Claim your $1M from the Great Randi

[andy_c]

[...]It has, as a simple example, been discovered that in anticipation to a certain perception, the brain actively increases the gain in those sensor channels that would support the expectation, and decrease the gain in those channels that would work against the expectation.[...]

Boy that sounds familiar. Here's a little anecdote that describes just that experience. In 1971 when I was in 10th grade, I bought an LP that I fell in love with. I played it over and over throughout the next 10 years or so. It developed a scratch in one song such that a pretty loud "pop" could be heard, and the stylus would jump the groove into the next one. I listened to it over and over despite this, until finally the album became completely unlistenable. I stopped listening to it sometime in the mid '80s. Unfortunately, this album didn't come out on CD until about a year or so ago. Now, almost 20 years later, every time I listen to that song on the CD that had the skip on the LP, I wince at the very instant in time where the skip used to be on the LP, in anticipation of the "stylus" jumping the groove. So I'm literally responding to something that is not there. What's interesting is that I'm fully aware of what's going on and why, yet I'm powerless to prevent it. It even happens when I listen to the CD in my car.

 

[sam9]

I strongly suspect that an ABX test, properly constructed would identify the one person in 20 who can consistently identify a $100 vs. $5000 phono stage. It depends on "asking the right question". If you started with a random selection of test subjects and got only random results with 95% cent of them you could be fairly confident that for most people, most of the time the difference is inaubible. This may be all you need to know for your immediate purpose. However, you might also be curious and want to go to a second level and test only the 5% who correctly reported a difference. If upon further testing you confirm that these test subjects really can reliably tell a difference, you can then decide where you want to go next - such do they prefer one to the other? what are the charaterisctics of the subjects that may account for the difference? Even, do they care and do they typically have the income level to buy the $5000 unit? etc. etc.

ABX is just a tool.

 

[john curl]

Kuei, you are correct. In my opinion, many here are IGNORANT of what is being offered in the audio marketplace as 'improvers', and think it all nonsense, because you have not even attempted to understand what is being sold to the audio public.
For example, Shakti Stones are microwave absorbers. There are published tests on what they absorb. There is a patent on one portion of the device. Are they useful? It most probably depends on where you place them in your audio system, AND whether there is the presence of microwave or high RFI energy in or about your audio system. They way you people carry on, one would think that they are plastic 'rocks'.
It is the same with the 'Brilliant Pebbles'. This is not a jar full of pretty rocks, any more than a good wine is just a bottle of fermented grape juice.
I read the 'white paper' on the Brilliant Pebbles and they are vibration absorbers. Now, how do I know that they are 'special'? Well, I know and personally talk to the manufacturer of these 'rocks in a jar'. Now, what is his background? Well, he is a nice guy, masters in physics in hydrodynamics, knows a lot more about mechanical vibration than I will ever know and has worked in his industry for decades, including NASA, Goodard, Lockheed, and is presently employed in Wash. DC with the FAA. It bothers him that you folks and others have no idea of what he is doing, never try it, and laugh about what you are ignorant of. What is the point?

 

[jan.didden]

You know John, reading your previous post, it seems to me that the people that stand most to gain from a blind test that finally convinces those sceptics that these rocks or whatever DO improve musical enjoyment, are people like your friend. Why the hell don't they shut us all up by a good, conclusive blind test?? Surely they can't be ALL masochists??

Jan Didden

 

[jan.didden]

[snip]ABX is just a tool.

100 points.

Jan Didden

 

[john curl]

Convince who of what? You can't be bothered to TRY these things, no matter what. Personally, I am not against BLIND tests, just ABX tests. Please try to appreciate the difference.
Personally, I just spoke at length with both the owner of 'Shakti Stones' and separately the designer of 'Brilliant Pebbles' within the hour.
The Shakti challenge by Randi falls apart in the small print. Check it out for yourself, Shakti has.
I was in error where the designer of the 'Brilliant Pebbles' now works, as he has moved to the Dept of the Treasury in the same city.
Trust me, I get much more useful engineering info. from either of them, than I get on this thread, and many others.

 

[john curl]

Kuei, you are correct. In my opinion, many here are IGNORANT of what is being offered in the audio marketplace as 'improvers', and think it all nonsense, because you have not even attempted to understand what is being sold to the audio public.
For example, Shakti Stones are microwave absorbers. There are published tests on what they absorb. There is a patent on one portion of the device. Are they useful? It most probably depends on where you place them in your audio system, AND whether there is the presence of microwave or high RFI energy in or about your audio system. They way you people carry on, one would think that they are plastic 'rocks'.
It is the same with the 'Brilliant Pebbles'. This is not a jar full of pretty rocks, any more than a good wine is just a bottle of fermented grape juice.
I read the 'white paper' on the Brilliant Pebbles and they are vibration absorbers. Now, how do I know that they are 'special'? Well, I know and personally talk to the manufacturer of these 'rocks in a jar'. Now, what is his background? Well, he is a nice guy, masters in physics in hydrodynamics, knows a lot more about mechanical vibration than I will ever know and has worked in his industry for decades, including NASA, Goodard, Lockheed, and is presently employed in Wash. DC with the FAA. It bothers him that you folks and others have no idea of what he is doing, never try it, and laugh about what you are ignorant of. What is the point?

