wrote in message . net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
.... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?
Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

wrote in message
.net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.

(Nousaine) wrote in message news:S7R6b.385366$o%2.173822@sccrnsc02...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:

( see below for previous discussion)
Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?

Nousaine:
But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.

Dear Mr. Nousaine. I have no idea what "claims". you're
referring to and how exactly you want them "confirmed".
I have my likes and dislikes in wires,amps, photographic
techniques, reproductions of paintings, clarinets, pianos, wines and
cheeses. I can try to convey my likes more or less convincingly. I do
not expect others to share them- in fact I'm certain that 99% of
humanity simply couldn't care less and - a secret- neither do I. If
you know of anyone saying that he has a "scientific" provable claim
on these matters, I'm with you, he has to prove it. And so do you.
I do not believe that any way to *confirm* or to negate my
preferences exists. In fact it never ceases to amaze me that in this
one and only area of preferences, opinions, tastes , likes and
dislikes people search for *confirmation*. Sighted bias is bad- no one
has a patented , researched *confirmed* cure for it equally usable by
everyone.
Like with photographic techniques and painting reproductions
so with audio. You and I like it or not, we are on our own with oour
tastes and our brains such as they are.
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
.net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."


wrote in message
.net...
Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I took time to look at your source, that eloquently describes and
condemns quackery. In fact I even made some excerpts which I'll share
with the readers:
" Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
conclusions."

"...Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an activity you
do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a scientist. A
distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by scientists who are
well trained in one field but plunge into another field of which they
are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found a new principle of
biology -- or a biologist who claims to have found a new principle of
physics -- is almost invariably doing pseudoscience...
... Some pseudoscience is generated by individuals with a small
amount of specialized scientific or technical training who are not
professional scientists and do not comprehend the nature of the
scientific enterprise -- yet
think of themselves as "scientists."

Contrasting science and literatu
" Their (scientists' L.M.) findings are expressed primarily through
scientific journals that are peer-reviewed and maintain rigorous
standards for honesty and accuracy. The literature is aimed at the
general public. There is no review, no standards, no pre-publication
verification, no demand for accuracy and precision."

Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?
I wonder.
Ludovic Mirabel

Folks like Mirabel continue to 'wonder' why some interested party has never
confirmed the high-end claims about bits,amp and wire sound.

I 'wonder' too.

Tom said


But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
news:u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54...
Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?
Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?

When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some
of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C),
magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc.

However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one
of the areas of endless debate here.

S888Wheel wrote:
Tom said


But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX or
otherwise?

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?

--
-S.

(S888Wheel) wrote:


Tom said


But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.

Rally on

Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.

Tom said


But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?

I said



They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

Tom said



OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.



No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.


Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.







--
-S.

On 9 Sep 2003 15:47:07 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


Tom said

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?

I said

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.

Tom said

OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.


No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I said


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.


Steven said



Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would
have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.

Steven said



In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'



I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being
done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through.
That was the point. Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
suported by science as science is described in the original article about
science vs. psuedoscience. At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it
published. If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published
in a peer reviewed journal. I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact
about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
used for playback.

Steven said


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point to half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound different is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.

(S888Wheel) wrote:


Tom said


But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?

I said



They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire
sound
ABX or otherwise.

Tom said



OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.



No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to
pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post.
I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.

That's probably right and qualified scientists, engineers and enthusiasts have
examined the 'existance' of amp/wire sound that is not related to area where
audibility has been verified and calibrated (level, response, overload) and
came up empty as well.

wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message
news:u2x6b.282041$Oz4.74308@rwcrnsc54...
Mr. Mrclem, did you have in your sights the never properly
researched, never peer reviewed, claims that ABX IS THE "scientific"
TEST for recognition of differences in music reproduction between
audio components?
Or were you aiming at some electronics' engineers claiming scientific
expertise in musicology and neuro-physio-audiology?

When I read the article the first things that came to mind were some
of the more ridiculous claims regarding cables (signal or A/C),
magnetic pucks, green pens for CDs, etc.

However, the ABX issue did come to mind and clearly qualifies as one
of the areas of endless debate here.

