| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#162
|
|||
|
|||
tweaks and proof
(S888Wheel) wrote:
From: (Nousaine) .....snips.....Many on RAHE such as Tom Nousaine and Stewart Pinkerton have called cable sound a ridiculous claim. No assumption is being made on my part here. Tom has ridiculed amp sound many many times on RAHE. I beg your pardon. I've said time and again that no subjectvist (or objectivist,for that matter) has ever demonstrated an ability to actually "hear" the sound of a nominally competent amplifier (or wire) when bias controls have been employed. Are you saying you have never ridiculed the notion of amp sound? Although it may be seen as quite ridiculous when it is noted that no individual has ever shown an ability to "hear" nominally competent amplifiers when nominal bias controls have been implemented I have not ridiculed such. I have simply asked people, like you and others, to demonstrate its existence. |
|
#163
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: "Wessel Dirksen"
Date: 6/24/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. Baloney? Really? Yes "If you hear . . . push the button A or B" Grade school kids have learned less, (especially about scepticism) and have excellent hearing. A simpler intelligence and less accumulation of comparitive knowlegde in order to form a bias are a good thing for a simple blind test. Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. The confounding interpretation of our smart but very emotional brains are what is at issue here. |
|
#164
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/24/2004 9:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: NeDCc.100206$Sw.74615@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 6/23/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:fq9Cc.98196$0y.4622@attbi_s03... And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what really is wrong with the high-end audio realm. Oh I get it. No, you don't get it. Yes I did. I don't think so. I think you are mistaken If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. If that's what you "got," you most assuredly didn't "get it." If this is your response then you didn't get it when you read my post. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Now, what we see is proof by WRONG anaology. What we see is argument by strawman. I would agree that your proofs by bad analogy were pretty much straw man arguments. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. No, what YOU don't get is that science provides an answer that Bromo doesn't like. Like I said, you didn't get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. Whether Mr. Bromo believes that bumblebees can or cannot fly is not the issue. it sertainly is part of the issue. To suggest that Mr. Bromo might possibly believe that bumblebees cannot fly is an insult to Mr. Bromo. To suggest that someone might think that Mr. Bromo did not believe that bumblebees can fly is an insult to that someone. To think that that is an issue is, frankly, an indication of an inability to comprehend what was written. The fact is that Mr. Bromo is using that urban legend to show how engineers can be clueless, or how scientists can be wrong. That is the issue. He never did that. He cited it as another urban legend. He never claimed it proved anything. Looked like he was just bringing up some trivia to me. Everyone else seems to get it correctly, except you. He is making the point that engineering can lead to absurd conclusions. I think everyone else reads that correctly. I guess we will have to let Bromo tell us why he mentioned it, It was obvious why he mentioned it, to everyone else. So, rather than ever entertain the possibility that HE'S wrong, he'll dredge up some tired, worn, overused nonsense urban legend as a means of impugning the science he doesn't like. Um no, he simply brought up another urban legend. He didn't claim it was true. He doesn't bother to see whether the "bumblebee" legend has any basis in fact, rather, it provides a convenient strawman to knock down. OK. One of us is quite off base here. Looked to me like he was bringing it up as a joke. As a joke intended to ridicule engineering and science. Reaaaally? he told you this was his intention in a private message? You can read what he wrote to understand his intention. To suggest that Mr. Bromo needs to follow up with a private message to explain his intention is, frankly, an insult to Mr. Bromo's writing ability, and an insult to our reading ability. He never said so on the thread. Not that I saw. Maybe we should leave it to Briomo to tell us if he brought this urban legend up to ridcule engineering and science. Gosh, weren't you the one asking where someone else's sense of humor was? To bring up that urban myth once more, after it has been deconstucted soundly every time it was brought up here in this newsgroup, is not something that we would find humorous, especially when its intent was to show how engineers and scientists can be clueless. Did you find the bumblebee urban legend humorous? I find those claims Dick mentioned ridiculous and laughable. But it did not mean that there was any sense of humor conveyed by those products or claims. ...snipped... When confronted with facts, on of their few remaining defenses is "Well, science proved that bumblebees can't fly." Indeed, if you believe that is comming from Bromo or from the designers of high end audio equipment you didn't "get it" at all. It's a common position among high-end audiophiles and marketeers that current engineering knowledge cannot explain claimed sonic differences, Really? It is common? Of the many marketeers in highend audio, how many and which ones explicitly claim that current engineering *cannot* "explain" (meaning measure?) claimed sonic differences? And what does this have to do with Bromo mentioning the bumblebee urban legend? Did you read what I wrote? just like certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly. This is something you are now bringing to the discussion. Bromo, as far as I can see, simply cited anotyher urban legend when another urban legend was being discussed. Did he claim that "certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly?" He was suggesting that some engineers came to the conclusion that bumblebees cannot fly based on science. Was that clear to you? Hence when no technical explanation is forthcoming, it's simply because engineering has been found to be deficient. I think you are reading a lot into what was nothing more than a refernce to an urban legend. Well, did you understand why the urban legend was brought up? Right on the heels of another one that suggested that engineers thought that the Zero's were not aerodynamically possible? To call the people who came up with some of the tweaks Dick mentioned "designers" is an insult to the real designers. People of all ilks have to endure such insults. In any endevour there are geniuses and fools and everything inbetween. for the sake of clarity I feel it is best to call them designers. And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? |
|
#165
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. |
|
#166
