Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Bob Marcus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:

The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are
which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures),
but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*,
differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology.
(Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations
of the approach?


Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't
made
the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists
today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because
they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based
on a misunderstanding of the basic science. You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about
psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds
on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.

bob

__________________________________________________ _______________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

  #82   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 17:11:09 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

wrote:


Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.


A misnomer, because pseudoscience is, typically, something that
pretends to be science, but lacks that trait of science which is to
continually subject its own assumptions to careful inquiry.


Actually no, because you are insisting that we investigate the
possibility that the Moon really is made of green cheese, contrary to
all previous scientific evidence. That is pseudoscience, because you
offer no *reason* to suppose that this might be the case.


The suggestion, as I understand it, is that what should be investigated
is how variations in attention affect what we hear, or what we can
discriminate. Do we know that variations in attention *don't* affect
what we hear or can discriminate? I just don't believe, based on what
people have said here so far, that this has been studied in any
exhaustive or fine-grained way.

Mark

  #83   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob Marcus wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:

The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are
which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures),
but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*,
differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology.
(Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations
of the approach?


Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't
made
the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists
today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because
they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based
on a misunderstanding of the basic science.


Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is
speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating.
So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not
evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but
by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at
least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through
discussion with like-minded others.

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others. With regard to Mike's
suggestion that the focus of attention or perceptual set makes a
difference, that strikes me as an interesting idea and I very much
doubt that it has been sufficiently explored in a fine-grained way.
And it's not really a question of what I expect scientists to do, but
of how much what scientists have learned so far tells us.


snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about
psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds
on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.


Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more
optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the
basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into
method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this
discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we
still have to carry on somehow, don't we?

Mark

  #84   Report Post  
Mark DeBellis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.


Actually, *you* miss the point. A test which cannot detect musical
beauty would not be able to validate your claim.


First, for the THIRD time, you are not talking about "musical beauty."
You are talking about *perceptions of musical beauty.* That perception
is no different from any subjective impression of what one
hears--preference, harshness, smoothness, etc. [insert desired
subjectivist buzzword here]. The question is, are there unknown audible
differences between, say, cables, that cannot be detected in
traditional DBTs but can differently affect our subjective impressions
of what we hear?


I assume that the word "audible" could be removed from the question
without loss (except, possibly, of its making the answer "no"
tautological), because the real work is being done by "can differently
affect ... what we hear." Yes? (If not, why not?)

And the answer is no, there are no such unknown
audible differences, and therefore there cannot be any unknown audible
differences that can affect subjective impressions. That's the theory,
as it stands today.


OK. I know that you think that the answer is no (taking out the word
"audible," OK?), and that science tells us that the answer is no. And
for all I know, you're right about that. For what it's worth, I, and
maybe others, would like to know how you or anyone *knows* that the
answer is no. Or what you think it takes to *establish* that the
answer is no. But since we've been over this ground so much before, I
say this more to point out what I think is at issue than from a real
belief that it's going to get resolved.


To crack this, you have to tell us what that mystery difference is, or
you have to demonstrate through some sort of listening test that such a
difference exists. To argue, as you do, that our tests are not adequate
to detect something that we have no evidence for the existence of is to
engage is a pseudoscientific parlor game.


The claim, I think, is (more or less) that nothing assures us that the
tests can detect *all* "differences that can affect subjective
impressions." Would you say that we are assured of this because none
of the evidence we have gathered through those tests points to a
difference that the test cannot detect? Surely that would be circular.

Mark

  #85   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Oct 2005 04:20:53 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

wrote:
wrote:
wrote:

You miss the point. The current model holds that any difference in what
you should be calling "perception of musical beauty" can only be the
result of differences that are audible in standard DBTs. It does not
matter that current experimental standards can't detect something that
can't happen.

Actually, *you* miss the point. A test which cannot detect musical
beauty would not be able to validate your claim.


First, for the THIRD time, you are not talking about "musical beauty."
You are talking about *perceptions of musical beauty.* That perception
is no different from any subjective impression of what one
hears--preference, harshness, smoothness, etc. [insert desired
subjectivist buzzword here]. The question is, are there unknown audible
differences between, say, cables, that cannot be detected in
traditional DBTs but can differently affect our subjective impressions
of what we hear?


I assume that the word "audible" could be removed from the question
without loss (except, possibly, of its making the answer "no"
tautological), because the real work is being done by "can differently
affect ... what we hear." Yes? (If not, why not?)


Your assumption is incorrect. There are easily *measured* differences
among cables, the whole point is whether these differences are
*audible*. Unless the measured differences are gross, i.e. they lead
to differences of 10% or so in the voltage at the speaker terminals,
then the answer is that they are *not* audible.

And the answer is no, there are no such unknown
audible differences, and therefore there cannot be any unknown audible
differences that can affect subjective impressions. That's the theory,
as it stands today.


OK. I know that you think that the answer is no (taking out the word
"audible," OK?),


Well yes, you could take out the word 'audible' here, as there are no
*unknown* differences among cables - despite the claims of the
manufacturers for 'Golden Section stranding' and other such nonsense.

and that science tells us that the answer is no. And
for all I know, you're right about that. For what it's worth, I, and
maybe others, would like to know how you or anyone *knows* that the
answer is no.


Better to say that there is no reason to suppose that the anser is
yes.

Or what you think it takes to *establish* that the
answer is no.


A century or two of scientific investigation would seem to suffice.

But since we've been over this ground so much before, I
say this more to point out what I think is at issue than from a real
belief that it's going to get resolved.


To crack this, you have to tell us what that mystery difference is, or
you have to demonstrate through some sort of listening test that such a
difference exists. To argue, as you do, that our tests are not adequate
to detect something that we have no evidence for the existence of is to
engage is a pseudoscientific parlor game.


The claim, I think, is (more or less) that nothing assures us that the
tests can detect *all* "differences that can affect subjective
impressions."