Let me first note that in 3 years I have seen green felt
pens, magnetic cones, Shaktis whatever mentioned frequently on RAHE.
Never, but never by anyone SUPPORTING it. Always but always by someone
fighting its imaginary supporters- and brilliantly winning the debate
(reference Don Quijote vs. windmills)

I listened to green-inked cds. and heard no difference . I
listened to silver, triple-platted interconnects with teflon
insulation and heard clear difference from zipcord , easily
reinforced to ME by the left-right with random changes protocol. This
does not mean that others will hear it too.
I'm not in a position to say that the green pen and
magnetic puck people are deluded. There is no way of checking what
their brains perceive. Many people like wines that I think are awful.
Certainly not by subjecting them to a DBT. A DBT for
comparable AUDIO COMPONENT comparison, applicable to everyone with
normal hearing, is NOT a researched, peer reviewed technique- Mr
Nousaine, Mr. Sullivan please note. (Some hope!) And Mr Wheel, please
note: no, it is not a "valid claim". It is an extraordinary claim due
for experimental validation. Long overdue in fact-
some 30 years.
The answer , Mr. Nousaine to your asking for "proof" of
sighted perception is that by this time you should have grasped that
individual perceptions about differences between comparable audio
components are neither provable or diprovable. They are OPINIONS.
I can not recall anyone "claiming" to have such
"proofs". But they abound in your postings. If anyone were silly
enough to say it he has an exact counterpart in the DBT "I have a
foolproof disproof" mythmakers.
I'll repeat: come up with references to peer-reviewed
research about comparing comparable components by ABX and we'll talk
again.
Ludovic Mirabel

S888Wheel wrote:
Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?


I said


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.


Steven said



Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I would
have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.

Steven said



In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'



I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests being
done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been through.
That was the point.

But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about
the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of
both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely
audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly
and operating within their deesigned limits.

Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel.
It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers*
who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter.

And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still
credible, results from work using controlled comparison
protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark
and Greenhill.



Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
suported by science as science is described in the original article about
science vs. psuedoscience.
At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get it
published.

What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences?

If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and published
in a peer reviewed journal.

That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results,
resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols
*do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed
or not.


I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific fact
about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
used for playback.


Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review.
"Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind
the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that
the only scientific claims are those which have been published
in scientific journals. Scientific claims are those made from
scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who *understands*
scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims
in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess
who's methods are more *scientific*?



Steven said


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post.

No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was
referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either science
has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio
constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either
do not reveal their real charms under DBT. You have outlined yet a a third
position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under
DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist
position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted
via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what
we know about
the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing,
*as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that
such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation
conditions.








--
-S.

(S888Wheel) wrote:




Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
to
half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
different
is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.

This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight.

The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?

What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim.

This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such.

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

Steven said


Where are the peer reviewed articles that indicate sighted listening is a
good
way to confirm the perception of subtle audible difference?



I said


I haven't seen any. Yes I have seen a peer reviewed article suggesting that
DBTs are more reliable than sighted tests. I think that while the point was
valid the article spent a fair amount of space burning straw men. Just my
opinion.




Steven said



Every year (perhaps every month; I haven't been reviweing the literature)
psychoacoustics reserach where the main concenr is to determine
what was *heard* by the subjects, is published. It uses DBT protocols.
DBTs have been accepted as the gold standard for such endeavors for decades.


I said



I don't have a problem with using DB protocols in scientific research. I
would
have a problem if it weren't used in scientific research.



Steven said



In the face of this fact, subjectivists are left with
1) claiming that's been a mistake
2) claiming that DBTs work fine in the lab, but that home audio
is 'special'

I said



I disagree. What we are all left with is a complete absence of such tests
being
done on amplifiers and cables that have gone through the same peer review
proccess that the psychoacoustic research you are refering to has been
through.
That was the point.

Steven said



But it's not like there's *no* information about *hearing* or about
the physical properties of amps and cables. There's *plenty* of
both, in fact. And these data all point to there being *no likely
audible difference* between such devices when they are made properly
and operating within their deesigned limits.


I have seen this said before. I haven't seen it demonstrated. maybe you could
do this? Cite the specific known properties of human hearing and the specific
known properties of amplifiers and cables and show that it suggests all the
known distortions of amps and cables are inaudible in any playback system. That
is probably a lot to ask but if you believe this I would think you could do
this or point to some literature demonstrating this.

Steven said


Scientists would consider 'cable tests' to be a reinvention of the wheel.