 

[Steve Eddy]

It is the same with the 'Brilliant Pebbles'. This is not a jar full of pretty rocks, any more than a good wine is just a bottle of fermented grape juice.
I read the 'white paper' on the Brilliant Pebbles and they are vibration absorbers. Now, how do I know that they are 'special'? Well, I know and personally talk to the manufacturer of these 'rocks in a jar'. Now, what is his background? Well, he is a nice guy, masters in physics in hydrodynamics, knows a lot more about mechanical vibration than I will ever know and has worked in his industry for decades, including NASA, Goodard, Lockheed, and is presently employed in Wash. DC with the FAA.

So what? He also has photographs of himself in his freezer and claims this makes his system sound better.

se

 

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

You know John, reading your previous post, it seems to me that the people that stand most to gain from a blind test that finally convinces those sceptics that these rocks or whatever DO improve musical enjoyment, are people like your friend.

Would they? The products sell (probably well enough) despite all debunkers, on the strength of the majority of people who care about music and care zip about the science that dictates why such items should not make a difference. The believers are already convinced, so all it would do is to possibly convince the debunkers to go out and buy the product. I for one would not expect many sales ever which way.

Why the hell don't they shut us all up by a good, conclusive blind test?? Surely they can't be ALL masochists??

Funny, quite a few years someone announced at a AES convention he had proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, in small scale and sample size double blind tests that speaker cables had audibly different properties. The poor sod who had actually gone and done his homework made the mistake to choose a significance level apropriate to the sample size (.2) and was promply savaged by the audio nazis for using such a low significance level and was forced to re-run his experiemnts with a significance level of .05 which (predictably BTW, after all, this is science and statistiscs) failed to show positive results.

It was this what I referred to when I pointed out that the Audio Pelicanists (I like that term, especially when used as a pejorative expression) had changed the goal posts every time when presented with a reasonable study that suggest that there was stinking to the heavens in the kingdom of denmark.

So no, EVEN IF a suitable test would be published (enough cases where, actually) which would suggest that Audio Pelicanists are WRONG (which any sensible human already knows they are, not on the basis of any specific instance, but based on their iditio insistance that everything knowable is already known about audio) they will move the goalposts again and simply pelicanise the whole event.

The actual problem is that (most of) the debunkers are actually fanatical adherents of a religion, not the openminded sceptics (eg ones who do not believe either that something is so or not and instead look for proof) they make themselves out to be, but agressive defenders of the orthodox true faith, who will stop at nothing lawfull and practical (including the deliberate production of severely flawed evidence then presented as fact) to ensure their faith is defended and imposed on others who do not share it.

If they could,they would ban subjectivist audio magazines, sales of high end audio and "esotheric" acessories (they have repeated actually tried through trand standards agencies etc.). You will no more convice such people of anything they object to as you culd convine the pope that catholic doctrine is wrong, Nag Hamadi, the death sea scrolls and other recent finds of authentic material that would support you substantially nonwithstanding.

If you wish to stand on the side of such charlatans, suit yourself. I find either brand of believer repulsive and prefer actual first hand knowledge over making other peoples opinions my own facts. I know much and believ nothing and I shall keep it that way.

Sayonara

 

[analog_sa]

the Audio Pelicanists

A wonderful name. It will be great if they would all choose pelican-related avatars, wouldn't it?

Your post will certainly ruffle some feathers. It will be sad if the Pelicanists remove it.

 

[diy_audio_fo]

For example, Shakti Stones are microwave absorbers. There are published tests on what they absorb

Where is the test published?
Is it available on Internet?
Has them been tested by an independent/university/government laboratory?

Are they useful? It most probably depends on where you place them in your audio system, AND whether there is the presence of microwave or high RFI energy in or about your audio system.
They way you people carry on, one would think that they are plastic 'rocks'.

Are there instructions from the manifacturer written expecially for the end user which explain a way to detect and measure the presence of microwave or high RFI energy in his/her system, the way to place them in the audio system, the way to detect and measure the end result in his/her system and/or some simple math to evaluate the usefulness of microwave absorbers in his/her systems?

I read the 'white paper' on the Brilliant Pebbles and they are vibration absorbers.

Where is the white paper published?
Who edit it (an independent/university/government laboratory)?
Is it available on Internet?

