Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought that you mean that placebo helps to mentally subnormal people only.
He did, actually. No funds are available to conduct research among people who are not biased (i.e. don't benefit from research results).
Clinical trials are conducted and funded to test production of pharmaceutical companies, so almost no FDA approved alternatives exist, like combination of proper thoughts, nutrition, and behavioral patterns, because there is no such wealthy industry (that can compete against pharmaceutical corporations) that promotes healthy lifestyle that saves money on medications. Who helps to save money don't have funds to finance trials. The same problem. 😉
More Alpha!
But, in practice, we aim to develop something that pleases BOTH criteria, hoping to render the question meaningless. More of the good, less of the bad, that's the whole point of the exercise.
It turns out that when the "inhibitors" are reduced, then the stress reduces, Alpha waves go up, and then the pleasure from the music creates even more powerful waves, sometimes reaching down into the Theta and Delta ranges.
Then the Alpha waves would not last very long! If you have a strong conscious dislike it will create easily measurable stress in the form of a rapid drop in skin resistance.
But, in practice, we aim to develop something that pleases BOTH criteria, hoping to render the question meaningless. More of the good, less of the bad, that's the whole point of the exercise.
It turns out that when the "inhibitors" are reduced, then the stress reduces, Alpha waves go up, and then the pleasure from the music creates even more powerful waves, sometimes reaching down into the Theta and Delta ranges.
You guys are still arguing about this?
Jack Caldwell has provided some interesting information, but exactly what the significance of inaudible audio is I am at a loss to determine, and as sofaspud has pointed out, these are measurements. The fact that they are measurements is the only thing that makes them interesting, but Jack presents his information as some kind of antidote to what he describes as
You are mistaken anyway Jack. No-one is insisting on ‘measurements only’. What we are insisting on is ‘evidence only.’
It’s not surprising anyway that he’s advancing this kind of argument, he’s involved with ‘holistic’ products. ‘Holistic’ is a buzzword previously used in medicine in support of such ‘complementary’ disciplines as ‘crystal therapy’, homeopathy and in general anything which is otherwise unsupported by conventional knowledge other than the placebo effect. Holistic Audio Arts website is replete with buzzwords such as ‘psychoacoustic blockers’, ‘virtual audio hologram’ and advertises speakers costing $36,900 which are ‘arguably the best in the world’. At $36,900 I could do a fair bit of arguing, but it sure as hell makes him an interested party, so don’t be taken in.
ThorstenL approves of DBT, but only DBT that is conducted by him, presumably so that he can convince himself that the results are unbiased, but still get the ones he wants. He characterizes James Randi as a charlatan, which is is simple piece of character assassination, presumably excited by the fact that Randi has himself exposed so many charlatans. This single act says more than sufficient about ThorstenL 's trustworthiness as an observer and commentator. Randi might be mistaken, but it would be sufficient to point out exactly how and where he has been mistaken, he is certainly not perpetrating a deliberate fraud. ThorstenL’s arguments are designed mostly to convince everybody that nobody knows as much as ThorstenL, but at least the rest of us have sufficient self-awareness to recognise when we have been inconsistent.
On the one side we have a bunch of people who believe there is 'something else', something ineffable, something beyond which the imaginations of the unimaginative can not penetrate. The 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy' bunch.
Then there are the rest of us who are trying merely to make sense to the best of our ability of a complicated world on the basis of verifiable evidence, and who would really prefer not to see $30k+ prices being charged for an assemblage of components with probably sub-$1k cost.
Unfortunately the things undreamt of in Horatio’s philosophy are not all sublime, many are just plain ridiculous.
w
Jack Caldwell has provided some interesting information, but exactly what the significance of inaudible audio is I am at a loss to determine, and as sofaspud has pointed out, these are measurements. The fact that they are measurements is the only thing that makes them interesting, but Jack presents his information as some kind of antidote to what he describes as
You are mistaken anyway Jack. No-one is insisting on ‘measurements only’. What we are insisting on is ‘evidence only.’
