Audiophilia Newbie Looking to Expand System - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 06:16 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Methinks you think I mentioned something I think I did not. wink.gif
It may be an assumption going into the test, but it is proven by the results of the test.
Why do you keep talking about placebo? There is no placebo in the test in question. Stop regurgitating what you think you know and listen. I've tried to lay out the basics in a simple and compelling way. Reread my prior post again with an open mind, not looking for sentences to attack and points to defend, but read it as if you are really curious about how something works and want to find out. I think you skimmed it with frustration building in anticipation of firing back a response. Take your time and really think about what I said.

But I still don't understand how it is "Proven." just by the simple fact that it's 50/50? To be proven beyond any sort of reasonable doubt is impossible in my opinion. This is all I was getting at. The test I showed earlier was where close to 50% of the people were correct in determining differences. I don't understand how they could know that they were just guessing, how is that possible? Is mind reading or polygraphs part of the test as well?

As far as the placebo I was referring to your last statement about you thinking your cables or system sound better because you think so, etc... Oh and about my cable with the video, I said Contrast but maybe it was because the clarity or something else that had actually improved in the picture, that made me think that the contrast had also improve, although the contrast itself might not have improved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Imagine, given your response to what has been presented to you that you went with a recommendation from here ....and you did not like it....
YOUR ears, YOUR tastes, take a bit of effort for your own enjoyment.
(just as an aside, how asking for recommendations MIGHT work is you state your desired listening levels, the amount of power you have, your room volumes and then 'would this speaker fill those criteria? Those are engineering questions, able (at least in theory) to be answered. Personal taste? Only one person can answer that, I'll leave you to work out who that person might be)
just as another aside on the aside, I agree with a lot of your off topic observations about medicine and drugs, but it is hardly an audio question

My point was that there are certain speakers out there that I have yet to see people completely dislike. I gave one example of the ADS L1290 and L1590 speakers, I have yet to see a bad review or bad post on them from anyone, so there is a fairly general consensus on that. What I really want is recommendation for speakers to look at, yes I will listen to them (and check that the cones and foam are not worn or cracked, etc...) before I decide to buy them, whether it's at Craigslist or Goodwill, I am less inclined to purchasing on eBay for this reason.

As far as my listening criteria - it is a fairly small living room. I will mostly be listening to the music as background music and sometimes actually sitting down seriously to listen to it. I don't need a powerful amp at all, but obviously I don't want to under-power the speakers as it will cause more distortion than slightly overpowering them. This is why I should choose both wisely to eventually match up. My other option would be to get powered speakers. I would prefer to get two slim towers over getting bookshelf's. This is all actually for my dad and not for me but I will be listening as well. His musical tastes include: Freestyle Jazz, Classic and Cosmic Rock (Omega), ItaloDisco, Pop Rock... Mine include: Big Band Jazz, World Music (Buddha Bar), NewAge, New Wave, Synthpop, Easy Listening, Adult Contemporary, Trance/Electro/DubStep, among others...

My equipment is listed in the beginning of the post but I have added two things: an A.C.E Preamp which I got for free, and a pair of NHT SuperZero Mini Monitors (1.0 series from 1992 in mint condition which were the more solidly built Made in USA ones before the Chinese made 2.0 came out).

Listening will be split between records and CD. First thing I will need is the pair of front speakers for 2.0 or 2.1 listening to music. Eventually I might expand the center and rear channels. At that point I will also need recommendations for either a dedicated 2 channel amp, or a different receiver that has much better SQ. I was looking at certain ones online already such as the Luxman LV103/LV105, etc... I don't want anything new, as stated my budget wouldn't allow that and I would rather buy something that was the best in the 80s-90s rather than something that is mediocre for the same price new today.

BTW, I just discovered this article by Ken Rockwell. If you guys (JHaz aside for his great post) would have posted something like this to begin with, there would never have been an argument about a lot of what we argued about (CD vs. SACD, etc...). Instead most of you just criticized me instead of explaining well, and falsely accused me of trolling:

http://kenrockwell.com/audio/why-cds-sound-great.htm
BaronKatz is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 06:50 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 BaronKatz View Post

But I still don't understand how it is "Proven." just by the simple fact that it's 50/50? To be proven beyond any sort of reasonable doubt is impossible in my opinion. This is all I was getting at. The test I showed earlier was where close to 50% of the people were correct in determining differences. I don't understand how they could know that they were just guessing, how is that possible? Is mind reading or polygraphs part of the test as well?

