone else what they are. But other folks can tune a stadium in a day or two and it takes my crew two weeks. Now the result is that In the first year of operation (Meaning we still maintain it under warranty) complaints are below .08% for out worst results.
Now we would not be doing what we do if it were not for our listening experiments and the experience of others who I trust, no matter what their method of investigation is (or was.)
ES
Psychoacoustics
Well said! These aural processing factors (along with the visual ones which are simultaneously processed and perhaps MORE distracting), are more significant in terms of final aural experience IMHO than many design factors we have discussed. Fine post, imminent! My own thoughts about these factors center around stabilizing the listening environment so as to minimize them, but as you point out, this can never be achieved with 100% repeatability...because an AB test is never really an AB! It is an A(at time a) B(at time b) test. Life is a spiral; not a circle.
Still, I think we should agree that these circuit and system design factors HAVE an effect that can be cumulative. If they are minimized, then when the experience allows (given your well stated criteria) the experience is that much better!
Great discussion!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
1st on the internet
now with new improved flavor crystals
Well said! These aural processing factors (along with the visual ones which are simultaneously processed and perhaps MORE distracting), are more significant in terms of final aural experience IMHO than many design factors we have discussed. Fine post, imminent! My own thoughts about these factors center around stabilizing the listening environment so as to minimize them, but as you point out, this can never be achieved with 100% repeatability...because an AB test is never really an AB! It is an A(at time a) B(at time b) test. Life is a spiral; not a circle.
Still, I think we should agree that these circuit and system design factors HAVE an effect that can be cumulative. If they are minimized, then when the experience allows (given your well stated criteria) the experience is that much better!
Great discussion!
Howie
Howard Hoyt
CE - WXYC-FM 89.3
UNC Chapel Hill, NC
www.wxyc.org
1st on the internet
now with new improved flavor crystals
Just wait till your ladida titanium-ceramic coated pans turn non-tick.
So, what's the problem? Do you have anything regarding particular case except empty statements about how good are good scientists, and how bad are audiophiles? Why you instead of examining statement, looking at the construct, continue attacking messengers using empty common phrases?
I don't need another reason not to cook on aluminum.
The link between aluminum and alzheimers ended up being "re-considered" then abandoned when it was discovered that someone did some heavy ductwork modification/repair at the lab where the initial work was performed. Turned out someone was grinding aluminum, and it routed through the HVAC ductwork and contaminated the alzheimers samples.
Needless to say, I now have to blame some other vector...
j
Hi Ed,
I just want to point out that even with perfect senses and perfect logic we would still have the perception issues we have today.
jan
The link between aluminum and alzheimers ended up being "re-considered" then abandoned when it was discovered that someone did some heavy ductwork modification/repair at the lab where the initial work was performed. Turned out someone was grinding aluminum, and it routed through the HVAC ductwork and contaminated the alzheimers samples.
Needless to say, I now have to blame some other vector...
j
I am in the city that had the largest aluminum manufacturing and research facility around. Original work into superconductors was being done in this facility. IIRC, 3000 research personal at the peak, all on and about aluminum research (Alcan research).
Point being, that Alzheimers levels are....highest in this area.... and highest among the retired factory floor workers.
Again, if you wish to discuss, please do so instead of this continued attack.
I have not attacked you. I pointed out that the flagrant dismissal of a subset of humans as arrogant because they are scientists will not be tolerated. Please leave the conspiracy thinking somewhere else.
Now, another lie of yours...please point out where I stated audiophiles are bad.
j
Sure. And no matter how do we call ourselves, either scientists or audiophiles, any data that challenges our beliefs would cause reactions as if the life had been threatened.
Referring to the data that chalenges beliefs indeed may be perceived as an attack. My point was to show you your own reactions to demonstrat that if somebody is scientist it does not mean that he/she is free from such reactions, and the fact that somebody is scientist can not be used as proof that he/she is right speakng about perception of sounds.
the vendetta was always desirable, right from the beginning. word got out, quick.
the way it went is that people shared the point of it being 'spectacular', as if the information was valuable, like people jostling for a chance to get into a line up. People were almost reluctant to share the information on how good it was, to be sure that they might have a chance at getting one, some day.
This is the sort of thing that happens around the best products. specifically among the crowd that goes for a no-nonsense correctness in the sonic presentation, over that of any 'immature' glossiness or 'shine' to the sonic presentation. The subset of audiophiles who go for naturalness in sound is much smaller in numbers than the glitz crowd, the glitz crowd being of a neophyte nature, in most cases. The audiophiles that went for the vendetta were of a nature that was fanatical about music over that of equipment, which is a key difference over that of the neophyte, who were possibly musically inclined .....but still oriented around the equipment.
Only if one is lucky (as a producer of said gear), does a music oriented piece of consumer equipment actually make it to superstar status in sales figures. This usually happens due to the thing gaining reputation and then the neophytes getting a hold of it, psychologically (idealization), as a 'covetous' item and thus driving up the sales and the pricing.
Sometimes this helps them become true music fanatics, but, usually... they simply flip (audiogon and ebay gear flippers) it after a few months, and move back into mediocrity.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.