Kuei Yang Wang said:
The process of gwb's logical reasoning lead to the logical conclusion that it CANNOT be. There is nothing wrong, or arrogant in that.
You may not agree with it, in which case you could counter, with arguments, that his premises that lead to the logical conclusion were invalid.
By stating that the perfectly logical outcome of a process of thinking and reasoning is 'a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering' you clearly show your lack of understanding of a logical reasoning process. Or maybe you DO understand it, but you chose to deliberately mislead us. Either way, it DOES put your posts in a better perspective for us. Thanks for that.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa Didden San,
His "logic" is based on:
1) The general admission that the fundamental mechanism CAN lead to problems
2) One single set of experiments which where not detailed as to the exact procedure and which failed to show a significant difference.
If you logically analyse the above the conclusion "CANNOT" is not supprted by the data and hence ILLOGICAL.
Wrong. I am showing that the actual process was all BUT logical.
If you consider the process to have been logical I am afraid I must give you the same recommendation as Gee....
Sayonara
janneman said:
His "logic" is based on:
1) The general admission that the fundamental mechanism CAN lead to problems
2) One single set of experiments which where not detailed as to the exact procedure and which failed to show a significant difference.
If you logically analyse the above the conclusion "CANNOT" is not supprted by the data and hence ILLOGICAL.
janneman said:
Wrong. I am showing that the actual process was all BUT logical.
If you consider the process to have been logical I am afraid I must give you the same recommendation as Gee....
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
It is very seldom that anybody misrepresents himself. But you pulled it off. You DIDNOT say that his logic was flawed. You said
"You again insist that something CANNOT be. That is a degree of intellectual arrogance that I find staggering."
Jeez.
Jan Didden
Konnichiwa,
I felt that the fundamentally flawed logic of the statement I commented upon was so obvious even the current incumbent of the office of the President of the USoA would be aware of it had he followed the exchange.
Hence I commented on the mental state producting such obvious illogic. It seems I overestimated the acuity of parts of the audience.
Sayonara
janneman said:
I felt that the fundamentally flawed logic of the statement I commented upon was so obvious even the current incumbent of the office of the President of the USoA would be aware of it had he followed the exchange.
Hence I commented on the mental state producting such obvious illogic. It seems I overestimated the acuity of parts of the audience.
Sayonara
janneman said:
I'm not sure if it is a logical conclusion, for sure it is a convenient conclusion, but as SY mentioned earlier it simply cannot be:
SY said:
Peter,
On the chance that gwb doesn't need me for this, here goes:
This was his reasoning:
/quote start
"You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors."
/quote end
Now, I still stand by my view that the sentence with the word 'CANNOT' follows logically out of what is stated. That doesn't mean it is correct of course.
So if you (or whoever) doesn't agree with the conclusion, pray tell us where the reasoning went wrong or which premise is wrong.
Jan Didden
On the chance that gwb doesn't need me for this, here goes:
This was his reasoning:
/quote start
"You are claiming that vibration causes lots of little read errors that cannot be fixed by the error correction.
Which others have shown, many times, to not be the case. A clean CD disk is usually read in without any uncorrectable errors, vibration or not.
So if vibration isolation has any of the subtle improvements claimed for it, then tje explanation CANNOT be vibration induced read errors, since the transports of any reasonably good CD player are sufficiently insensitive to vibration that they don't make any uncorrectable errors."
/quote end
Now, I still stand by my view that the sentence with the word 'CANNOT' follows logically out of what is stated. That doesn't mean it is correct of course.
So if you (or whoever) doesn't agree with the conclusion, pray tell us where the reasoning went wrong or which premise is wrong.
Jan Didden
Peter, then you missed an earlier post where someone has ACTUALLY tested one my major premises, and found it to be true.
CD Players simply do NOT make small uncorrectable errors in reading the digital data. They read the pits in, the error correction does its thang, and voila, out comes perfectly accurate data, which is then fed into the DAC.
Nor does it affect the timing of the stream, since the data is read into a buffer, which then issues the digital stream in proper time alignment.
There is other reasoning that makes a strong indication that read errors cannot possibly be the cause. Data CDs are read in perfectly most of the time. When they are not, even with a SINGLE bit error, the file is ususally completely borked.
So absolute perfection is required, or CDs would be a horrible way to save data or software on a computer. I would also venture to say that it is also required for CD audio, since read errors in a digitally-encoded audio signal are very, very audible.
Audio CDs and Data CDs are more the same than they are different, btw. Error correction is a vital part of the CD technology, which allows the CDs to be handled evem somewhat carelessly and still result in absolutely perfect reads of the data on them.
If CDs were making lots of little errors, the results would be unlistenable. That is the highly logical point I'm making. You can call me Spock if you wish.