I have heard this argument before as well. It strikes me as an unfounded
assertion until someone can cite a peer review group rejecting such test based
on their excessive obviousness. i have asked for any citations of this before
with no citations being offered.

Steven said

It's should be *audiophile magazines* and *audio engineers*
who run such tests. And the AES has in fact touched upon the matter.

They should run such tests if they choose to. No one is obligated to do so. If
they want the tests to be scientifically valid then they should publish them in
a peer reviewed scientific journal. the scientific community doesn't make any
exceptions for any other claims to my knowledge. I can't see why anything in
audio should be exempt from the protocols of the scientific community. If one
wants to say something is supported by science it must actually be supported by
science. I don't think that is such a radical position.

Steven said



And of course, there are plenty of non-peer reviewed, but still
credible, results from work using controlled comparison
protocols, such as conducted by Nousaine, Clark
and Greenhill.

Credibility is often quite subjective. Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
anecdotal.

I said



Subjectivists and objectvists are left with no position
suported by science as science is described in the original article about
science vs. psuedoscience.
At home you may or may not do good careful work. If
it is good enough for peer review one can submit it for peer review and get
it
published.

Steven said



What journal would publish an article about tests of cable audible differences?


I would suspect that the AESJ would publish good tests on the subject. They
have published articles advocating such tests. I think in light of that fact it
would be far fetched to think they would publish such articles and reject the
very tests advocated in such articles.

I said


If it isn't then it is anecdotal and of no scientific interest. So
home audio isn't special it's just anecdotal until peer reviewed and
published
in a peer reviewed journal.

Steven said


That's one criterion. But unlike sighted comparison results,
resutls derived from tests using accepted sceintific protocols
*do* have science behind them...whether they have been peer-reviewed
or not.

Maybe they do maybe they don't. It is not hard to do bad DBTs or even
fraudulant ones. That is part of what peer review is all about, To weed out the
garbage. To assume that just because someone claims to have done DBTs doesn't
make the claimed tests valid. There is a lot more to good testing than just
making them double blind. Also no one I know of is saying that peer review is
the arbitrator of truth only that it is the protocol of science as a dicipline.
No doubt some things that go through peer review and get published turn out to
be bogus and somethings that are never reviewed are actually right on the
money. But that wasn't the issue. the issue was tests of the audibility of amps
and cables that have undergone peer review. It seems none have. In such case
the reasonable conclusion is one cannot make any claims of scientific validity
one way or another unless you can successfully corolate all the scientifically
accepted data on human hearing to all the scientifically accepted data on
amplifier performance in playback and demonstrate that there should be no
audible differences in amps with any real world speaker. You would have to show
that every possible distortion of an amplifier has been propperly testsed for
audibility in any real world application of playback. Sounds like a lot of work
to me.

I said



I think certain objectivists are claiming that ABX
DBTs are "special" when they claim the ones that have never been through the
peer review proccess in a scientific journal are evidence of a scientific
fact
about the audibility or lack of audibility in certain audio components when
used for playback.


Steven said


Wel, then, let's not make a fetish of peer review.

I don't see how holding allegedly "scientifically supported" claims in audio to
the same standards of peer review that the scientific world holds all other
allegedly scientifically supported claims becomes a peer review "fetish."

Steven said

"Peer review' is used as a means to check the methods and logic behind
the conclusions. The article on pseudoscience does not stipulate that
the only scientific claims are those which have been published
in scientific journals.

It certainly implies it.

Steven said

Scientific claims are those made from
scientific methods and reasoning, period. You, or I, or anyone who
*understands*
scientific methodology and logic, can 'peer review' the claims
in Nousaine et al....or the claims of 'subjectivsits'. Guess
who's methods are more *scientific

Any group of people can get together and call something scientific. The
creationists have done this. I have seen an extremely unscientific DBTs
published in an audio journal. It remains anecdotal until published in a peer
reviewed scientific journal.



Steven said


Scientific evidence fo reither claim has not been forthcoming.


I said



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post.


Steven said


No, Scott, you can't be agreeing, because the 'either claim' I was
referring to, were the two claims of *subjectivists* I cited : that either
science
has been wrong about the power of DBTs, or that home audio
constitutes a 'special case' -- that certain audio components either
do not reveal their real charms under DBT.

