Hi,
If that would have happened I would have reported it. It didn't happen.
It's always possible, it just hasn't happened yet. When there's is some doubt in my mind I usually rerun the test under the same conditions some time later on.
Sometimes it remains unclonclusive but that's rather rare.
That was the point I was trying to make: so far there's no one that actually could say to either of us: you guys are right or wrong.
It is fair in that both candidates had the same material to test: one piece of the same wire.
It does limit the test to that piece of wire and nothing else however.
I repeat, no one made any claims that I know of that stated that ALL wire is per definition directional.
Saying that the DUT is in fact non-directional based on 2 candidates' listening test is merely jumping to conclusions IMO.
From experience over the past 10 to 15 years I think I could say that to me at least this is established well enough to give a good degree of confidence, yes.
Rigourous it is not but then it doesn't matter within the confines of this particular test anyway.
Neither did it influence my reported results, it was just a confirmation to me personally to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.
My part of it should still be here somewhere. We were told there was no need to send it back.
Rome wasn't built in one day, Mark....
(Where's that humour meter?)
Cable and wire are two different things....
Frankly, I don't care much about wire directionality....it disappears after the wire's been used (read: run in, read also: it has become really directional now?) and I'm not in the habit of unsoldering wires just to put them in back in backwards anyway....( Humour meter, please)
Cheers,
If that would have happened I would have reported it. It didn't happen.
It's always possible, it just hasn't happened yet. When there's is some doubt in my mind I usually rerun the test under the same conditions some time later on.
Sometimes it remains unclonclusive but that's rather rare.
The same way you know you're right about other things, your perception is either confirmed by actual fact, other participants results or both.
That was the point I was trying to make: so far there's no one that actually could say to either of us: you guys are right or wrong.
It is fair in that both candidates had the same material to test: one piece of the same wire.
It does limit the test to that piece of wire and nothing else however.
I repeat, no one made any claims that I know of that stated that ALL wire is per definition directional.
Saying that the DUT is in fact non-directional based on 2 candidates' listening test is merely jumping to conclusions IMO.
From experience over the past 10 to 15 years I think I could say that to me at least this is established well enough to give a good degree of confidence, yes.
Rigourous it is not but then it doesn't matter within the confines of this particular test anyway.
Neither did it influence my reported results, it was just a confirmation to me personally to make sure I wasn't fooling myself.
My part of it should still be here somewhere. We were told there was no need to send it back.
Rome wasn't built in one day, Mark....
(Where's that humour meter?)Cable and wire are two different things....
Frankly, I don't care much about wire directionality....it disappears after the wire's been used (read: run in, read also: it has become really directional now?) and I'm not in the habit of unsoldering wires just to put them in back in backwards anyway....( Humour meter, please)
Cheers,
http://www.avrev.com/news/0904/13.tara.html
"Police raided the offices and warehouse of Ashland, Oregon-based high-end
audio cable company Tara Labs last week, according to news sources.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/091304taralabs/
"Long known through its advertising as the maker of "the cable that God
uses," TARA Labs was unable to invoke divine intervention to prevent law
enforcement officials from seizing more than $600,000 in inventory, along
with computers and company records in a day-long action."
"Police raided the offices and warehouse of Ashland, Oregon-based high-end
audio cable company Tara Labs last week, according to news sources.
http://www.stereophile.com/news/091304taralabs/
"Long known through its advertising as the maker of "the cable that God
uses," TARA Labs was unable to invoke divine intervention to prevent law
enforcement officials from seizing more than $600,000 in inventory, along
with computers and company records in a day-long action."
SY said:
Hey now! You can't go saying that anymore. You know I've got a pair of ECC86s here that I've been working with!
By the way, the other night I plucked the JFETs out of the follower circuit and dropped in the ECC86 as a direct replacement. So far everything seems to be working just fine.
se
I feel sorry for the people at Tara Labs. Sounds like a 'whistle blower' action just to make trouble. You know, like your ex wife turning you into the IRS, Internal Revenue, or whatever they call it in your country. ;-) Many of you here apparently have little or no understanding of what it costs to run a small business. Even if Tara bought its cable at the lowest possible price, it would still have to be terminated and this takes time and money, unless it is done like the cheap, throwaway cables. I hope the best for them, as I doubt that they did very little wrong, and as they were kind enough to send me cables after the firestorm destroyed all of my possessions.
