Synergistic MIGs - Page 12 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-08-2010, 02:25 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

He said cables and I was anxious to read about it. But no explanation so far.
diomania is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-08-2010, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

He said cables and I was anxious to read about it. But no explanation so far.

He also seemed to imply amplifiers. Either way, I'd like to know which ones sound different from which other ones...
scientest is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 04:49 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

If so, we've got the A to D section of the PC involved here as a complete unknown, but they ignore that, so let us also ignore that.

I think they did emphasise that even unknown, it was a constant.

Quote:


4) We now look at the difference between the modified CD player and the same PC reference signal. This time the difference between the two signals is much smaller; "about half" according to the video. Now comes the surprising conclusion: this is touted as being a good thing! We have taken the analogue output of a high end CD player and made it look more like the analogue signal as recreated in the noisy electrical environment of a PC!

I took something slightly different from it. They kept reminding us these were new, groundbreaking and preliminary measurements.

So new in fact, that how could they know already what was good or what was bad? Something that was different was oohed and aahed at. Ok. How significant was it??

Didn't matter, it somehow backed up everything they had ever heard (which according to borg is completely obvious anyway). Which everyone there would have heard if they had done a demo. Oops. hahaa. (also typical demo routine..'you will hear the better bass, the highs over here'...yad yada. Coaching before e demo. Yawwn.)

Except NO demo haha, so it switched from 'you will hear..' to 'you would have heard..'. Same patter.

The biggest irony of all?? We have been saying 'if there is an audible difference, there WILL be a measured difference', AND we have ofetn given diffmaker as an example of what type of technique to use. (look it up, the program is called diffmaker)

Now looky here, what technique are these guys using??

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 View Post

I guess the bottom line of all of this, and the saving grace of objectivists who try so hard to ignore the senses of so many, is that 'people don't know what they hear.' Plain and simple. It always comes back to that. It doesn't matter that any number of people can clearly hear a difference between different power cords, that is the quick reply. That's why I said this discussion was an seemingly easy victory for the objectivists. All they have to reply to someone who has heard a positive or 'negative' difference, even consistently over days of cable swapping is 'no 'ya didn't!' 'Did not!' And, also bring up homeopathy, faith, magic just for a few self-fulfilling belly chuckles.

No, the bottom line is you kept asking us to watch the video you obviously creamed your jeans over, and we did, made our thoughts known and then you just ignore all that??

How about addressing the points raised from us watching the video you were gushing over???

Quote:


What is truly amazing is that objectivists tend to avoid at all costs experimenting with power cords. 'I know it won't work,' is the usual reason. That, in other words, is called 'I'd better not ever go there just in case it does sound different. But then I could just convince myself that I was hearing things.'

Who said we have not done any testing?? I WILL admit I have not done testing on exotic aftermarket power cords, but that just happens to be your personal thing. The next guy might be mingpo discs or whatever.

But I have done testing (blind of course) on interconnects and cables.

Oh, BTW, can you please answer me on how much those improvements in the graphs cost?? The power cord, their aftermarket stand and the quantum purifier.

Ohh, have YOU found out what the group delay of YOUR speakers are yet?? That is after all the cause of the HUGE improvements you hear with power cords. Would you not want more improvements by tackling those things in your speakers??

Quote:


As for listening tests, here is a clip from a diyaudio forum -

SNIP

Ahh yes. Michael Fremer. What a lovely character he is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamZX11 View Post

I have read this story before. You realize they turned in there picks, AFTER the results had been announced. What a load of bs.

Know, I did not know that at all. Could you explain further what you mean?

In any case, if Fremers story is true as he described, I have a lot of sympathy with him. At the very least, he and his mate John Atkinson (who could only pick four out of five..a bit worrying surely given how big these differences are??) should have been selected out and put into the second round of more in depth testing. If the true goal was learning about amp differences detectable via DBT. Which it wasn't.

That it was only five tests not being statisically significant cuts both ways. NO conclusion one way or the other should have been drawn.

I feel it likely that it was simply to show that under blinded conditions these huge obvious differences no longer exist. Dunno. As the conditions were not anything approaching what is needed to do a proper test.

And the editor of stereophile himself could not pick them all???

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

And yet, your post follows. Ironic. Clearly you found enough merit to respond.

haha, merit?? Interesting choice of word. Merit, hahaha.



Quote:


A common fallacy, debunked eons ago. "You lot" also think that way about amplifiers, CDP, et al.

Cool. How so debunked. Show us.

