In article , Signal
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:
The Oohashi trial, [snip]
Only one team AFAIK (HK?) has tried to reproduce the results using
the same methods. Have you seen that report? I wonder if they used
the same equipment, for example.
Can you give a reference I can follow? I did look at a variety of
papers on the general topic some years ago, but don't recognise what
you are referring to above as "KH?", so can't comment.
NHK Laboratories Note No. 486, "Perceptual Discrimination between
Musical Sounds with and without Very High Frequency Components",
Toshiyuki Nishiguchi, Kimio Hamasaki, Masakazu Iwaki, and Akio Ando
http://www.nhk.or.jp/strl/publica/labnote/lab486.html
Thanks. Will investigate when I get a chance.
Under scrutiny, the methods aren't *that* similar.
OTOH I do know a number of people with high end gear who use modest,
well engineered cables. Also a few who don't care if it's a real
sonic effect or not, so long as it enhances their enjoyment. How
about you?
My experience is already summarised on audiomisc. Did that on a webpage
on 'ukra cables' so as to avoid having to keep repeating it on this
newsgroup when people asked. :-)
I skimmed your article - don't think it addresses the point made. Which
is to say some take a gestalt approach to hifi, and that's fine. Indeed
sensible within reason: we don't listen to music "blind".
No. But the point of the tests isn't to listen to music. It is to gather
assessable evidence for what differencece/changes may or may not be audible
when people only have the resulting sounds upon which to decide. Thus to
probe claims that a given factor or change has audible results or is
the actual reason causing a given result.
I see a similar thing in 'objectivists'. How many acknowledge that
DBTs are a pretty crappy testing method, only used because there is
nothing else available? You rarely see that, groupthink at play..
You would first need to explain in what way it is a "pretty crappy
method"
I shouldn't need to explain this to you. I'm sure you're aware of the
many contentious issues. The piece I quoted from Mirabel outlines the
most fundamental problem.
Alas, that does not actually do what I asked. I need to know the specific
for the *audio* tests for the basis of your assertion. Simply making other
assertions or trying to generalise from the statements of others about
other fields does not address this point. I know there are many
'contentious' issues. The 'contention' isn't what I've been asking
you about. I have been asking for *your* evidence specifically
as relates to the audio tests of various kinds.
It's not reasonable to expect *individuals* to" verify" their claims
with DBTs,
Why not? snip
I gave you at least one *compelling* reason. Namely, not all individuals
are suitable candidates for whatever DBT method you may suggest.
The problem is that the above is an assertion. Simply making an assertion
does not mean that assertion is evidence that what is asserted is either
reliable or relevant.
You would also need to deal with the other related points I have been
making. For example, the way you use 'DBT' is too vague and sweeping in the
context of the *audio* tests I have been referring to and which you say you
doubt. As with your use of 'subjective' and 'objective' it sets up a
bipolar dichotomy between 'DBT' and 'non DBT' as if that was what I
was asking about. It isn't.
The problem is that trying to argue and think in such bipolar ways
about a complex and varied area then impedes progress. In effect,
it sets up a cartoon-like 'black and white' characature of the reality
and leads people into arguing about the cartoons, and not the reality.
The point is that a variety of experimental methods and protocols
have been used, with various people, various equipment, test material, etc.
This means that simply dismissing all of them as 'DBT' on a basis like
quoting the views of others in some other field isn't something you have
shown is valid as reason.
I'm afraid that the main 'quote' you gave from the 'medical' fields was
also essentially a series of assertions and statements. Not actually
evidence. Nor any evidence that it is relevant to the audio tests.
I have repeatedly asked for evidence, but I am afraid I don't regard such
assertions as evidence.
Above and beyond that, why would any person wish to submit themselves to
a "validation" method which you approve, when it's predictable that a
positive result (wrt a controversial claim) will not be accepted at face
value, and the alternative is a null result - no validation or
confirmation of anything whatsoever.
Again you make a whole series of assumptions which may or may not be
so - and where that might vary from case to case. Lumping these all
togehter as you do then impedes being able to learn or make progress
for the same reason as I outlined above.
No-one has to engage in such tests if they don't want.
But until such time as people do engage in such tests we can't determine
if their beliefs and claims about a *specific* case are reliable. And
if some people *do* show evidence that they can detect differences,
then it becomes open to doubters to propose reasons for doubt which
can then be tested.
The problem here is that a *variety* of tests have been done already, and
where they are based on sound alone they tend to return evidence consistent
with people not being able to hear some of the differences they claim or
assert. So there is no real reason to accept what people claim they can
hear when they either refuse to put it to the test, and the evidence we
have implies they may well simply be mistaken in what they believe.
