Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
... On 3 Oct 2005 04:20:53 GMT, "Mark DeBellis" wrote: wrote: wrote: wrote: snip 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. Gosh, I am constantly amazed at what I can learn by being a participant in RAHE. I just learned that scientists have been studying the audible effects of speaker wire and interconnect construction on audio signals for centuries. Never knew that before. Right on! |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On 7 Oct 2005 04:11:47 GMT, wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote: 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 repeatable observations in support. Just as I thought, you can't repeat my claims accurately. Just as I stated, I don't care. There's no "mysterious force." Damn right there isn't! One of my points is that *you* have offered zero evidence outside listening tests conducted under a very narrow set of conditions. Actually, the whole point is that those conditions are necessary and sufficient. All the handwaving and armchair philosophising in the world will not make a real difference which is *just* audible under lebel-matched quick-switched blind conditions, discernible under any other conditions. If you disagree, then stop typing and provide some *evidence*. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote: 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." Evidence that even you don't fully understand what you are claiming. For what you claim to be true, there HAS to be a mysterious force, because all the non-mysterious forces have already been accounted for. bob |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
wrote: Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On 6 Oct 2005 02:43:44 GMT, wrote: 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." Evidence that even you don't fully understand what you are claiming. For what you claim to be true, there HAS to be a mysterious force, because all the non-mysterious forces have already been accounted for. bob Certainly evidence that *you* don't understand what I'm claiming. Not everything in the universe is well modelled as a "force", and certainly not my working hypothesis. Mike |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Not In Love With Tivoli Audio? Maybe Here is Why-FAQ and Exegesis | Audio Opinions | |||
NPR reports on new brain research music | High End Audio | |||
Installing stand-by switch | Vacuum Tubes | |||
More cable questions! | Tech |