Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
(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. |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science | Audio Opinions |