No, John.
I read what you recommended. After I did, you kept stone silent.
Now it's your turn to put your money where your mouth is:
jd
I read what you recommended. After I did, you kept stone silent.
Now it's your turn to put your money where your mouth is:
jd
Andre Visser:
Is this a rhetorical question??? What do you mean by 'don't even believe in stage focus' and why are you implying that he might not 'believe' in it? If he doesn't care about stage focus, why should he choose for it? Why do you assume that everyone who buys a hifi wants to go out and 'audition' lots of different equipment when there are alternative but equally rational bases for choosing equipment.
So far, you've been here to insist that subjectivism is a valid method of determining objective truths so it doesn't seem to me that you really have come to this thread to learn. Secondly you haven't really addressed any of the points put to you directly at all, merely repeating your opinions. Which brings me to my next point - opinions, including mine, are worthless without evidence and reason to back them up. That means in turn that concensus is a pile of crap - aiming for common agreement is a mistake, because it leaves you prey to those who will not or cannot be honest. The goal should be the truth. In the case of this thread - showing that complex audible differences between cables only exist in the minds of subjectivists.
Because? Explain to us why that is. Don't just throw out empty assertions like that.
A pity. Constructive criticism is valuable and welcome.
You haven't helped so far - if only because you have 'helped' by doing nothing more than sharing anecdotal evidence and opinion, which are useless. As for finding answers, they've been repeatedly given to you.
You really need to start grasping something 'blind' tests are still at risk of subjective corruption of data. You MUST use proper DBT methodology to obtain reliable results. If you realise that your testing is not good enough to prove anything, then why bother? The ONLY point of a test is to prove something, after all.
If you find it interesting that's fine, but you won't learn anything new until you start testing in the right way. If you REALLY want to repeat several decades of research into the psychology of perception and the pitfalls of subjective evaluation, that's cool. But really there's no point re-inventing the wheel like this. The work's already been done and verified - by people likely much smarter and better equipped that you. Indeed, the total man-years of work they've done is likely many many times your maximum possible lifetime anyway. Instead, why not put your energies into advancing human knowledge rather than, like Curly, retarding it? You should stand on the shoulders of giants. The view is much better up here 🙂
Hey, Curly, why don't you start answering the questions and points put to you?
a) I asked: "Btw, any links to Floyd Toole's 'last papers'? [Edit]- can you give any info on what he's said/written/done and why you find it persuasive? Anything at all, or am I on another wild goose chase to distract me from the discussion you don't want to have ever?"
b) I asked if you were willing to take up Randi's challenge. You said you might just do so given the amount of money he's offering.
AFAIR, it is a nice and interesting reading, but i think she does provide more of a popular approach to the dark side of the brain.
But in any case it is a two sided sword. 🙂
Wishes
Last edited:
No to B. As to A) I found his book and read it. Quite a good read. You are familiar with Floyd Toole's work, right?
Last edited:
Scott I have tried a thousand times, but can not do that one. Although I do wish that I could at times like today 😀
No I was answering terry j's post about the way DBT's are done.
As if I care what you think, luckily here are people like BudP that doesn't mind using his own brain to try and understand what is happening. Those post make all this sht worthwhile. 😉
At least listen what those who "claim" to hear differences say as to where to look for them, it may just help to search in the right place.
Like making insulting remarks?
As if you have. Some of the answers made sense, most belong in highschool electronics classes.
I'm very satisfied with the blind tests I've done but you are welcome to teach me. Especially stating "'blind' tests are still at risk of subjective corruption of data".
Strange, I've learned a lot, how about a hi-fi shootout sometime, bring what you've designed and built and I will do the same. 😉
Not reinventing the wheel, just trying to perfect it, pity some still believe in wooden wheels. 😀
Now you sound like a cheap medium Doomlord.Why don't you use your medium abilities to see what Curly's customers might have to say on this?You could be wrong you know
Maybe some years after,you might be able to realize what the guy who sold you your system did to you?
Yes it is a more popular approach. Most of the more scientific/peer studies are often quite dense, so I like to start slowly 😉
But she documents her stuff well and convincing. It does also jive fairly well with other studies about the issues I've read. There's a good book by a Danish science-journalist, IIRC his name is Tor Norretranders (with slanted dashes through the 'o's of course 😉 ) but I don't think it is translated in English.
And yes it is a two sided sword. But if you know about the pitfalls you can design your tests or whatever to minimize them. Sort of fooling the brain that's trying to fool you 😀
jd
NO ONE here would expect a different comment from you on this.You are already toooooooo predictable on everything.
Now you sound like a cheap medium Doomlord.Why don't you use your medium abilities to see what Curly's customers might have to say on this?You could be wrong you know
Maybe some years after,you might be able to realize what the guy who sold you your system did to you?
I made enough mad that I get a call on occasion to come help them with their system setups still. Like I said before, I never sold anything that was not backed by a 100% satisfaction guarantee, period. Did they offer that where you purchased your galactic boombox there Dumb lord?
There's less written about it than I like. From what I can gather (and others are certainly more familiar with it than I), the test was supposed to be of Pear Cables' claims. Fremer was supposed to be Pear's samurai. When Pear backed out, Fremer wanted to continue for this to be a test of some other cables and him personally (which was not the original protocol). This either was not acceptable to the Randi Foundation or it coincided with Randi's serious illness and subsequent cutting back of his activities and the number of allowed claimants for the prize. Compared to faith healers, famous "paranormalists," perpetual motion frauds, and psychokineticists, speaker cables aren't exactly first tier...
Fremer, of course, is most famous for claiming a perfect score on a public listening demonstration but allegedly not bothering to actually keep and turn in a score sheet in advance of the key being released like the other participants. I wasn't there, but this seems to be the general sense of events.
Anyway, even with simple means you can do a meaningfull, if not totally rigourous, blind test. See here:
AVHub - Hi-Fi - News Articles - Audiophile Society of NSW - February 2009 meeting
Look at the pics, they have hidden the equipment and the cable-switching stuff. Not watertight (it's only single blind) but it shows that there really is no excuse for NOT doing it.
BTW Congrats Hugh, good show!
jd
AVHub - Hi-Fi - News Articles - Audiophile Society of NSW - February 2009 meeting
Look at the pics, they have hidden the equipment and the cable-switching stuff. Not watertight (it's only single blind) but it shows that there really is no excuse for NOT doing it.
BTW Congrats Hugh, good show!
jd
Do the results correspond with the device measurements? This isn't a snark, I'm not sure what this is meant to demonstrate. If the amplifiers were all (presumably, otherwise it's meaningless) operated well within their intended linear ranges and performed in a manner that by our present knowledge of hearing is 'blameless' (no SETs), what are the panelists hearing? This touches on the very core of the last 900+ pages, the correlation between measured performance and audibility. Either the panelists heard things that current measurements don't support, some of the amplifiers measured poorly enough for SS devices to be audible on music, or the test was flawed. Was Hugh in the audience packing heat? 🙂
Last edited:
It's indeed not clear. No statistical raw data (or even calculated data) were given in that link. Could be significant, could be random, no way to know. Were they level-matched? How? What means were taken to ensure that none of the amps were clipping?
It's a fun afternoon, but no more than that.
No idea about all this, I just posted it as an example how you could do some 'blind' tests with simple means. I don't think Hugh was in the audience, apparently someone brought an 'old' AKSA amp.
And your points are all valid, at least I would do level matching and make sure no clipping would occur.
But, as said, a simple way to do MUCH better than the anecdotal stuff.
Where'd you get that from?
jd
- Status
- Not open for further replies.