Actually, I am perfectly assured in this regard. You are simply
playing pseudoscientific parlour games, as you have offered no valid
reason for anyone to investigate any of your claims.

Would you say that we are assured of this because none
of the evidence we have gathered through those tests points to a
difference that the test cannot detect? Surely that would be circular.


No, we are assured of this because, once you level-match to a couple
of percent, and once you remove *knowledge* of which cable is
connected, not one single poerson has *ever* been able to demonstrate
that they *do* perceive a difference. Note that the above covers
quick-switched ABX *and* long-term monadic testing. Come back when you
can show evidence of *anyone* finding *any* perceptual difference in
*any* test, given only the above provisos of blindness and rough
level-matching.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering



  #86   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others.


Exactly! End of story............

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you
have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a
shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #87   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 3 Oct 2005 03:19:25 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 2 Oct 2005 17:11:09 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

wrote:


Instead, you wave your arms and make
pseudoscientific arguments like the one above.

A misnomer, because pseudoscience is, typically, something that
pretends to be science, but lacks that trait of science which is to
continually subject its own assumptions to careful inquiry.


Actually no, because you are insisting that we investigate the
possibility that the Moon really is made of green cheese, contrary to
all previous scientific evidence. That is pseudoscience, because you
offer no *reason* to suppose that this might be the case.


The suggestion, as I understand it, is that what should be investigated
is how variations in attention affect what we hear, or what we can
discriminate. Do we know that variations in attention *don't* affect
what we hear or can discriminate? I just don't believe, based on what
people have said here so far, that this has been studied in any
exhaustive or fine-grained way.


Replace 'what we hear' with 'the Moon being made of green cheese'
above, and the sense of your statement remains the same. Isn't that a
bit of a clue?

BTW, we do know that variations in attention affect what we hear,
because in a comparison test you pay more attention than in casual
listening. The fact remains that no one, using any kind of test which
is level-matched and at least single-blind, has *ever* demonstrated an
ability to hear differences among cables. Until you can demonstrate
such a difference, your claims are mere puff, and pseudoscience, since
you offer no *reason*, lete alone evidence, to support them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #88   Report Post  
Keith Hughes
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mark DeBellis wrote:
wrote:


snip

First, for the THIRD time, you are not talking about "musical beauty."
You are talking about *perceptions of musical beauty.* That perception
is no different from any subjective impression of what one
hears--preference, harshness, smoothness, etc. [insert desired
subjectivist buzzword here]. The question is, are there unknown audible
differences between, say, cables, that cannot be detected in
traditional DBTs but can differently affect our subjective impressions
of what we hear?



I assume that the word "audible" could be removed from the question
without loss (except, possibly, of its making the answer "no"
tautological), because the real work is being done by "can differently
affect ... what we hear." Yes? (If not, why not?)


You are incorrect. There are certainly a host of differences between
components that are inaudible, that cannot be detected in a DBT, but
could affect subjective impressions (e.g. cost, color, style, etc.).
These *inaudible* differences are the reason for the blind protocol.


And the answer is no, there are no such unknown
audible differences, and therefore there cannot be any unknown audible
differences that can affect subjective impressions. That's the theory,
as it stands today.



OK. I know that you think that the answer is no (taking out the word
"audible," OK?),


No, it's not OK unless you wish only to discuss at cross purposes. If
the property or parameter causing the perceptual difference is not
audible, then clearly you are talking about preference, not *just* about
the sound waves being perceived. That is a different topic altogether.

and that science tells us that the answer is no. And
for all I know, you're right about that. For what it's worth, I, and
maybe others, would like to know how you or anyone *knows* that the
answer is no. Or what you think it takes to *establish* that the
answer is no. But since we've been over this ground so much before, I
say this more to point out what I think is at issue than from a real
belief that it's going to get resolved.


As has been repeated ad nauseam, *if* the theory or model accounts for
all the available data, the theory is accepted unless, and until,
countervailing evidence (an observation that is repeatable) is acquired.
In the absence of countervailing evidence, further testing is not
warranted. That is the basic threshold for scientific inquiry - you do
not look for cause where effect is not observed. So, where are those
observations?

To crack this, you have to tell us what that mystery difference is, or
you have to demonstrate through some sort of listening test that such a
difference exists. To argue, as you do, that our tests are not adequate
to detect something that we have no evidence for the existence of is to
engage is a pseudoscientific parlor game.



The claim, I think, is (more or less) that nothing assures us that the
tests can detect *all* "differences that can affect subjective
impressions."


Of course they can't, so what? They are designed to detect *audible*
differences! Not *ALL* differences. So tell us, why would you excise
"audible" just to make an argument not germane to the topic at hand?

Would you say that we are assured of this because none
of the evidence we have gathered through those tests points to a
difference that the test cannot detect? Surely that would be circular.


It would if that were remotely related to reality. The reality is that
you excised the predicate parameter (i.e. audibility) to erect another
strawman. You now want to discuss the strawman as though it has
relevance to the original discussion. Clearly you know, by now, that if
DBT is in the subject of the discussion, we are *ONLY* talking about
audible differences. So what is your purpose with this?

Keith Hughes

  #89   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Bob Marcus" wrote in message
...
Mark DeBellis wrote:

The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are
which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures),
but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*,
differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology.
(Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations
of the approach?


Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently haven't
made
the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists
today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because
they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations, based
on a misunderstanding of the basic science. You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about
psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds
on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.


And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)


  #90   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
...
Bob Marcus wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:

The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are
which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures),
but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*,
differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology.
(Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations
of the approach?


Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently
haven't
made
the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists
today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because
they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations,
based
on a misunderstanding of the basic science.


Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is
speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating.
So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not
evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but
by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at
least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through
discussion with like-minded others.


You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.



And he received much the same response initially.