I can just imagine jibberjabber jibber jabbering at the demo at rocky mountain fest..'You fools with your power cords, trying to show us that measurements help point out audible differences. Fools. That is a common fallacy debunked aeons ago by us subjectivists, how dare YOU subjectivists come in and undermine us all'.

Nope. You would have been panting and surreptitiously rubbing your 'inner thighs'.

Quote:


Point is, some are willing to explore further to find out what we're missing.

Now THIS is the point that you and borg keep missing. You keep telling us there are some willing to investigate, and *we* are not. That is your essential complaint is it not?

Investigate...WHAT?

You have NOT shown there is anything to investigate. THAT is the problem. IF it had been shown that there was a phenomenon to be investigated, then it would have been investigated by now.

But every time one of you guys show us these huge obvious differences exist (that if we cannot hear them should find a different hobby, they are SO obvious)...and you have no idea of which is which...then you simply cannot do so.

Why the flying **** should we investigate that??

If either of you had any balls you would put your hand up and be willing, for the sake of the advancement of the knowledge you are so passionate about, to show us that you DO in fact audibly hear these differences.

Hmm, I wonder if that will be responded to??

Quote:


People need to get over the fact that effective luxury items cost money, just like anything else they can't afford.

Ahh. You think that is the problem. See, we have a different definition of effective it seems.

You gonna man up and show us that these are effective?? Excellent.

I'd advise you do it on your system, that will be the one you are most intimate with and have the best chance of being successful.

Should we start a new thread on the protocol or just continue in this one??

Maybe a common thread, that way we can work out borgs at the same time.

After all, neither of you are just being keyboard warriors are you??
terry j is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
CharlesJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

..., including which areas of the brain are involved in processing real vs. non-real phenomena.

WOW, I didn't know this tidbit, or perhaps a large bit
If this is infallible trait, then it would be easy to test all those 'golden ears' granted not cheap, not as cheap as a good DBT.
CharlesJ is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:21 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

haha, merit?? Interesting choice of word. Merit, hahaha.



Interesting response. Meaningless like the rest of your posts, but interesting nonetheless.

Quote:


Nope. You would have been panting and surreptitiously rubbing your 'inner thighs'.

Listening and wondering why there wasn't a demo, actually.

Quote:


Now THIS is the point that you and borg keep missing. You keep telling us there are some willing to investigate, and *we* are not. That is your essential complaint is it not?

Investigate...WHAT?

This is an interesting thing you and someone else said. The fact that you think there is nothing left is more telling than the fact that I haven't provided a list of things to look at. Clearly, Nordost and others feel there is more to see, interesting since logic might say that they're doing OK without further investigation.

Quote:


You have NOT shown there is anything to investigate. THAT is the problem.

The whole audio world is waiting on me to tell them what to look for? Wow, didn't know that...

Quote:


IF it had been shown that there was a phenomenon to be investigated, then it would have been investigated by now.

I love this specious logic that scientists are so infallible as to know everything out of the chute. Many things haven't been properly investigated by science. We discover new plant and animal life daily it seems. Should we forget about those, since science hadn't studied it prior to learning about it? Stupid argument you're making there, but it's par for the course.

Quote:


If either of you had any balls you would put your hand up and be willing, for the sake of the advancement of the knowledge you are so passionate about, to show us that you DO in fact audibly hear these differences.

Hmm, I wonder if that will be responded to??

I do, and have, heard those differences. From players to cables and everything in between. That isn't to say that all pricey gear is worth it, but the well-designed product tends to show why it's lauded.

Quote:


Ahh. You think that is the problem. See, we have a different definition of effective it seems.

You gonna man up and show us that these are effective?? Excellent.

Do people use things en masse if they don't work? Go ahead with the healing crystal and ouiji board comments, waiting...

We don't have regular users of these products running around telling everyone that they're bunk. What they do (and should do) is say that specific items aren't that effective, but that is true among nearly any consumer category.

Quote:


I'd advise you do it on your system, that will be the one you are most intimate with and have the best chance of being successful.

Already do.

Quote:


After all, neither of you are just being keyboard warriors are you??

Anyone that bothers playing with you children already has a pretty solid understanding of their position. I'm sure not to many here are defending products and solutions that they feel don't work, and are smart enough to understand the difference. But according to your and your buddies here, nobody that uses anything like what we're discussing is anything but delusional. All of us. Even those of us that understand both sides, and are selective about what we do and don't use in our own systems. Yes, most of us put our money where our mouths are. Some of use have gear capable of small changes having a larger effect.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:25 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Debunked where and how? References, links, any evidence at all of this being true please? Exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

This forum has been around for 15 years. Search is your friend.