It’s not surprising anyway that he’s advancing this kind of argument, he’s involved with ‘holistic’ products. ‘Holistic’ is a buzzword previously used in medicine in support of such ‘complementary’ disciplines as ‘crystal therapy’, homeopathy and in general anything which is otherwise unsupported by conventional knowledge other than the placebo effect. Holistic Audio Arts website is replete with buzzwords such as ‘psychoacoustic blockers’, ‘virtual audio hologram’ and advertises speakers costing $36,900 which are ‘arguably the best in the world’. At $36,900 I could do a fair bit of arguing, but it sure as hell makes him an interested party, so don’t be taken in.
ThorstenL approves of DBT, but only DBT that is conducted by him, presumably so that he can convince himself that the results are unbiased, but still get the ones he wants. He characterizes James Randi as a charlatan, which is is simple piece of character assassination, presumably excited by the fact that Randi has himself exposed so many charlatans. This single act says more than sufficient about ThorstenL 's trustworthiness as an observer and commentator. Randi might be mistaken, but it would be sufficient to point out exactly how and where he has been mistaken, he is certainly not perpetrating a deliberate fraud. ThorstenL’s arguments are designed mostly to convince everybody that nobody knows as much as ThorstenL, but at least the rest of us have sufficient self-awareness to recognise when we have been inconsistent.
On the one side we have a bunch of people who believe there is 'something else', something ineffable, something beyond which the imaginations of the unimaginative can not penetrate. The 'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy' bunch.
Then there are the rest of us who are trying merely to make sense to the best of our ability of a complicated world on the basis of verifiable evidence, and who would really prefer not to see $30k+ prices being charged for an assemblage of components with probably sub-$1k cost.
Unfortunately the things undreamt of in Horatio’s philosophy are not all sublime, many are just plain ridiculous.
w
Waki, I think you are creating a dichotomy where one doesn't exist & Jack & Thorsten are saying that it isn't a black & white, two polar extremes - those who measure & those who don't - there are a lot in the middle who do both. Jack is saying that we should expand our measurements to not just signals in acoustics but also to the psycho in psychoacoustics. Can't argue with him there!
Hi jk,
Don't be naiive. Of course it's black and white. What is required is to examine the psycho in psycho.
There's no requirement to identify a science of psychoacoustics as distinct from acoustics. Certainly not in order to introduce an element of the unquantifiable. Acoustics has never been understood solely in isolation from listeners. If there hadn't been listeners there wouldn't be any acoustics.
Where do you imagine compression systems such as MP3 and LD-CELP (used in mobile phones) come from and are based on? They're based on both electronics (and physics) and human studies.
These guys are just trying to discredit hard science for motives of their own. It's a joke, except it isn't funny. Not at $36,900 a pop.
w
Hehe
Of course the sound of one hand clapping & all that but why don't you feel that a better understanding of psychoacoustics is useful?
I'm not with you about who is trying & what they are discrediting? Seems to me a perfectly reasonable approach!
Hi 'baki,
That is obviously and patently untrue. I have clearly stated what I expect from a DB Test to take it serious in post #250 as:
"Blind testing is an essential scientific tool, but it is subject to the vagaries of expectation bias (aka. Placebo effect), attention deficit/examination stress, fundamental statistics and poor experimental set-up. Anyone wanting to be taken serious will attend to these."
So I will accept any DB Test that applies credible statistics which includes clearly states all confidence limits applicable (for both type A and type B statistical errors), uses numbers of subjects/trials that allow it substantial statistic power, accounts for Placebo/Nocebo/Expectation bias etc. et al effects and uses a well designed experimental set-up, preferably one which has been validated first by confirming it can reliably discriminate known audible phenomena.
Any DB Test that fails in any of these cannot be taken serious as anything but anecdotal evidence, due to flaws in the experiment.
If a pharmaceutical company sought FDA or similar approval in other countries using tests set-up like those preferred (for good reasons) by the ABX Mafia they would be laughed out of the building.
Yet we are supposed to take such fundamentally useless tests as the gospel because suddenly in audio all the rules are changed, I don't think so.
Actually, what "The Great Randi", who is an Illusionist by trade I may add, does do is nothing more and less than cheap parlour tricks and illusions and is irrelevant to the proof of anything. In fact, the very setup he employs to "expose charlatans" has all halmarks of a confidence trick, please look it up.
