tweaks and proof

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>Date: 6/20/2004 8:09 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com>
>
>s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:
>
>>From: Steven Sullivan ss wrote
>...snips......
>
>>>Hardly. I am suggesting that a common subjectivist
>>>reaction to measurement-based claims of 'no audible difference' is that
>>>the wrong thing has been measured.
>>
>>hardly the case here since nothing since no specific measurements are being
>>discussed.
>>
>>
>> Bromo was kind enough to also allude
>>>to the *other* standby, namely, 'there are things science can't measure
>>>(optional: yet)'.
>>
>>Actually he didn't. He was clearly speaking about the possibility in the
>>practical world that some people may simply not be measuring everything that
>>makes a difference. He made no mention of anything actually being
>>unmeasurable.
>>Scroll up and see for yourself.
>>
>>>The first could be true, but without some viable suggestion for
>>>what the 'right thing' might be, it's hand-waving.
>>
>>
>>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.

I didn't give one. I must have missed the question. I don't think I am the best
person to ask.

>
>Again what should we be measuring to confirm 'amp/wire' sound that we haven't
>already done?

I don't know. Maybe you should be measuring the acoustic output of the
speakers? Any audible differences would certainly show up there. I think you
would do better to ask someone who designs amps. Maybe you could pose this
question to Bill Johnson or Jeff Roland or Nelson Pass.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:VbjBc.148836$Ly.4255@attbi_s01:


>>
>> IOW, that site could be deconstructed quite easily, but isn't worth the
>> time, bandwidth, nor the effort.
>
> If you don't - the other guys will win.
>
>

I did not realize it was about "winning". It is quite obvious that the
information given on the web pages in question, is false. There is no
point in discussing that web site any further.

Magic pixie dust may sound like a great way to fix problems, but truth be
told, magic pixie dust does not exist.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
<nousaine@aol.com> 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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/21/04 6:18 PM, in article cb7mrs0gkm@news3.newsguy.com, "Rich.Andrews"
<bvzxrpl@swissinfo.org> wrote:

>
> Magic pixie dust may sound like a great way to fix problems, but truth be
> told, magic pixie dust does not exist.

Except we were talking more about what constitutes observation and science -
not pixie dust (though my wife hates The Pixies so much she wishes my old
CD's of them would turn into that! :) )
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:



>
>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
><nousaine@aol.com> 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? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then
I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Nousaine wrote:

> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>><nousaine@aol.com> 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? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then
> I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?

I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the
product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back
when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your
system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone
causing some sort of acoustic problem. Gee, I thought, and what about
the rest of the stuff in the room resonating? Light bulbs tend to have a
'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off.
There seems to a be a lot of pseudo science in high end audio.
I remember trying the VPI "magic" bricks about 20 years ago. They were
'suppose' to 'absorb' stray magnetic fields from power supplies along
with 'dampening' a components chassis. The 'absorb' thing went right by
me. The dampening, well, if that were a problem, a real brick is a lot
cheaper. Neither of those 'problems' seemed to effect my system. And
this 'magic brick' was from a company that makes an outstanding
turntable (I own a VPI HW19). Those magic bricks sure looked nice and
were heavy. But work? I can't see how.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>
>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>><nousaine@aol.com> 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.

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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

TonyP <arpierre@optonline.net> wrote:
> Nousaine wrote:

> > Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> >>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
> >><nousaine@aol.com> 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? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation then
> > I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?

> I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the
> product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back
> when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your
> system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone
> causing some sort of acoustic problem. Gee, I thought, and what about
> the rest of the stuff in the room resonating? Light bulbs tend to have a
> 'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off.

IIRC , she also wrote that you should remove *all* metal from
the listening room.


--

-S.
Why don't you just admit that you hate music and leave people alone. --
spiffy <thatsright@excite.co>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: TonyP arpierre@optonline.net
>Date: 6/24/2004 3:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cbflm60vmb@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>Nousaine wrote:
>
>> Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>><nousaine@aol.com> 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? If you would say they "listen" to them for validation
>then
>> I wonder why haven't any of them made listening test validation public?
>
>I often thought that they came up with the hyberbole first, and the
>product to fit it second. I remember "Enid Lummey" of TAS fame way back
>when. "She" said that having a telephone in the same room with your
>system was bad. Something about the diaphram resonating in the phone
>causing some sort of acoustic problem.

I don't like having a phone in the room because it tends to ring. the ringing
is very disruptive.

Gee, I thought, and what about
>the rest of the stuff in the room resonating?

Well some of it does. I have some trophies that sit on my subwoofer. I have to
take them off when I paly music. They ring like the phone, almost. Very
annoying.