I find it interesting that you place the "sound" before the "measurement" part, as if people like you don't look at measurements and decide beforehand based on that what things sound like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Problem is that there really isn't some easily defined difference. You seem to want allowance to explore anything and everything in the name of science and consider everything equally valid until proven otherwise.

Not without considerable observation as to possible validity. You act as though we're looking at two or three examples and hollering for a fair trial.

Quote:


Science doesn't work that way, it's the exact opposite. Nothing is considered valid until proven.

Right. Science usually waits until something forces them to investigate something, after it's slapped them it in the face repeatedly. Usually isn't too hard to prove something observed on a regular basis.

Quote:


As such, the onus isn't on the scientists here to accept any theory no matter how wild or rationale it may appear. Rather, the onus is on those who would challenge the existing body of scientific knowledge to prove that they have a legitimate proof of some new phenomena.

Like I said, it sits on its fat ass until someone or something else forces them to get off of it.

Quote:


Until that happens, there's really no point in crying about not being allowed to play with the big boys...

Not sure who the "big boys" are, other than a bunch of smug types that repeatedly got picked last.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 06:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I have an interesting proposition.

Jibber, do you want to discuss 'this' (to be defined later I guess) stuff properly?

I know that you will take that the wrong way. I also mean I discuss it properly.

In other words, WE discuss it properly. It may just end up you and I, or it may expand a bit to mean 'all sides' if you follow.

No crap, no cheap debating points. Courteous HONEST discussion.

You ask me something directly, then I answer it honestly. I ask you something directly, then you answer it honestly.

We start on common ground, again to be defined I spose. Like, what exactly is 'this' argument?? Where and on what can we agree, where or on what do we start to diverge. Then try and find out why that might be. Once we know that type of stuff, then maybe we can work out how to mend fences or find propositions we can test that move it forward from those impasses.

All too often there are unspoken assumptions that are at the bottom, things we have never thought about.

For this to work, then what is required is a desire to know more about this phenomenon, rather than taking tribal stances. It seems you do want to know, I am very curious about all this, can we party?

We'd have to start a new thread, but we need to be serious about how we conduct the debate. Else it will simply not work.

All very idealistic and touchy feely I know, but what the heck, worth a try no?
terry j is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 07:56 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

I have an interesting proposition.

Jibber, do you want to discuss 'this' (to be defined later I guess) stuff properly?

I know that you will take that the wrong way. I also mean I discuss it properly.

In other words, WE discuss it properly. It may just end up you and I, or it may expand a bit to mean 'all sides' if you follow.

No crap, no cheap debating points. Courteous HONEST discussion.

You ask me something directly, then I answer it honestly. I ask you something directly, then you answer it honestly.

We start on common ground, again to be defined I spose. Like, what exactly is 'this' argument?? Where and on what can we agree, where or on what do we start to diverge. Then try and find out why that might be. Once we know that type of stuff, then maybe we can work out how to mend fences or find propositions we can test that move it forward from those impasses.

All too often there are unspoken assumptions that are at the bottom, things we have never thought about.

For this to work, then what is required is a desire to know more about this phenomenon, rather than taking tribal stances. It seems you do want to know, I am very curious about all this, can we party?

We'd have to start a new thread, but we need to be serious about how we conduct the debate. Else it will simply not work.

All very idealistic and touchy feely I know, but what the heck, worth a try no?

I think it would be a unique experience on this topic on this forum. Of course, we can't restrict everyone and their interesting POVs, but it sounds fine.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 09:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

This forum has been around for 15 years. Search is your friend.

I'm not the one making the claims here, if you want anyone to take any of your claims or complaints seriously you're going to have to back them up. I'll repeat: exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference? If you already know these results can be found by searching these forums you should have no problem digging up an example for me. I you can't provide any such results then you really need to stop wasting our time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

I find it interesting that you place the "sound" before the "measurement" part, as if people like you don't look at measurements and decide beforehand based on that what things sound like.

Exactly what is "people like you" supposed to mean? You seem to be making some huge presumptions here, but attacking the messenger does seem a big part of your MO. I suppose given the lack of any real contribution to the question at hand it is all you have to offer? FWIW, I grew up in the audiophile world, but ended up working in medical research; over the years I've learned to navigate both worlds. As such, I really don't care whether you want to put sound or measurement first; contrary to what you imply, the endpoint will always be the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Science usually waits until something forces them to investigate something, after it's slapped them it in the face repeatedly.