You are right. i missunderstood the reference. I don't agree with that either
or scenario. All one has to do is show a classic case of really bad DBTs or
even a fraudulant one to show that it isn't an either or propostion.

Steven said

You have outlined yet a a third
position, that certain compoennts *might* reveal real audible differences under
DBT, if only we'd do DBT. That belief is *inherent * in the objectivist
position too! The difference is that the existing data from work conducted
via accepted scientific procedures -- taht is, wa century's worht of what
we know about
the phsyical properties of cables, and amps, and about hearing,
*as well as* the existing DBT resutls -- DOES IN FACT indicate that
such difference are *unlikely* to occur under normal design and operation
conditions.



I think you are exagerating the merits of the existing anecdotal evidence. I
think the results of all the anecdotal DBTs are not so clear cut as you make
them out to be.

Tom said

But; where is the peer-reviewed experiments that confirm amp/wire sound ABX
or
otherwise?


I said

They are right next to the peer-reviewed experiments that deny amp/wire sound
ABX or otherwise.



Tom said

OK then you are suggesting that reports of BigFoot sightings are just as
relevant as the lack of verification of same.



I said


No I am not suggesting that. I thought this kind of stuff wasn't going to pass
on RAHE any more. Too bad that you would attack me with this kind of a post. I
was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
real
scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up empty.


Stewert said


Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty.

Could you cite the specific peer reviewed published tests? I would be
interested in reading them.

Stewert said

There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
--

I don't see how this point supports the position that all cables sound the
same. I can identify a person by the sound of their voice over the phone. I can
even tell my twin brothers apart on the phone. My phone is not a high fidelity
player. Just because submarines can be heard and identified over long distances
using ordinary cable doesn't in and of itself prove that the cable is
transparent just as my ability to tell my twin brothers apart over the phone
doesn't prove the phone is transparent.

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...

Quoting Mr. Wheel:
I was simply pointing out that there is no peer reviewed experiments on the
subject that was being discussed. you pointed to half of that fact. I have
never argued that bigfoot exists. The analogy is bogus given the fact that
real scientists have investigated the existance of bigfoot and came up
empty.

Mr. Pinkerton:
Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty

A reference to the LISTENING cable comparison test by "real
scientists"
please. Mag, author, volume, page.
Aren't you tired yet of quoting the anonymous "real
scientists" that license all and sundry to speak for them? Everybody
else is. It is wearing thin , you know

There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.

I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I
thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended
for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with?
You impose match-levelling to 0.1 db. on the contestants in
your famous ABX prize for telling difference between a cable and a
cable. But you tell me that 6db signal to noise ratio is not enough
when it comes to my way of comparing components. If I do I won't
discover "subtle" differences. Define "subtle". Is subtle whatever
Mr. Pinkerton can't hear?

Talk about "real scientists".
Ludovic Mirabel

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
in teflon insulation. One system used silver plated steel alloy
for the desired impedance and toughness. I am not saying
that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
is used because it is good enough.

Dennis

I said



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
to
half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
different
is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.



Tom said


This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight.


No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a
claim of paranormal phenomenon per se. Further more, many scientific
investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and published
so the analogy is entirely flawed.

Tom said


The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?



Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
such things? There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal. By the way, one would
not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new species
or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is ridiculous
to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an entirely
different proccess.

Tom said




What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim.


There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists. Further
more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
nothing more than that as far as I can see.

Tom said


This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such.


The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented.
There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered
scientifically valid. And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and correctly
pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.


Tom said



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



If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon themsleves
to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

snip

Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
anecdotal.

Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to
accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
protocol methodology used.

For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
"anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
determination.

snip

Keith Hughes

Stewert said

There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.


Ludovic said

I suppose that was what you used in your amp comparisons. And I
thought you bothered with DBT. Are the systems "we have" recommended
for use only by whomever Mr. Pinkerton happens to disagree with?

I don't think this at all fair to Stewert who has described his DBTs of
amplifiers in detail. While I don't think his point per se proves that cables
are transparent I don't think it warrents an unfair attack on the work he did
in selecting his amplifiers.

On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.

Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
in teflon insulation.

What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper
wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable
harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed,
I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire
in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made
up to a usefully high resistance.

One system used silver plated steel alloy
for the desired impedance and toughness.

That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be
used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes
for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies.

I am not saying
that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
is used because it is good enough.