What you could be missing is a basic viewpoint, try flipping it internally and examine it (you don't have to accept it, just look at it from this angle). What you interpret as 'fifty percent could pick the difference' can be viewed as 'we would have had as good a result by flipping a coin'. Or completely random guessing. The basic premise being tested is 'can people reliably distinguish between these two sounds', a result that is the same as guessing (don't even need to listen, just fill in the form with complete randomness) does not lend much credence to the claim.

You would agree, on point of logic, that a truly discernable difference would tilt the result away from pure chance?

To make your claim true, that fifty percent did hear a difference (and why, as a matter of curiosity do you automatically put yourself into that half who can hear a difference? You have not taken the test) well, tbh I am not sure how you can do it logically. It takes some pretty wacky reasoning to do it (the one half has to get, say, 80% correct identification which somehow manages to exactly balance the other half which only do it 20%-in order to arrive at the final figure of fifty %-yet a 20% only correctness still implies a difference...see how wacky it quickly becomes? That in effect leads to the conclusion that 100% could tell a difference.

Quote:
My point was that there are certain speakers out there that I have yet to see people completely dislike.

Before I address this, I'll echo the earlier sentiment that at least you are still here, hopefully at least willing to listen and evaluate data contrary to what you will get on the 'every change is an amazing audio transformation' forums, and have continued with some grace.

My point, and I'm sure many others, is that honestly, only you can decide personal preference. If you ask *us* we'd advise start with those with demonstrable decent performance. Measured performance I mean. If you decided to go down that track I'd hazard you'd get a better reception than to date..you'd at least have to have a willingness to listen to the arguments of why that might be a fruitful path to follow. NONE of which removes the need to audition for yourself (which you seem willing to do).

I'll let others help you with your expanded list of 'needs'.

I guess the point is listen to our arguments, and evaluate. They are new to you, seem to run completely counter to everything you will hear on the purely subjective forums. Don't just 'simply react against'. That does not mean you need to change your mind, only that it is worth examining, find the evidence for and against our arguments, for and against your 'received wisdom' from the other side, maybe attempt a test or two (you know, blinded). You seem to be after knowledge, the best knowledge is that personally gained.

Good luck.
BaronKatz likes this.
terry j is offline  
post #93 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 07:19 PM
Senior Member
 
kraut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
BTW, I just discovered this article by Ken Rockwell. If you guys (JHaz aside for his great post) would have posted something like this to begin with, there would never have been an argument about a lot of what we argued about (CD vs. SACD, etc...). Instead most of you just criticized me instead of explaining well, and falsely accused me of trolling:

Ok, listen: I posted two links, one from Lipshitz regarding the incompatibility of SACD with high fidelity sound reproduction. So, please don't give me that bull that no one ever gave you a hint as to what to read.

Maybe you are intellectually or scientifically challenged, that still does not give you the the excuse to mouth off regarding "no one ever". You are still just someone who seems to make up facts as he goes.