Have you ever spent even one moment in a lab or talking with a real scientist? This statement is so absurd as to border on the lunatic. These are the most inquisitive people on earth that you are referring to...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Usually isn't too hard to prove something observed on a regular basis.

Which is exactly why I've asked you for some evidence to back up your claims that there are audible phenomena for which no corresponding measurements exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Like I said, it sits on its fat ass until someone or something else forces them to get off of it.

Exactly who do you suppose comes up with new science? One of the labs on campus here was the 1st in the world to explain how the transition from mechanical impulse to electro-chemical signal occurs within the ear. Who do you suppose made that happen? It certainly wasn't a bunch of non-scientists....
scientest is offline  
Old 07-08-2010, 11:38 PM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

exactly what components do you think sound different for which no measurement can be found to explain the difference?

What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.


You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.
diomania is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 04:56 AM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.


You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.

Thanks, but you didn't need to comment on the obvious.

It's an interesting thing that so many here want guys like me to step and fetch information that either should be obvious, or has been already covered ad-nauseam as to not even require a supporting link. Especially curious when one is aware of posts counts and the threads that the skeptics participate in.

I'm less "making claims" as attempting to force the discussion past the pure objective barrier. Tough task, but the number seems to be evening out on both sides; more people frustrated at the arrogance and presumptuousness.

Some complain about "more subjectivity" on a board like this. Well, good science includes observation of potentially new findings. My frustration is the pre-ordaining of those observations as the sightings of the deluded or dishonest. Typical.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 08:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What he meant was, heavy ga. vs. very light ga. speaker cables both measuring same 10 ft. length can sound different.


You owe me one for saving your arse, jp-er.

I realize you're not being serious, but just for the record, in general two cables differing considerably in gauge wouldn't measure the same in all respects. The most obvious, of course, being current carrying ability...
scientest is offline  
Old 07-09-2010, 09:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

It's an interesting thing that so many here want guys like me to step and fetch information that either should be obvious, or has been already covered ad-nauseam as to not even require a supporting link. Especially curious when one is aware of posts counts and the threads that the skeptics participate in.

This works both ways JP, I could write the exact same about your approach to this thread.... Now consider, if I go grab some random post making some wildly subjective claims (perhaps like the Nordrost post earlier in this thread) and then show you all the evidence that the claims in the post are wrong will that satisfy you? Of course not, you'll accuse me of cherry picking a crazy post on purpose and you'll tell me I picked the wrong set of posts to comment on. I have no idea what _you_ consider a valid claim of audible phenomenon that cannot not be backed up by measurements. If you can't even give us a single example I'm going to have to conclude that you simply don't have any.
scientest is offline  
Old 07-11-2010, 10:29 AM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

This works both ways JP, I could write the exact same about your approach to this thread.... Now consider, if I go grab some random post making some wildly subjective claims (perhaps like the Nordrost post earlier in this thread) and then show you all the evidence that the claims in the post are wrong will that satisfy you? Of course not, you'll accuse me of cherry picking a crazy post on purpose and you'll tell me I picked the wrong set of posts to comment on. I have no idea what _you_ consider a valid claim of audible phenomenon that cannot not be backed up by measurements. If you can't even give us a single example I'm going to have to conclude that you simply don't have any.

I think that we agree here! I also think that it makes no sense to place 90% of the evidence weighting on one side of the equation.

See, I believe in science and the validity of pre-proof observation. I don't presume all things to be guilty until proven innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

And of course you can absolutely prove this? Like you can pick them out even 75% of the time in a DBT.

I've done better than that on a DBT for cables.

I'll let you stew on that seeming impossibility for awhile.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 02:16 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Johnla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 11,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post



i've done better than that on a dbt for cables.

That's a load of BS!
Johnla is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 05:10 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:


Originally Posted by Johnla
And of course you can absolutely prove this? Like you can pick them out even 75% of the time in a DBT.

Quote:


Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber
i've done better than that on a dbt for cables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

That's a load of BS!

Well, it's at odds with what was written earlier, but I'd welcome further insight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Thanks for answering. I guess you used that for speaker wires and maybe interconnects. What device did you use to do this? Also, if you could get discuss the procedure after the wires were connected it would be of interest as well as the number of trials and 'successes' (depends on the procedure I guess). Thanks once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Thank you for actually asking pointed and reasonable questions. Others should take a clue.

As I recall, the switcher was an Audio Authority device, but I do not recall the piece. Realize this was maybe 6-7 years ago or so, might have been more.

