I suspect that someone involved may know how to properly set up an experiment, but that wasn't the goal. IOW, they know better.
There's a huge problem with properly set up experiments - they tend to start acting like they are part of Science, and thus they can vastly reduce the possibility of obtaining the results that you desire.
Priming
There is an interesting book about ********, priming, and easy-to-believe fallacies.
"You Are Not So Smart", by David McRaney.
It's a very good read, and has a terrific website (including podcasts)
Try this one, to see if you agree (or do not).
YANSS 066 – How to become better at smelling and avoiding the many varieties of ******** (skip to 15:00 or so, if listening to the podcast)
******* = male bovine dung
There is an interesting book about ********, priming, and easy-to-believe fallacies.
"You Are Not So Smart", by David McRaney.
It's a very good read, and has a terrific website (including podcasts)
Try this one, to see if you agree (or do not).
YANSS 066 – How to become better at smelling and avoiding the many varieties of ******** (skip to 15:00 or so, if listening to the podcast)
******* = male bovine dung
Last edited:
Ironically, that may be evidence of being 100% placebo effect.
As many of us know, actual audible differences between good audio gear can be difficult to detect, or of course sometimes impossible.
Thanks for those links.
There was a student.....who bull dung'd his way through a Harvard test on a subject he was not familiar with, and received an A-, leading to this story.....
https://www.metabunk.org/cow-and-bull-relevancy-and-data.t6128/#post-151005
Several had recommended it, so I loaded it onto my Kindle last night and started reading it this morning. I'm about 15% through, and of course I totally agree with those who recommend it.
Interestingly enough the book itself explains why many on this forum won't touch the book, not even on a bet. It contains information that will not confirm their biases that they are uber menschen who are accurate and objective in all that they do.
If you apply some of the information in the book, likely you will see the phrase "trust your ears" as being the pathetic falsehood that it is. It's a great sales pitch, though.
IME totally believable. There is definitely something called Testmanship. Many of the tests one takes can be gamed.
One of my engineering profs at the University made tests where if you could answer one certain question correctly, you could figure out the correct answers to the whole rest of the test from that one answer. I pointed this out to him one day, and he said it was 100% intentional. Several times he threw me out of class when the day's topic was a review of a test, even if I was quiet and just sat there. I basically aced the whole semester.
A correct link is more like:
You Can?t Demagnetize Vinyl But You Can Demagnetize a Record: The Furutech (alpha) and the Stein Music DE3 Record Demagnetizers | Analog Planet
(tested)
The relevant quote would appear to be:
"Yes, but where’s the scientific “proof”. I hear you. Enter audio skeptic and ABX blind testing adherent Arny Krueger (you can read and listen to here an “objectivist”/”observationalist” debate between Krueger and Stereophile editor in chief John Atkinson) and his hydrogenaudio.org minions who mocked my and Ken’s observations and basically demanded measured proof!
If one looks at the actual HA conversation, one may find a different story:
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,71737.0.html
The actual HA discussion conclusion was:
"Bingo. I'm confident that with the right source material any two consecutive plays of an LP, if removed from the platter and then randomly replaced back down on the platter, will be audibly distinguishable in rapid fire, needle drop [digitized recordings] ABX comparisons.
"
Which is just a little different from the story that Fremer published, above.
Everybody who is surprized... ;-)
I seem to recall Fremer says that this effect measured out to be in the nano-gauss range.
Given how tiny and incidental a 1 gauss magnetic field actually is, this is a indirect way of saying "almost nothing at all".
Assumed this nanogauss would exist, how could it have an influence and were would this influence be injected? 😀
How to fill your wallet with the ramblings of a confused mind.
(hope you don't mind I gave up after page 45)
Bullsh*t about bullsh*t about bullsh*t.
Watching that guy on YouTube gave me an instant headache, I gave up after about 45 seconds.
Dan.
You are a factor of a thousand out. It's the article which I DID post the correct link to.
Given that the measurement was done on the surface of the earth where the residual magnetism is 0.25 to 0.65 gauss, reliable nanogauss measurements appear to tax the imagination. Nano means 10e-9, (-176 dB below ambient magnetism) which seems like hearing a whisper in a hurricane would be outlandishly easy.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.