However as I think Arny has pointed out here in the past, there are
various examples where tests return evidence that some people *can*
hear differences quite consistently in some cases. This all varies
on a case by case basis which your sweeping dismissals of 'DBT'
clouds over, I'm afraid.
If you are sincere about testing claims of audibility, a realistic
sample size is a prerequisite.
Indeed. Although that does alter when there are a multiplicity of diverse
tests/experiments and we can consider them as an ensemble.
But again, your statement is fine as one in isolation as a generalisation.
But you still need to give specific details for specific *audio* tests.
Othewise we can't use your statement to judge any specific set of results.
Do you feel it is "reasonable" to expect others to accept an assertion
simply on the basis that it has been made, even when various tests
based only on sound give evidence that indicates the contrary?
Short answer - yes.
This is where we differ. You put your faith in assertions that conflicts
with other evidence. I would doubt what they claim and want to investigate
further to see what reasons there might be for the conflict. This does
not mean I assume they must be mistaken. Only that it is a serious
possibility, and that investigation might take us further. Alas, we
can't do this if they then refuse to engage in any other tests and
simply dismiss evidence that conflicts with what they say.
Do you also believe that no-one who ever says that they can hear one thing
is different to another is ever mistaken? If you don't, then I am
unclear how you can simply reply "yes" to the previous question and
not deal with these matters on a more case-by-case basis than you
seem to do when dividing everything into 'DBT or non-DBT' and 'subjective
or objective'.
Again, you would need to give some specific examples for me to know
what basis your assertions have in reality. :-)
For a little insight...
Corey Greenberg,
"The first few speakers sounded obviouslly different from one another,
but then, as the test wore on, the stress affected even the most
experienced professional reviewers in the group until, to a man, all of
them said that the speakers started to sound the same! And these were
speakers whose frequency responses and other measurements were wildly
different, speakers that could not have sounded more different from one
another when we listened to them later under more normal conditions.
It's at such a time that a man--even one who deeply loves the hobby of
audio as no man before him and no man since--finds himself wondering
where he took that wrong turn that led him to such a wrong-headed
conclusion."
The above is, I am afraid, just a series of opinions by someone. It does
not establish that other tests were all worthless. Nor can we tell which
of the series of assertions made are reliable.
The problem is that people can make mistakes. They can also jump to
an incorrect conclusion, or which isn't the only one that is consistent
with the experience.
If we take out the presumptions made above, no assessable *evidence*
is given which would allow us to distinguish between two hypotheses.
1) That the feeling of 'stress' was a result of the person(s) finding
that they could not reliably hear differences they felt they should
be able to hear.
2) That the feeling of 'stress' *caused* this inability.
Nor does the quote give us any evidence regarding any other case where,
for example, two amplifiers were being compared by some other people.
No details are given. No interim results are given to indicate that
at the start there were consistent indications of audible differences,
which then faded, etc.
So the problem with the above - as with much of what you say or quote -
is that it is a series of assertions which can't be assessed as
evidence, not assessed in terms of having any relevance to any other
case.
I can see that some people don't want to put in the time and patiently try
to see what results they can get. I can also that some whose views are
already firmly commited to the belief that they *can* hear differences will
be particularly 'stressed' by a test whose outcome might indicate that
their belief is unfounded.
But no-one has to engage in such a test if they don't want to. Nor, indeed,
should someone feel 'stressed' if they engage with a spirit of enquiry
rather than with presumptions about having to 'show' something.
But if they do not, and other tests tend to show no sign of people being
able to hear what they claim, why believe them?
It is not the fault of these individuals that there isn't a good,
solid, reliable way to test them.. it's simply disingenious to
suggest otherwise and put the onus on them to "verify" their claims.
The ploy is akin to the type of emotional defence you complain about
above, it doesn't represent science. In fact I'd say many
'objectivists' go one step further, using such bull**** as the JREF
challenge to belittle people, "if you COULD hear a difference, you
WOULD collect the million".
I must confess I have little interest in slipping into
'political'/'religeous' bickering on the basis of trying to label
people as 'subjectivist' or 'objectivists'.
Bickering? I was just responding in kind, Jim. The terms 'subjectivist'
and 'objectivist' are not derogatory btw.
No. But nor are they helpful since they produce an artificial binary divide
along a pre-defined line which may do more to cloud the reality than allow
us to find out what is correct. I am afraid it is an example of what I
refer to elsewhere. This is where the variability of reality is turned
into a 'black and white' cartoon representation.
If you have evidence to support the statements you make above, then I'd
be interested to see it, as per what I say above.
Regarding JREF, Randi has been tooling around with Fremer.
http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/105/2/
TBH I was mainly interested in hearing *your* quite *specific* points
about the various audio tests. Not really in reading quotes from others. So
far, much of what you have been saying is a mix of your own views, and
those of others.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Record demagnetizers
Linear Mode