It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others. With regard to Mike's
suggestion that the focus of attention or perceptual set makes a
difference, that strikes me as an interesting idea and I very much
doubt that it has been sufficiently explored in a fine-grained way.
And it's not really a question of what I expect scientists to do, but
of how much what scientists have learned so far tells us.


snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


Everyone who can do that usefully knows an awful lot more about
psychoacoustics than you (or me, for that matter). All science builds
on what came before. Even Einstein built on existing foundations.


Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a
fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position to
step outside the box and look at the bigger picture.

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.



I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one. That's my point.


Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more
optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the
basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into
method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this
discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we
still have to carry on somehow, don't we?


Not if you already know all the answers already.




  #91   Report Post  
Buster Mudd
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:
Buster Mudd wrote:
wrote:

First of all, it is obvious to me that purposeful hunting exists as an
activity separate from spontaneous noticing (good terminology!).

Right...*when* it is obvious to you that you are conciously doing one
or the other activity, then it seems easy to confidently state which
one you are doing. But that doesn't mean you are acurately reporting
your concious state, only that you are reporting your perception of
your concious state to the best of your abilities. IOW, you might
*think* you are in Spontaneous Noticing mode, but you may be deluding
yourself.



Secondly, I have no problem with an awareness of which activity I'm
engaged in, and making an observation does not overwrite this
awareness.


That's what you think. However, there is a substantial body of
literature in the fields of cognitive science and neuropsychology that
suggest A) that what we think is going on in our brain is not the same
as what is going on in our brain; and B) that concious discriminations
do indeed overwrite the perceptions which prompted these
discriminations; the determination "I have perceived this" takes
precedence over whatever stimuli you were (temporarily)
perceiving...and often they are not the same!

All this is to say we don't know exactly what we were doing, and I
agree. That makes it even harder to control for these factors in a
blind test. I think that what you are doing with your awareness affects
what you hear


Which gets right back to my earlier points: 1) It doesn't matter what
we are "doing with our awareness" because once we have made a conscious
discrimination about what we have become aware of, we are doing
something different from whatever we might have been doing before,
something which overwrites our ability to make use of that previous
awareness.


I don't follow this. Say that a conscious impression impression
overwrites the previous mental process--that doesn't in itself mean the
previous mental process doesn't matter.



It may seem like it ought to "matter", especially to the subject
experiencing this conscious impression, but if the earlier information
is no longer available for the subject's brain to make use of in any
demonstrable way, it really doesn't "matter".




Secondly, I don't think that this "overwriting" function necessarily
destroys all previous awareness.


Apparently well-respected cognitive scientists disagree with your
presumption. See Dennett, or Hofstadter.



And 2) that making conscious discriminations about sonic
qualities is the same cognitive process regardless of what we were
"doing with our awareness" prior to making the discrimination.


I didn't use the word "discrimination." "Impression" is more like it.
However, I still don't see how this follows from the presumption that
we aren't aware of what we do. We can still be doing different things
while being unaware.



"Discrimination" was my word. I used it to refer to the action of
listening to music reproduced through an audio system and making an
identification of some apparent sonic quality during the listening
experience...the listener has made a fine discernment. This
discernment, or action of identifying, could quite conceivably be just
as accurately referred to as an "impression", no? And my point is that
regardless of what we are doing, or what we think we are doing, and
regardless of whether we are aware of what we are doing, once we make a
discrimination -- once we've made a fine discernment, once we've
conciously ascribed a particular sonic quality to some aspect of the
listening experience -- we are now doing the same thing. Making a
discrimination = Making a discrimination.


I also don't see how any of this contradicts the simple observation
that you tend to notice what you're paying attention to, and that you
can choose what to pay attention to, and that sometimes things you
aren't paying attention to come to your awareness.


Right, it doesn't.

Your assertion that
awareness itself "destroys" the prior awareness seems to reinforce the
idea that one will be aware of different things depending on what one
is paying attention to.


But it's equally likely that one can be aware of different things
REGARDLESS OF what one is paying attention to. Doesn't really help us
get to the bottom of whether or not quick-switching tests ignore
critical information, does it?

  #92   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)


Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #93   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 4 Oct 2005 02:19:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


So what? Unlike yours, his theory held water. Calls to authority don't
work, Harry, we need to see *evidence*.

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


And he received much the same response initially.


Quite right, too. OTOH, his theory predicted things that were observed
to be true. Mark and you are mere speculators, offering neither
reasoned argument nor evidence.

Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a
fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position to
step outside the box and look at the bigger picture.

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


That was Doppler............

Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more
optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the
basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into
method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this
discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we
still have to carry on somehow, don't we?

Not if you already know all the answers already.


Nobody claims to know all the answers. What we *do* claim is that, if
you wish to claim that all available scientific knowledge is wrong
about audible differnces, then you are required to provide very strong
evidence in support of your position. So far, we have seen *zero*
evidence, and not even any reasonable theories.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

  #94   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
"Mark DeBellis" wrote in message
...
Bob Marcus wrote:
Mark DeBellis wrote:

The standard required here is not that of evidence that there are
which it's science's business to get, following proper procedures),
but rather that of a plausible argument that there *could be*,
differences that don't get captured with the prevailing methodology.
(Why isn't that enough to justify inquiry into the possible limitations
of the approach?

Because it is merely the idle speculation of people who apparently
haven't
made
the least effort to understand the state of the science as it exists
today. The only reason anyone is engaging in such speculations is because
they are misinterpreting the significance of their own observations,
based
on a misunderstanding of the basic science.


Even if you're right about that, the truth or falsity of what is
speculated is independent of the causes of the person's speculating.
So if the claim is independently interesting (as it is to me), why not
evaluate it on its own merits? And yes, many of us are amateurs, but
by putting our ideas down and inviting feedback we are, in a way and at
least sometimes, making an effort to understand the science, through
discussion with like-minded others.


You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.



And he received much the same response initially.


No. He got his theory published. We're still waiting for you to do the
same.

bob

  #96   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others.