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: "Wessel Dirksen" Date: 6/24/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. Baloney? Really? Yes "If you hear . . . push the button A or B" Grade school kids have learned less, (especially about scepticism) and have excellent hearing. A simpler intelligence and less accumulation of comparitive knowlegde in order to form a bias are a good thing for a simple blind test. Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Well, for kicks, I asked a couple of my engineering friends whether they believe that speaker cables need break-in or have directivity. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Honest. Then they broke into laughter when I told them that it is a popular belief among certain audiophiles. The point, which you seem to miss here, is that to the technically inclined, a claim like speaker cables needing break-in is just as outlandish as claiming 1+1=2.1 to a grade school student. I also don't see any difficulty in grade school students becoming test subjects of DBT's. That's really the best way to debunk those myths. They could easily become testers, too. There is nothing that they cannot learn about administering the test, Besides, there are ABX devices that act as testers. I think even we can use those. The confounding interpretation of our smart but very emotional brains are what is at issue here. |
|
#167
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Hi,
In message g5_Cc.116604$Sw.51156@attbi_s51, S888Wheel writes Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. Did you ask them if they could design a proof that 1+1 does not equal 2.1? That, in my mind, would be closer to equivalence. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Did you ask them if they would be capable of listening to two pieces of music and then commenting on any differences they heard? Again, that seems to me to be a closer equivalent. Your questions were loaded. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
|
#168
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
news:mKgCc.73558$2i5.28271@attbi_s52... On 22 Jun 2004 23:11:47 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: ...snip...snip.. That is of course quite a different matter, as with the bumblebee (which is another urban myth never actually tracked down). -- See quotes below:- 1. When insect wings are placed in a wind tunnel and tested over the range of air velocities that they encounter when flapped by the animal, the measured forces are substantially smaller than those required for active flight . 2. Thus, something about the complexity of the flapping motion increases the lift produced by a wing above and beyond that which it could generate at constant velocity or that can be predicted by standard aerodynamic theory. 3.The failure of conventional steady-state theory has prompted the search for unsteady mechanisms that might explain the high forces produced by flapping wings. 4.In any event, this exercise indicates that while a theory of insect flight based purely on translation could not explain the complex time history of forces generated by hoverfly kinematics,....... see here for more http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...cs/fly/fly.htm l#RF3 Maybe the urban myth is not a myth afterall. It is probably an unanswered question of curious minds. Just like us (meaning people like me who neither dismiss nor accept tweaks), we witness certain things. yes many of us failed the dbt (ok all of us). But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. There can't be an industry worth almost $3 billion based on myth. The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. My 2 cents p.s Resend. Earlier post is missing. |
|
#169
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 17:43:02 GMT, "Chelvam"
wrote: Maybe the urban myth is not a myth afterall. It is probably an unanswered question of curious minds. Just like us (meaning people like me who neither dismiss nor accept tweaks), we witness certain things. yes many of us failed the dbt (ok all of us). But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. Simple, really - it's a *sighted* test, and therefore worthless for the determination of subtle diffrences. This is easily proven. There can't be an industry worth almost $3 billion based on myth. Sure there is - it's called 'audio' cable. The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. Unfortunately Wadia, Audio Note et al do still exist............ My 2 cents Infinitely overpriced - typical high end product! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#170
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Chelvam wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:mKgCc.73558$2i5.28271@attbi_s52... On 22 Jun 2004 23:11:47 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: ...snip...snip.. That is of course quite a different matter, as with the bumblebee (which is another urban myth never actually tracked down). -- See quotes below:- 1. When insect wings are placed in a wind tunnel and tested over the range of air velocities that they encounter when flapped by the animal, the measured forces are substantially smaller than those required for active flight . 2. Thus, something about the complexity of the flapping motion increases the lift produced by a wing above and beyond that which it could generate at constant velocity or that can be predicted by standard aerodynamic theory. 3.The failure of conventional steady-state theory has prompted the search for unsteady mechanisms that might explain the high forces produced by flapping wings. 4.In any event, this exercise indicates that while a theory of insect flight based purely on translation could not explain the complex time history of forces generated by hoverfly kinematics,....... see here for more http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...cs/fly/fly.htm l#RF3 Maybe the urban myth is not a myth afterall. It is probably an unanswered question of curious minds. Just like us (meaning people like me who neither dismiss nor accept tweaks), we witness certain things. yes many of us failed the dbt (ok all of us). But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. No, sir, the 'urban myth' is that scientists ever believed that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, or 'couldn't fly'. NO ONE has ever claimed that insect flight has been completely understood. But if you want to use the 'mystery' of insect flight as an analogy to audio, you have to demonstrate that similar mysteries in audio *actually exist* (as insect flight quite demonstrably exists). The 'ability to show preference for certain amp or CD players' is trivially easy to explain if the 'preference' is based on sighted comparisons. "preference' can be established under such condidtions even between two components that are *exactly the same*. There can't be an industry worth almost $3 billion based on myth. Wanna bet? THe lottery industry takes in far more than that, and it's based entirely on the idea of 'lucky numbers'. Quack health and weight-loss notrums also take in far more than the high-end industry. The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. There were only *EVER* very few blet-0drive CD players marketed, and there ARE still some on the market..and not cheap either. http://www.burmester.de/english/prod...layer-001.html My 2 cents Overvalued at that price, I fear. -- -S. Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. -- spiffy |
|
#171
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Chelvam wrote:
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:mKgCc.73558$2i5.28271@attbi_s52... On 22 Jun 2004 23:11:47 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: ...snip...snip.. That is of course quite a different matter, as with the bumblebee (which is another urban myth never actually tracked down). -- See quotes below:- 1. When insect wings are placed in a wind tunnel and tested over the range of air velocities that they encounter when flapped by the animal, the measured forces are substantially smaller than those required for active flight . 2. Thus, something about the complexity of the flapping motion increases the lift produced by a wing above and beyond that which it could generate at constant velocity or that can be predicted by standard aerodynamic theory. 3.The failure of conventional steady-state theory has prompted the search for unsteady mechanisms that might explain the high forces produced by flapping wings. 4.In any event, this exercise indicates that while a theory of insect flight based purely on translation could not explain the complex time history of forces generated by hoverfly kinematics,....... see here for more http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...cs/fly/fly.htm l#RF3 Maybe the urban myth is not a myth afterall. The urban myth is that there was this engineer/scientist who did the calculations to conclude that bumblebees could not possibly fly. The correct engineering position is that current state of knowledge may not allow us to fully model the complex flight behavior of the bumblebee. See the difference? It is probably an unanswered question of curious minds. Just like us (meaning people like me who neither dismiss nor accept tweaks), we witness certain things. yes many of us failed the dbt (ok all of us). Let's see if we could really tell there are sonic differences first, before saying that science fails to explain. But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. Many different factors lead to preferences. How do you explain why people believe that green pens, or Shatki stones, makes a difference? There can't be an industry worth almost $3 billion based on myth. Is there a $3 billion high-end industry? Does that include the sale of speakers? Where did you get that figure? How big is the psychics industry? The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. My 2 cents p.s Resend. Earlier post is missing. |
|
#172
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. |
|
#173
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/25/2004 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: jA_Cc.93476$2i5.35111@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Wessel Dirksen" Date: 6/24/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. Baloney? Really? Yes "If you hear . . . push the button A or B" Grade school kids have learned less, (especially about scepticism) and have excellent hearing. A simpler intelligence and less accumulation of comparitive knowlegde in order to form a bias are a good thing for a simple blind test. Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Well, for kicks, I asked a couple of my engineering friends whether they believe that speaker cables need break-in or have directivity. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Honest. Then they broke into laughter when I told them that it is a popular belief among certain audiophiles. Are these engineering friends grade school kids? Did you forget the point that was being made? The point, which you seem to miss here, is that to the technically inclined, a claim like speaker cables needing break-in is just as outlandish as claiming 1+1=2.1 to a grade school student. That point was never made before. If you wish to change the point to that point fine. But then there would be no need for you to argue that grade school kids could just as easily proctor ABX DB listening tests as easily as they can do basic math. No? I also don't see any difficulty in grade school students becoming test subjects of DBT's. I don't either but that doesn't make them the people doing the debunking. That's really the best way to debunk those myths. Fine. I think the grade school kids that can do this on thier own are the exception not the rule. They could easily become testers, too. Easily? Not likely. But yes, some excpetional grade school students can and have done so. It was not the same as figuring out 1+1 does not equal 2.1. There is nothing that they cannot learn about administering the test, Besides, there are ABX devices that act as testers. I think even we can use those. The confounding interpretation of our smart but very emotional brains are what is at issue here. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
"Chelvam" wrote in
news:GAiDc.121003$Sw.53941@attbi_s51: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message news:mKgCc.73558$2i5.28271@attbi_s52... On 22 Jun 2004 23:11:47 GMT, "Chelvam" wrote: ...snip...snip.. That is of course quite a different matter, as with the bumblebee (which is another urban myth never actually tracked down). -- See quotes below:- 1. When insect wings are placed in a wind tunnel and tested over the range of air velocities that they encounter when flapped by the animal, the measured forces are substantially smaller than those required for active flight . 2. Thus, something about the complexity of the flapping motion increases the lift produced by a wing above and beyond that which it could generate at constant velocity or that can be predicted by standard aerodynamic theory. 3.The failure of conventional steady-state theory has prompted the search for unsteady mechanisms that might explain the high forces produced by flapping wings. 4.In any event, this exercise indicates that while a theory of insect flight based purely on translation could not explain the complex time history of forces generated by hoverfly kinematics,....... see here for more http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/ ~wilkins/writing/Assign/topics/fly/fly. htm l#RF3 Maybe the urban myth is not a myth afterall. It is probably an unanswered question of curious minds. Just like us (meaning people like me who neither dismiss nor accept tweaks), we witness certain things. yes many of us failed the dbt (ok all of us). But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. There can't be an industry worth almost $3 billion based on myth. The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. My 2 cents p.s Resend. Earlier post is missing. The whole issue about the bumblebee and aerodynamics is explained at http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001691.htm The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. At any rate, when the truth was exposed that there are many different ways to predict flight and many models, that wasn't newsworthy and as such, did not get the attention it deserved, so the myth continues to this day. r -- Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes. |
|
#175
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article uetDc.103189$Hg2.562@attbi_s04, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote: The so called inferior High End products had their slow death. Seen any belt driven CD Player lately? The good products survived. Unfortunately Wadia, Audio Note et al do still exist............ Why is it unfortunate that Wadia and Audio Note exist? Because they use belt driven transports (I didn't think they did - at least Wadia) or that they are not popular amongst the people with less means? |
|
#176