Since I didn't do the switching, I'm not sure of the actual procedure. I do know of course that the point was to "fool" the listeners, so that we would have no clue what was playing.

In terms of trials and successes, I would say that success was maybe at about 33% (1 out of 3 trials succeeded). Overall, I believe the amount of testing was in the neighborhood of 5-6 per week over year's time; it became this fun thing we would do.

Realize I don't expect that level of success with everyone. Harman's guys will tell you that it helps to have a degree of training in terms of listening, and of course having heard better (and far worse) equipment over time from that we were comparing made things a little easier. Frame of reference (this elusive "experience" thing I keep mentioning that so many here feel is unimportant) means a ton.


"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 08:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

I think that we agree here! I also think that it makes no sense to place 90% of the evidence weighting on one side of the equation.

See, I believe in science and the validity of pre-proof observation. I don't presume all things to be guilty until proven innocent.

Then you'll have no problem pointing us at the evidence for you next statement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

I've done better than that on a DBT for cables.

I'll let you stew on that seeming impossibility for awhile.

It's pretty easy to pick out a cable 100% of the time in a DBT. You just have to arrange for one to attenuate the overall output a couple of dB...
scientest is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 03:07 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Well, it's at odds with what was written earlier, but I'd welcome further insight.

Different test. Protocols IMO were not as stringent, but I never felt the fix was in. I've done plenty of these types of things with former colleagues, and found interesting things both ways. There was (admittedly) only one where I got 9/10 right, so in truth, I felt myself it may have been a slight abberation *shrug*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Then you'll have no problem pointing us at the evidence for you next statement?

My statement is the evidence.

Quote:


It's pretty easy to pick out a cable 100% of the time in a DBT. You just have to arrange for one to attenuate the overall output a couple of dB...

Here we go again. You can do this, you just have to:

A: Fix the results or
B: Do the test wrong.

People need to understand that some posters here have absolutely no idea what tests are conducted, have been conducted, and will be. They will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that cables and components can sound different without being broken. Get used to it; I have.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 03:11 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnla View Post

That's a load of BS!

jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 03:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
[quote=jpjibberjabber;18896001]My statement is the evidence.[quote]

No, it's not. Your statement is a random piece of noise that someone wrote on the Internet. Unless it is backed up by some evidence it is worthless to anyone but you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Here we go again. You can do this, you just have to:

A: Fix the results or
B: Do the test wrong.

It's _very_ easy to do the tests wrong. That's why we'd like to see some evidence of what you did...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

People need to understand that some posters here have absolutely no idea what tests are conducted, have been conducted, and will be. They will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that cables and components can sound different without being broken. Get used to it; I have.

People need to understand that some posters here have an extremely good understanding of the fields of physics, audio and brain function. Other people, will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that they have no idea if a listening test was properly performed or not. If you can't get used to that; please just leave the rest of alone. We really don't care what random listening experiences you wish to try and pass off as "science" without any validation that they in fact qualify as such.
scientest is offline  
Old 07-12-2010, 07:13 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post


No, it's not. Your statement is a random piece of noise that someone wrote on the Internet. Unless it is backed up by some evidence it is worthless to anyone but you.

Experts don't require validation from people pressed against the glass.

Quote:


It's _very_ easy to do the tests wrong. That's why we'd like to see some evidence of what you did...

Yes, but we know "wrong" = positive result. It's only when people cannot tell differences that tests are deemed valid. Don't deny it; we've read all this before and know what the responses will be like psychics predicting rain after it storms.

Quote:


People need to understand that some posters here have an extremely good understanding of the fields of physics, audio and brain function.

Where are these people, and why don't they post on this forum?

Quote:


Other people, will never admit when results counter their small-vision POV, nor will they admit that they have no idea if a listening test was properly performed or not.

Right. Fortunately, you're not talking to one of them.

Quote:


If you can't get used to that; please just leave the rest of alone. We really don't care what random listening experiences you wish to try and pass off as "science" without any validation that they in fact qualify as such.

I wouldn't mind leaving folks like you alone, but you can't seem to help but chime in when I'm trying to help someone enjoy the audio journey.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-13-2010, 08:43 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

Basically, yada yada yada once more. You like to make noise and pretend you have a point of view we should consider for some reason or other but when asked to give us any real evidence as to why we should look at your view point you duck the question and try to put the onus on the people questioning your viewpoint. Enough of this, I shall ignore you from now on...