Exactly! End of story............

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you
have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a
shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim.


The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test
based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught
them. That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the
underlying premises of the test be examined. And that is exactly what Mark
and Michael have been trying to do.


  #97   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)


Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.



And of course, Einstein's theories were his attempt to resolve
*real* problems and paradoxes in the then-current theories --
problems acknowledged by other scientists. Hearing stuff 'sighted'
that isn't supported by DBT results, is by no means that
sort of 'problem'. Science *has* a good working explanation for
that. That 'audiophiles' consider it a problem says more about
them and their anti-rationalist culture, than anything else.



--

-S
  #98   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 4 Oct 2005 02:19:43 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


So what? Unlike yours, his theory held water. Calls to authority don't
work, Harry, we need to see *evidence*.


My what? I don't recall postulating a theory here...but Mark and Michel
have. And who is calling to authority? I simply pointed out an example that
calls into question the dismissivness of some of the replies to Mark and
Michael.


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

And he received much the same response initially.


Quite right, too. OTOH, his theory predicted things that were observed
to be true. Mark and you are mere speculators, offering neither
reasoned argument nor evidence.


Years later until it could be "proved". The proof or "evidence" as you
would have it did not come before the fact.



Yep, they have all learned the currently acceptable paradigms to a
fair-thee-well. But sometimes it is hard for someone in such a position
to
step outside the box and look at the bigger picture.

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


That was Doppler............


Right you are. But, Einsteins theory of relativity was also generated
musing about the passing of trains (he was a station telegraph operator,
after all).


Yeh, for that you have to go to rec.einstein, but I guess I'm more
optimistic than you seem to be that an amateur can come to see the
basic structure of a scientific approach and inquire usefully into
method and evidence. Anyway, we find ourselves parties to this
discussion, and though we're not Einsteins -- nobody's perfect -- we
still have to carry on somehow, don't we?

Not if you already know all the answers already.


Nobody claims to know all the answers. What we *do* claim is that, if
you wish to claim that all available scientific knowledge is wrong
about audible differnces, then you are required to provide very strong
evidence in support of your position. So far, we have seen *zero*
evidence, and not even any reasonable theories.


Theories about what is wrong, and possibly why, first. Once you have a
theory, it can be tested. That's what Mark and Michael have provided. Then
come the tests. You simply reject the possible theory, because it threatens
the tests you believe in. That is called faith, not science.

On the other hand, those of you who have swiped abx testing from audiometric
research have never validated it for your intended use of it...and such
validation is essential because of the questions Mark and Michael raise (and
I and others before them). Moreover, the Oohashi test provided a glimmer of
evidence that results are different between monadic testing of musical
segments with after the fact reporting, and short-snippet, quick-switch
testing without adequate time for emotional reaction to register nor musical
context to be established.

There is no reason an open scientific mind couldn't accept the possibility
that Mark and Michael are correct, and work to help test the hypothesis by
beginning to think/talk about ways to confirm or deny the theory/hypothesis.
That unfortunately has not been the reaction here.

  #99   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:

The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test
based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught
them.


And yet it's not inconsistent at all. The model explains what they
profess to hear. The only real problem is that they do not like the
explanation.

That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the
underlying premises of the test be examined. And that is exactly what Mark
and Michael have been trying to do.


If you don't understand the difference between the limits of a model
and the limits of your understanding of the model, you are in no
position to examine anything.

bob
  #100   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)


Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.


Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are.

For that matter, I wonder what you think my and Mark's claims are.

It would be an interesting exercise to see if you could repeat them
accurately.

Mike


  #101   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 5 Oct 2005 03:42:55 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:


You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others.


Exactly! End of story............

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.


More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you
have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a
shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim.


The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test
based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught
them.


90%? From whence did you drag that specious number, Harry? Did you
know that 87.2% of statitistics are made up? Audiophiles are typically
not scientifically trained, and are easily bamboozled. That's how Ivor
Tiefenbrun got the cash for his several yachts.................

Now, experienced audiophiles who understand basic psychology don't
have this problem, because they *know* that sighted comparisons are
worthless.

That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the
underlying premises of the test be examined.


That's not evidence, that's mere speculation.

And that is exactly what Mark and Michael have been trying to do.


No, they have just been flapping their arms in the same way that you
do, without offering either reasoned argument or evidence in support
of their wild speculations.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #102   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Oct 2005 02:40:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Theories about what is wrong, and possibly why, first. Once you have a
theory, it can be tested. That's what Mark and Michael have provided. Then
come the tests. You simply reject the possible theory, because it threatens
the tests you believe in. That is called faith, not science.


You have it completely back-asswards. First come the *observations*,
then the theory to account for those observations. We have *zero*
observations on which to base any theory. We do however have perfectly
good explanations for why people *think* they hear differences when
none exist.

On the other hand, those of you who have swiped abx testing from audiometric
research have never validated it for your intended use of it...and such
validation is essential because of the questions Mark and Michael raise (and
I and others before them).


It is validated every day - that you don't agree with this does not
alter tha facts of the matter. If you had any real interest in the
subject, you would attempt to make some observations in support of
your own philosophy, instead of mere armchair speculation such as is
indulged in by Mark and Michael.

Moreover, the Oohashi test provided a glimmer of
evidence that results are different between monadic testing of musical
segments with after the fact reporting, and short-snippet, quick-switch
testing without adequate time for emotional reaction to register nor musical
context to be established.


A glimmer, but totally uncorroborated.

There is no reason an open scientific mind couldn't accept the possibility
that Mark and Michael are correct, and work to help test the hypothesis by
beginning to think/talk about ways to confirm or deny the theory/hypothesis.
That unfortunately has not been the reaction here.


Actually, an open scientific mind is always on the lookout for
unexplained observations - thereby lies fame and the Nobel Prize!
However, Mark , Michael and you offer mere speculation which flies in
the face of all the well-known, well-reasoned and well-supported
reasons for things being as they are. There is nothing for an open
mind to investigate - unless it is so open that the brain has fallen
out.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #103   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)


Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.


Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are.


Harry claims that ABX is fatally flawed, and that we should conduct
monadic testing. He offers no reliable and repeatable observations in
support.

For that matter, I wonder what you think my and Mark's claims are.


You appear to think that there is some mysterious force which prevents
differences being heard in comparitive testing, differences which can
be heard by other means. You offer zero reliable and repeatyable
observations in support.

It would be an interesting exercise to see if you could repeat them
accurately.


Not really, since they are in themselves of little interest. We
already know several well-supported reasons why there are no audible
differences among cables, mere speculation because you don't *like*
that answer is not of any real interest.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #104   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history.
Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed
physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as
an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


And he received much the same response initially.


Not from the professional physics community, he didn't.
The professional physics community rather well embraced
relativity. Please check your history.

There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should
be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the
physics illiterate and the fringe community.

You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace
quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers
(e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he
won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical
evidence.

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


Uh, that was Doppler, thank you.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.


I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one.
That's my point.


And if you were standing around the railroad in the late
1800's or early 1900's, neither would you.

However, if you had been hanging around the Physics
Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology,
you would have had a far better chance of running into
the Man.
  #105   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 6 Oct 2005 02:40:34 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Theories about what is wrong, and possibly why, first. Once you have a
theory, it can be tested. That's what Mark and Michael have provided.
Then
come the tests. You simply reject the possible theory, because it
threatens
the tests you believe in. That is called faith, not science.


You have it completely back-asswards. First come the *observations*,
then the theory to account for those observations. We have *zero*
observations on which to base any theory. We do however have perfectly
good explanations for why people *think* they hear differences when
none exist.


The observation is that 90% of audiophiles simply don't believe you, and you
haven't validated your test so you can't convince them otherwise.


On the other hand, those of you who have swiped abx testing from
audiometric
research have never validated it for your intended use of it...and such
validation is essential because of the questions Mark and Michael raise
(and
I and others before them).


It is validated every day - that you don't agree with this does not
alter tha facts of the matter. If you had any real interest in the
subject, you would attempt to make some observations in support of
your own philosophy, instead of mere armchair speculation such as is
indulged in by Mark and Michael.


ABX has *NOT* been validated for the open-ended evaluation of audio
components. It has been validated as a means of discriminating small
differences in level, frequency response, and non-musical artifacts. Not
for evaluating the musicality and ability to give long-term emotional
satisfaction from a component.


Moreover, the Oohashi test provided a glimmer of
evidence that results are different between monadic testing of musical
segments with after the fact reporting, and short-snippet, quick-switch
testing without adequate time for emotional reaction to register nor
musical
context to be established.


A glimmer, but totally uncorroborated.


But a glimmer nonetheless, with corroboration work apparently undreway.


There is no reason an open scientific mind couldn't accept the possibility
that Mark and Michael are correct, and work to help test the hypothesis by
beginning to think/talk about ways to confirm or deny the
theory/hypothesis.
That unfortunately has not been the reaction here.


Actually, an open scientific mind is always on the lookout for
unexplained observations - thereby lies fame and the Nobel Prize!
However, Mark , Michael and you offer mere speculation which flies in
the face of all the well-known, well-reasoned and well-supported
reasons for things being as they are. There is nothing for an open
mind to investigate - unless it is so open that the brain has fallen
out.


No, we offer speculation as to *why* so many audiophiles distrust the abx
test, and *why* you have failed to convince us. It's a bit like your
telling us that drilling a hole through the center of the earth is the only
way to get to china, when we just got off the airplane and know better.

Moreover, you continue to ignore what is actually said and attack us as if
we are arguing for "sighted". Mark and Michael (and I and others before)
have not been arguing against blind testing and for sighted.....we've been
arguing for extended, holistic, and less intrusive testing than
short-snippet, comparative testing and especially abx. But it's easier for
you to just misrepresent the argument, isn't it?



  #106   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with
the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history.
Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed
physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as
an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.


History was never my strong suite...I stand corrected. I must have mixed
him up with somebody else....you sure he didn't work as a telegraph operator
*before* he became degreed, or while he was seeking the degree?

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.


And he received much the same response initially.


Not from the professional physics community, he didn't.
The professional physics community rather well embraced
relativity. Please check your history.


My understanding is that even in that community there were more deriders
than acceptors until after the famous "bending-light" verification.

There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should
be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the
physics illiterate and the fringe community.


My understanding is that outside of a few close associates he was routinely
and widely derided.

You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace
quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers
(e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he
won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical
evidence.


I do know of his reluctance to aceept quantum mechanics....never said he
didn't have his weaknesses. But it goes to show what happens when science
as faith replaces science as science.


Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


Uh, that was Doppler, thank you.


Yep, as already pointed out. Again, apparently a memory mix up on my part.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.


I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one.
That's my point.


And if you were standing around the railroad in the late
1800's or early 1900's, neither would you.


No, but if I was one of those physicists my guess is I would have been on
his side.


However, if you had been hanging around the Physics
Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology,
you would have had a far better chance of running into
the Man.


I might even have been his lunch-buddy. :-)

  #107   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy, just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)

Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.


Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are.


Harry claims that ABX is fatally flawed, and that we should conduct
monadic testing. He offers no reliable and repeatable observations in
support.

For that matter, I wonder what you think my and Mark's claims are.


You appear to think that there is some mysterious force which prevents
differences being heard in comparitive testing, differences which can
be heard by other means. You offer zero reliable and repeatyable
observations in support.


Just as I thought, you can't repeat my claims accurately. There's no
"mysterious force." One of my points is that *you* have offered zero
evidence outside listening tests conducted under a very narrow set of
conditions.

Mike
  #108   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 Oct 2005 03:07:31 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with
the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history.
Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed
physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as
an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.