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Reminds me of the debunkers that debunk astrology - they gather a bunch of people in a room and hand out the same "horoscope" or "personality profile" to everyone - and everyone agrees it was spot-on at which point it is revealed they were duped. The TV show this appears on concludes with a "well, that about washes it up for astrology." They sometimes go on to an astrologer and ask them how it works - the astrologer mumbles something about gravitational influence or something - cut back to the debunker who on a whiteboard or display shows how that couldn't possible be true with further conclusions "well, astrology mustn't work then." What have they proven? That people are gullible, and astrologers have no clue as to why what they do could possibly work. Now, whether you think astrology works or not is immaterial - the rigor by the people debunking it does no service to the cause of light and science - because all the astrologers have to say then is "we don't know why it works but it does" - and "people are gullible, but it doesn't mean we are cheating them." They would be correct, and the debunker has to begin all over again - and would be counting on the lasting impression on the same 'gullible people' exposed during the show. Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o' time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as those that insist that "everything matters." |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/27/04 9:54 AM, in article , "Rich.Andrews"
wrote: The whole issue about the bumblebee and aerodynamics is explained at http://www.keelynet.com/interact/archive/00001691.htm The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. At any rate, when the truth was exposed that there are many different ways to predict flight and many models, that wasn't newsworthy and as such, did not get the attention it deserved, so the myth continues to this day. It illustrates though, at any point, it is possible to apply the wrong theory, or to not be open to see if a dearly held belief is incorrect. |
|
#178
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel" wrote: Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Now let's give a counter example to illustrate how you are wrong. SACD and CD versions of the same recording were sometimes assumed to be mastered identically and any superiority of the sound clearly due to the better technical specs of DSD. Recently people noticed that on some Telarc recording, the two versions sound different. Careful inspection of the CD wave files shows digital clipping. This clearly indicates an intentional compression on the CD by the mastering engineer. Follow-up emails to Telarc confirm this. So here is an example that shows people hear differences, and were able to provide an explanation that runs counter to the popular notion that the two versions are mastered the same way, or that DSD has to be superior. Now, Mr. Bromo, why don't you try to refute this explanation? By the way, Norm Strong provided a link to this incident a few days ago. |
|
#179
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Hi,
In message , Bromo writes I believe that it is a mistake for someone who hears a difference, scientist, consumer or designer, unless really skilled in the art, to offer and "explanation" - because invariably a debunker will be able to refute the explanation (only proving the someone in question didn't know why the difference was noted) and avoid the more difficult and intellectually important task of proving or disproving the observation. Surely all that is required of those that 'hear a difference' is to demonstrate that they do indeed 'hear a difference'. Once that is done, provided the test was valid and repeatable, it can be asserted that 'the tweak' (whatever that is) actually does make a difference. Then it can be palmed off to the scientists to ask *why* it makes a difference. It is not necessary for one who believes in a particular tweak's effect to both hear it and explain it - they just have to show that they really hear it. This is where it all falls down of course, as valid test results for many tweaks (such as cable sound) remain absent. Why all this garbage about the thoroughly debunked and disproven waste o' time, Astrology? Because A similar level of non-rigor is shown by the high end debunkers - and it begs the question if the debunkers are holding "a position" every bit as stubbornly by insisting that "nothing matters" as those that insist that "everything matters." Actually I believe the opposite. Some objectivists have tried very hard to be rigorous in their testing, sometimes at large personal expense. It seems the more rigorous the test, the greater the chance that claimed differences will disappear. Bear in mind that only one person has to demonstrate that they can reliably hear, for example 'cable sound' and *all* the debunkers are out of business. The stubbornness would disappear pretty fast if that one person showed up. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
|
#180
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:57 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: jA_Cc.93476$2i5.35111@attbi_s52 S888Wheel wrote: From: "Wessel Dirksen" Date: 6/24/2004 3:56 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/23/2004 7:47 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: Dick Pierce Date: 6/21/2004 7:46 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: axCBc.85804$HG.35376@attbi_s53 Bromo wrote: People wonder why engineers and scientists don't 'rise up' to counter the ludicrous belief systems of audiophilia. I suspect it's because they're laughing too hard. A professional wouldn't ridicule - just note the observation and trace it to root cause. So if someone says 1+1=2.1, do you note the observation and trace it to the root cause? Ah, but what we were talking about is not that kind of issue. Excuse me, but it most assuredly is. No it's not. First math is a language and so one can make irrefutable assertions. Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required. Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's. Balony. Legityimate audio DBTs are way beyond the vast majority of grade school kids. You might find the occassional exception. Arithmatic is a basic grade school skill. Big diffference. Baloney? Really? Yes "If you hear . . . push the button A or B" Grade school kids have learned less, (especially about scepticism) and have excellent hearing. A simpler intelligence and less accumulation of comparitive knowlegde in order to form a bias are a good thing for a simple blind test. Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Well, for kicks, I asked a couple of my engineering friends whether they believe that speaker cables need break-in or have directivity. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Honest. Then they broke into laughter when I told them that it is a popular belief among certain audiophiles. Are these engineering friends grade school kids? Do you know of any engineers who are grade school kids? Did you forget the point that was being made? Whose point? The point, which you seem to miss here, is that to the technically inclined, a claim like speaker cables needing break-in is just as outlandish as claiming 1+1=2.1 to a grade school student. That point was never made before. That point should have been obvious from my post and Dick's post to Mr. Bromo, who allegedly is an engineer. Do you agree with the point? You can just scroll up and read the dialogs. If you wish to change the point to that point fine. But then there would be no need for you to argue that grade school kids could just as easily proctor ABX DB listening tests as easily as they can do basic math. No? Try to follow the discussions please. Here is what you wrote: "Second, none of the tweaks you name later in this post could be debunked by a primary grade school student, 1+1=2.1 certainly can and no proof is required." To which I wrote: "Wrong. Just about all those can be debunked by DBT's. Primary grade students can be great testers and testees of DBT's." To which, you then replied "Balony". I told you that grade school kids could become DBT testees and