CD Players simply do NOT make small uncorrectable errors in reading the digital data. They read the pits in, the error correction does its thang, and voila, out comes perfectly accurate data, which is then fed into the DAC.
Nor does it affect the timing of the stream, since the data is read into a buffer, which then issues the digital stream in proper time alignment.
There is other reasoning that makes a strong indication that read errors cannot possibly be the cause. Data CDs are read in perfectly most of the time. When they are not, even with a SINGLE bit error, the file is ususally completely borked.
So absolute perfection is required, or CDs would be a horrible way to save data or software on a computer. I would also venture to say that it is also required for CD audio, since read errors in a digitally-encoded audio signal are very, very audible.
Audio CDs and Data CDs are more the same than they are different, btw. Error correction is a vital part of the CD technology, which allows the CDs to be handled evem somewhat carelessly and still result in absolutely perfect reads of the data on them.
If CDs were making lots of little errors, the results would be unlistenable. That is the highly logical point I'm making. You can call me Spock if you wish.
Suggestion for reason to KYWs Kirkby problem ....
Short description: Triple interference involving mechanics, electronics and performer induced oscillation in an audio system.
Long: KYWs (as everyones else) suffers from vibration with a changing frequency which follows the changing rotational speed as the laser reads different tracks on the CD.
Emma Kirkby (which BTW i think is the best singer on the earth) hits the high note at -1 dB under max level which frequency (as she sings so clean and with such dead on pitch)
happens to interfere with the vibration of the CD players due the particular place on the CD where the high note was recorded.
Now, to make the situation worse, the oscillator feeding KYWs D/A process, all of a sudden, due to said feedback, starts to burst out sidebands of exactly the same frequency as the Emma/CD Rotational speed interference just making the whole things going havoc ...
Screeetch - nasty sound in KYWs otherwise nice sounding system.
So why does this not happen on more than one record. Well, it's the particular occasion of a specific high level note and the rotational speed (i.e. when in time on the disc it occurs) and it happens to be the only record in the world that this happens ;-)
Go figure 🙂
BTW It does not happen on my system with this particular disc but on the other hand I don't use pointy feets...
NB: For this to happen, nonewhatsoever disc read errors are involved!
/
edit: spelling and NB
Short description: Triple interference involving mechanics, electronics and performer induced oscillation in an audio system.
Long: KYWs (as everyones else) suffers from vibration with a changing frequency which follows the changing rotational speed as the laser reads different tracks on the CD.
Emma Kirkby (which BTW i think is the best singer on the earth) hits the high note at -1 dB under max level which frequency (as she sings so clean and with such dead on pitch)
happens to interfere with the vibration of the CD players due the particular place on the CD where the high note was recorded.
Now, to make the situation worse, the oscillator feeding KYWs D/A process, all of a sudden, due to said feedback, starts to burst out sidebands of exactly the same frequency as the Emma/CD Rotational speed interference just making the whole things going havoc ...
Screeetch - nasty sound in KYWs otherwise nice sounding system.
So why does this not happen on more than one record. Well, it's the particular occasion of a specific high level note and the rotational speed (i.e. when in time on the disc it occurs) and it happens to be the only record in the world that this happens ;-)
Go figure 🙂
BTW It does not happen on my system with this particular disc but on the other hand I don't use pointy feets...
NB: For this to happen, nonewhatsoever disc read errors are involved!
/
edit: spelling and NB
Peter, you quote SY explaining why we can't do a single test of the Shakti stones and eliminate all possibilities that they do anything.
We can only show that it is very unlikely. So those determined to be disingenous and non-scientific about this can always move the pea around to a different place whenever we pick one of the cups and show that there is no effect in that case, and thus it is never found.
But I will reiterate my claim that CD players simply do not make small read errors to justify the supposed audio benefits of pointy feet. There are no errors, zilch, nada, zero. So there is no way for this to be an explanation of the effects you claim for them.
I'm not saying that there could not be other explanations. I doubt this, but I don't know for sure. But I can claim with a VERY high degree of certainty that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that CD players can even make small digital errors due to vibration.
But it would help if you would actually do a scientifically valid test of this effect before we try to find out what (if anything) is causing it.
We can only show that it is very unlikely. So those determined to be disingenous and non-scientific about this can always move the pea around to a different place whenever we pick one of the cups and show that there is no effect in that case, and thus it is never found.
But I will reiterate my claim that CD players simply do not make small read errors to justify the supposed audio benefits of pointy feet. There are no errors, zilch, nada, zero. So there is no way for this to be an explanation of the effects you claim for them.
I'm not saying that there could not be other explanations. I doubt this, but I don't know for sure. But I can claim with a VERY high degree of certainty that you are barking up the wrong tree if you think that CD players can even make small digital errors due to vibration.