History was never my strong suite...I stand corrected. I must have mixed
him up with somebody else....you sure he didn't work as a telegraph operator
*before* he became degreed, or while he was seeking the degree?


Albert Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14,
1879. Six weeks later the family moved to Munich and he began his
schooling there at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy
and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896
he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be
trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he
gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was
unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical
assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's
degree.

During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he
produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed
Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at
Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning
to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was
appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and
Professor in the University of Berlin. He became a German citizen in
1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his
citizenship for political reasons and emigrated to America to take the
position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton*. He became
a United States citizen in 1940 and retired from his post in 1945.

After World War II, Einstein was a leading figure in the World
Government Movement, he was offered the Presidency of the State of
Israel, which he declined, and he collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann
in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

And he received much the same response initially.


Not from the professional physics community, he didn't.
The professional physics community rather well embraced
relativity. Please check your history.

My understanding is that even in that community there were more deriders
than acceptors until after the famous "bending-light" verification.


That's how Science works. You observe something unusual, come up with
a theory to explain it, use that theory to predict something else, and
observe the truth or falsity of your prediction.

There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should
be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the
physics illiterate and the fringe community.

My understanding is that outside of a few close associates he was routinely
and widely derided.


Your understanding is at its usual level. Don't believe everything you
read in the popular press. Actually, that also applies to audio!

You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace
quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers
(e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he
won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical
evidence.


I do know of his reluctance to aceept quantum mechanics....never said he
didn't have his weaknesses. But it goes to show what happens when science
as faith replaces science as science.


Oh dear. No, it goes to show that even the greatest scientists can
sometimes refuse to accept scientific facts. I suppose that gives you
*some* excuse............

Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?


Uh, that was Doppler, thank you.

Yep, as already pointed out. Again, apparently a memory mix up on my part.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.

I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one.
That's my point.


And if you were standing around the railroad in the late
1800's or early 1900's, neither would you.


No, but if I was one of those physicists my guess is I would have been on
his side.


My guess is that you would have been suggesting that some other force
must be bending light, because after all we don't know everything
about light.

However, if you had been hanging around the Physics
Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology,
you would have had a far better chance of running into
the Man.


I might even have been his lunch-buddy. :-)


The incidence of aviating porcines was low, even then.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #110   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 Oct 2005 03:06:24 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

Moreover, you continue to ignore what is actually said and attack us as if
we are arguing for "sighted". Mark and Michael (and I and others before)
have not been arguing against blind testing and for sighted.....we've been
arguing for extended, holistic, and less intrusive testing than
short-snippet, comparative testing and especially abx.


No Harry, you haven't been arguing for anything, you have merely been
speculating, in lieu of any other evidence to back your prejuduces. If
you *really* believed in cable sound, or indeed in 'extended,
holistic' testing, then you'd have *done* some of it. If only to find
out if your own claims had any legs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #111   Report Post  
Steven Sullivan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 03:42:55 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 3 Oct 2005 04:18:21 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote:

Bob Marcus wrote:

You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

It depends what you're talking about. Some suggestions are more
plausible or well motivated than others.

Exactly! End of story............

snip

Why can it not be useful in itself to comment on the existing paradigm,
and remark on its limitations? Not everybody who can do that is a
psychoacoustician.

More to the point, you have *not* 'remarked on its limitations', you
have merely *claimed* that such limitations exist, without showing a
shred of evidence or indeed reasoning to support such a claim.


The limitation is, Stewart, that about 90% of audiophiles reject the test
based on its complete inconsistency with what years of listening have taught
them.


90%? From whence did you drag that specious number, Harry? Did you
know that 87.2% of statitistics are made up? Audiophiles are typically
not scientifically trained, and are easily bamboozled. That's how Ivor
Tiefenbrun got the cash for his several yachts.................


Now, experienced audiophiles who understand basic psychology don't
have this problem, because they *know* that sighted comparisons are
worthless.


I surmise therefore that 90% of audiophiles don't know beans about
basic psychology.

Years of experience with them tells me that's about right.

That seems to me *enough evidence* to suggest that perhaps the
underlying premises of the test be examined.


That's not evidence, that's mere speculation.


After all, one could easily dredge up impressive statistics
for all sorts of dubious beliefs (creationism, astrology,
lucky numbers, psychic healing, etc) -- often claimed to be based
on 'years of experience' too. Usually it just measures
how many people are poor at reasoning about causes and effects,
or else are simply ignorant of some pertinent facts.
If anything, the 'years of experience' may have simply worn
a rut so deep in their reasoning process -- and so cozy and
self-affirming -- that they can't steer their way onto the Clue
Highway.




--

-S
  #112   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would
be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy,
just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer
speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)

Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.


Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are.


Harry claims that ABX is fatally flawed, and that we should conduct
monadic testing. He offers no reliable and repeatable observations in
support.


Actually not, for the research it grew out of. But my contention is that
IMO and that of many others, it *may* be fatally flawed as a device for the
open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that until it has been
*validated* for that purpose, it should be promoted and received with
substantial skepticism. My monadic test proposal is a legitimate way of
doing that validation.

You're not much for nuances, are you Stewart?

  #114   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 7 Oct 2005 17:05:23 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005 02:18:51 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

And what do you suppose your (and other objectivists') reaction would
be to
Einstein's theory that time is relative? I can hear it now...dummy,
just
look at the clock. What are you talking about? We *know* that we can
measure time in practical, useful, meaningful ways..its called a
clock....and we use it every day to solve problems...like what time is
dinner tonight? Therefore, you have nothing to offer but sheer
speculation!
Go 'way! (And besides, you are not a scientist, you are a
mathematician...horrors.)

Actually no. You listen to what he said, and cry "nonsense, where's
your *evidence*?" Then you examine his evidence, look at what his
theory predicts, and observe that the prediction holds true. That's
the difference, Harry - your claims have no *evidence* to back them.