Evidence for this topic does not orbit simple test results. If it did you would find an excuse for why the test was invalid. We know this. Let's move past that paper-thin defense and look deeper.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 11:21 AM
Member
 
theborg7of7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 42
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
jp,

You are wasting your time. If you did do an 'acceptable' test, according to the objectivists here, your results would be dismissed as a 'luck penny.' If you got ten people to pass, the humidity of the room would come into question, because AS WE ALL KNOW, humidity can change the sound and lead to tainted results! Or, hmm...all the participants must have moved their head 1 cm to the left, becuase AS WE ALL KNOW...

When you ask who here has tried higher-end power cords, the only answer you will get is, 'No. because I know better. Would you like me to experience homeopathy and astrology too? Do you try every gimmick that comes on the market...LOL...pity you little fool.'

Did you notice that one of the first responses to your passing of a DBT was, 'That's a load of BS!' That's the mentality here. The trick to this game is that you can never supply evidence that will be accepted. I don't even know why you would want to try. The only final comment you will ever get, even if you jump through all the hoops, is, 'Well, you just arranged the test to yield these results...ha, ha, ha. What PROOF do you have to support these results?'
theborg7of7 is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 01:02 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is a good post, but needs addressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

The video feed is horribly choppy and it's hard to get a coherent story line out of it...

not really

Quote:


The delta signals are initially described as being of "unknown nature", but suddenly morph into being "distortion" measurements. While this make for a fine piece of marketing literature I can seen no robust evidence that this is actually true. These are 2nd differential (rate of change of slope) measurements. I'll have to think on what that means, but I can't for the life of me see it as being significant in any real way. It almost certainly means the 8% number is exponentially large relative to what the real difference in signals is.

It doesn't really matter what it is. Anything other than the original signal is distortion. Also, if a power cord makes a positive difference, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that it won't make a difference anywhere else. Either they do or they don't. End users will determine the proper applications for their own needs.

You need to make one point and stick with it. Either the testers are such good sheisters that understand the science well enough to know what devices and methods to cherry-pick to create graphs they want to show, or they're conducting reasonable tests using methods they like and power cords are making a positive difference. Which is it? I don't think #1 is something you would buy, since of course these are all a bunch of clueless salesmen just looking for a buck. Science according to those like yourself is unknown to these folks. #2 of course is wholly unacceptable to your position and, I would assume based on your showing here, outlook on the world.

Quote:


The ability of noise on the power line to alter the measurements of a device under test are well understood (which is why I earlier asked if JNeutron had appeared in this thread as of yet -- he'd dump the math on you if you'd like it). The correlation to audibility has never been shown (and is not done so here either).

At least someone's taking a look at the issue however, other than people attempting to debunk the idea.

And I can't agree that noise on a power line is inaudible. Ground loops are a good example, but I'm sure there's better.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 02:30 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Can you recount the methodology and 'scores' for any of the wire DBT's that you did, jabber?

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
KeithR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,472
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik View Post

I leave saving the world to the believers...they're always on one mission or another.

still avoiding my video DBT question eh? maybe cables do or don't make a difference---i don't really care. but the holier than thou attitude is just tiring and trite. saving a life is much more interesting to me than hundreds of posts regarding cabling on an internet forum.

but i tell you what---i am happy to set up a DBT in my house up on my system. bring up to 10 AVS'rs over, that's the kind of large room i have. you guys setup the test, not me. speaker cables, power cords, whatever. then you guys can't complain that i did the test wrong. i live in Los Angeles, fyi. that would be me and 10 other AVS'rs who are curious about cabling and how we would do in a DBT.

i use 100db speakers with a SET amp---this should be high end enough for all to tell differences or not.

cheers,

KeithR
KeithR is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 03:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
scientest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Memphis
Posts: 1,606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Came back to see what Chu Gai had posted and since you had finally taken the time to comment on something of relevance to the thread I'll take the time to reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

It doesn't really matter what it is. Anything other than the original signal is distortion.

Problems is, the way this test is arranged you can't tell what the original signal is and which signal, is the distortion. Additionally, there is no control done to establish whether any of the signals are valid in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Also, if a power cord makes a positive difference

There is no evidence that the power cord is making a positive difference. The evidence they present suggests that the power cord, et al, manage to take the signal from a high end CD player and make it match up closer with what can be produced from a run of the mill PC and it's sound card where as previous to adding the power cord etc. the signal was more obviously different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Either the testers are such good sheisters that understand the science well enough to know what devices and methods to cherry-pick to create graphs they want to show, or they're conducting reasonable tests using methods they like and power cords are making a positive difference. Which is it?

