Boyk wrote the paper about higher harmonics of music instruments:
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
(James Boyk. There is life above 20 kHz)
but he and Sussman coauthored a paper about small signal distortion in feedback amplifiers:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf
Wasn´t it Groucho?
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
(James Boyk. There is life above 20 kHz)
but he and Sussman coauthored a paper about small signal distortion in feedback amplifiers:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf
Wasn´t it Groucho?
Last edited:
When I'm ask at Tesco whether I have a club card I say they wouldn't have me, no one has ever responded
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/groucho_marx_122546Woody probably nicked it
Belief is shown by the willingness of some to call for verification of reported listening experiences using this tool. This shows the belief that the tool will "expose the truth" & is superior listening to the reported listening impressions - we all know that is how it is used by many here.
We all know that it is stated (& has been done by DF96 just recently) that 100s of null results from Foobar ABX show that something cannot be audibly differentiated then (it leads? one) many jump to the conclusion that there is no audible difference. Yes' there's a well worn set of arguments built up over time to try to defend this - such as it's a tool, a null test does not mean something is inaudible, etc, yet the "belief" in it as other than a simple bit-o-fun is demonstrated very often
If you wish to now deny this, then have at it.
Last edited:
Why does it seem so appropriate that today's Oxford English Dictionary word of the day is "pataphysics"?
The likelihood that a certain member established an audio company on his convictions is very high. Which means now he has both his ego and his pocketbook on the line. Keep this in mind with your interactions with him, Pavel's and Scott's most recent comments hit the nail squarely on the head.
Yes Jerry was a friend and we discussed his agreement with James that led to them working together, but they did agree. Unfortunately when I went to visit James at Cal Tech he had recently had his unique position terminated and was not up for a meeting. Unfortunately I guess they did not go forward with anymore research.
Why does it seem so appropriate that today's Oxford English Dictionary word of the day is "pataphysics"?
The likelihood that a certain member established an audio company on his convictions is very high. Which means now he has both his ego and his pocketbook on the line. Keep this in mind with your interactions with him, Pavel's and Scott's most recent comments hit the nail squarely on the head.
Why not expend your time doing some research into auditory perception to dispute anything I or Jakob2 post about rather than spend your time in the guesswork & mistaken psychoanalysis you are attempting?
It would be refreshingly different & a learning experience
Why does it seem so appropriate that today's Oxford English Dictionary word of the day is "pataphysics"?
The likelihood that a certain member established an audio company on his convictions is very high. Which means now he has both his ego and his pocketbook on the line. Keep this in mind with your interactions with him, Pavel's and Scott's most recent comments hit the nail squarely on the head.
Thanks... Yeah, I should know better than to respond. The reply was typically twisted... I need a drink!
(it's dark, raining and 5pm here...)
Found it, I think: http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~boyk/spectra/spectra.htm
Wealth of additional articles on his website:
http://performancerecordings.com/writings.html
This one seems particularly entertaining:
http://performancerecordings.com/perfectly.html
On Groucho's tv show he interviewed a fellow who used to write jokes for the 3 stooges. The fellow related one joke he wrote. "What happens you cut off a fellows ear? He don't hear so good. What happens if you cut off both? He don't see so good! His hat falls down over his eyes." Groucho then dismissed him a bit by informing him he was using that joke in the 50's. The reply was "Yes I wrote in for the stooges in 1946!"
Beat me to it.
Yes.
Woody Allen quoted Groucho without attribution in Annie Hall I believe, hence the confusion.
My take on hearing is that folks can often tell when a 30,000 hertz tone is turned off. Also that some folks clearly show high frequency roll off as is normal but may still perceive the presence of clean tones above that. But they do not sound like the lower frequency sine waves. Easy test with headphones and an oscillator. You can even use one side as a loudspeaker and the other as a microphone to be sure your tones are clean.
Actually not, as "checking the properties of a detectors" means to check the detectors against known differences under clearly defined condition with established routines.
What you´ve mentioned above is something completely different; using the detectors against unknown differences in undefined conditions with procedures that are known to be associated with high risks of having an impact on the detectors.
So far you promoted a method, where Jane Doe listens to effect X under conditions Z and John Doe listens to effect Y under conditions W and if both report a negative result then to conclude that the effects X and Y are not perceptible; without knowing anything about the internal validity or reliability of the test procedure.
Further you seem to argue that hundreds of these tests done by dozens/hundreds? of "detectors with unkown abilities" will nevertheless find "scientific gold" so that it is justified to rule out the perceptibility for _all_ these effects.
It doesn´t work that way;please remember that tests/experiments have to be objective, reliable and valid to justify drawing further conclusions from any result.
Up to now nobody showed that the "hundreds of tests" were objective, no one showed that the "hundreds of tests" were reliable and no one showed that the "hundreds of tests" were valid.
And at that point we were only talking about the internal validity leaving external validity aside.
If there is an argument i´d love to hear it, talking about "red herrings" does not help.
The "gorilla in our midst" example just illustrates that our perception is context dependent and that any kind of distraction will have an impact (a fact simply known for ages in sensory testing).
Even something quite obvious can remain undetected if the level of distraction is sufficiently large.
Sure the same holds true if people try to neglect established knowledge about the perception in genereal and about the pitfalls of sensory testing in detail.
Which misses the point and evades the question; in your case hundreds of listeners were just randomly guessing (allegedly) but not even a single one reaches a significant result.
The string example is quite outlandish as the difference isn´t known as comparable large and the people don´t say which is what, but someone else decides due to a statistical analysis if it could be that....
Perhaps, yes .....
- Status
- Not open for further replies.