What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is
there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's
slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or
variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six
nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just
absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

I said



Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
anecdotal.


Keith said




Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to
accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
protocol methodology used.

For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
"anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
determination.

snip

Keith Hughes





This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early
on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had
already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge
that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying
that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish
their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid. The
fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out
that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 10 Sep 2003 15:36:07 GMT, "Dennis Moore"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message


Actually, real scientists also investigated the existence of 'cable
sound' and came up empty. There are many applications which are *much*
more sensitive to cable problems than domestic audio. Even in 'audio',
we have systems which can hear a submarine at 2,000 *miles* range, and
identify its sound signature. You think that any of the r.a.h-e
'golden ears' can do that? And it's all done with ordinary copper
wire. As of course is the vast majority of 24/192 recording.

Stewart, I doubt the system used to listen to submarines is
using only ordinary copper wire. I bet some or all of it is
mil-spec wire of most likely silver plated or silver coated copper
in teflon insulation.

What do you think MIL-spec wire *is*? It's ordinary stranded copper
wire, generally silver-plated and Teflon-coated for ease of cable
harness assembly, absolutely *not* for any electrical reason. Indeed,
I use a thin solid-core version of that standard MIL-spec hookup wire
in my own speaker cable, just because I had it available and it made
up to a usefully high resistance.

One system used silver plated steel alloy
for the desired impedance and toughness.

That sounds more like an RF cable, but whatever. It would certainly be
used for good engineering reasons, not the utter bull**** that passes
for 'electrical theory' in high-end cable companies.

I am not saying
that validates subjectivists idea about silver or other conductors.
But it also doesn't validate the idea that any kind of old copper
is used because it is good enough.

What do you mean by 'any old kind of copper'? The silver plating is
there because of the Teflon, and the Teflon is there because it's
slippery. There are no 'magical mystical' cable constructions or
variable gauge stranding, there are no mysterious alloys or 'six
nines' copper purity, there's no 'single crystal' drawing, it's just
absolutely ordinary stranded copper wire.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


That makes lots of sense Stewart. It is just plain old copper.
Other than of course it being silver plated. So other than not
being just plain copper it is of course plain copper. All you need
is plain copper of course unless you need something else like
silver plating. Yep, makes real good sense.

Dennis

S888Wheel wrote:
I said



Non-peer reviewed comaprisons remain
anecdotal.


Keith said




Sorry, but while you continually make this assertion, it is simply
incorrect. Data gathered using strictly defined and executed
protocols, evaluated within the constraints of the specified
methodologies, are *not* anecdotal (one definition of which is "2
: based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually
unscientific observers anecdotal evidence"). You may choose to
accept it, or refute it (have you evidence with which to do so)
but it remains valid data within the bounds and constraints of the
protocol methodology used.

For example, using *your* definition of anecdotal, all the sterile
pharmaceuticals and medical devices currently used are
developed, validated, approved, and marketed based solely on
anecdotal (i.e. unscientific) data. These data are not published,
much less peer reviewed (they are all proprietary after all). When
audited by FDA, they stand or fall on their merits (applicability,
sufficiency, rigor, results, and documentation).

So, if *you* want to stipulate that peer review is *your* minimum
criterion for acceptability, feel free. But please, let's quit
mischaracterizing everything that is not peer reviewed as
"anecdotal", it is simply an insufficient criterion for such
determination.

snip

Keith Hughes





This would be true if you choose to ignore the scientific research very early
on that investigated sterilization. The science behind sterilization had
already been established. So protocols based on existing scientific knowledge
that you have cited are really nothing more than a straw man. I am not saying
that manufacturers, doctors, engineers or any practicioners need to publish
their day to day protocols for their protocols to be scientifically valid.


And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is
an old enough science to have its own textbooks. Therein you will find the
'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and perception.
Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the 60's.
Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.

Yet you keep askign for citations.
So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've
been directed to them before.


The
fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing out
that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20 tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.


And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with
other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened?

One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom
Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect.




--
-S.

In article ,
Mike Gilmour wrote:

Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE
or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic &
marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at
328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the
advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE
coated cables justify this reason alone?

