Still trying to sabotage any real effort to sort things out? Easier than putting yourself or your beliefs on the line.
Unlike you, Tom doesn't run away making excuses nor encourage others to.
That's really pitiful, John.
Unlike you, Tom doesn't run away making excuses nor encourage others to.
That's really pitiful, John.
Yup 🙂.
Of course Madoff was also "working at the edge of knowledge" in areas not described in "normal" Financial textbooks. So it was not possible to 'prove' everything that 'works' to the satisfaction of everyone.
He had the numbers and measures that seemed complex and technical enough for the audioph....excuse me, cutting edge "open minded", "try something" investor.
Quantum Economics is one of those areas that is often useful for understanding how to make better investments. It was NOT the audioph....excuse me, "open minded" investors area of expertise. However, they found that using a concept derived from their understanding and use of it, gave enough intellectual framework to go along with it.
We all see how that worked out. 😀
All it took was investigation by one person afflicted with common sense......
cheers,
AJ
I would really apreciate if a test could be set up to finish that debate based on the current state of the art of test methods. I failed miserably to prove to the majority of people that cables are audible. It´s a shism that worries me. On one hand the beleavers in anything that is writren down and on the other hand the ones that already know that cables are inaudibe. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between.
It's attitudes like this that ensure this will never have a resolution.
Thank god Tg looks like he can move past this, as amply evidenced by his rapprochemont (however it's spelt!!) with AJ.
What is required from BOTH parties is a desire to find out some objective truth of the matter, TG has shown that willingness and it is clear that he perceives that same willingness in SY and AJ.
On the other hand John, you show nothing in that regard. It is rather pathetic actually.
It is also clear from you post that you have no agenda or prejudice. Have you anything of value to contribute to this methodology?
Nope, I agree with you on that point at least.
Thus spake the moderate, with no agenda...
Interestly (and somewhat unsurprisingly) its also the excuse given by faith healers when their stuff turns to body waste too.
Last edited:
Propeller Head Plaza - Re: I sure as hell don't - john curl, November 01, 2006 at 22:44:46
John, this was for how many years?
What were some of the favorite pastimes of that era?
Joachim, at the bottom right of the post is a button labeled "QUOTE". Would you mind using it to display the exact words of those (or anyone) who "know that cables are inaudibe"?
TIA
cheers,
AJ
My frustration come from reaction to my work on cables. That work was discussed in a german internet forum with the result that the magnitude of the shown differences is inaudible based on known limits of the human ear. I have to look up that thead for exact words that have been used. I was acused to be a luminary and totally out of this world whereas my intent was only to prove that measurable differences exist that could shed some light on audible differences claimed by some without actual measurements. What i can quote is again the influential D.Self. I think he is somewhat typical for the position of people i met on that forum. Like my mother said " what i can not see does not exist"
"The limits of hearing" :
"In evaluating the Subjectivist position, it is esential to consider the known abilities of the human ear. Contrary to the impression given by some commentators, who call constantly for more psychoacoustical research, a vast amount of hard scientific information already exist on this subject ...."
So what is the purpose of any new experiment when all is known about the diferentiation abilities of the ear ? In fact beleaving what he says makes this whole thread redundant.
"The limits of hearing" :
"In evaluating the Subjectivist position, it is esential to consider the known abilities of the human ear. Contrary to the impression given by some commentators, who call constantly for more psychoacoustical research, a vast amount of hard scientific information already exist on this subject ...."
So what is the purpose of any new experiment when all is known about the diferentiation abilities of the ear ? In fact beleaving what he says makes this whole thread redundant.
IOW, you don't want to bother with the actual business of demonstrating audibility. Can you understand why this doesn't enhance the credibility of your claims?
Is there anyone out there that can OBJECTIVELY see what the situation is here, and what will happen. Why, for example, does SY or anyone else need to be in the test at all? IF we can not trust an objective 'subjectivist' how are we going to trust an non-objective 'objectivist' to administer the test?
Last edited:
In terms of "bang for buck" impact, cable research is a dead end. They are simple, passive devices which cannot usefully contribute to any of the areas that will make a big difference to sound reproduction in the home.
If the goal of high quality sound reproduction is to trick the ear/brain combination into transporting us from the listening space to the recording space, (from the present “here” to the past recorded “there”) then the greatest contributions will come from:
- a better understanding of the psycho-acoustics of listening environments. Specifically how reverberation fields can be created in home environments that mimic larger acoustical spaces (for those that like the classical music concert hall effect, or indeed the rock music “arena sound”).