I still have their cables in my lab. They are well made and 'measure' well, but they have a problem of being too STIFF, and ripping out connectors on the back of my TV and other cheaply made equipment. In fact, that is what is keeping me from using them today. My CTC preamp is strong enough, but my sources, Sony SACD, Fisher tube FM, Nak cassette player, etc have connectors mounted too weak to be safe from being bent or ripped out by this rather stiff cable.
I still have their cables in my lab. They are well made and 'measure' well, but they have a problem of being too STIFF, and ripping out connectors on the back of my TV and other cheaply made equipment. In fact, that is what is keeping me from using them today. My CTC preamp is strong enough, but my sources, Sony SACD, Fisher tube FM, Nak cassette player, etc have connectors mounted too weak to be safe from being bent or ripped out by this rather stiff cable.
Well, they shouldn't have said "Made in USA" if they are using cable from somewhere else.
The question is-were they merely repackaging cables from overseas?
Or were they taking cable material made elsewhere and doing something significant to it?
Also, the material can be custom made overseas, can't it? It doesn't necessarily mean that you can go to Asia and get the same thing TARA sells for a third of the price from the same company that makes it for TARA, does it?
The question is-were they merely repackaging cables from overseas?
Or were they taking cable material made elsewhere and doing something significant to it?
Also, the material can be custom made overseas, can't it? It doesn't necessarily mean that you can go to Asia and get the same thing TARA sells for a third of the price from the same company that makes it for TARA, does it?
It's even worse. A word can mean a different thing in a different context even in the same language. Words have no intrinsic meaning, the meaning is created as soon as they are used.
Example of hypothetical conversation:
"I was thinking of giving John a kite for his birthday"
"He already has a kite, he will want you to take it back to the store"
Question: to which kite does it refer (assuming it does refer to a kite)? Try to catch that in formal grammar rules!
Jan Didden
Example of hypothetical conversation:
"I was thinking of giving John a kite for his birthday"
"He already has a kite, he will want you to take it back to the store"
Question: to which kite does it refer (assuming it does refer to a kite)? Try to catch that in formal grammar rules!
Jan Didden
You can catch it. But you need a context-sensitive grammar! (everyone remember their Chomsky hierarchy? )
Seriously though, words do not have a single meaning, but they do have meaning, otherwise there would be no way to communicate. It's just that this meaning heavily depends on context. But our brains are wired with the same fundamental grammatical algortithms regardless of language, as has been shown by studying people and languages. Though some languages couldn't seem more different, on closer look it turns out there are deep structural similarities.
The philosophical problem of how the meaning of words (and anyting else we think) relates to 'reality' is very simple to answer -- it is mapped to the world by the neural correlates of our thoughts about this thing. This also applies to other mental concepts, such as consciousness (that is why it makes sense for neuroscientists to study consciousness). Who knows, maybe even qualia will become things that can be studied, and pulled out of the realm of the purely subjective.
)Seriously though, words do not have a single meaning, but they do have meaning, otherwise there would be no way to communicate. It's just that this meaning heavily depends on context. But our brains are wired with the same fundamental grammatical algortithms regardless of language, as has been shown by studying people and languages. Though some languages couldn't seem more different, on closer look it turns out there are deep structural similarities.
The philosophical problem of how the meaning of words (and anyting else we think) relates to 'reality' is very simple to answer -- it is mapped to the world by the neural correlates of our thoughts about this thing. This also applies to other mental concepts, such as consciousness (that is why it makes sense for neuroscientists to study consciousness). Who knows, maybe even qualia will become things that can be studied, and pulled out of the realm of the purely subjective.
Well we had to learn about Chomsky in computer science, as formal grammars have corresponding automata that recognize them, and are the foundations behind the theoretical side of computer languages and algorithms. On a more genral note, I was amazed at the parallels between algorithms and heuristics used in computer science/AI, and those I learned about in cognitive psychology as proposed for how humans reason. This is doubly amazing when considering that in some of these cases the results were arrived at completely independently by each discipline.
Well, I am not convinced that there actually is much of a parallel. Traditionally AI has been operating on the premise, conciously or not, that human reasoning mimics the way computers 'reason' (or vice versa). Current resarch however suggest that this is not true, and that there is a fundamental difference between computer 'reasoning' and human reasoning.
