fdegrove said:
I was planning to use the 26 gauge magnet wire that Vampire sells. I don't believe they claim it's directional. Does it matter what the manufacturer claims?
The reason I was thinking of using that wire is because you said that the minimal crystal wire was the most directional. And since this uses the Ohno Continuous Casting process, it's minimal crystal.
se
Frank, Eric,
I do understand you find the scale of test Steve suggests a
burden. However, to get a reasonably valid results, this will
be necessary. Unfortunately, the hard work must be done
by the Guinea pigs in this case. I do'nt tihink we have to keep
it withing any tight time frame, though. Except for us others
getting impaticent and curios, a long testing time should not
invalidate the results, except possibly in the sense that the
cables will get undirected after a while, if Frank is right.
Scientific research is tedious and contains many boring
stretches of time, between the fun parts. For instance, it
is not very fun spending a few months trying to prove a
mathematical theorem, finally getting stuck and suspecting
the theorem might not be true after all. On the other hand,
suspecting something to be true, and trying to prove it once
in a while over five years time withoug success, it is very
satisfying when you suddenly find a way to prove it.
I do understand you find the scale of test Steve suggests a
burden. However, to get a reasonably valid results, this will
be necessary. Unfortunately, the hard work must be done
by the Guinea pigs in this case. I do'nt tihink we have to keep
it withing any tight time frame, though. Except for us others
getting impaticent and curios, a long testing time should not
invalidate the results, except possibly in the sense that the
cables will get undirected after a while, if Frank is right.
Scientific research is tedious and contains many boring
stretches of time, between the fun parts. For instance, it
is not very fun spending a few months trying to prove a
mathematical theorem, finally getting stuck and suspecting
the theorem might not be true after all. On the other hand,
suspecting something to be true, and trying to prove it once
in a while over five years time withoug success, it is very
satisfying when you suddenly find a way to prove it.
Steve Eddy said:
What about Frank and Eric suggsting a few brands they "know"
they can hear the directionality of?
Christer said:
Sure. Just be aware that there can be NO visible means of determining direction. So it would have to be something with no markings on it nor any sort of insulation which might be able to give clues as to direction.
se
Wow, thats so illegal. The words Physician and "handing out" in the same sentence. It must be different over the pond.
fdegrove said:
Ummm, is your point that the power of suggestion is strong enough to cure disease, and therefore easily strong enough to make you hear differences that aren't really there? If not, then no, I don't see your point.
Hi,
No, hope goes along way though and it can cure patients.
The point is that giving the patient any more of the same medicin could have killed him...
I hope for your own sake you don't take any pride in such remarks?
Cheers,😉
No, hope goes along way though and it can cure patients.
The point is that giving the patient any more of the same medicin could have killed him...
I hope for your own sake you don't take any pride in such remarks?
Cheers,😉
fdegrove said:
Pride? No, not at all, I was being completely serious. Thanks for your concern, though. I didn't get your point, and I think I still don't, but maybe my brain isn't functioning properly. There's not much oxygen in the air here these days.
For parts costs and postage costs just send the cables I reckon - if I use connectors that I am familiar with I am removing one variable.
20 pairs is ok by me, but less would be easier for all to establish initial results, and then maybe go to 20 pairs.
No time now, back tonight,
Eric.
Steve, are these the cables that you use in your system ?.
20 pairs is ok by me, but less would be easier for all to establish initial results, and then maybe go to 20 pairs.
No time now, back tonight,
Eric.
Steve, are these the cables that you use in your system ?.
mrfeedback said:
If you don't mind doing 20 pairs, I'd just as soon do up 20 pairs. If I'll be sending you unterminated cables, cost won't be much. The Vampire wire I'm thinking of is only about 10 cents per foot. So if I make up 20 pairs each about 3 feet long, we're looking at less than $50.
No. I still haven't got 'round to trying the 26 gauge Vampire. I'm still using 30 gauge from MWS Wire. But I'm using the same quad braid that I plan to use with the Vampire.
se
Attachments
Hi Steve,
I guess I'm just thinking on a tangent..... I was thinking along the lines of:
The guys are going to be testing for directionallity, if they beleive that there are going to be at least some reversed wires then they will have a certain expectation of detecting these wires. If they don't detect any they may feel this is wrong, and do a second test then realising they missed it first time (possibly psycological effects)..... By putting in a control set it mixes things up a bit, even if you don't do one, if they beleive there may be one, then every set has the potential to not have any reversed pairs, I suggested it mainly from the psycological point of view.