Light bulbs tend to have a
>'bright' sound when they are on. A 'darker' sound when off.

I like listening in the dark.

>There seems to a be a lot of pseudo science in high end audio.
>I remember trying the VPI "magic" bricks about 20 years ago. They were
>'suppose' to 'absorb' stray magnetic fields from power supplies along
>with 'dampening' a components chassis. The 'absorb' thing went right by
>me. The dampening, well, if that were a problem, a real brick is a lot
>cheaper. Neither of those 'problems' seemed to effect my system. And
>this 'magic brick' was from a company that makes an outstanding
>turntable (I own a VPI HW19). Those magic bricks sure looked nice and
>were heavy. But work? I can't see how.

Well they can dampen some chasis. Whether or not that makes a differnce in how
the component sounds is another issue. Consider tubed gear for a moment.

>
>
>
>
>
>
 

chung

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
465
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:
>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>
>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>><nousaine@aol.com> 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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>
>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>
>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>>><nousaine@aol.com> 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.

>
>
>
>
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
<s888wheel@aol.com> 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."
 

chung

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
465
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:

> On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
> <s888wheel@aol.com> 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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Hi,

In message <cbmk6n0den@news1.newsguy.com>, Bromo <bromo@ix.netcom.com>
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
 

chung

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
465
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

S888Wheel wrote:

> From: chung chunglau@covad.net
>>Date: 6/25/2004 11:32 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <cbhr3b0k1j@news2.newsguy.com>
>>
>>S888Wheel wrote:
>>>>From: nousaine@aol.com (Nousaine)
>>>>Date: 6/23/2004 4:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>>>Message-id: <cbd2kn01k4b@news1.newsguy.com>
>>>>
>>>>Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On 6/20/04 11:09 PM, in article cb5jh80ug2@news4.newsguy.com, "Nousaine"
>>>>><nousaine@aol.com> 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?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

s888wheel@aol.com (S888Wheel) wrote:

....snips....

>>>>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.

And it assumes that I have not asked designers of high-end tweak products how
they design products.

The answers have been basically obfuscation. None has defined a process.

The "lab"at a wire company was a conference room a single "piece" of electronic
equipment that was idle and the room was empty during my visity. Of course all
by itself that means nothing.... but so do uncontrolled listening "tests."

>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.

And how many has Mr Wheeler asked? And what were the answers he received?

>>> 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.

Mr Wheeler thinks that I haven't?

>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.

And as an enthusiast Mr Wheeler hasn't asked these questions himself?

>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.

"Smacked around?" Of whom do you speak?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:50:11 GMT, Sean Fulop <sfulop@uchicago.edu>
wrote:

>Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Sean Fulop" <sfulop@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>> news:caqhu302fh@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>
>>>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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo bromo@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>On 6/27/04 1:51 AM, in article FftDc.99337$2i5.10037@attbi_s52, "S888Wheel"
><s888wheel@aol.com> 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."

Non-rigor? Please; the first bias controlled listening test of amplifiers was
published in 1976 by Floyd Toole ands Ian Masters. Dan Shanefield published
another in 1980. There was another large experiment in 1986 published by David
Clark and Ian Masters. In fact over the past 3 decades more than two dozen bias
controlled experiments have been published. I've conducted and published
results for about 5 wire experiments.

During this time exactly NO High-End manufacturer, distributor or journalist
has ever demonstrated a single experiment that shows that amp/wire sound exists
when subjects are asked to "hear" it with listening bias controlled.

Not ONE. High-end is where rigor is lacking.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 6/27/04 1:18 PM, in article wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53, "chung"
<chunglau@covad.net> 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.
 

chung

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2004
465
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Bromo wrote:

> On 6/27/04 1:18 PM, in article wjDDc.118970$HG.109026@attbi_s53, "chung"
> <chunglau@covad.net> 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 google search of "smacked around" in RAHE did not return any examples.
So obviously this is figurative speech. I want to ask for examples since
I am interested in knowing what you and your friends consider as being
"smacked around".

>
> 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.

So being "smacked around" means being pointed out you were wrong?

Is it our obligation to provide a decent job of correction? What do you
consider a decent job of correction?

IIRC, when I corrected your use of "Taylor series", when you should have
said "Fourier analysis", you got really defensive. I tried to explain
what is a Taylor series and what is a Fourier transform, and you accused
me of jumping on to correct your errors and berating you. Of course you
later admitted that I was correct and you were wrong after all, but I
guess it would have been too much for me to ask for an apology. Or ask
you to thank me for the "decent job" of correction :).