What kind of evidence do you consider as sufficient?

[KSTR]

The difference in sound was caused by the imagination of the tester, possibly chemically enhanced...

Actually just simple cognitive bias I would say, the knowledge that the files were created differently leads to the expectation that they "must sound different because of this", even when there is no mechanism supporting any possible change.

 

[scott wurcer]

I understand the point here but the claim is made that one file has obtained a "better vibe" no matter where it resides even if the two were swapped into exactly the same sectors of a disk or if I had 9 copies of one and one of the other the 9 would always have the w/wo vibe sound.

 

[KSTR]

Silly claim, on par with claims that you car emits less CO2 etc when you place one of those esoteric stickers on the fuel tank cap: Quantum Mechanic Holograms - solutions for health and environment

 

[AudioLapDance]

For those wanting to hear what MAX GOOP can do to (audio) files when copied over USB.

Funniest snake oil theories

Yep and here's my results:

Thanks for posting the files.

Compared Standard to Treated 1.

Listened for differences in percussive, layered, loud and soft passages and the bass intro and the song fade out through T's iDAC and Linkwitz's Sony MDR-EX51LP headphones:



http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/the-lounge/234829-funniest-snake-oil-theories-1388.html#post5338973

 

[scott wurcer]

Quantum Mechanic Holograms - solutions for health and environment

At least they use the Q word.

 

[jfetter]

For proof I now use intuition, gut feelings, and cynical skepticism.

I do not "believe in" any thesis put forth by a human.

On physics it's interesting that within our measurable world, if taken literally the religious scriptures are looking to be very accurate.

 

[scottjoplin]

I presume you dismiss the illusion of time?

 

[leadbelly]

On physics it's interesting that within our measurable world, if taken literally the religious scriptures are looking to be very accurate.

WTF? You have got one heavy filter going on.

 

[Markw4]

It seems like what KSTR describes is a valid effect to point out as being possible.

However, it does't seem to be the same as the effect described and claimed by Dan (Max Headroom).

Just so long as we can distinguish the two when we talk about claimed audible playback effects, there shouldn't be a problem.

 

[scott wurcer]

the religious scriptures are looking to be very accurate.

Which religions?

Do you think we will get to a procedure for testing the audibility of DAC's.

 

[scott wurcer]

I presume you dismiss the illusion of time?

YouTube

 

[Waly]

Do you think we will get to a procedure for testing the audibility of DAC's.

Not a chance in hell. This would be way off the scope of the FUD campaign perpetrated for years now. It would mean the end of it, no more "positive controls", no more outrageous claims, etc... It would be like making Mr. Curl admit that peeking is cheating.

 

[jfetter]

Which religions?

Do you think we will get to a procedure for testing the audibility of DAC's.

Dac , yes but psyacoustics will have to make a 'quantum leap'.

Most religions have numerous intercept points with each other.

 

[Jakob2]

Yes, that is also true. It is one way to distinguish the scientist from the quack: the scientist welcomes genuine correction, especially if delivered in the right spirit.

but shouldn´t emphasize too much the "right spirit" part; to accept genuine correction is mandatory despite the spirit behind it.....

I guess one man's FUD is another man's attempt at clarity.

What I have seen on this forum on a number of occasions is that someone persists in defending an indefensible position or attacking a reasonable position, but not by offering good arguments. Eventually the mask slips and he says something like "well I must be right because of all the sales/articles/money I have accumulated". Then we say "Ah! That explains it.".

I don´t dispute that this happens (happened in this past and most likeley will happen in the future) but the main point should be the arguments presented when "attacking...." or "defending ....." because the merrits of those should be evaluated and to do so no knowledge about any interest is required, and of course the lack of arguments is also telling, but to state that again no knowledge about interests is required.

OT,
didn´t have SY another line about the difference in reaction when evidence is presented to an scientist and presented to an cult members?

 

[Jakob2]

The following is an example of spreading FUD.