Glad others have the patience to overlook your shilling, I don't.
kraut is offline  
post #94 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 07:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
But I still don't understand how it is "Proven." just by the simple fact that it's 50/50? To be proven beyond any sort of reasonable doubt is impossible in my opinion. This is all I was getting at. The test I showed earlier was where close to 50% of the people were correct in determining differences.
Well, let’s consider your original interpretation fo those numbers—that 50% of the listeners could hear a difference. What happens to the other 50%? They guess. But to come out with a 50-50 overall response, that would mean that every single person who was just guessing guessed wrong. How likely is that? On average, half the guessers should guess right. So if 50% heard a difference, and half the rest guessed right, you should get 75% correct, not 50%. And depending on how many trials you run, 75% may well be enough to prove statistically that a difference was heard. 50% correct implies that everybody was guessing, and half of them guessed right. Make sense?
Quote:
I don't understand how they could know that they were just guessing
We don't know they were guessing. We just have no evidence that they weren't guessing. We're trying to prove the positive assertion that people can hear a difference. And we can't. (In logic, the burden of proof is always on the positive proposition.)
Quote:
My point was that there are certain speakers out there that I have yet to see people completely dislike. I gave one example of the ADS L1290 and L1590 speakers, I have yet to see a bad review or bad post on them from anyone, so there is a fairly general consensus on that.
So what? How do you know that they people praising these speakers have actually heard them? Or, if they've actually heard them, that they have any idea what a good speaker should sound like, or have a reasonable standard against which to judge them? You're putting an awful lot of faith in these folks. A common Internet phenomenon is for people who own any particular product to praise it to the max, since that makes them look like a genius for buying it.
Quote:
I don't need a powerful amp at all, but obviously I don't want to under-power the speakers as it will cause more distortion than slightly overpowering them.
It's possible to underpower speakers, but it isn't that easy. Most speaker manufacturers try to make speakers that are compatible with a wide range of amplifiers, because they don't want to limit their market to owners of high-powered amps.
Quote:
a different receiver that has much better SQ
Believe it or not, a different receiver won't have much better SQ. As long as the amp section is powerful enough (and see above), receivers will all sound pretty much the same, assuming you do a fair comparison. That's why the typical advice around here is to concentrate your budget on speakers. They can make way more difference than everything else put together.

I can't help you on vintage speakers. I'm (usually!) honest enough to admit when I don't know something, and what little I may once have known about those models is long-gone.
BaronKatz likes this.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #95 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 08:04 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 mcnarus View Post


So what? How do you know that they people praising these speakers have actually heard them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/business/book-reviewers-for-hire-meet-a-demand-for-online-raves.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0
terry j is offline  
post #96 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 08:31 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

We don't know they were guessing. We just have no evidence that they weren't guessing. We're trying to prove the positive assertion that people can hear a difference. And we can't. (In logic, the burden of proof is always on the positive proposition.)

Exactly my point... You can't prove that they didn't either. It's not logical just to assume one or the other. Even if it was 99% one way or 1% the other, we still wouldn't be able to prove beyond anything that that 1% guessed. You said yourself it would take just one person to change everything, but we can't prove that they didn't, just like we can't prove that they did...
BaronKatz is offline  
post #97 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 08:43 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraut View Post

Ok, listen: I posted two links, one from Lipshitz regarding the incompatibility of SACD with high fidelity sound reproduction. So, please don't give me that bull that no one ever gave you a hint as to what to read.
Maybe you are intellectually or scientifically challenged, that still does not give you the the excuse to mouth off regarding "no one ever". You are still just someone who seems to make up facts as he goes.
Glad others have the patience to overlook your shilling, I don't.

I never said "no one ever" gave me a hint of what to read. I said most people just criticized me and didn't offer me anything useful. Look at what you yourself quoted me as saying... Your post and JHaz' and a couple of other posts are exceptions from the 90+ posts on here... Most of them were useless insults, kind of like this last post of yours.
BaronKatz is offline  
post #98 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 09:08 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 BaronKatz View Post

Exactly my point... You can't prove that they didn't either. It's not logical just to assume one or the other. Even if it was 99% one way or 1% the other, we still wouldn't be able to prove beyond anything that that 1% guessed. You said yourself it would take just one person to change everything, but we can't prove that they didn't, just like we can't prove that they did...

that's it for me.

see ya
terry j is offline  
post #99 of 134 Old 10-03-2012, 09:49 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz 
Exactly my point... You can't prove that they didn't either. It's not logical just to assume one or the other. Even if it was 99% one way or 1% the other, we still wouldn't be able to prove beyond anything that that 1% guessed. You said yourself it would take just one person to change everything, but we can't prove that they didn't, just like we can't prove that they did...

Baron, I don't know what else anyone can say. My original post contained the reasoning for what a 50% result means and what conclusion you can draw from it. Two other posters have very clearly explained what would happen if people weren't guessing. And somehow you still take away from that "see, you can't prove they aren't guessing."

You're right. We can't prove that there isn't at least one person actually hearing a difference in the test group. We can say that in many of these tests where there are large numbers of trials, the likelihood that more than one or two such people existing in the test group is less than the chance of mars falling on your head. Or something like that. It's a statistics thing.

