On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:22:49 -0000, "Rob"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 19:42:58 -0000, "Rob"
wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On 06 Nov 2004 11:27:16 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

I have no wish to 'endow' (DP) anything. I'm reporting less distortion
in
highly modulated passages when a transport is damped.

No, you're reporting that you *think* something is happening. You have
as yet shown no indication that anything *real* is occuring.
--

If I were Andy I'd be feeling like someone asked to prove, for ever,
evidence of something that doesn't exist in the empirical world. Andy
can't
prove what he hears, and I'm inclined to think he (of all people) is aware
of placebo-type effects. Why can't you turn this round - instead of asking
him to prove it, you disprove it. Simple hypothesis - test it and see what
happens.

You haven't really thought this one through, have you. If somebody
says there is no difference, then in any test all they have to say is
"I can't hear a difference". That applies whether the difference
exists or not. If somebody claims to hear a difference, they can prove
it conclusively by identifying by sound alone - job done.

:-). Complete and utter nonsense. The proper test is antithesis - look it
up.

Andy surprises me rather with his claims because he is fairly uniquely
positioned in his psychological training to understand the reasoning
and processes, yet chooses to ignore all his training and experience.

Do you have any evidence of this?

Just read his posts.

I know that it is not nice to have your row of soldiers knocked down,
but the experience can be both illuminating and cathartic. Having
knocked them down, of course, you can then move on to something more
productive.

I really don't think this is what Andy is doing - I see it as a simple
test/pastime. I wouldn't presume to judge a person's productivity on the
basis of this little exchange.

But what do you say to somebody who, when you show them how a
conjuring trick is done then says "it must be magic"?

I suspect that behind your rather abrupt manner and bluster is a
charitable
soul trying to dissuade people from throwing time and money at what you
see
to be a pointless grail. I can't prove it though ;-).

Rob


I think you are right that many of us here do genuinely want people to
listen with their ears and not go blowing valuable time and money on
fruitless pursuits. Of course there is the point that the chase itself
can be fun - but it is much more fun when yo know that there is some
chance of there actually being a prize at the end.

There is a chance - that is, er, the point. It may be slim but I find an
inquiring mind fascinating. How many massive breakthroughs to our
understanding of the physical world have been made by people who were told
'Nope, it's impossible'. Challenge hegemony.

Rob


You have the roles reversed here. It is Andy who is saying "no it is
impossible" and refusing to investigate further - merely repeating the
assertion. The enquiring mind is the one that pulls the phenomenon
apart to see what causes it and learns thereby.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

All it takes is for somebody independent to change between two sources in a
random fashion.(snip).. the minimum you would do before even considering
reporting to the world.

Hello Don - now, are you seriously suggesting that I buy another identical
transport (which is an obsolete model), set up a switching device and go out of
my way to get a third party to operate it just in order to make an observation
to a recreational newsgroup? Some parties on this newsgroups seem to think that
before stating anything you should set up a complex DBT which would probably
take several days of one's time and require a variety of equipment and third
parties. Now if I were saying "I have discovered something new, I'm confident
that I'm the first to discover it and I'll be applying for a patent this week
and sending my findings to three scientific journals once validation is
complete" - then, and only then, would I consider that such demands for DBTs
etc had any place on a recreational newsgroup. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

The enquiring mind is the one that pulls the phenomenon apart to see what
causes it and learns thereby. (DP)

Well now, I still have no progress with anybody that has 'pulled this
phenomenon apart' as you put it, no suggestion of a cause and until I have any
empirical evidence to back up claims that resonance damping has no effect, I
seem to be without anything to learn.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

On 06 Nov 2004 21:11:36 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

The enquiring mind is the one that pulls the phenomenon apart to see what
causes it and learns thereby. (DP)

Well now, I still have no progress with anybody that has 'pulled this
phenomenon apart' as you put it, no suggestion of a cause and until I have any
empirical evidence to back up claims that resonance damping has no effect, I
seem to be without anything to learn.

You have had the explanation. You are sufficiently motivated to hear a
difference that you do. Before you demand evidence that resonance
damping has no effect, you must show how it could possibly have ANY
effect. That is the extraordinary claim, so that is what must be
demonstrated.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 06 Nov 2004 21:08:38 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

All it takes is for somebody independent to change between two sources in a
random fashion.(snip).. the minimum you would do before even considering
reporting to the world.

Hello Don - now, are you seriously suggesting that I buy another identical
transport (which is an obsolete model), set up a switching device and go out of
my way to get a third party to operate it just in order to make an observation
to a recreational newsgroup? Some parties on this newsgroups seem to think that
before stating anything you should set up a complex DBT which would probably
take several days of one's time and require a variety of equipment and third
parties. Now if I were saying "I have discovered something new, I'm confident
that I'm the first to discover it and I'll be applying for a patent this week
and sending my findings to three scientific journals once validation is
complete" - then, and only then, would I consider that such demands for DBTs
etc had any place on a recreational newsgroup. Andy


Well, you *are* saying you have discovered new, and this news group is
the publishing vehicle of your choice. So this, I'm afraid, is where
your discovery is going to be challenged. What you claim (observe)
goes against everything that those of us who understand how CDs work
believe is possible. This makes the claim extraordinary. Of course we
can't simply say well done, we didn't know that. Such a response would
be preposterous given our knowledge (call it belief if you like). So
we say no, your hearing has been deceived in ways you are well
accustomed to from your experience in psychology.

Now you can go on repeating the assertions, and we can go on saying
you are wrong until you prove them, confident in the knowledge that
you can't. But that is a pretty fruitless exercise. So if you want
your extraordinary claim to stand up, then I'm afraid that yes, you
are going to have to get yourself another similar transport and get
somebody to blind switch between the two for you. Without that you are
simply the bloke down the pub saying "my CD player sounds miles better
when I bolt it to a slab of aluminium" while all your mates nod sagely
into their beer.

Sorry, but that is how it is.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Well, you *are* saying you have discovered new, and this news group is the
publishing vehicle of your choice. (DP)

You're giving me ideas beyond my station here! And

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

You have had the explanation. (DP)

I'd like to be a little more precise here - I've had 'an explanation'. Andy

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

On 06 Nov 2004 22:00:01 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

You have had the explanation. (DP)

I'd like to be a little more precise here - I've had 'an explanation'. Andy

How many do you need? The one you have had is one that has been
validated in many situations over many years and must be more than
familiar to you in your professional field. Why do you reject it in
favour of an explanation that makes no sense in any terms whatever?

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On 06 Nov 2004 21:58:20 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Well, you *are* saying you have discovered new, and this news group is the
publishing vehicle of your choice. (DP)

You're giving me ideas beyond my station here! And

And the rest of my post? It was all pretty relevant.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Rob wrote:

Why can't you turn this round - instead of asking
him to prove it, you disprove it. Simple hypothesis - test it and see what
happens.

Ok, I'll bite.

will you accept that two identical bitstreams will reproduce identically
through a given DAC?

If so I can disprove andys theory by ripping a CD on my PC at 30ish
speed and comparing the bitstreams.

I've done this before, with some pretty manky CDs, and have successfully
extracted identical bitstreams on two consecutive runs.

I've even done it whilst playing loud music too.

Will that suffice?