testers. I was not arguing with you whether it was easier to debunk 1+1=2.1 or debunk some of those myths. I was pointing out to you your mistaken belief that none of the tweaks can be debunked by a primary school student. You were the one who was trying to disprove my point by *comparing the difficulties* of the two debunking tasks. Which one was easier was not the issue. The issue is whether grade school students can do these things at all. As an aside, to constuct a mathematical proof that 1+1 does not equal 2.1 requires understanding what a mathematical proof means. I would venture that this understanding is not common among primary school students. And BTW, how can you debunk something if you don't supply proof (you said no proof is required). On the other hand, learning to become a DBT testee or subject is easy and intuitive. No math skills or science skills are required. Learning to run a DBT is certainly within the capability of most primary school students. Then there is the electronic ABX tester available. These kids can take part in DBT's simply by visiting Arny Krueger's website. I also don't see any difficulty in grade school students becoming test subjects of DBT's. I don't either but that doesn't make them the people doing the debunking. It's the results of the DBT's that effectively debunk those myths. As you seem to agree in your next sentence. These kids are excellent test subjects, with their superior hearing. That's really the best way to debunk those myths. Fine. I think the grade school kids that can do this on thier own are the exception not the rule. On their own, they are unlikely to even have heard of those claims. But understanding what a DBT can do is certainly within the capability of these students. They could easily become testers, too. Easily? Not likely. But yes, some excpetional grade school students can and have done so. Have you been to Arny Kreuger's website? You can be taking a DBT in a couple of minutes. You can download the software and run your own DBT tests. It was not the same as figuring out 1+1 does not equal 2.1. You were the only one who seems to really want to compare the two tasks. There is nothing that they cannot learn about administering the test, Besides, there are ABX devices that act as testers. I think even we can use those. |
|
#181
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
From: chung
Date: 6/25/2004 11:26 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: chung Date: 6/24/2004 9:24 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: NeDCc.100206$Sw.74615@attbi_s51 S888Wheel wrote: From: (Dick Pierce) Date: 6/23/2004 4:15 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: (S888Wheel) wrote in message news:fq9Cc.98196$0y.4622@attbi_s03... And the aviation engineer thought that Japanese zero planes were aerodynamically impossible. Don't forget Bumblebees can't fly by modern aerodynamic sciences. And with these two "citations," we begin now to understand what really is wrong with the high-end audio realm. Oh I get it. No, you don't get it. Yes I did. I don't think so. I think you are mistaken If people didn't say that bumblebees can't fly and didn't say that Japanese zeros weren't aerodynamically impossible all would be well with the high end industry. If that's what you "got," you most assuredly didn't "get it." If this is your response then you didn't get it when you read my post. What we really begin to see is what is wrong with proof by analogy. Now, what we see is proof by WRONG anaology. What we see is argument by strawman. I would agree that your proofs by bad analogy were pretty much straw man arguments. Maybe you didn't really get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. No, what YOU don't get is that science provides an answer that Bromo doesn't like. Like I said, you didn't get the fact that Bromo doesn't believe that bumblebees can't fly. Whether Mr. Bromo believes that bumblebees can or cannot fly is not the issue. it sertainly is part of the issue. To suggest that Mr. Bromo might possibly believe that bumblebees cannot fly is an insult to Mr. Bromo. It wouldn't be the first time that Bromo has been insulted on RAHE IMO. To suggest that someone might think that Mr. Bromo did not believe that bumblebees can fly is an insult to that someone. Sometimes the facts can be insulting. To think that that is an issue is, frankly, an indication of an inability to comprehend what was written. Well That is a matter of oipinion. We still haven't heard from Bromo on this one. The fact is that Mr. Bromo is using that urban legend to show how engineers can be clueless, or how scientists can be wrong. That is the issue. He never did that. He cited it as another urban legend. He never claimed it proved anything. Looked like he was just bringing up some trivia to me. Everyone else seems to get it correctly, except you. Reaaally? That is Bromo's call isn't it? He cited it and he knows what his intentions were. He is making the point that engineering can lead to absurd conclusions. I think everyone else reads that correctly. I guess we will have to let Bromo tell us why he mentioned it, It was obvious why he mentioned it, to everyone else. It was Bromo's comment and he *knows* what his intent was. It may have seemed obvious to you and a couple other people but those opinions are hardly the arbitrators of fact. So, rather than ever entertain the possibility that HE'S wrong, he'll dredge up some tired, worn, overused nonsense urban legend as a means of impugning the science he doesn't like. Um no, he simply brought up another urban legend. He didn't claim it was true. He doesn't bother to see whether the "bumblebee" legend has any basis in fact, rather, it provides a convenient strawman to knock down. OK. One of us is quite off base here. Looked to me like he was bringing it up as a joke. As a joke intended to ridicule engineering and science. Reaaaally? he told you this was his intention in a private message? You can read what he wrote to understand his intention. I read what he wrote. I did not see any intention to ridicule science and engineering. To suggest that Mr. Bromo needs to follow up with a private message to explain his intention is, frankly, an insult to Mr. Bromo's writing ability, and an insult to our reading ability. We will have to see what Mr. Bromo has to say about his intentions. Sorry you feel so sensitive about this though. I don't see how my reading his comments as I did was an insult to your reading ability. Unless I missed something, the *only* thing he did was mention the urban legend. Mentioning an urban legend is hardly an inherent attack on science and engineering. He never said so on the thread. Not that I saw. Maybe we should leave it to Briomo to tell us if he brought this urban legend up to ridcule engineering and science. Gosh, weren't you the one asking where someone else's sense of humor was? To bring up that urban myth once more, after it has been deconstucted soundly every time it was brought up here in this newsgroup, is not something that we would find humorous, That is the problem for those lacking the sense of humor to find it humorous. Not the problem of those bringing up the urban legend. especially when its intent was to show how engineers and scientists can be clueless. Can you read minds? How do you know for a fact that was Bromo's intent? Did you find the bumblebee urban legend humorous? Every time I hear it. I find those claims Dick mentioned ridiculous and laughable. Oh, so you are the arbitrator of humor now. That is funny. But it did not mean that there was any sense of humor conveyed by those products or