- better understanding of how loudspeakers interact with rooms, and how room modes are adversely or positively influence by different loudspeaker placement and design. See for instance Linkwitz’s site for some discussion about this.
- advances in recording techniques that can be adapted to multi-channel formats to generate realistic sound fields in the home, given the proportion of homes now with multi-channel systems.
Well, I'm glad to know that, Bioconnor. Could I get you interested in a position with Pass Labs, Ayre, Bryston, or somebody else who is a direct competitor? It would really help.
Keep trying, John. Pitiful. Really, really pitiful. And, as usual, incorrect on the facts. Do you have anything actually useful to contribute?
I can demonstrate the audibility of cables only in the context of my owm sysstem at home.
The double blind tests i participated in where not sensitive enough to differentiate a decent component from one that had higher espirations. I came to the conclusion that being in the presence of unknown people and circumstances lower my ability to differentiate to a mediocre level.
I need my things around me. My music, my furniture, my famly, the air that i breath etc.
It is a very personal thing and you could dismiss that as esoteric but it is esential for me to be under control about the circumstances. That destroyes any objectivity and that is the reason i gave up to demonstrate any subtle differences in public.
I can only invite you to visit me and listen for yourself.
The double blind tests i participated in where not sensitive enough to differentiate a decent component from one that had higher espirations. I came to the conclusion that being in the presence of unknown people and circumstances lower my ability to differentiate to a mediocre level.
I need my things around me. My music, my furniture, my famly, the air that i breath etc.
It is a very personal thing and you could dismiss that as esoteric but it is esential for me to be under control about the circumstances. That destroyes any objectivity and that is the reason i gave up to demonstrate any subtle differences in public.
I can only invite you to visit me and listen for yourself.
Creationism is actually quite an apt comparison. The similarities include a total failure to produce any evidence, appeal to authority, a lack of recognition of the necessity of rigor, the avoidance of peer review, the deliberate ignorance of basic physics, and a closed-minded refusal to consider any data that would potentially falsify their beliefs.
Look everyone, I have had my say, here. It is for each and every one of us to go forward in the direction we think best.
Quite the opposite, I don't dismiss that at all. That's why I'm running Tom's test in his room, his system, his choice and control of music, volume, and switching, and his choice of who is and isn't present in the room.
That´s a big improovement i think. The more sensitive listeners are very aware of the surounding. I talked with Eric Kongshaug ( engineer for ECM et.all.) about that. He said that the best sounding recordings happen when the musicians feel comfortable. A good coffee or tea can help too. And a well tuned piano he added.
Or Talmudic scholars arguing interpretations of a book from higher authority.
You're the one refusing to consider any option but the ABX box, even when presented with an Occam-friendlier alternative. I was watching some documentary or other a couple nights ago and laughed when it touched on the Milgram experiment. While an actor playing the role of an unknown authority figure with no more complex tools than a lab coat and pocket protector exerts 'mind control' rays sufficient to coerce a subject to kill innocent strangers, it's simply not possible for known and admired authority figure in a group setting to change a subject's behaviour in a listening test. Now that's Type-A.
And I'm rigid?
TG, run.
You're the one refusing to consider any option but the ABX box, even when presented with an Occam-friendlier alternative. I was watching some documentary or other a couple nights ago and laughed when it touched on the Milgram experiment. While an actor playing the role of an unknown authority figure with no more complex tools than a lab coat and pocket protector exerts 'mind control' rays sufficient to coerce a subject to kill innocent strangers, it's simply not possible for known and admired authority figure in a group setting to change a subject's behaviour in a listening test. Now that's Type-A.
And I'm rigid?
TG, run.
I'll put my hand up.
When it gets down to it, the objectivist will bow to the wisdom of numbers, regardless of what they contradict in their own belief systems.
The subjectivists on the other hand are dismissive of the numbers and focus entirely on thier personal perception which, it has to be admitted, may be grounded in many years of experience but is still fallible and not externally verifiable EXCEPT by objective experiment.
Given this, it would seem that you must have an objectivist running the test regardless of what the test is, since a primary requirement is absolute belief in proof of numbers. Best if a subjectivist looks over their shoulder to confirm the numbers of course - we wouldn't want cheating here (without impuning SYs integrity)
The worst possible person to run a test is a committed subjectivist as they will move mental mountains not to have their preconceptions proven wrong (if that is what occurs)
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.