Stewart, I'm kind of curious what you think Harry's claims are.


Harry claims that ABX is fatally flawed, and that we should conduct
monadic testing. He offers no reliable and repeatable observations in
support.

Actually not, for the research it grew out of. But my contention is that
IMO and that of many others, it *may* be fatally flawed as a device for the
open-ended evaluation of audio components.


And the Moon *may* be made of green cheese. See the similarity?

And that until it has been
*validated* for that purpose, it should be promoted and received with
substantial skepticism. My monadic test proposal is a legitimate way of
doing that validation.

You're not much for nuances, are you Stewart?


Oh, I love nuances, that's why I use the most sensitive known way of
detecting them. I'm not much for religion and other baseless belief
systems. BTW, why have you never shown any interest in checking out
your own proposal?

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #116   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
Actually not, for the research it grew out of. But my contention is that
IMO and that of many others, it *may* be fatally flawed as a device for the
open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that until it has been
*validated* for that purpose, it should be promoted and received with
substantial skepticism. My monadic test proposal is a legitimate way of
doing that validation.


Lest anyone think that Harry has been vested with any authority to
declare what is and is not a valid psychoacoustic test, this is
completely bass-ackwards. ABX is validated both by its constant use in
the field and by its ability to make and confirm predictions aboout
audibility. Whereas nobody in the field has ever used a monadic test to
determine the audibility of anything. Not once. Ever. And for good
reason.

So the first thing Harry needs to do, before he starts his Annus
Mirabilis Project, is to validate that monadic testing can be used as
an audibility test AT ALL. Can it even distinguish the kinds of things
that ABX tests easily distinguish? Can it distinguish anything? He
doesn't even know.

bob
  #117   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 7 Oct 2005 03:07:31 GMT, "Harry Lavo" wrote:

wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with
the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history.
Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed
physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as
an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.

History was never my strong suite...I stand corrected. I must have mixed
him up with somebody else....you sure he didn't work as a telegraph
operator
*before* he became degreed, or while he was seeking the degree?


Albert Einstein was born at Ulm, in Württemberg, Germany, on March 14,
1879. Six weeks later the family moved to Munich and he began his
schooling there at the Luitpold Gymnasium. Later, they moved to Italy
and Albert continued his education at Aarau, Switzerland and in 1896
he entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be
trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, the year he
gained his diploma, he acquired Swiss citizenship and, as he was
unable to find a teaching post, he accepted a position as technical
assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. In 1905 he obtained his doctor's
degree.

During his stay at the Patent Office, and in his spare time, he
produced much of his remarkable work and in 1908 he was appointed
Privatdozent in Berne. In 1909 he became Professor Extraordinary at
Zurich, in 1911 Professor of Theoretical Physics at Prague, returning
to Zurich in the following year to fill a similar post. In 1914 he was
appointed Director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and
Professor in the University of Berlin. He became a German citizen in
1914 and remained in Berlin until 1933 when he renounced his
citizenship for political reasons and emigrated to America to take the
position of Professor of Theoretical Physics at Princeton*. He became
a United States citizen in 1940 and retired from his post in 1945.

After World War II, Einstein was a leading figure in the World
Government Movement, he was offered the Presidency of the State of
Israel, which he declined, and he collaborated with Dr. Chaim Weizmann
in establishing the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.


Thanks for the background. Is that your original prose? Or did you quote a
source without atrribution?



You can't expect scientists to
bother investigating anything so specious.

And he received much the same response initially.

Not from the professional physics community, he didn't.
The professional physics community rather well embraced
relativity. Please check your history.

My understanding is that even in that community there were more deriders
than acceptors until after the famous "bending-light" verification.


That's how Science works. You observe something unusual, come up with
a theory to explain it, use that theory to predict something else, and
observe the truth or falsity of your prediction.


The light-bending experiment came *after* the theory. What was it he
"observed" that led to the theory?

In our case, we are observing the fact that 90% of audiophiles find the
*sounds same* postulate so rediculous and at odds with experience (not in
just a few instances, but in many, many instances) that the postulate is
rejected. And since we are dealing with strictly subjective phenomenon,
this rejection must be dealth with as a "fact". Mark and Michael have been
working to point out why in theory the short-snippet, comparative testing
may have missed a crucial element...an element that seems to square with
what many audiophiles instinctively or intuitively feed is missing. Now it
is time for some experimentation.


There was, in some quarters, widespread derision, but it should
be noted that even at the time, this was primarily from the
physics illiterate and the fringe community.

My understanding is that outside of a few close associates he was
routinely
and widely derided.


Your understanding is at its usual level. Don't believe everything you
read in the popular press. Actually, that also applies to audio!


Actually, that information was found in a rather well-researched article
from the New York Times about a year ago. Not a scientific journal to be
sure...but this is not a scientific newsgroup, either.


You might also bone up on his complete reluctance to embrace
quantum mechanics, despire being one of the founding fathers
(e.g., for explaining the photoelectric effect, for which he
won his only Nobel proze) and in spite of overwhelming physical
evidence.


I do know of his reluctance to aceept quantum mechanics....never said he
didn't have his weaknesses. But it goes to show what happens when science
as faith replaces science as science.


Oh dear. No, it goes to show that even the greatest scientists can
sometimes refuse to accept scientific facts. I suppose that gives you
*some* excuse............


He refused to accept them because they were so far from what his entire
training had taught him "ought* to be. Thus his famous "roll of the dice"
quote. That's called "belief" and it overcame his scientific training. See
the analogy?


Perhaps like Einstein musing about a train whistle.........?

Uh, that was Doppler, thank you.

Yep, as already pointed out. Again, apparently a memory mix up on my
part.

And I haven't seen any Einsteins around here.

I'm not sure you would know one if you ran into one.
That's my point.

And if you were standing around the railroad in the late
1800's or early 1900's, neither would you.


No, but if I was one of those physicists my guess is I would have been on
his side.