claims. And your point is? ...snipped... When confronted with facts, on of their few remaining defenses is "Well, science proved that bumblebees can't fly." Indeed, if you believe that is comming from Bromo or from the designers of high end audio equipment you didn't "get it" at all. It's a common position among high-end audiophiles and marketeers that current engineering knowledge cannot explain claimed sonic differences, Really? It is common? Of the many marketeers in highend audio, how many and which ones explicitly claim that current engineering *cannot* "explain" (meaning measure?) claimed sonic differences? And what does this have to do with Bromo mentioning the bumblebee urban legend? Did you read what I wrote? Yes, can you answer the question? just like certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly. This is something you are now bringing to the discussion. Bromo, as far as I can see, simply cited anotyher urban legend when another urban legend was being discussed. Did he claim that "certain engineers could not understand how bumblebees can fly?" He was suggesting that some engineers came to the conclusion that bumblebees cannot fly based on science. Was that clear to you? No. Lets see the quote in context of what *Bromo* said about Bumblebees. Hey, maybe I missed something. All I saw from Bromo was a reference to the urban legend. Hence when no technical explanation is forthcoming, it's simply because engineering has been found to be deficient. I think you are reading a lot into what was nothing more than a refernce to an urban legend. Well, did you understand why the urban legend was brought up? Are you claiming to know what was in Bromo's mind? He did not say *why* he brought it up in any post I read. Right on the heels of another one that suggested that engineers thought that the Zero's were not aerodynamically possible? Sometimes when you try to read between the lines you see things that aren't there. Maybe I missed something but *only* Bromo can tell us exactly what his intentions were. They were *not* explicitely stated as you claim to see them. You are reading into his posts and claiming that what you are reading into those posts were his intentions. You don't *know* that. To call the people who came up with some of the tweaks Dick mentioned "designers" is an insult to the real designers. People of all ilks have to endure such insults. In any endevour there are geniuses and fools and everything inbetween. for the sake of clarity I feel it is best to call them designers. And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? I think you have to ask the designers. I really don't know anything about Shatki stones or cable filters. I cannot tell you if there was any design involved. |
|
#182
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article 6ftDc.99335$2i5.68257@attbi_s52, "chung"
wrote: But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. Many different factors lead to preferences. How do you explain why people believe that green pens, or Shatki stones, makes a difference? People are gullible. Because some people believe wrongly, does not extend to everyone you disagree with. If I think that pigs can fly - does not mean that airplanes won't. |
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article ZftDc.103198$Hg2.30463@attbi_s04, "S888Wheel"
wrote: Well, for kicks, I asked a couple of my engineering friends whether they believe that speaker cables need break-in or have directivity. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Honest. Then they broke into laughter when I told them that it is a popular belief among certain audiophiles. Are these engineering friends grade school kids? Did you forget the point that was being made? While I do not think that cables are directional or need break-in, it occurs to me that chung has set a rather high bar (properly performed ABX tests) - so it is curious that he will resort to the anecdote method of 'proof' - I mentioned my wife observed something - and got piled on by others on this group for that being a cop-out. I would bring to the group's attention that regardless of the qualifications of his friends - he is saying his "wife" thought that it was ridiculous. Did I mention my wife has a PhD in particle physics? No? It's because she doesn't - but you see how the qualifications shouldn't validate the "my friends bust out laughing" or "my wife noticed it from the other room" are the *same* explanation and should have no bearing. |
|
#185
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article QetDc.99332$2i5.90921@attbi_s52, "Steven
Sullivan" wrote: No, sir, the 'urban myth' is that scientists ever believed that bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly, or 'couldn't fly'. NO ONE has ever claimed that insect flight has been completely understood. Of course everyone knows the bumblebees *can* fly - just that our theory is inadequate to explain as you said. The original, broader implications, are that it might be possible that there are other things that happen that are contrary to our thoeries - i.e. All the theories say there should be no difference sonically between 20' of 16ga zipcord and 8' of Kimber 16 conductor woven cable - yet there seems to be one. |
|
#186
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
From: chung Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: S888Wheel wrote: From: (Nousaine) Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Bromo wrote: On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article , "Nousaine" wrote: It's all hand waving with out any specifics. That would be the case here on both sides. Let me ask again. If I'm not mistaken you have said that anything that can be heard can be measured or perhaps that was more like 'if you can't measure a difference than there would be nothing to hear' or something similar. I then asked exactly what measureable differences would explain amp/cable sound ..... and I don't recall a response. Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't already done? It might be that no one knows. If you notice something - even if 10 people were to denounce you - it does not mean you know the mechanism, nor are you the expert on what measurements to make. So how do they "design" products then .... by making random choices? Are some people just lucky? Why would you ask the consumer how the designer opperates? I suggest you pose those questions to actual designers and let them speak for themselves. Uh, Tom's intent of asking those questions is to make the consumer think about the questions. It seems that when many consumers do so the objectivists get very upset with any eroneous conclusions they may draw. Really? It seems like some of the people who came up with the erroneous conclusions get unhappy when it was pointed out to them why those conclusions were erroneous. I did not sense any objectivists getting upset over these erroneous conclusions at all. The question is better answered by the designers and the consumer is better served if the answers come form the designers. If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public? Ask the people who know, the designers. After all these years of debate you should have already considered this. Again, you missed Tom's intent, which was to make you, the consumer, think. And question. I think I get his intent. It looks very much like a shell game played on consumers who are not technically qualified to discuss such issues. Wait a minute. Tom was asking some very general questions on the design process. I would think that someone not being very technical can still give an educated guess. Or start thinking about an answer. I think Tom is just waiting for one subjectivbist to give a technically inept answer so he can pounce on that person. Can you give some examples of Tom's "pouncing"? If it were truly a technically inept answer, would you object strongly if someone points that out? The fact is it doesn't matter what answer he gets from the consumer. The question is one that should be posed to the designer. Why? The consumer should be thinking about those questions, too. Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? |