I suspect part of the cost is "what the market will bear". The PFTE
almost certainly adds some cost during manufacture due to the higher
temperatures needed to apply/extrude it. Compliance to a formal
mil-spec rating (e.g. MIL-W-16878-E for much of the wire of this sort
I've bought) certainly adds cost (probably paperwork, tracking,
testing, and so forth).

I believe I've read that this wire is normally silverplated because
the high temperatures used in applying the PFTE would otherwise cause
the surface of the copper to oxidize, making the wire difficult to
solder and (I suppose) perhaps compromising the quality of crimped
connections to the wire. Normal tinning processes can't be used due
to the high temperatures.

I agree with you that thermal stability is probably the biggest
advantage to using this sort of wire. Darned embarrassing if your
multimillion-dollar jet fighter, MX missile, etc. fails in flight
because the PVC insulation on a cheap wire melts through and the
whole system shorts out.

I've come to like using this wire for homebrew projects, because I
don't have to worry about burning through it if I happen to touch it
with my soldering iron while working on a nearby part. Also, the
insulation doesn't "shrink back" away from the solder junction. It's
expensive if ordered new from (e.g.) Alpha or Belden or etc., but is
commonly available in surplus here in the Silicon Valley.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

(S888Wheel) wrote:

Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.

Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)

And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?

But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard defending
amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?

In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from an
internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called cognitive
dissonance.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

I said



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
to
half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
different
is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an intelectually dishonest argument IMO.



Tom said


This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight.


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

It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias controlled
experiment. There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.

So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity. It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence. If it did then we wouldn't be arguing about it.

Further more, many scientific
investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and
published
so the analogy is entirely flawed.

In peer-reviewed journals?


Tom said


The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?



Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
such things?

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

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

Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references? That's
what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me included) and
not found same.

By the way, one would
not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new
species
or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is
ridiculous
to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an entirely
different proccess.

Why? Are extraordinary claims based outside the Lab free from scrutiny? I think
any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING the claim.
The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the Proponents. Those
of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so. It's YOUR
turn now.


Tom said




What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim.


There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists.
Further
more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
nothing more than that as far as I can see.

Tom said


This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such.


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

'Sez you. How are you qualified to comment?

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


Tom said



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



If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all
the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
themsleves
to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication
in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller, manufacturer)
been able to do so? It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case. I've
tried in every reasonable fashion.

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

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

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

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

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 20:13:32 GMT, "Mike Gilmour"
wrote:

Lets not advertise DuPont wares too much. Teflon is the trade name for PTFE
or polytetrafluoroethylene, often used in cables for military avionic &
marine applications requiring exceptional thermal stability. PTFE melts at
328 deg C. This AFAIK is the main reason though I do appreciate the
advantages in ease of harness assembly but does the elevated cost of PTFE
coated cables justify this reason alone?

Yes. I worked in the defence industry for about twenty years, and one
of the main reasons for the use of PTFE in cable insulation is not
that it withstands high temperatures (although this is a useful
property), but that if one wire in a harness burns out or breaks, it
can readily be replaced by pulling through another wire. No other
insulation material will allow this, although several others have even
higher thermal ratings. The other main reason for the use of PTFE is
that, for a given voltage and current rating, PTFE gives the smallest
overall wire diameter, leading to more compact cable harnesses. In
complex military equipment which is required to fit into small spaces
in fighting vehicles, this combination of properties easily justifies
the small additional cost. It also strips very cleanly for crimping
with minimal 'pullback', which is nice.

BTW, I generally refer to it as 'Teflon' because that's the best-known
name for PTFE, and many of our American cousins might not recognise
the generic term.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:11:10 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

So far no one has delivered a replicable, documented experiment on wire sound.
No one, even staunch proponents, has been able to show an ability to 'hear'
wires with bias controls as simple as a blanket covering terminals to prevent
non-sonic attributes from clouding the results. Why not?

Is that a serious question? :-)

As for Mr Pinkerton's experiment all he has to do is produce documentation
shwoing that the units he claimed were sonically identifiable had nominally
competent performance.

I have never claimed this, in fact I am certain that it would be very
easy to track down significant measured differences among the
identifiable amplifiers, particularly in terms of treble droop and
high levels of IMD or switching distortion.

OR another experiment thay confirms his results. Maybe YOU should do that.

Or let me give you the high-end reverse take on it. Even IF that experiment
were accepted at face value all it would have "proven" was that differences
were audible under those conditions in that system. Without some kind of
replication it cannot be extrapolated to any other circumstance under the
high-end rules.

