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

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02...
wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

See previous text in full below

This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references
Sept.15th.: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 16th: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 19th. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept 23rd. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:

It began thus. In a discussion about Einstein and Planck (Sept. 13)
Mr. Jj took a swipe at me.:
"But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is
on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In
here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here
are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments. It's
the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories, (Raedecker's
advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes to mind) Most don't bother to
even check out the important authors that have been cited here.
(Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been informally
cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest"

I said::
Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time- (Nr.1):. .
" Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and clammed up...
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?"

There still were no references, no quotes.

But we got Reason Nr1 for no references: "wilful ignorance"
Reason Nr1 ctd.:" There is a "body of evidence" and "no disagreement
among professionals in psychoacoustic research that the test validates
itself"

Reason Nr.2:. It is all in the books by Yoost, Moore, Fletcher

I pointed out that psychoacoustic research is not about COMPARING
COMPONENTS.
.I asked again for reference to the author, title and page. Or
pertinent quotes..
Mr. Jjnunes refused because I would "quote out of context". He did
not explain how I could quote his own selected quotes out of his own
selected context
Or why does he deprive our readers of his truth.

Reason Nr.3: Mr. Jjnunes does not like postmodern criticism and
deconstruction.
I pointed out that Derrida et al. had nil to say about COMPARING
COMPONENTS

Finally somewhat impatient I said:
( There is...) NOTHING in Fletcher, NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good
old Moore. And you know what else? NOTHING ANYWHERE ELSE. The
reputable, published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing
audio components does NOT EXIST. "Starting points" and "trajectories"
will not replace it. You were asked for nothing complicated. Just a
very simple thing called: quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?.
Remember quote?"
We got an answer:
Reason Nr.4 : Mr. Jjnunes does not like my writing style.
Ludovic Mirabel

As I'm always eager to learn and as English is not my first language
I'll now concentrate on Mr. Jjnunes writing using it as a model for
clear thinking and clear writing about clear ideas.

Sept15 requote : Mr. Jjnunes:
But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster.

It is not clear what verge of what "such a thing" was "implied" by
what other poster and there is no context to refer to, But let's not
quibble

In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments.

Please help with the gorgeous imagery. How do I " proudly hold
forth... brazenly through the holes in his own argument"? Do you
recommend the "holding forth through the holes in argument" metaphor
for me to use in the future ?

It's the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories,

Could you explain what a "tossed theory" is? Would you recommend I
use THIS image to get an A from you? Is a "tossed theory" a bad one?
Is it the kind of an imaginary theory in an imaginary book that one
tosses around "proudly and brazenly"as one's reference? Or is it
something like a tossed salad?

Raedecker's advocation:..

"Advocation" stumped me. I thought you must have confused it with the
normally used "advocacy'. But a peep in the Webster clarified it. 1) A
term in Scottish law 2) obsolete: advocacy.
You're using archaic English to enrich my vocabulary, right?

.... of chochlear ( did you mean "cochlear "?) amplifiers comes
to mind.

Just one more truly puzzling stylistic point:
On Sept 19th. you said: "I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's
tests. I recall some have said they wern't as sensitive as they could
be, but it wasn't really bad.
It's not true there are never no differences."

If you say : "It is true there are never no differences" you mean
that there are differences, right. One more added negative means
that there are NO differences- never. Is that what you wanted to say?
I'm doubly puzzled. Because of course there are differences between
components. Whom are you arguing with? And what are you saying?
Ludovic Mirabel

JJnunes had said: "In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth
that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in
his own arguments".
He amplified later:
People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human beings.
I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical
one.
A "metaphor" that pictures me as "proudly" and "brazenly holding
forth" that the "scientists here are quacks" could be mistaken for an
insinuation.
So I'd still welcome a name or two of the "scientists here" writing
for RAHE on the topic of component comparison by ABX- including their
basic research that validates their opinions. If you're putting
"metaphors" in my mouth let's see whom are you referring too as the
injured party.
I had said:
I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive
word about a test for comparing music reproduction characteristics
of audio
components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in the RAHE. And
that, presumably, those worthies support your point of view-
whatever it is.
Mr. JJnunes:
Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory
of the evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing
that.

Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.
Just a quote or two from your witnesses Fletcher, Yost and
Moore concerning audio component comparison by ABX/DBT.
Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that you talk about
"trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in Fletcher,
NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore.
And you know what else? NOTHING anywhere else. The reputable,
published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing audio
components does NOT EXIST.
"Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace it. You were
asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing called:
quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?
I had said :
2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already
what it is not..

JJnunes:
When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test
is the best known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound
alone. It is not needed in any way for determination of pleasure
or preference in
ANYTHING.
Most audiophiles don't care about them, there's absolutely
nothing wrong with that, except when they claim that they don't
work for the purpose
stated above.

Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying? What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" is not usable on this earth by human
beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether.
Actually audiophiles wanting to hear differences but NOT so as to
decide preferences are not of this earth either. And preferences for
the quality of musical SOUND are what rec.audio.high-end is all about.
Yes? No? Or what does your somewhat difficult text mean?
I said
3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least
give references customary in scientific debates Name, Title ,
Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said
something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't throw your pearls before swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
JJnunes:
If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in
you, so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The
spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide
you.

Never mind naughty me. Just think of your readers, They are waiting.
Do you think they'd let me get away with "quoting out of context".
Just think :say, I wrote that I found in Copernicus, Galileo and
Newton that they scorned ABX
for audio and then refused to quote "for fear that you'll quote it
out of context" I can't begin to imagine what you'd have to say about
me. No ,I can't bring myself to even think about it. The moderators
are listening.
I said:
You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?
You answered:
Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out
of context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your
record.

This is the second time you have me "quoting out of context" And
this time you tack on an allegation about my "record".
I've been long enough around the RAHE to think that it is all in a
day's work here. But I ask you for a quote or two to document yor
allegation. Asking for evidence for your statements seems to be a
repeat job. No and no again I don't quote things out of context and in
your particular case I remember no context with any substance that I
could drop. Quote the context I twisted out of or ... Forget it.
What's the use? You were just being metaphorical ,right?
The first sentence of my posting that you snipped was:
" Mr. JJnunes delivery time!"
It still is.
Ludovic Mirabel
:

I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.

People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)

I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.

I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.

Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.

Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please

See above.

2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.

When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.

3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?

If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.

You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?

Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.