It's not hard to take some equipment and produce graphs from it. It's not hard to modify some parameters or conditions enough to get different graphs. That hardly requires much knowledge of science; I was doing similar things on my Dad's work bench by the time I hit high school.

However, I'd be willing to go with a third option: there are many players involved in the production of the story line presented in the video. Some of them know enough science to perform some interesting (but apparently poorly controlled) experiments on the equipment at hand. The other people involved are good sheisters and take this evidence, stand it's on head, and twist it into a marketing line that has little to do with science but still manages to give the appearance of being based on science.

If you want to take the video at face value you're welcome to do so. If you're willing to spend money on cables based on the video, I'll be happy to prepare a similar video for you and sell you some cables that I can demonstrate to support the story line: back in my audiophile days I built both my own interconnects and speaker cables and I'm "sure" you'll be able to hear a difference when they are connected to your equipment...
scientest is offline  
Old 07-14-2010, 05:48 PM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by scientest View Post

However, I'd be willing to go with a third option: there are many players involved in the production of the story line presented in the video. Some of them know enough science to perform some interesting (but apparently poorly controlled) experiments on the equipment at hand. The other people involved are good sheisters and take this evidence, stand it's on head, and twist it into a marketing line that has little to do with science but still manages to give the appearance of being based on science.

That requires its own leap of faith.

Quote:


If you want to take the video at face value you're welcome to do so. If you're willing to spend money on cables based on the video, I'll be happy to prepare a similar video for you and sell you some cables that I can demonstrate to support the story line: back in my audiophile days I built both my own interconnects and speaker cables and I'm "sure" you'll be able to hear a difference when they are connected to your equipment...

Not willing to take anything at face. What I'm also not willing to do is dismiss possible evidence based solely on bias regarding the presenter. They all said there's more to be done; let's see where that takes us and revisit the Nordost issue specifically at that time. If it's bunk, it's bunk, but again, they're appearing to be making some degree of effort to discover what's going on.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
Old 07-15-2010, 09:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,968
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 319 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber View Post

Not willing to take anything at face. What I'm also not willing to do is dismiss possible evidence based solely on bias regarding the presenter. They all said there's more to be done; let's see where that takes us and revisit the Nordost issue specifically at that time. If it's bunk, it's bunk, but again, they're appearing to be making some degree of effort to discover what's going on.

Well before you can start looking for evidence, you first have to establish whether the phenomenon is real. That's something Nordost could look to do if they were so inclined. Then maybe we could look at that little experiment they did and figure out if there's correlation or causation.

I know you dislike it when folks bring in things like the paranormal. Unless you subscribe to the notion paranormal reports have merit, mentioning it in the same breath as Nordost is looked upon as trying to tar and discredit them. I guess it works both ways because if you subscribe to paranormal reports as being real but are of the opinion that cable claims are nutso, then you'd be offended by Nordost!

Quote:


Why Brian Josephson Embraced ESP
October 16th, 2006 by John Horgan

Several respondents to Who Believes in ESP? have mentioned that Brian Josephson, like Freeman Dyson, is a prominent physicist who believes in paranormal phenomena. I met and interviewed Josephson in Tucson, Arizona, in 1994 at Toward a Scientific Basis of Consciousness. Below is a slightly modified version of my write-up of Josephson for The Undiscovered Mind. Over the years, many readers have complained to me that scientists' personalities have no bearing on their work. That is true in some cases but not in othersand especially those involving fringe science. It is useful to know, for example, that Freeman Dyson, whom I profiled in The End of Science, is a contrarian who loves to provoke his colleagues, and that Brian Josephsonwell, I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Quote:


In 1962, when he was just 22, Brian Josephson discovered the quantum property now known as the Josephson effect. After he won a Nobel prize in 1973, Josephson, already a tenured professor at the University of Cambridge, renounced conventional physics and dedicated himself to the study of psychic and mystical phenomena and other forbidden matters. For years, I had heard physicists trade rumors about Josephson's metamorphosis. What happened? How could someone with so much scientific talent defect to the dark side? I had an opportunity to find out on the second day of the Tucson consciousness conference, when Josephson agreed to have lunch with me at a Taco Bell (Josephson chose the restaurant, which he had heard offered very good Mexican food).

Sitting in the restaurant, Josephson looked as though he was trying to conceal his identity. His face was almost entirely concealed by his floppy white hat, thick black spectacles, shaggy hair and sideburns. He wore a black t-shirt bearing the digitized likeness of Alan Turing, another British prodigy whose relations with the scientific establishment were troubled (although for very different reasons). He spoke haltingly, between bites of his burrito, shunning all but the most fleeting eye contact. Born in Cardiff, Wales, in 1940, he grew up as a strict scientific materialist. "I was pretty well turned off religion by the rituals," he said. "I was exposed to the idea that you could explain everything on the basis of science."