But as mcnarus siaid, and I indicated in my original post explaining this, you can't prove a negative. This apparently makes you comfortable (and many other audiophiles who believe in all manner of silly things, if that makes you feel better too). You could test a million people a million times and say with absolute confidence that none of them can hear a difference (you can say this if you test one person at a time with many trials, you can't say this if you test a population as a group with one trial each). But even if you prove those million simply can't hear a difference, maybe someone in the next group could. If you tested 5 billion people and all failed, perhaps there is a guy somewhere in the jungle who could. Thus, without testing every person on the planet, you can't prove the negative.

But you can prove the positive. At least, if there were a difference, you could prove it. Remember my writing about the "just one person" stuff? That's it. One person. You said you can hear the difference. Prove it. Thousands of others claim they can. When asked to prove it their ears all cease working or else they refuse to try. Why?

I hope you understand the math as mcnarus explained it though to put that issue to rest. It's pretty simple. If there are people not guessing, everyone else still is. That "everyone else" is still statistically getting 50% correct answers. The people not guessing raise the average above 50%. How much depends on how many don't need to guess. And you can calculate the odds that the results will stay 50% with each additional non-guessing person added to the average. Those odds quickly get ridiculous with each one added to the pool. That's why I said "at best" only a couple could be actually hearing a difference.

Bigus is offline  
post #100 of 134 Old 10-04-2012, 06:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 282
I could go on, but the moderators wouldn't stand for it.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #101 of 134 Old 10-04-2012, 08:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
dstew100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

But I still don't understand how it is "Proven." just by the simple fact that it's 50/50? To be proven beyond any sort of reasonable doubt is impossible in my opinion. This is all I was getting at. The test I showed earlier was where close to 50% of the people were correct in determining differences. I don't understand how they could know that they were just guessing, how is that possible? Is mind reading or polygraphs part of the test as well?

I am holding up a card, it has a one or a zero on it, which is it?

Confirmed troll
dstew100 is offline  
post #102 of 134 Old 10-04-2012, 03:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 148
to understand how statistics work to ferrett out the difference between chance and real difference requires an understanding of how statistics work. Which requires either leraning the field in a context that is value neutral to the learner or the ability to set aside one's own expectations in order to see how the thing works. If you LIKE the log in your eye, you're unlikely to be motivated to remove it.
JHAz is offline  
post #103 of 134 Old 10-05-2012, 12:18 AM
Advanced Member
 
dstew100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

to understand how statistics work to ferrett out the difference between chance and real difference requires an understanding of how statistics work. Which requires either leraning the field in a context that is value neutral to the learner or the ability to set aside one's own expectations in order to see how the thing works. If you LIKE the log in your eye, you're unlikely to be motivated to remove it.

Expertise in statistics is valuable in interpreting test results, when my child was 5 years old she understood 50/50. That's just common since.

As I said, confirmed troll
dstew100 is offline  
post #104 of 134 Old 10-06-2012, 10:41 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstew100 View Post

Expertise in statistics is valuable in interpreting test results, when my child was 5 years old she understood 50/50. That's just common since.
As I said, confirmed troll

I'm not trolling. I understand that the evidence is always in the positive, but I don't agree with that, just because it's a "Statistics rule." Like I said, you can't prove it either way. What if the rule of statistics was on the negative? Like innocent until proven guilty? I think nothing is proven because we can never know for sure, even Bigus said that there is now way we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that some people were guessing and others got it right or that everyone was guessing or whatever it may be. We can't base fact on "Statistical assumption based on statistical rules."
BaronKatz is offline  
post #105 of 134 Old 10-06-2012, 11:42 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 261
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
Ratman is offline  
post #106 of 134 Old 10-06-2012, 01:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz 

I'm not trolling. I understand that the evidence is always in the positive, but I don't agree with that, just because it's a "Statistics rule." Like I said, you can't prove it either way. What if the rule of statistics was on the negative? Like innocent until proven guilty? I think nothing is proven because we can never know for sure, even Bigus said that there is now way we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that some people were guessing and others got it right or that everyone was guessing or whatever it may be. We can't base fact on "Statistical assumption based on statistical rules."

Well, I gave you the benefit of doubt and gave it my best shot. But I think an earlier post of mine was correct... you really have zero interest in learning. Stop asking for advice here and just do whatever the hell you want to do. I'm done trying to help.