|
#187
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
|
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:50:11 GMT, Sean Fulop
wrote: Michael McKelvy wrote: "Sean Fulop" wrote in message ... And I repeat, we cannot be sure that everything can be measured. Then you can't be sure it can't be either. Everything I've seen on the subject says that we have the ability to measure everything hearable. Unless youhave some proof that the right things or everything isn't being measured, you're just making a blank assertion. Yes, but it's an assertion taken for granted by scientists in every field. It is very uncommon for any scientist to claim "we know everything about subject X now, finally," or something unprovable like "we can ascribe a measurable property to every difference we can hear." There are numerous effects of audio on the person that may not be captured by current theories about signals and their nature. Obviously any two signals that sound different will actually be different to some degree, but simply showing that two signals are different is not the same as "measurement" of the difference. In my forty years in audio, I have *never* encountered an audible difference which was not due to a difference which was trivially easy to measure. OTOH, there are many *measurable* differences which are not audible, so I think your point is moot. Also, it's normal for scientists to start with an observed effect, before looking for its cause. Until high-end audio tweaks can be shown to produce any actual effect, there is no cause to investigate. In science it is common to err on the side of caution, to always presume there may be more to any subject or field of inquiry, stuff that remains undiscovered. It's also common for someone making an extraordinary claim to be required to provide *proof* of that claim before it's taken seriously. Compare and contrast with high-end audio 'tweaks'. I agree with you that ABX can be useful, but since it is known that the results can be affected by methodology, once again one can never be certain that the "perfect" ABX-style methodology has been developed. One can however ne absolutely sure that they are better than any form of sighted test. These tests were improved steadily over many decades, which yielded increasing sensitivity to audible differences that could be detected by the tests. We cannot be sure we now have the perfect audibility tests for all domains of sonic difference. We can however be sure that we don't want to use sighted listening for the determination of subtle - but real - sonic differences. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
|
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
|
|
#191
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
S888Wheel wrote:
***snipped due to repetition Gosh, weren't you the one asking where someone else's sense of humor was? To bring up that urban myth once more, after it has been deconstucted soundly every time it was brought up here in this newsgroup, is not something that we would find humorous, That is the problem for those lacking the sense of humor to find it humorous. No, it's not a problem at all. Someone else with a very different sense of humor may still find this humorous, after reading it so many times and seeing its deconstruction so many times. But, hey, it's a free country. Not the problem of those bringing up the urban legend. Whether it is humorous or not of course is not a problem of those bring it up. ***snip*** \ I find those claims Dick mentioned ridiculous and laughable. Oh, so you are the arbitrator of humor now. That is funny. What's really funny is that you can accuse me of being the arbitrator of humor because of what I wrote in that sentence. Speaking of reading minds... But it did not mean that there was any sense of humor conveyed by those products or claims. And your point is? The point was in the sentence. In response to your question of whether I was the one asking about where people's sense of humor was. ...snipped... When confronted with facts, on of their few remaining defenses is "Well, science proved that bumblebees can't fly." Indeed, if you believe that is comming from Bromo or from the designers of high end audio equipment you didn't "get it" at all. It's a common position among high-end audiophiles and marketeers that current engineering knowledge cannot explain claimed sonic differences, Really? It is common? Of the many marketeers in highend audio, how many and which ones explicitly claim that current engineering *cannot* "explain" (meaning measure?) claimed sonic differences? And what does this have to do with Bromo mentioning the bumblebee urban legend? Did you read what I wrote? Yes, can you answer the question? The answer was in the sentences I wrote immediately below. ***snip Sometimes when you try to read between the lines you see things that aren't there. Clearly you have shown that that is the case. Maybe I missed something but *only* Bromo can tell us exactly what his intentions were. Bromo's intentions were there for anyone to see. I can't help it if you can't see that... They were *not* explicitely stated as you claim to see them. You are reading into his posts and claiming that what you are reading into those posts were his intentions. You don't *know* that. To call the people who came up with some of the tweaks Dick mentioned "designers" is an insult to the real designers. People of all ilks have to endure such insults. In any endevour there are geniuses and fools and everything inbetween. for the sake of clarity I feel it is best to call them designers. And you feel that lumping the fools and the geniuses together as designers is fair to the geniuses? Are you going to be the arbitrator of who the fools and geniuses are? Are you so brilliant that you can make that determination for the world? Gee, when did I ever say that? You were the one who said that there were fools and geniuses... Of course, what you call geniuses I may disagree, so how could there be an arbitrator in this case? What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? I think you have to ask the designers. I really don't know anything about Shatki stones or cable filters. I cannot tell you if there was any design involved. So there may not be any designers to ask, no? |
|
#192
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 4:17 PM, in article rXFDc.125025$Sw.22327@attbi_s51, "chung"
wrote: What part was designed in shatki stones? Or cable-lifters? You seriously think that there are designers designing these things? I think you have to ask the designers. I really don't know anything about Shatki stones or cable filters. I cannot tell you if there was any design involved. So there may not be any designers to ask, no? Possible - but that person's lack of knowledge does not mean there were or were not designers for it. (Though, as you, I suspect no one really technical... ) |
|
#193
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
On 6/27/04 1:59 PM, in article 0WDDc.125386$0y.11109@attbi_s03, "Nousaine"