My guess is that you would have been suggesting that some other force
must be bending light, because after all we don't know everything
about light.


Gratuitous, and most probably wrong.


However, if you had been hanging around the Physics
Department of the Zurich Federal Institute of Technology,
you would have had a far better chance of running into
the Man.


I might even have been his lunch-buddy. :-)


The incidence of aviating porcines was low, even then.


Don't you mean "aviating elephants"? Chung is disappointed. :-)

  #118   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Harry Lavo wrote:

You know, Einstein was a railroad telegraph clerk when he came up with
the
insight that generated the theory of relativity.


No, he was not. Harry, you REALLY need to read your history.
Einstein, at the time was a university-trained and degreed
physicist with a 3.3 equivalent grade average who worked as
an examiner in the Swiss Patent Office.


History was never my strong suite...I stand corrected. I must have mixed
him up with somebody else....you sure he didn't work as a telegraph
operator
*before* he became degreed, or while he was seeking the degree?


Try Edison. You'll at least be close.

Norm Strong

  #119   Report Post  
Harry Lavo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Actually not, for the research it grew out of. But my contention is that
IMO and that of many others, it *may* be fatally flawed as a device for
the
open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that until it has been
*validated* for that purpose, it should be promoted and received with
substantial skepticism. My monadic test proposal is a legitimate way of
doing that validation.


Lest anyone think that Harry has been vested with any authority to
declare what is and is not a valid psychoacoustic test, this is
completely bass-ackwards. ABX is validated both by its constant use in
the field and by its ability to make and confirm predictions aboout
audibility. Whereas nobody in the field has ever used a monadic test to
determine the audibility of anything. Not once. Ever. And for good
reason.


Tell that to Harman International and see my comments below.

So the first thing Harry needs to do, before he starts his Annus
Mirabilis Project, is to validate that monadic testing can be used as
an audibility test AT ALL. Can it even distinguish the kinds of things
that ABX tests easily distinguish? Can it distinguish anything? He
doesn't even know.


Look, I spent 20 years doing sensory and behavior research in food...and I
know damn well what monadic, proto-monadic, and comparative tests can and
cannot measure, both real and imputed (or as you would say, imagined).

You tell me how else, other than using ABX itself, you can determine whether
a real perceived difference exists in one piece of audio gear versus
another. You can't...it has to be done across a large enough group of
people to have statistical significance...so one can say...tested blind,
this group of (audiophiles, I presume) listening to movements (X,Y,Z) found
"P" to have significantly higher ratings thatn "Q" on "transparency" and on
"overall realism of the orchestra" (simply used as an example). Then you
know the difference is real (albeit perceived subjectively). You then use
an ABX test among a broad sample of yet another similarly-screened group of
people, using short-snippets of movements X,Y,Z, to see if in total they can
detect the difference. If they test allows them to do so, you have
validated the test. If it does not, you have invalidated the test. Finally,
once you have validated the test, it can be used by single individuals to
determine if they can reliably hear a difference between audio components
similar to what they would experience in a more normal listening situation.
If you are so sure that ABX testing works for open-ended evaluation of audio
components playing music, you should be supporting such an effort, not
ridiculing it. Because until you do, you are ****ing into the wind among
the large majority of audiophiles.


  #120   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Harry Lavo wrote:
wrote in message ...
Harry Lavo wrote:
Actually not, for the research it grew out of. But my contention is that
IMO and that of many others, it *may* be fatally flawed as a device for
the
open-ended evaluation of audio components. And that until it has been
*validated* for that purpose, it should be promoted and received with
substantial skepticism. My monadic test proposal is a legitimate way of
doing that validation.


Lest anyone think that Harry has been vested with any authority to
declare what is and is not a valid psychoacoustic test, this is
completely bass-ackwards. ABX is validated both by its constant use in
the field and by its ability to make and confirm predictions aboout
audibility. Whereas nobody in the field has ever used a monadic test to
determine the audibility of anything. Not once. Ever. And for good
reason.


Tell that to Harman International and see my comments below.


Harman does not use monadic tests to determine audibility. If they use
monadic tests for anything (and I haven't seen anything they've
published using such tests), it is to explore perceived differences
between components that are already known to be audibly different. No
one would use monadic tests to determine *whether* two things were
audibly different. At least not anyone who knew what they were doing.

So the first thing Harry needs to do, before he starts his Annus
Mirabilis Project, is to validate that monadic testing can be used as
an audibility test AT ALL. Can it even distinguish the kinds of things
that ABX tests easily distinguish? Can it distinguish anything? He
doesn't even know.


Look, I spent 20 years doing sensory and behavior research in food...and I
know damn well what monadic, proto-monadic, and comparative tests can and
cannot measure, both real and imputed (or as you would say, imagined).


FOOD??? You complain that too much research using DBTs was listening to
things other than long musical passages, and then you say the better
test is the one you used for FOOD?

You tell me how else, other than using ABX itself, you can determine whether
a real perceived difference exists in one piece of audio gear versus
another.


I don't need anything else. ABX works. It allows me to make reliable
predictions back and forth. I can look at measurements and predict the
outcome of ABX tests--and be right. And I can look at the results of
ABX tests and predict the magnitude of measured differences--and be
right. You cannot do that with monadic tests, because you have no data.
And you probably wouldn't be able to do so even if you had the data,
because there would be so much noise in that data that it'd never tell
you anything.

Again, nobody uses monadic tests to determine *whether* there's a
difference. Nobody.

bob
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not In Love With Tivoli Audio? Maybe Here is Why-FAQ and Exegesis [email protected] Audio Opinions 5 April 25th 05 01:35 AM
NPR reports on new brain research music Harry Lavo High End Audio 21 March 25th 05 06:02 AM
Installing stand-by switch Sugarite Vacuum Tubes 3 February 26th 04 05:04 PM
More cable questions! [email protected] Tech 317 January 20th 04 04:58 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"