For one thing, computer reasoning is in the last analysis deterministic and depends on the program. Even the latest chess programs, which look a lot like humans and 'seem' to create solutions that the programmers have not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of the program.
It becomes more and more clear that humans are fundamentally different, and that there is no general program according to which humans reason. Human brains develop along the lines of classical evolution, i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. It can be argued that the 'program' of the brain is contained in its interconnected neurons and areas (neuronal groups), and these develop dynamically during the human development. What works in a certain situation is kept, what doesn't work evolves into something else.
Apparently, there are many different ways to interconnect the brain areas on the way to a functioning and mature human being. Although most humans show a certain behaviour that is not widely different from individual to individual, no two brains are physically the same. So it looks like the 'program' of the brain is not predefined and develops and evolves depending on the need of the situation, both short term and long term.
Jan Didden
For one thing, computer reasoning is in the last analysis deterministic and depends on the program. Even the latest chess programs, which look a lot like humans and 'seem' to create solutions that the programmers have not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of the program.
It becomes more and more clear that humans are fundamentally different, and that there is no general program according to which humans reason. Human brains develop along the lines of classical evolution, i.e. 'survival of the fittest'. It can be argued that the 'program' of the brain is contained in its interconnected neurons and areas (neuronal groups), and these develop dynamically during the human development. What works in a certain situation is kept, what doesn't work evolves into something else.
Apparently, there are many different ways to interconnect the brain areas on the way to a functioning and mature human being. Although most humans show a certain behaviour that is not widely different from individual to individual, no two brains are physically the same. So it looks like the 'program' of the brain is not predefined and develops and evolves depending on the need of the situation, both short term and long term.
Jan Didden
This traditionallity means 40s-60s, not 90s and onwards.
Yes, if you compare human reasoning to M$ Word or a classical algorithm chess program (essentially mini-max with alpha-beta pruning, or some related derivative). Human reasoning is perfectly understandable when you realize that humans are boundedly rational, which means having to take into consideration time and mental resources available, and make the use of heuristics which enormously speed up processes but have a chance of failure (ineed this is all too common in today's world, as these were evolved for optimality in a tribal foraging society). Though bounded rationality is a concept from economics back in the, I think 60s or something, only recently has it begun to be considered in AI.
While computers are structured very differently from brains, and implemented on totally different substrates, physics and information theory are the fundamental limits of both.
As I said before, your brain is implemented by the same physical laws implementing a computer. To claim otherwise is to invoke divinity and the paranormal. Any finite physical system can be mapped to a formal automaton (either with or without indeterminism), and thus the theorietical limits of computational power are the same.
Stochastic algorithms use randomness; this quickly growing field of study is described here:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558608729/qid=1090709264/sr=1-1/002-5858097-6864000
A sufficiently good pseudorandom (i.e. really deterministic) number generator has never been shown to fail as a substitute for a true random nubmer generator (such as a sensor monitoring Johnson noise in a resistor). Indeed, theoretically computational power is not changed either way. I've asked several professors here (only some of them in computer science), whether they think that replacing quantum randomness in the brain with a pseudorandom deterministic generator actually changes anything. The answer matches that given by Penrose -- no (that's why Penrose thought there must be something more -- specifically, non-computational theory more fundamental than quantum theory -- very very few physicists agreed).
Even the latest humans, which look a lot like the previous versions and 'seem' to create solutions that evolution has not foreseen, only can act within the boundaries of their biology and sociology.
Sure there is. The program is non-deterministic, sure, but it is still computational -- it is the program we call the laws of physics, with initial conditions the data on which it runs. Non-determinism can be added to computers by replacing pseudorandom number generators with ones that are truly random by monitoring the product of quantum events (say a resistor's Johnson noise). But in formal logic that does not increase computational power. There are proofs that both FSA and Turing Machine-equivalent automata have identical power whether they are non-deterministic or not.
Your post continues arguing on the wrong level of abstraction and is thus supplanted by the lower one. I've said this a million times, and I'll say it again: sociology reduces to psychology reduces to neurology reduces to biology reduces to chemistry reduces to physics. Very few biologists would argue that biology does not reduce to chemistry, and the same goes for the other components. It's just that some people seem not to like the big jump from one extreme to the other. That is what I call closed mindedness.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.