At best it suggests that speaker load may be unusual.

I tell you what. I'll conduct a DBT with an amplifier supplied by you and one
supplied by Pinkerton. You each pay shipping to/from and I'll conduct the
experiment, solicit and pay the subjects. We will agree in advance that all
information will be publicly shared and that I'll submit those in a paper to an
AES Convention.

Surely someone in your area has an old Krell, from the days before
plateau biasing? Failing that, I'll nominate one of your Brystons as
sonically transparent.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Ref: Dividing lines between science and pseudo-science...

mrclem..

As one reads about new breakthroughs in Science or any other
discipline or human endeavor, one begins to see that when
a scientist stumbles into newer and more logical theory
he becomes the point of ridicule by many of his fellow
Scientist. There is a tendency to not accept the new
concept..why?...it is outside of the "lines" of previous
and current thinking. A particularly devastating aspect
of the "hard-line Objectivist" mentality.

New concepts and ideas tend to be ridiculed by this
ultra-conservative mindset. However, in this day and
age with new concepts and breakthroughs there is a
"ray" of hope that new principles and concepts are
being accepted with less ridicule. (This is particularly
true in the world of Astronomy.)

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.

The point of all this is to be very leary of accusing
a new principle of having elements of quackery or pseudo-science
when indeed it is outside the lines of currently accepted
thinking. So many great breakthroughs have had to suffer
through this element of ridicule...always, coming from that
element in our society that has everything clearly defined
within a set of lines that define the "real" world to them.
Never accepting that most knowledge is still outside the
"lines" or borders of the known!

It is almost as if we have a mindset within our midst that
is very, very fearful that new breakthroughs will somehow
shatter the current thinking that they have based their
very being on! To them,it is a fearful thing that should be
"nipped in the bud"..dangerous, these new concepts and ideas.
Put them down..less worry..let the Universe stay as I
conceive it to be. Perhaps, a weakness of our very being!!
Certain Institutions in the past have thrived on this mentality.

Square one: we've got to continue moving those mental
lines or barriers forever outward...develope a willingness
to maintain an open mind...always, keep an open mind! The
volume of new knowledge and concepts to be discovered
makes the known knowledge a miniscule drop in the bucket.

Enough, I meander on...this horse has been beat to death in
the past!!

Leonard..
__________________________________________________ _______________________

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:16:38 +0000, mrclem wrote:

Here is an interesting article which pertains to many of the
discussions here that seem to go on forever:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

I'm curious what you guys think of it, especially those who have been
participating in these endless discussions over the years.

I said

Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.

Tom said

Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)


And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?


Not at the moment.

Tom said


But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard
defending
amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?

This is a straw man. I haven't been arguing amp sound, I have been arguing
scientific validity of any opinions either way when it comes to amp sound. Yes,
i think that amps that I have compared in my home on my system have sounded
different. I have made no claims that those opinions are supported by science.

Tom said


In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from
an
internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called
cognitive
dissonance.

You are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion claiming valid scientific
support of one's beliefs in the absence of scientifically valid data is a
misrepresentation of legitimate science.

Steven said


And that's *exactly* the point that's being made to you. Psychoacoustics is
an old enough science to have its own textbooks.

I have never said otherwise about psychoacoustics.

Steven said

Therein you will find the
'classic' data (and the references) for studies on human hearing and
perception.

I know that.

Steven said

Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
60's.
Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.

That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must be
tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
would need to be included in the scope of things.)

Steven said


Yet you keep askign for citations.
So, what's keeping you from going back to those 'ur-texts'? I *know* you've
been directed to them before.

What is keeping those who believe that the proof of inaudibility is proven in
such texts from making the citations I ask for? This sounds like a classic case
of "I say it's so and the science agrees with me and you have to go prove it
for me." Those who make the assertions must do the work of proving those
assertions.

I said

The
fact is I am not challenging the protocols of DBTs. I am merely pointing
out
that without peer review they lack scientific validity. Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.


Steven said


And then when his claims were tested in a better-controlled DBT , with
other poeple observing the procedure and the results...what happened?