You cited scientific evidence and information from one of my posts as example for "spreading FUD".
That leaves to the conclusion that you want to dismiss/discredit scientific evidence/information if it contradicts your strong personal belief.(for whatever strange reasons)

 

[scottjoplin]

Most religions have numerous intercept points with each other.

Only in your mind which is the only place they exist........like time.... the concept of..

 

[Evenharmonics]

The question was just the short form, as i´ve cited results from various studies examing/comparing different test protocols. The first one (means that i´m aware of) dated back from ~1952, when experiments noticed that testing DLs for pitch gave lower numbers for A/B than for ABX tests. They speculated already back then that the ABX method was more involving for the participants, especially wrt the internal judgement processes.

In later studies these differences were always confirmed (the A/B was just an example, the same holds true when ABX is compared with 3AFC ) but is of course not restricted to the ABX test. it was found for various test protocols that the results were diverging, so the obvious conclusion is that the test participants not only respond to the sensory difference but to the test question/task as well.

Speculation isn't proof. "obvious conclusion" meaning your conclusion.

You cited scientific evidence and information from one of my posts as example for "spreading FUD".
That leaves to the conclusion that you want to dismiss/discredit scientific evidence/information if it contradicts your strong personal belief.(for whatever strange reasons)

You are exaggerating and misapplying science to spread FUD.

 

[Jakob2]

And a few posts later.

Rejecting an argument ("proof" can't be defined without specifying an hypothesis) only to conveniently use it later is the best proof of circular logic.

Does imo not apply to the definition of "circular logic". Ir rejected you complaint about "me asking the wrong question" and i hope you are able to realize the difference.

And when confronted with a rigorous approach, asking for "personal criteria", only to blame "personal criteria" a few posts later.

My question in this thread was about "when do you consider....." that is indeed meant as a personal criterion.
And therefore i hinted to the abstraction that you should use to define/explain your personal criteria.

Plus that you were unable to produce the slightest authoritative reference (and having the nerve to ask what is that, although it was stated a few posts upstream) to an ABX test that uses "positive controls" as you define them, and unrelated to the hypothesis under test. No amount of verbosity or name dropping is going to change this situation.

And for the record, i did not ask what an "authoritative reference is" but instead when a reference "is sufficient authoritative for you" (maybe not the exact wording but to the same effect).

And you gave now a good example why i tend to ask for such clarification, as in your original post your were asking for:

<snip>

I would appreciate some authoritative references supporting this method of defining positive controls.

which is obviously something different then what you ask for now:

to an ABX test that uses "positive controls" as you define them, and unrelated to the hypothesis under test.

as you suddenly narrowed it to "ABX tests" which you didn´t before.

And to ask what constitutes "exceptional claims" when examples were given in black and white again a few posts upstream, and in direct reply to you:<snip>

Asking for what qualifies something to be called "extraordinary" is exactly that and can´t be answered by examples.

 

[Waly]

Does imo not apply to the definition of "circular logic" <bla>

My question in this thread was about "when do you consider <bla>

And for the record, i did not ask what an "authoritative reference <bla>

And you gave now a good example <bla>

which is obviously something different <bla>

as you suddenly narrowed it to "ABX tests" <bla>

Asking for what qualifies something to be called "extraordinary"s <bla>

Another great example of a nitpicking and obfuscating word salad that do not answer any legitimate question, neither explain or address any concerns. I have to admit, you are a master at this type of exercise.


Come up with the DAC test plan, that would be the only thing you could do to fix it. I am not holding my breath while waiting, though.

 

[Waly]

Another great example of a nitpicking and obfuscating word salad that do not answer any legitimate question, neither explain or address any concerns. I have to admit, you are a master at this type of exercise.

Come up with the DAC test plan, that would be the only thing you could do to fix it. I am not holding my breath while waiting, though.

BTW Mr. Jakob, your contributions and suggestions for a good sensory test are desperately needed here:

Silver RCA Cable-share your experience, opinions here!

Please ignore in that topic the very few individuals that dared to challenge the extraordinary claims made; those claims obviously do not require any extraordinary proof.