This is where part company, I do assert that what he (and many other "debunkers") commit amounts to fraud in the scientific, not the legal sense, insofar as experimental results are in essence obtained in a manner that can only be characterised as fraudulent, as it is designed and set up to return the results desired by the "debunker", regardless of the actuals of the situation.
In many cases this may not even matter, as the items or individuals are indeed not capable of what is being advertised, but it remains bad and fraudulent science nevertheless.
Really, you are now a Psychiatrists AND you recognise when you have been inconsistent? Marvelous news and thank you for your free consultation Dr. 'baki.
Now, now, I am unsure who proposed things ineffable. Over time, as we (humans) have been increasing our understanding of the world around us and of ourselves we have seen many dearly held concepts demolished and replaced by superior and more accurate, more useful models.
Prior to such replacements we have seen often for centuries the tecknologickal arts as well as science tottering along on ill fitting canes of precepts that where wrong, yet had not found yet a good replacement.
Then as now the cognitive dissonance of working with a model that fails to cover all observations has let to two reactions, one that of challenging these models, even if no superior replacement was proposed and that of asserting the eternal and absolute truth of these models (the burning of the heretic that questioned these has become increasingly optional, thanks heaven)
If you would prefer not to see something, you may wish to avoid looking.
You make it sound as if only in the realm of HiFi there is any over-charging, as you see it, not that of any other consumer goods, financial services, basic foods or health/pharmacy.
If you really intend to "protect the consumer", maybe start with the stuff that affects 90% of the people, not the less than 10%, anything else would be like the man who had a great big stick in his eye but offered to help his brother to remove a tiny splinter from his.
Especially ridiculous are those who good old Bill so badly.
Ciao T
That is obviously and patently untrue. I have clearly stated what I expect from a DB Test to take it serious in post #250 as:
"Blind testing is an essential scientific tool, but it is subject to the vagaries of expectation bias (aka. Placebo effect), attention deficit/examination stress, fundamental statistics and poor experimental set-up. Anyone wanting to be taken serious will attend to these."
So I will accept any DB Test that applies credible statistics which includes clearly states all confidence limits applicable (for both type A and type B statistical errors), uses numbers of subjects/trials that allow it substantial statistic power, accounts for Placebo/Nocebo/Expectation bias etc. et al effects and uses a well designed experimental set-up, preferably one which has been validated first by confirming it can reliably discriminate known audible phenomena.
Any DB Test that fails in any of these cannot be taken serious as anything but anecdotal evidence, due to flaws in the experiment.
If a pharmaceutical company sought FDA or similar approval in other countries using tests set-up like those preferred (for good reasons) by the ABX Mafia they would be laughed out of the building.
Yet we are supposed to take such fundamentally useless tests as the gospel because suddenly in audio all the rules are changed, I don't think so.
Actually, what "The Great Randi", who is an Illusionist by trade I may add, does do is nothing more and less than cheap parlour tricks and illusions and is irrelevant to the proof of anything. In fact, the very setup he employs to "expose charlatans" has all halmarks of a confidence trick, please look it up.
This is where part company, I do assert that what he (and many other "debunkers") commit amounts to fraud in the scientific, not the legal sense, insofar as experimental results are in essence obtained in a manner that can only be characterised as fraudulent, as it is designed and set up to return the results desired by the "debunker", regardless of the actuals of the situation.
In many cases this may not even matter, as the items or individuals are indeed not capable of what is being advertised, but it remains bad and fraudulent science nevertheless.
Really, you are now a Psychiatrists AND you recognise when you have been inconsistent? Marvelous news and thank you for your free consultation Dr. 'baki.
Now, now, I am unsure who proposed things ineffable. Over time, as we (humans) have been increasing our understanding of the world around us and of ourselves we have seen many dearly held concepts demolished and replaced by superior and more accurate, more useful models.
Prior to such replacements we have seen often for centuries the tecknologickal arts as well as science tottering along on ill fitting canes of precepts that where wrong, yet had not found yet a good replacement.
