You Tell 'Em, Arnie!
On Jul 9, 9:04 am, Steven Sullivan wrote:
Scott wrote:
On Jul 8, 3:06?am, Ed Seedhouse wrote:
On Jul 7, 8:07?am, "Walker" wrote:
?new ones. You don't have to believe me and even if you can convince
me with medical devices that it's in my head it's an improved sound and
worth the money.
Bob Walker
Well then I expect soon we will read a newspaper story about how the
JREF foundation has given you a million dollars for proving that you
can hear such differences under blind conditions. ?Such a test should
be trivial for you to pass and surely you would not turn down an easy
million dollars?
That's an article that will never be written. JREF are basically
running a shell game with their so called challenge. Any real
demonstration of cables having different sound will ultimately be
disqualified since the cause of such a difference will be within the
laws of physics.
Audiophiles routinely claim audible difference among classes of
devices whose typical measured performance does not predict audible
difference -- CDPs and cables, for example. (assuming level-matching
for output devices, of course).
And yet we found audible differences between CDPs under blind
conditions. Which simply showed that not all the relevant things were
being measured. And yet this same psuedo-scientific misinformation
continues to be pawned off as true and supported by "science' to this
day.
There is also of course the whole
realm of devices, treatments, and tweaks that have only the faintest
(or no) rational basis for having the claimed audible effect in the
first place, much less the substantial differences reported. In that
category we can put the Belt's tweaks, Shakti stones, Mpingo discs,
the Hallograph, the craziness at Machina Dynamica, LP demagnetizers,
cryogenic treatment of CDs, and the like.
So there are plenty of pairs of devices, including cables, or
treatmetns, that would fit the requirements -- if measured performance
does not predict an audible difference, yet the subject 'passed' the
challenge, then they would be eligible for the million, because there
would be no known physical cause.
OK then do tell us about the "measured" performance of all the tweaks
you just cited as paranormal. You are refering to measured
performance. So it must be fair to assume someone has actually done
some measurements.
The challenge is for someone to show evidence of the paranormal.
Michael Fremer made much the same objection during the Pear/Tara
cables dustup.
Randi replied: "We define "paranormal" as describing an event or a
phenomenon that can actually be shown to occur, but has no explanation
within scientific reasoning.
So Fremer was right. Because it follows that any audible difference
between cables will have a scientific explination.
Detecting differences between two varieties of excellent conductors of
low-voltage electrical signals . speaker leads . via a direct auditory
test, would fall within this usage.
There in lies the debate. But it seems that some simply debate by
declaring they are simply right. Why Randi decided to jump into this
is beyond me. It isn't a question of paranormal activity but a
question of whether or not the distortions of any cable are audible.
The dead moose in the room for everyone on the JREF side of this
debate is that it is quite easy to make cables sound different.
Regardless, we of course have the right to accept this claim as
paranormal in nature, and we hereby do accept it as such. We will even
create, for the purposes of this experimental protocol, a special
category of "golden ears," just for [Fremer]".
I suppose yoy have the right to misuse words for the sake of fueling
the flames between objectivists and subjectivists if that is what you
are into doing. But it doesn't change the *fact* that any audible
differences between cables will have a scientific explination and none
of this has anything to do with the paranormal.
Fremer still objected: "But there are scientific explanations for
sonic differences among cables, including (among others) inductance,
resistance and capacitance, all of which can have an effect on
frequency response. Effective shielding (or not) can and does affect
measurable noise spectra due to the intrusion (or not) or RFI/EMI.
The word "excellent" is meaningless IMO.
According to Webster it does have meaning. I think I'm taking Webster
over you. Not sure what relevance your unorthodox opinion about the
meaning or lack of about that word has on any of this though.
In addition, as I described to you in my email, the 1/3 octave
equalizer example indicates that hearing something that.s not measured
does not indicate "paranormal" activity, ESP or any such thing. It
indicates something scientifically verifiable but not at the time the
observation is made and checked against available measurable
standards. The word "paranormal" is loaded. I don.t like it. If I pass
this test I will be declared to have "paranormal" abilities, which I
deny. It will be like the "lucky coin" business with the amplifiers."
And Randi replied:
"Sir, I assure you that I'm quite familiar with such things as
inductance, resistance, and capacitance as possible factors in
performance. Well, let's leave out the designation "paranormal", then,
since it seems that it intrudes on your sensitivity standards.....look
forward to discussing the parameters, location, and time for a test.
With great enthusiasm!""
In the end, the cable challenge disintegrated because Pear Audio -- a
ridiculous review of whose cables (they were declared 'danceable',
don't you know) sparked the dust-up --wouldn't lend Fremer a pair of
their cables. So Fremer (who hadn't been the reviewer of the Pears in
the first place) wanted to use his own Tara Labs cables. As of March
2008 Randi was still asking his readers if someone could lend them
some Pear Cables to test.
Randi has also called out challengers to claim the prize for
demonstrating audible effects of LP demagnetizing. AFAIk Fremer hasn't
taken him up on that one.
That is one side of it. But the fact still remains Randi never managed
to put any audiophile claims to the preliminary test. He resolved
nothing with all his grandstanding. He kinda made a bit of an ass of
himself on the whole subject by painting people with an overly broad
brush. Then when faced with his numerous misrepresentations of the
facts he dismissed them as unimportant.
Of course the convenient reality is that if one proves something to
be true it ceases to be "paranormal." I mean would quantum physics
have qualified for the JREF challenge before physicists figured it
out?
You're seriously equating the claims and effects that audiophiles
tout, with quantum effects whose existence was confirmed repeatedly by
multiple scientists doing careful experiments?
No, I was asking a question in regards to the rules of JREF challenge.
Certainly you realize that there was a time when many of the
implications of quantum mechanics had not been confirmed by any
experiemtnal evidence? Did you catch the part where I said "before
physicists figured it out?"
After further reading turns out they would have had to pay up on that
one. They draw the line at physics as known at the time of the
challenge. I guess they are banking on the belief that such future
discoveries will not be a factor in any challenges.
But now I have to ask. With all this grandstanding what is stopping so
called skeptics from simply taking on these so called "voodoo" beliefs
in audio by actually testing the objects that are found to be so
objectionable? If objectivists want to debunk things....why not
actually do it? I would expect things like Belt tweeks to be easy
pickings. Personally I just don't care that much. If Peter Belt and
his followers are having fun I see no point it trying to stop that.
|