Thanx

 

[ThorstenL]

Konnichiwa,

A wonderful name. It will be great if they would all choose pelican-related avatars, wouldn't it?

Not bad at all....

Your post will certainly ruffle some feathers. It will be sad if the Pelicanists remove it.

Well, what will happen will happen.

An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.

Or as great discordian Omar Khayyam Ravenhurst once remarked: "In this world, there are two kinds of people -- those who Get It and those who Don't. If the meaning of this is not immediately obvious to you, count yourself as one of the latter. "

Sayonara

 

[Steve Eddy]

Funny, quite a few years someone announced at a AES convention he had proven with a reasonable degree of certainty, in small scale and sample size double blind tests that speaker cables had audibly different properties. The poor sod who had actually gone and done his homework made the mistake to choose a significance level apropriate to the sample size (.2) and was promply savaged by the audio nazis for using such a low significance level and was forced to re-run his experiemnts with a significance level of .05 which (predictably BTW, after all, this is science and statistiscs) failed to show positive results.

I once did a coin-flipping experiment. I flipped the coin and each time I psychically willed it to come up heads. It came up heads 10 out of 10 times.

It was this what I referred to when I pointed out that the Audio Pelicanists (I like that term, especially when used as a pejorative expression) had changed the goal posts every time when presented with a reasonable study that suggest that there was stinking to the heavens in the kingdom of denmark.

Were the goal posts moved or did the person you mention above make some erroneous assumptions as to where the goal posts actually were?

So no, EVEN IF a suitable test would be published (enough cases where, actually) which would suggest that Audio Pelicanists are WRONG (which any sensible human already knows they are, not on the basis of any specific instance, but based on their iditio insistance that everything knowable is already known about audio) they will move the goalposts again and simply pelicanise the whole event.

I guess it depends on whose definition of "suitable" you're using.

The actual problem is that (most of) the debunkers are actually fanatical adherents of a religion, not the openminded sceptics (eg ones who do not believe either that something is so or not and instead look for proof) they make themselves out to be, but agressive defenders of the orthodox true faith, who will stop at nothing lawfull and practical (including the deliberate production of severely flawed evidence then presented as fact) to ensure their faith is defended and imposed on others who do not share it.

The actual actual problem is that many of those on the other side of the fence are also fanatical adherence of a religion and will also do whatever they can to defend it.

That's the problem. Too damned many religious fanatics.

se

 

[SY]

Analog_sa, I've said it before to you and I'll say it again, with a badge on to make it an Official Policy Statement:

diyAudio.com moderators and admins do NOT censor or remove posts because of their technical content except for reasons of safety.

/badge off

Whether I agree with you or disagree, there is NOTHING germane to the discussion that is out of bounds. OK? So please stop suggesting that someone is going to pull your posts because of a disagreement about its merits. We just do not do that here. Unlike forums run by the insecure, there are no XXX-free zones, where xxx is any sort of technical term.

 

[fdegrove]

Hi,

That's the problem. Too damned many religious fanatics.

In which case two camps of fanatics can be observed already...

Why is it that every time there's something out there that's a little beyond what's readily available in schoolbooks for all to fall back on it either gets dismissed out of hand or invariably qualifies as voodoo?

I'd like to have a plausible explanation for all that stuff I don't yet understand whenever possible but when I notice time and time again that it somehow improves my system I only wonder why it works and what it is it does hoping one day I'll understand why.

In the meantime I just try to enjoy it as much as possible...
If I can do that, why can't we all do the same?

Cheers,

 

[SY]

promply savaged by the audio nazis

Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law!

 

[kelticwizard]

It was this what I referred to when I pointed out that the Audio Pelicanists (I like that term, especially when used as a pejorative expression)

LOL, the Pelicanist is question can really throw things for a loop if he decided to change his avatar right about now.

Future readers of this thread, (and these threads do get reread long after they end), will think that Kuei has lost his mind.

 

[GringoAudio]

sample size

You and a few buddies is not a statistically significant sample size. Set up a double blind test with hundreds of participants and you might find those pair of true golden ears.

 

[john curl]

Diy, why don't you do a Google search and find out for yourself. Just go to Google, the put in 'shakti audio'. For the 'brilliant pebbles' maybe the same technique will work also.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Re: sample size

You and a few buddies is not a statistically significant sample size. Set up a double blind test with hundreds of participants and you might find those pair of true golden ears.

Uh, sample size and statistical significance aren't one and the same. At least where simply establishing audibility is concerned. You don't need a large sample size to establish audibility. All you need is one person.

What you do need however is a significant number of trials to get a sufficiently high level of confidence. The fewer the number of trials, the greater the probability that any statisitcally significant results may just be statistical anomalies, like my coin coming up heads 10 times out of 10.

se