AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - science vs. pseudo-science

(S888Wheel) wrote:

No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different
is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.

Tom said

It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias
controlled
experiment.

It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias
controled
tests.

It is an extraordinary claim because it has ONLY been observed in
bias-controlled tests when a known audibility element was also either
verified or likely. Meyer measured the response and reported same. Banks and
Krajicek didn't verify the response element but it was most certainly present
with the equipment selected (high-output impedance amplifier with frequency
response errors.)

Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.

As before.

There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.

I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.

Further more no one is saying that differences between amps are
inexpicable.

That's right. They come to a few selected elements and can be
verified. If are you agreeing that an amplifier with flat response at the
speaker
terminals not driven into overload more than 1% of the time will be
transparent
then what's left to argue?

Tom said

So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.

Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
is a
claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical
claim based
of established facts.

The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.

It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even €˜difficult load conditions.

For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.

To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
to making claims of para-normality.

If we want to 'warp' the response of the loudspeaker an equalizer is a much
better method than using an incompetent amplifier which will normally
supply incompetence through a high-output impedance.

Now IF you're claiming that extra-normal amp 'sound' is a function of
non-amplification irregularities (frequency response or overload
errors) into a given load then we all "agree" on what "amp sound" is.

But you appear to be making a more global statement. That clipping and
frequency response errors are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound.
This is extraordinary.

If you are NOT making a statement like this then we have no
disagreement.

Tom said

It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence.

No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are
still
picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater
wieght on
that
anecdotal evidence than it is due.

So statements of 'amp sound' without bias controls carry the same
weight as experiments that have applied these experimental protocols?
I strongly disagree.

€¦.snip€¦.

Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien
Abductions to
report?

Yes.

J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.

But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that the
abductions
themselves have been investigated.

My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature. People who
are given the same sound presentations are very prone to report them as
different. e.g. report distorted versions of reality. I'm glad you brought
this up because appears to
illustrate my point quite well.

I said

There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.

Tom said

Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?

I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien
abductions.

But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you? You only found one examining
memory distortions of reporting on them.

Are we to accept that this is evidence that abductions (amp sound)
actually occur? Not in my house

And do we have peer-reviewed papers on the
existence of abductions?

But I will agree that people have investigated paranormal activity and not
found evidence of it.
Likewise I and others have investigated amp/wire sound and found likewise.

Tom said

That's
what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me
included)
and
not found same.

No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ.
Articles
have
been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when
comparing amps
and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely
disinterested in the
results of such tests. Yes it would pobably be very uninteresting to
go out
looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found
nothing.

When
one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds
nothing.
They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either
way,
there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio
engineers.

This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
dozen others followed. What more is needed?

In
all
those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is
inaudible
do
they not?

Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.

€¦.snip€¦..

Tom said

I think
any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING
the
claim.

You are wrong. the validation should come from propper scientific
investigation. Most people who stumble upon interesting new data in
the field
are not qualified to make claims much less validate them.

"Stumble" on interesting new data about audibility? Is that you or
Tara Labs?

Come on. The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Tara Labs, Transparent Audio
Marketing, Pass, Bryston, etc and their sales/marketing channels have
been telling us for years of how much 'better" their products sound better than
my
meager Heathkit, Yamaha amd Parasound, junk box rcas and zip cord. These claims
have been
being made for decades.

You want me to accept that they (and you) have "stumbled" on exciting
new data that none of the rest of us is privy to? And that the work of
legitimate scientists
and engineers such as Floyd Toole, Dan Shanefield, Stanley Lip****z, John
Vanderkooy and Earl Geddes
who have investigated these claims and failed to validate the extraordinary
claims is to be
granted the same weight as high-end magazine reviews, salesmans claims and
newgroup
anecdotes?

Those claims are similar to the "miracle" gas and oil treatments we see
advertised. €¦€¦
unverified€¦. And you want them granted equal weight? I think that those
making the claims should
validate them if they want to be taken seriously.

Tom said

The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the
Proponents.
Those
of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so.
It's
YOUR
turn now.

No, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming their position on the
matter is supported by science. I have made no such claims. You have. You have

the burden of proof.

Hogwash. I have put many of these claims to the test with personal
bias-controlled experiments and none of the proponents has ever been
able to verify ANY sound quality effects of their stuff even in their personal
reference systems WHEN bias controls were employed.

I don't make any claim except that THEY have never established that
those products have any sound, let alone better, sound than modestly priced
commercially available ware.

It isn't that NO evidence exists either way. There's plenty of it. You
could even duplicate some of it yourself if you were curious enough. That's
what I was doing as early as 1978.

The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are
misrepresented.
There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be
considered scientifically valid.

Why not? You just don't like the results. And you have no reasonable
objection. Theres been no scientifically valid evidence that paranormal
activity
cant exist or that alien abductions DONT occur either.

It is true that no one has been able to demonstrate paranormal skills or show
true evidence of an abduction or a public examination of BigFoot; but using
your logic theres no scientific evidence either way.

