Said today, when we are celebrating 50 years from the first step on the moon. Those NASA guys were all clearly overconfident, biased, and didn't have much time for fear, uncertainty and doubt, or they would accomplish nothing.
They clearly missed some Bybees, though, that would make the mission so much easier.
The whole US space program was incepted because of fear, uncertainty & doubt over Russia's space program which was far ahead of the US
Yep, a good debating example in some ways.
Unfortunately, the national budget for advancing perceptual audio research lags far behind what is spent on food industry research, not even close to the space program. Nice try though.
I never tried Bybees and wouldn't buy one. No one here is trying to promote the advertising claims or the pricing. JC has talked about good and bad effects of the things. Since I haven't tried them I have nothing to say about that aspect.
Last edited:
That's a good thing. A national budget for advancing perceptual audio research would need to have the same level of priority as financing an investigation about the sexual habits of protozoa. Not from public money please, find private financing, if you can.
Oh, it's only my hunch, I could be wrong, but I doubt there's much federal budget allocation for the food industry, except for safety.
Last edited:
Be nice to have a little research money from somewhere, but probably won't happen from anywhere. No one cares much about it, IMHO, except maybe a few people who argue in forums.
There is the department of agriculture of course. Topics | USDA
Private industry mostly funds research that serves its own interests, IIUC. Some of it is perceptual research, I believe.
Hi mountainman bob,
Sorry for the delay in answering a point you made a couple pages back.
1.) we can measure almost everything, I would say everything today. But, not all of us can measure everything and it would be those people you might be concerned about.
2.) I hate to say it again, expectation bias. It seeps into your mind without you being aware of it. That's why I refuse to evaluate my own work. Others do that for me and I never tell them whether changes have been made or not.
-Chris
Sorry for the delay in answering a point you made a couple pages back.
Because complex wave forms are made up of a series of sine waves varying in frequency and phase. This is a mathematical fact, proved time and time again. So testing various frequencies is a valid approach. If you test the highest frequency involved in a complex wave form, you are covering the maximum rate of change possible. Additionally, new test equipment take a "snap shot" of a wave form and break it down to show all the constituent parts. The problem is that the display would generally make little sense to someone evaluating the results.
A good question with a couple answers.
1.) we can measure almost everything, I would say everything today. But, not all of us can measure everything and it would be those people you might be concerned about.
2.) I hate to say it again, expectation bias. It seeps into your mind without you being aware of it. That's why I refuse to evaluate my own work. Others do that for me and I never tell them whether changes have been made or not.
Sometimes it is, sometimes you actually hear something that another person may not be able to measure. I do a continual study where a friend brings me a device and I try to describe to him what he hears. He is amazed by how many times I am right. I don't listen, only measure. It's a kind of game between us, but then I hand him mystery boxes and have him get back to me. See the game? I think it makes us both better.
Nothing wrong with digging. That is exactly what I have been doing for decades. Better equipment saves me a lot of time and allows me to get it right more often than getting it wrong.
-Chris
Same stuff as yourself.
As much as it would be a surprise to you, there are honest merchants too, even in the audio business (what’s left of it).
Last edited:
Same as myself? I assure you I have nothing to gain financially from anyone here.
The behavior here just has me intrigued......much like slowing down to see a bad wreck on the highway.
Chris, Thanks for taking the time for all the explanations but they seem rather one sided in that theres nothing left to be learned?
The behavior here just has me intrigued......much like slowing down to see a bad wreck on the highway.
Chris, Thanks for taking the time for all the explanations but they seem rather one sided in that theres nothing left to be learned?
Last edited:
Did it ever occur to you why?
They must be all overconfident, biased, and close minded, of course
So far as I am aware, the term 'expectation bias' seems to be commonly misused in some audio forums. A formal definition can be found at: List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia
"Experimenter's or expectation bias:
The tendency for experimenters to believe, certify, and publish data that agree with their expectations for the outcome of an experiment, and to disbelieve, discard, or downgrade the corresponding weightings for data that appear to conflict with those expectations.[46]"
If there is some other formal definition, I am not aware of it. Is there possibly a link I could take a look at? Or, perhaps you may be thinking of one of the other cognitive biases in the above referenced list?
Last edited:
Did I say anything about direct financial gains? As long as I have no evidence other than circumstantial I cannot make any assumptions about, other than casual jesting, which some are taking way to serious to be a simple coincidence
.I have not seen any published research on that, and I would prefer to take a wait and see attitude rather than jump to conclusions.
Did you ever wonder about that? Its not your tone of voice or the look on your face.
It is the complete absence of them.
Yes, sometimes your words give clues, sometimes not, at least not to people who don't know you well.
It is the nature of forums to have such problems, and it is a problem here, IMHO.
Last edited:
Nope, it’s not that. Have I blinked when simon7000 questioned my mental health https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the...wtorch-preamplifier-iii-2564.html#post5857641 ? I would have the same (non)reaction if somebody would allude I am a techno vampire industrial punk, I couldn’t care less about what you or anybody else think about yours truly. But you and your brothers in arms are jumping up and down when you hear the FUD acronym or any suggestion about a vested interest in the audio business, speaking about circumstantial evidence.
Thanks god, for a moment I thought you could confound me with Jakob(x). Whew, what a relief!
Psychopathy - Wikipedia
Psychopathy in the workplace - Wikipedia
Don't know why he would do that...
...and you say you didn't bat an eyelash?
You know I believe you.
Last edited:
I can tell you why, don’t need any funding: because almost nobody gives a flying **** on the so-called High End Audio, and that 0.001% which do, have deep enough pockets to feed their illusions and the audio snake oil merchants, not much harm done. After all, those merchants may be viewed as having the same sanitary role as hyenas in the jungle: they stink, but they play a role in recirculating the ecosystem resources (money).
P.S. In case you are wondering, yes, for 99.999% of adult population, I believe all decent non pathologically designed and built amplifiers sound the same. Myself, I do not claim that my 100W/8ohm 1ppm @20KHz power amplifier sounds anywhere better than an old Harman Kardon 3770 I salvaged for $25 at the flea market.
Last edited:
There might have been some Bybee technology in the space program, even from the moon landing. It would have been used for improving S/N in communications, but it would have been heavily classified then. It was used in submarine warfare during the Cold War for passive sonar for sure. Of course, Bybee's latest stuff is more from German research today, regarding atomic resonance.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.