wrote: The original, broader implications, are that it might be possible that there are other things that happen that are contrary to our thoeries - i.e. All the theories say there should be no difference sonically between 20' of 16ga zipcord and 8' of Kimber 16 conductor woven cable - yet there seems to be one. Actually wire sound has never been demonstrated when any kind of listening bias controls have been implemented. Theories from all kinds of wire company literature claims there are such differences. But even so no one seems to be able to confirm when asked identify their wires on the basis of sound alone. . Except when the contacts weren't clean, don't forget. And when the wire was designed so funkily that the poorly designed amplifier went into oscillation. Or when the tube amplifier was OTL and the speaker has a load of the same magnitude as the amplifier. Etc. Etc, |
|
#194
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
On 6/27/04 1:18 PM, in article wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53, "chung"
wrote: Despite, or in addition to, what the designers may (or may not) tell you, the consumer should try to think independently and use his/her own reasoning skills. Well some often do. They get smacked around in RAHE for doing so sometimes. Care to cite examples? A quick perusal of the archives ought to do it - something you should be very capable of doing. A few times I posted some items (some right some wrong) people were quick to point out that I was incorrect, but very few took the time to try to set the record straight and do a decent job of correction. |
|
#195
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:50 AM, in article 6ftDc.99335$2i5.68257@attbi_s52, "chung" wrote: But how then do you explain our ability to show preference for certain Amp or CD player over a period of time listening at our own leisure in our sweet spot. Many different factors lead to preferences. How do you explain why people believe that green pens, or Shatki stones, makes a difference? People are gullible. Because some people believe wrongly, does not extend to everyone you disagree with. But the fact is that if people are gullible like you said, then there is the possibility that that gullibility could lead to them perceiving audio differences where there aren't. No one said that everyone you disagree with is gullible. If I think that pigs can fly - does not mean that airplanes won't. Not sure about the relevance of that remark. |
|
#196
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Bromo wrote:
On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article ZftDc.103198$Hg2.30463@attbi_s04, "S888Wheel" wrote: Well, for kicks, I asked a couple of my engineering friends whether they believe that speaker cables need break-in or have directivity. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Honest. Then they broke into laughter when I told them that it is a popular belief among certain audiophiles. Are these engineering friends grade school kids? Did you forget the point that was being made? While I do not think that cables are directional or need break-in, it occurs to me that chung has set a rather high bar (properly performed ABX tests) - so it is curious that he will resort to the anecdote method of 'proof' - Can you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? My anecdote about engineers laughing was simply intended to show you how engineers look at some of these claims. No proof was attempted. Given that you have misunderstood, no sense in responding to what you wrote below. I mentioned my wife observed something - and got piled on by others on this group for that being a cop-out. I would bring to the group's attention that regardless of the qualifications of his friends - he is saying his "wife" thought that it was ridiculous. Did I mention my wife has a PhD in particle physics? No? It's because she doesn't - but you see how the qualifications shouldn't validate the "my friends bust out laughing" or "my wife noticed it from the other room" are the *same* explanation and should have no bearing. |
|
#197
|
|||
|
|||
|
tweaks and proof
Hi,
In message TgDDc.104735$Hg2.80780@attbi_s04, S888Wheel writes From: Glenn Booth Date: 6/25/2004 3:04 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: Pj1Dc.109631$eu.33807@attbi_s02 Hi, In message g5_Cc.116604$Sw.51156@attbi_s51, S888Wheel writes Well for kicks I asked a couple grader school kids if they saw anything wrong with 1+1=2.1. They did, eeach and every one of them. Did you ask them if they could design a proof that 1+1 does not equal 2.1? That, in my mind, would be closer to equivalence. Irrelevent. I don't think so. The question wasn't whether or not they could design a proof the question was whether or not debunking the cited tweaks was as simple as doing the math for 1+1 Indeed, but all that is required to debunk the tweaks is to take part in a test, not to design it. An altogether different level of competence and skill is involved. Designing a proof that "1+1 is not equal to 2.1" is more akin to designing a test to debunk a tweak, no? And if our grade school kids are going to thoroughly 'debunk' the notion that 1+1 is not equal to 2.1, shouldn't they prove it? Simple assertion isn't going to cut it in either case. Grade school kids know that 1+1 = 2 intuitively; they don't need proof to know the truth of it. In a similar way, a competent physicist, armed with knowledge of how CDs work, could debunk (e.g.) the 'green pen' tweak without needing to design a proof; they would simply know that it could not work by the stated method. I then asked them if they could debunk the green pen CD myth using ABX DBTs. They looked at me like I was from Mars. Truth. Did you ask them if they would be capable of listening to two pieces of music and then commenting on any differences they heard? Again, that seems to me to be a closer equivalent. It may seem closer to you but one has to be able to set up and proctor the test to debunk the tweak. No, all that is required is the ability to take part in a test. As has already been pointed out, young people can make very good test subjects, and the required tests have already been designed. Your questions were loaded. Loaded only with the comparison being made between the difficulty of debunking tweaks compared to the difficulty of doing extremely simple math. What's difficult about taking part in a DBT? Children start learning to differentiate between sounds *way* before they ever learn any maths, even at the 1+1 level. They have the advantage of minimal preconceptions and the associated lack of expectation bias, so they can be great subjects. Their superior hearing is an added bonus. By choosing to employ specific, specialised language in your questions (ABX DBTs), you were deliberately biasing the outcome, were you not? It's possible to phrase a question that asks "Does 1+1 = 2.1?" in such a manner that most sixteen year old maths students would fail to understand it, but it doesn't prove anything. -- Regards, Glenn Booth |
|
#198
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
|
|
#199
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
|
|
#200
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tweaks and Proof
"Rich.Andrews" wrote in message ...
snip..snip... The short version is that many years ago (1930's) the then current model for flight didn't fit the bumblebee and other insects. A sciencephobe stated that science is a crock since it proved (with their then current model of aerodynamics) that it can't. So, there was a time in history the knowledgeable community lacked the knowledge to explain many of the day to day events. |
Linear Mode