Then as now the cognitive dissonance of working with a model that fails to cover all observations has let to two reactions, one that of challenging these models, even if no superior replacement was proposed and that of asserting the eternal and absolute truth of these models (the burning of the heretic that questioned these has become increasingly optional, thanks heaven)
If you would prefer not to see something, you may wish to avoid looking.
You make it sound as if only in the realm of HiFi there is any over-charging, as you see it, not that of any other consumer goods, financial services, basic foods or health/pharmacy.
If you really intend to "protect the consumer", maybe start with the stuff that affects 90% of the people, not the less than 10%, anything else would be like the man who had a great big stick in his eye but offered to help his brother to remove a tiny splinter from his.
Especially ridiculous are those who good old Bill so badly.
Ciao T
Hi 'baki,
Yet in absence of credible evidence one way or another, what do we do?
As you seem to present yourself here as the high guru with all the answers, answer it.
Ciao T
Yet in absence of credible evidence one way or another, what do we do?
As you seem to present yourself here as the high guru with all the answers, answer it.
Ciao T
I'll continue reading momentarily, but had to pause and point out, "Actually, what "The Great Randi", who is an Illusionist by trade I may add, does do is nothing more and less than cheap parlour tricks and illusions and is irrelevant to the proof of anything. In fact, the very setup he employs to "expose charlatans" has all halmarks of a confidence trick, please look it up." Haven't we been here before? His professional name is "The Amazing Randi" first of all. He is/was an magician by trade, and you seem to equate that with "cheap parlour tricks." You also see him as a con man exposing con men? Where exactly is "look it up"? Do you want me to ask what Uri Geller thinks?
Hi,
I see him as a con-man. What is his game? The same as all others.
As for "look it up", go to the website of the Org and look at the small print (including tax emption status it shares with the Church of Scientology, among others), that more than suffices.
Ciao T
I see him as a con-man. What is his game? The same as all others.
As for "look it up", go to the website of the Org and look at the small print (including tax emption status it shares with the Church of Scientology, among others), that more than suffices.
Ciao T
What "inhibitors"? Being a virtual pseudoscience buzzword, it's probably a term best left to traditional applied science endeavors.
I see a problem for you. You say, "we aim to develop something that pleases BOTH criteria, hoping to render the question meaningless." But if "we aim to render something meaningless, hoping to develop BOTH criteria" it would look identical at this point. I'm with Waki on that.
I find the placebo effect being misused also. It works because all subjects know they have been given a dosage. It hasn't a true analog as relates to a DB listening test. And ADD/exam stress is beyond reason. It's something that could be applied anywhere and everywhere, along with a, "Well, it's possible."
Uman race had passed trhoughout deep ignorance and now we are to expand our knowledge toward science. Off course, not all umans are prone toward science, and the fascination of dark ages magics are still pulling those who find science a bit hard to undertstand. Obviusly, and clearly there's not such grey areas, neither black and white, just phisics, math, and reality. 🙂
And, perhaps, who understand this, who dont, and who have their own theory.
And, perhaps, who understand this, who dont, and who have their own theory.
C'mon now. Do you have any idea how many 501(c)3 organizations there are? The Salvation Army perhaps? The March of Dimes? Virtually any church in the USA, including the Church of Scientology? Your statement is pointless rhetoric, so no, it doesn't suffice.
All part of the con I'm sure...
ss, in the small and rapidly dying high end audio niche, the important thing that one sells is entertainment. That requires a good story. Whether or not the goods deliver discernibly different sound is beside the point- the question is, is the user getting the entertainment value that he (and it's 99.9% "he") is looking for?
Far easier to make vague, dark accusations against real researchers and to make grandiose (and unsupported) claims than to do things like actually present data contradicting published work or presenting one's own data at a decent level or rigor about claimed new phenomena, and it's consistent with the business practice needed to hawk one's goods in that market. It's part of the gimmick.
Far easier to make vague, dark accusations against real researchers and to make grandiose (and unsupported) claims than to do things like actually present data contradicting published work or presenting one's own data at a decent level or rigor about claimed new phenomena, and it's consistent with the business practice needed to hawk one's goods in that market. It's part of the gimmick.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.