But it would help if you would actually do a scientifically valid test of this effect before we try to find out what (if anything) is causing it.
janneman said:
Hi Jan,
Yes. I generally trust that most review opinions authored by such as Harry Pearson, Jonathan Valin, Dick Olsher, John Atkinson, etc, speak, in some sense, to audible artifacts that are not now well correlated with measurements, if measured at all. I trust their opinions on the ground that (1) what I read corresponds with my experience in having, for my own purposes of pursuing better sound, heard the types of sonic differences they describe and (2) try as I may I have not found measurements to adequately explain those differences, though as I said I trust those measurements theoretically could exist, perhaps tomorrow, perhaps in a thousand years.
Tom
geewhizbang said:
Well, I'm not making any claims, so I don't think I'm required to prove anything. And frankly, I'm too busy with other things to waste my time on satisfying yours (or others like you) eagerness to KNOW.
I simply share my observations and what I found works for me. If you are willing to invest in my further experiments in that matter, I'm certainly open for suggestions.
For all you "prove it" guys out there, here are two versions of a question that will help flush out certain basic assumptions ... let's compare our answers to see where each is coming from.
(1) What percentage of that which the ear can audibly distinguish can be measured with current techniques?
My answer: less than 100.
(2) Is it possible that the ear, like the brain, has workings or operational capabilities that go beyond the currently measurable?
My answer: yes, in fact, with almost a certainty.
(1) What percentage of that which the ear can audibly distinguish can be measured with current techniques?
My answer: less than 100.
(2) Is it possible that the ear, like the brain, has workings or operational capabilities that go beyond the currently measurable?
My answer: yes, in fact, with almost a certainty.
geewhizbang said:
To be barking as you say here, I would have to express my opinion on digital errors due to vibration (in CD players).
I invite you to check my every post here and indicate were exactly I'm doing it. It's just one example of your usual assumptions.
Peter Daniel said:
Peter,
His logic is that:
1 - Errors due to vibrations are 100% corrected by the error correction.
2 - People claim that vibrations cause audible differences.
-> Therefore, the audible differences claimed to result from vibrations CANNOT be the result of uncorrected errors.
QED.
Please note:
The above is not a verbatim representation of the referenced text.
Jan Didden
You are moving the pea again, Peter.
You DO make all sorts of fabulous claims. You sell stuff designed around them. You make observations about all sorts of audio effects of various components and configurations, but you don't do them in a way that is scientifically valid.
You merely have an opinion that these expensive things sound better. But you are unwilling to do a proper test to prove this, yet somehow I'm the one that is illogical and arrogant.
You are making unproven assertions that X sounds better than Y. You just run non-blinded tests to come up with these opinions.
You don't hesitate to opine that is is because of reason z. Then if anyone tries to show you that reason z is not possible, you then either move the pea, or just continue to ignore logical reasoning and shoot the messenger.
You DO make all sorts of fabulous claims. You sell stuff designed around them. You make observations about all sorts of audio effects of various components and configurations, but you don't do them in a way that is scientifically valid.
You merely have an opinion that these expensive things sound better. But you are unwilling to do a proper test to prove this, yet somehow I'm the one that is illogical and arrogant.
You are making unproven assertions that X sounds better than Y. You just run non-blinded tests to come up with these opinions.
You don't hesitate to opine that is is because of reason z. Then if anyone tries to show you that reason z is not possible, you then either move the pea, or just continue to ignore logical reasoning and shoot the messenger.
geewhizbang said:
Please show me at least one example of the claim I make, or forever hold your peace.
I was under impression that expressing personal opinion (or observation) is not against forum rules.
However, lying is not normally accepted social behaviour. I must say that some of your statements are simply not true.
serengetiplains said:
Tom,
A basic problem is that we cannot clearly distinguish hearing from perceiving. If i may go into your second item, I agree, but maybe in a different way than you mean.
It is generally agreed (yes I know, prove it, I don't, this is free advice and anyone can take it or leave it) that perception is something that is built up by the brain and that the actual signal coming in from the ears is just ONE part of the data that makes up the perception.
That is the reason that we can imagine things, that placebo's work etc. It is also the reason that we can remember sound. That is the clearest indication: You 'hear' the sound from yesterday although it is not really out there: the brain just makes it up according to what you 'remember' of it (which in itself is a quite interesting issue).
If you expect someting to hear, to see, or to happen, the brain sets up a kind of template in anticipation. It actively increases the sensitivity in those sensor channels that would support the anticipated event, and likewise attenuates those channels that would lead to a different perception.
That is why blind testing is so important if you want to know something objectively, unmuddled by your (unconcious!) anticipations and expectations.
You CANNOT (pun intended) use the words hearing and perception indiscriminately for the same event, because they are different processes. Hearing is the process of translating air pressure changes into signals into the brain. Perception is the process of constructing a sound 'landscape' in your conciousness that has as one of its input component also the heard sound.
Jan Didden
- Status
- Not open for further replies.