I know Eric feels he is immune to this effect, so he should be able to easily identify if none of the wires are reversed.
It's just a suggestion, if you don't see any merit in it that's fine, I don't have any barrow to push 🙂
I guess the other thing is: are you going to at least provide one pair which is clearly labled as not being reversed? so they have something to compare the other cables to, otherwise they may be able to tell the difference, but not know which one is reversed and which one isn't.
Regards,
Tony.
I guess I'm just thinking on a tangent..... I was thinking along the lines of:
The guys are going to be testing for directionallity, if they beleive that there are going to be at least some reversed wires then they will have a certain expectation of detecting these wires. If they don't detect any they may feel this is wrong, and do a second test then realising they missed it first time (possibly psycological effects)..... By putting in a control set it mixes things up a bit, even if you don't do one, if they beleive there may be one, then every set has the potential to not have any reversed pairs, I suggested it mainly from the psycological point of view.
I know Eric feels he is immune to this effect, so he should be able to easily identify if none of the wires are reversed.
It's just a suggestion, if you don't see any merit in it that's fine, I don't have any barrow to push 🙂
I guess the other thing is: are you going to at least provide one pair which is clearly labled as not being reversed? so they have something to compare the other cables to, otherwise they may be able to tell the difference, but not know which one is reversed and which one isn't.
Regards,
Tony.
wintermute said:
Hmmmm. Ok, but I still don't quite see just how the control set works into this. You mean send them a set where there are no reversed pairs and see if they perceive the same thing as if there were?
That would be the assumption, yes.
Well I can't quite say whether it has merit as I'm still not sure I understand just what function you think the control set would serve.
I'll be sending them one set each which will be of the same direction with each end marked appropriately so they can try them out and see if they're able to perceive a difference when one is reversed so that before I go making up 20 pairs we'll be sure they're confident that the wires are producing the effect in question.
The initial pair won't necessarily be used for reference (though I don't see why they couldn't be) because they don't have to determine WHICH of the two cables making up a pair is reversed, only whether the pair is made up in the same direction or the opposite direction.
Eric says the effect is most pronounced when the left and right channels are wired up with the two interconnects in oppoiste directions. That when one is wired opposite the other it produces an "image shift."
So all he has to do is try each pair and see whether he gets the image shift or not. If he gets the image shift, that would indicate that the pair is wired opposite. If he doesn't get the image shift, that would indicate that the pair is wired the same.
He then only has to answer "same" or "opposite" for each pair he evalutes.
By the way, since each pair will randomly be determined whether it's the same or opposite, there's a finite probability that all of the pairs could end up being all the same or all opposite.
se
I don't see the need for any control set either. As I said earlier,
it is in the interest of both Eric and Frank to pass the test. They
think they can hear directionality, so they will do their best to
detect differences between the cables. This means, they cannot
really cheat. On the other hand, if we were to throw in also
some people who claim it is not possible to hear this, or just
some arbitrary listeners, that would be a problem. These
listerners could, probably due to psychological bias, have an
interest in failing the test. It is no problem at all to fake a
negative result in this type of test.
it is in the interest of both Eric and Frank to pass the test. They
think they can hear directionality, so they will do their best to
detect differences between the cables. This means, they cannot
really cheat. On the other hand, if we were to throw in also
some people who claim it is not possible to hear this, or just
some arbitrary listeners, that would be a problem. These
listerners could, probably due to psychological bias, have an
interest in failing the test. It is no problem at all to fake a
negative result in this type of test.
Christer said:
Yes. And why I want to give them the best possible chance to hear those differences if any.
Well, provided myself and whomever else is involved with the test cables do their job and make sure nothing goes out with anything which might allow determination of direction other than by listening, such as visual inspection.
Not to mention a waste of time and money. 😀
Sure. But since we're not going to take the results across multiple individuals like the Lampen test did, it wouldn't matter if they failed anyway. Like I said, we only need to bag one Big Foot. 🙂
So, let's hope that a big bald black guy wearing leather and shades shows up on either Eric's or Frank's doorstep with some red and blue pills. 🙂
se
Franks father and medication
I don't know if I understand Frank right, but I tried to read
between the lines, and I think what he meant about his father
handing out placebos might have been this: Suppose you have
a patient who is currently on a medication that you consider
not only useless, but even dangerous for the patient, but
the patient believes very strongly in this medicine. If you tell
the patient the truth, he/she might simply consider you a bad
doctor who doesn't try to help you and will turn to another
doctor, in the hope that he/she will prescribe the drug the
patient is currently taking and believes in. There is always a
risk the patient will eventually find a doctor who can be talked
into prescribing this drug, possibly leading to the patient dying.