Which just shows that there is more to a test being valid then it simply being
double blind. So how is quality control guaged? It is my understanding that the
peer review proccess is the litmus test for scientific acceptability. All tests
that are not peer reviewed are anecdotal. So I have been told by my friends who
happen to be scientists or graduate students at Cal Tech. Are they wrong?

Steven said


One of the poeple who conducted the better-controlled DBT was Tom
Nousaine, whose own 'anecdotes' you seem to find so suspect.

I did find one of his tests painfully flawed, but even then I did not reject
the data. I just don't think it proves a global scientific fact about audio.

Leonard wrote:

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.


Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.

Keep in mind that Einstein employed a full time professional logician
working in his office when he was at Princeton working on the Unified
Field Theory. Could it be that such rigor has something to do with that
theory not yet being shown to be really workable?

Compare that to high end audio where perverse delight is taken in denying
even the most simple of logic.

(S888Wheel) wrote:




I said

Do you really think
every home brewed comparison in audio is scientifically valid just because
some
one slaps the label DBT on it? I have seen such home brewed tests conducted
by
Steve Zisper inwhich he claimed to get positive results in 19 out of 20
tests.
He said they were DBTs I believe and he clearly was offering anecdotal
evidence.

Tom said

Of course not. I replicated that experiment at Zipser's place. It was clear
that he, his wife and a 3rd party were unable to reliably identify his
expensive amplifier(s) from an inexpensive intergrated amplifier with even
modest bias contnrols applied. (Single or double blind.)


And....so what? Do YOU have some interesting data to bring to the table?


Not at the moment.

Tom said


But, given the Zipser experiment why do you continue to argue so hard
defending
amp sound when you have 'no' reliable positive evidence?

This is a straw man. I haven't been arguing amp sound, I have been arguing
scientific validity of any opinions either way when it comes to amp sound.
Yes,
i think that amps that I have compared in my home on my system have sounded
different. I have made no claims that those opinions are supported by
science.

Tom said


In my personal opinion I think that these long arduous 'arguments' come from
an
internal need of a few individuals to confirm past decisions on audibility
which may have been compromised by non-sonic bias. It might be called
cognitive
dissonance.

You are entitled to your opinions. In my opinion claiming valid scientific
support of one's beliefs in the absence of scientifically valid data is a
misrepresentation of legitimate science.

I'd say that claiming 'amp' sound exists in the absence of any data that shows
this to be true and then arguing that all the extant evidence is irrelevant
shows a lack of a reasonable agrument on any basis.

BTW I'll tell Dr Toole that his 1976 Audio Scene of Canada report of
experiments conducted at the Canada NRC lacks scientific validity. I'm sure
he's been waiting on your blessing.

(S888Wheel) wrote:

...snip to specific content.....

Steven said

Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
60's.
Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.

That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must
be
tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
would need to be included in the scope of things.)

This line of argument is common in the high-end scheme of things. Because any
given experiment hasn't included every possible condition in the world we
should feel free to ignore it when we don't like the result.

This tries to establish a hurdle that no one could EVER clear. Therefore, in
spite of no confirming evidence, there will never be enough contradictory
evidence to put down whatever claim I make.

Likewise even one positive result like that recently reported about cd players
means that EVERY player ever made sounds different from all other players. And
any evidence to the contrary must be disregarded even when the positive was
single blind and had not confirmed synch.

As Michaell Schermer says with myths the evidence never gets any better. In
spite of decades of experimental attempts to uncover amp/cable sound outside
those causes well-known the evidence is always right around the corner or was
produced but not understood by even professionals in the field according to the
proponents but none of them (even the "professionals" have never been able to
deliver a smoking gun.)

Leonard wrote:

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.

jjnunes said


Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.


That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.

S888Wheel wrote:

Leonard wrote:

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.

jjnunes said


Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.


That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.

I've read that Planck jumped on board right away, the others took longer.

But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the
verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In here we have
Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly
through the holes in his own arguments. It's the subjectivists that are citing
old tossed theories, (Raedecker's advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes
to mind) Most don't bother to even check out the important authors that have
been cited here. (Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been
informally cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest. Yet they argue that they
have some magical gift of listening which deternimes some products are 'better'
than others and this should just be accepted as 'authority'. (usually citing
magazine writers and editors better known for manipulating internal politics
rather than any real contribution of knowledge)

JJ quit contributing pretty much because it's like talking tp a brick wall.

No, it doesn't follow. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.