€¦snip€¦€¦

I said

And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
correctly
pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.

OK so what?

Tom said

IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
response,
overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
proponent to
have conducted a replicable and
reviewed experiment showing such to be
true.

I said

If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be
reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested
scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate
and all
the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
themsleves

to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and
publication
in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious
interest.

Again why hasnt a wire manufacturer done this? It should be easy, as you
say.

Why should I. It isn't my claim. I'm a 20 year member of the AES and
a past officer. I'd never recommend that the Journal publish a "We looked for
BigFoot and didn't find Him" article. It would be a waste of ink better devoted
to real issues.

Extraordinary claims, claims of any nature, need to be verified by the
claimant.

Ã˜ Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

Even IF that were true; so what? Given that no proponent has ever
supplied a single example of non-verified amp/wire sound even exists I don't
understand why you are working so hard to support it. Rejecting even
overwhelming
contrary evidence; experiments designed so strongly to support the Mythology
claims that IF they held a grain of truth it would surely shine through.

Tom said

So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller,
manufacturer)
been able to do so?

Why haven't you been able to do so for your position? Maybe it is an
unfair
question. Maybe choosing not to do so soesn't prove an inherent
inability.

I've put those claims to the test in every reasonable fashion. I've traveled
half way across the country at my own expense on three occasions to offer
proponents an opportunity to prove their claims.

I take offense at the insinuation that I haven't done enough work on
this. I've personally done more controlled listening investigation of amp/wire
sound than the entire high-end publishing/manufacturing/marketing/distribution
industry.

That I or someone else has not submitted a "I didn't Find BigFoot"
article to the Journal and havent worked hard enough is a pretty big joke.

If a wire BigFoot is in existence its simply no longer my job to find him
Ive looked in all the reasonable places, Ive done all the reasonable
work; mostly
at my own personal expense (even to the end of purchasing high-end equipment
to validate the long-term issue and you suggest I havent done enough.

On the contrary I'm over-committed.

Tom said

It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case.

It is not the responsibility of any manufacturer to prove your case
either.

That's the point. They need to "prove" amp/wire sound before amyone
should take them seriously. I've made no claims other than my 4 Bryston
amplifiers sound exactly like each
other with loudspeakers in a room and the other 8 amplifiers in my stable
to me and to a couple dozen other audio enthusiasts under bias controlled
conditions (assumimg the Brystons are
working; which has not always been a given.)

And that I've not found
that a pair of Pass Monoblocks sounded different to the Pass owner from a
10-year old Yamaha integrated amplifier in his reference system. Or A SUMO
Andromeda from a Parasound HCA-800. Or a Bryston 4B-NRB from a Adcom Car Audio
amplifier, etc.

Want me to start of wires?

My
case is proven. My case, if you have forgotten, is that there is no
scientifically valid evidence upon which one can make claims one way
or another that are supported by science.

Your case is not proven. There is plenty oif evidence. You have just
set an arbitrary standard that you believe allows you to make this 'claim.'

Your case is the one in dire need of valid
scientific support. Support you claim already exists but support you
fail to demonstrate.

Let's do it then.

Tom said

Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS
anecdotal
support by your own standards.

My position that there is a lack of scientifically valid evidence to
make any
claims one way or another that are scientifically supported lacks
scientific
support? Prove it. Show us the mountain of scientifically valid
evidence that
proves your position. By the way, there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence to
support my anecdotal position.

Nothing bias-controlled though, is there?

Tom said

Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a
sound-of-its
own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent
I'll
recruit
and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled
conditions.
You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.

I am not going to ship my amp to you. Tell you what, publish your
findings on
amplifier sound in the AESJ and I will concede that your position has
valid
scientific support.

Why don't YOU publish that paper to confirm your position? Why hasn't Audio
Research published such as paper? Pass Labs? You seem
to hold it strongly in spite of your own admission that there is NO scientific
support for it. But thats what this argument is all about isnt it? To try
to keep the issue
on a debate level. When you cant support your case with evidence if you
talk long enough and hard enough maybe people will forget that you have no
evidence.

Tom said

Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment
and
supply
my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled
test. In
the
latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier
(assumig
it
meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled
listening test
you
will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.

Why? All you have to do is declare my amp incompetent. Lets be
specific. I
went
from a Yamaha rack system reciever to an Audio Research SP 10/ Audio
Research
D
115 MkII system. You can decide for yourself whether or not those
components
are competent at home. I can supply you with the specs.If you want to
test
the
Audio Research components against the Yamaha reciever using my
playback
system
then lets do it. And lets use scientifically accepted standards of
probability
as a standard for a positive result. If you really want to do this
we can
make
arangments. You don't need to put up a bounty.

I'm doing all the work and taking all the financial risk. What I want is a
good faith offer to compensate my travel if you are unable to confirm your
claims. Or we could agree to split the costs.

You can do most everything yourself in advance if you want. I'll send
you a test disc to confirm response and matching if you'd like.

Tom said

We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and
submitted
to
the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.

Agreed.

Let's go.