By cheating and give the patient placebo, maybe he/she will
not be cured, but at least not die due to wrong medication.
Ethical? Legal? Don't forget this probably took place quite long
ago, when medical regulation were less strict than it is
today, when there were no rules restricting physicians
how to treat a specific desease, and most of them had their
own ideas, based more on personal experience than what
they learnt in medical schools that were probably often far
from the standards they have to live up to today.
I don't know if I understand Frank right, but I tried to read
between the lines, and I think what he meant about his father
handing out placebos might have been this: Suppose you have
a patient who is currently on a medication that you consider
not only useless, but even dangerous for the patient, but
the patient believes very strongly in this medicine. If you tell
the patient the truth, he/she might simply consider you a bad
doctor who doesn't try to help you and will turn to another
doctor, in the hope that he/she will prescribe the drug the
patient is currently taking and believes in. There is always a
risk the patient will eventually find a doctor who can be talked
into prescribing this drug, possibly leading to the patient dying.
By cheating and give the patient placebo, maybe he/she will
not be cured, but at least not die due to wrong medication.
Ethical? Legal? Don't forget this probably took place quite long
ago, when medical regulation were less strict than it is
today, when there were no rules restricting physicians
how to treat a specific desease, and most of them had their
own ideas, based more on personal experience than what
they learnt in medical schools that were probably often far
from the standards they have to live up to today.
Steve Eddy said:
That was pretty much it. It's just a pretty standard scientific approach, so thought I'd mention it.
Yes that's fair enough.
OK that's the bit I was thinking about. How does he know what's the unshifted image and what's shifted. If we are talking a sideways shift of the sound stage, how do you determine what is normal with these particular cables unless you have a known correct one to compare to? Otherwise I agree, he could say same/opposite, but he may decide that the opposite cable is normal and the same cable is the abnormal one especially since we are talking subtle differences here (It would still be a valid result because he identified the difference, but not correct) sorry if I'm being pedantic........
True enough. Forget the control set, I don't think it's necessary 🙂
Regards,
Tony.
fdegrove said:
In fact, we don't need a keyholder - the results can be unveiled dramatically here on the forum through the magic of modern technology
The essence of the idea is that each 'side' can commit to their results before actually publishing them. When both sides have made a commitment, the results can be revealed in arbitrary order.
In outline, this goes as follows:
- participants type their results/cable coding information into, say, a text file
- participants run a hash program (such as 'md5sum') on their files and post the output
- when both sides have posted the md5sums, they then post the original text files
- observers can then check the text files match up with the previously published hashes
More details on request - this stuff is my day job...
Cheers
IH
Ian,
I'm sure you know what you are talking about here. I am a
theoritician, not an experimentalist, so I don't really know
the procedures for empirical research. However, it seems to
me that making the various documents and results public
could not be done by the individuals involved. Or rather, of
course it can, and I am sure we trust each other, but still
wouldn't it lower the credibility of the experiment if done
this way. The documents will not be published perfectly
simultaneously, so there is a possibility that someone
reads what has been posted so far and changes his
results/coding scheme/whatever before posting. I am fully
confident this will not happen, but I suppose the point is not
only to convince those involved. It seems to me all documents
and listening results should be collected by some third party,
who does this publishing. Of course this third party has to be
trusted, so maybe there should be two independent ones?
Anyway, all documents should be possible to distribute by
email.
I'm sure you know what you are talking about here. I am a
theoritician, not an experimentalist, so I don't really know
the procedures for empirical research. However, it seems to
me that making the various documents and results public
could not be done by the individuals involved. Or rather, of
course it can, and I am sure we trust each other, but still
wouldn't it lower the credibility of the experiment if done
this way. The documents will not be published perfectly
simultaneously, so there is a possibility that someone
reads what has been posted so far and changes his
results/coding scheme/whatever before posting. I am fully
confident this will not happen, but I suppose the point is not
only to convince those involved. It seems to me all documents
and listening results should be collected by some third party,
who does this publishing. Of course this third party has to be
trusted, so maybe there should be two independent ones?
Anyway, all documents should be possible to distribute by
email.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.