By the mid-1960s, however, he had begun to turn away from conventional physics. Like many other physicists, he became entranced by the seemingly crucial role of the observer in quantum mechanics and by the strange "nonlocal" correlations linking inhabitants of the quantum realm. He was drawn to the works of sages such as Krishnamurti, an Indian mystic whose books cast a spell over many western intellectuals in the 1960s. In 1966, moreover, he befriended George Owens, a mathematician with a strong interest in the paranormal.

After some hemming and hawing, Josephson revealed that his transformation also sprang from changes "within." I asked him to elaborate: Did he have psychic or mystical experiences himself? "Well, in some ways, but not" He paused. "I've had some strange experiences" He prodded his burrito. Eventually he told me that in the late 1960s he began having "hallucinatory states" as a result of working too hard on a physics problem. "My experiences were basically a result of a long period of having very little sleep," he said. He took "major tranquillizers" for several years before managing to quell his inner turmoil through transcendental meditation. "Meditation provided enough stability where I didn't need" tranquillizers, he said.

Winning the Nobel prize gave him the confidence to discuss publicly his interests in the paranormal and to scold the scientific community for its skepticism. He insisted to me that the data supporting telekinesis and extra-sensory perception are "fairly convincingly." Quantum mechanics could help to account for ESP, he said, but only if it is overhauled. The current theory "doesn't allow the language of process or intention and so on. So I think we're going to have to extend quantum theory so we take that into account as well."

Josephson had no regrets about having abandoned conventional physics. I consider what I'm doing now to be more important." He believed that meditation could help scientists enhance their abilities and insights. Ordinary consciousness, he explains, is egoic. The ego "dominates everything" and one is no longer open to the influences and intuitions available to a "pre-egoic" child. Through meditation one can achieve a "trans-egoic" stage, in which "you gain the benefits of the processes that you were influenced by before the ego became dominant, while retaining some of the organizing ability of the ego."

Meditation had also given Josephson deep insights into music. He came to believe that music stems, to some extent, not from superficial cultural influences but from timeless, universal "structures" of the mind. By studying the human response to music, Josephson suggested, scientists could probe these structures. "So my intuition is that may have great significance for our understanding of mind," he said.

Josephson's own tastes in music included both classical and rock and roll. "Some of that has considerable merit," he said of rock. "Something that may appear quite noisy, sometimes you get the feeling there is something quite deep to it." Any personal favorites? After pursing his lips for a moment, he revealed that he liked Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Water . "I don't know if that's particularly deep, but"

In the background, Whitney Houston was shrieking, "I'll always love youuuuuu!" The Taco Bell lunch throng had come and gone. Having consumed his burrito, Josephson was keen to get back to the conference to hear a lecture on "information physics, neuromolecular computing and consciousness" by a scientist from Yugoslavia. We dumped our garbage in a wastebasket, placed our trays on a stack and headed back out into the blinding day.


"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
Old 07-15-2010, 09:41 AM
 
jpjibberjabber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Popping Internet Myth Balloons
Posts: 803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Well before you can start looking for evidence, you first have to establish whether the phenomenon is real.

To me, that POV is like saying that we have to determine if someone is guilty prior to examining evidence. Cart before the horse and such.

Quote:


That's something Nordost could look to do if they were so inclined. Then maybe we could look at that little experiment they did and figure out if there's correlation or causation.

If we accept the veracity of Nordost, we should let their process conclude prior to judging.

Quote:


I know you dislike it when folks bring in things like the paranormal. Unless you subscribe to the notion paranormal reports have merit, mentioning it in the same breath as Nordost is looked upon as trying to tar and discredit them.

I look at certain paranormal items (ghosts, ET, cryptozoology) as potentially having merit. I further think that many things viewed as "paranormal" are simply normal but not yet understood. That is not to say that all claims have validity, since we can all agree on the fact that a certain degree of the population is totally delusional. The comparisons to certain types of bunkery are designed though to place this study in the same class, which is not only lazy, but IMO selling the topic short.

Quote:


I guess it works both ways because if you subscribe to paranormal reports as being real but are of the opinion that cable claims are nutso, then you'd be offended by Nordost!

I'm more than happy to finally have an exact set of parameters lain out in front of us. Wild claims from either side cramp the debate.
jpjibberjabber is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off