Bigus is offline  
post #107 of 134 Old 10-06-2012, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.
I'm guessing he's not old enough to remember that.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #108 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 01:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaronKatz View Post

I'm not trolling. I understand that the evidence is always in the positive, but I don't agree with that, just because it's a "Statistics rule." Like I said, you can't prove it either way. What if the rule of statistics was on the negative? Like innocent until proven guilty? I think nothing is proven because we can never know for sure, even Bigus said that there is now way we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that some people were guessing and others got it right or that everyone was guessing or whatever it may be. We can't base fact on "Statistical assumption based on statistical rules."

But it's not. That's the point. the statistics work the way they work, and the fact that the unitiated think they might work differently does not mean they actually work differently no matter what an intelligent but informed person may choose to think
JHAz is offline  
post #109 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 04:52 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
you mean the sun doesn't orbit the earth????

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #110 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
I guess if I told him that quantum theory allow for there to be a vanishingly small but non zero chance that he could walk through a wall and arrive on the other side untouched, he would take that as proof he has superpowers. Or proof that we can't prove he doesn't, which apparently means the same thing to him.

Bigus is offline  
post #111 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 08:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I guess if I told him that quantum theory allow for there to be a vanishingly small but non zero chance that he could walk through a wall and arrive on the other side untouched, he would take that as proof he has superpowers. Or proof that we can't prove he doesn't, which apparently means the same thing to him.

Theoretically it's just a matter of having enough trials. Not that I'm suggesting anybody ram him- or herself into a wall a couple of hundred thousand times to see if they pass through . . . although I DO have some down time today . . .
JHAz is offline  
post #112 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 08:32 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ratman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Collingswood, N.J.
Posts: 14,317
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 96 Post(s)
Liked: 261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I guess if I told him that quantum theory allow for there to be a vanishingly small but non zero chance that he could walk through a wall and arrive on the other side untouched, he would take that as proof he has superpowers.
Sounds like you read the book The Physics of Superheroes. biggrin.gif
Ratman is offline  
post #113 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 09:52 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

I guess if I told him that quantum theory allow for there to be a vanishingly small but non zero chance that he could walk through a wall and arrive on the other side untouched, he would take that as proof he has superpowers. Or proof that we can't prove he doesn't, which apparently means the same thing to him.

There is a huge difference between that and being able to hear the difference between different cables or SACD/DVD Audio vs. CD. The fact that there are technical differences in their encoding, construction, etc... and according to surveys half the people *might* have heard a difference is a much higher chance than somebody walking through a wall... We can prove that somebody didn't walk through a wall because we could test that by seeing that they don't in the actual test, we cannot *prove* that they did or didn't hear a difference during such a test whilst monitoring it... AGAIN it is a mere assumption to just say "Since it's 50/50 it has to be like a coin, so it must be chance because the proof is on the side of it being unproven since it's 50/50 and since *Perhaps* half of those or more were guessing." I think all of this is a lot more unlikely than a few people actually hearing a difference. However, what this test tells us is that if at least, at a minimum, half the people cannot hear the difference, then it is not a "Vastly superior" format or construction or whatever else it may be.

If many or most people will not be able to hear a major (if any) improvement (or difference) in the sound then it is perhaps rather pointless for SACD/DVD Audio to be at all profitable since most people will just go out and buy CDs instead and "Hybrid's" won't save it either since that's more expensive to manufacture. Hence why I think not many releases were released on SACD/DVD Audio. Many who bought it, simply did for the surround sound listening features (or perhaps better mastering on some discs). I also don't think that it is highly profitable to handmake cables from high quality materials to sell a few $100-500 cables when you could make them cheaper and mass produced in China for pennies and sell millions of them for $2... So NO I don't think that the "Audiophile" industry is out to rip people off, in fact non audiophile consumer goods make tons more money because it's cheaper to produce those goods (which is why they are cheaper to sell) and they sell a lot more of them as they are more mass produced. Look at the profit margins of Sony's consumer vs. audiophile or professional goods, they make much less money from those than they do from their higher end goods (many of their higher end goods are made in Japan with higher labour costs, plus more expensive materials, etc...)

My argument would be that the difference might be negligible to many people out there. Most people won't be able to tell a huge difference (if any) between pictures taken on a Canon/Nikon consumer grade SLR with a cheap zoom lens from a Leica with a Summilux for example. Yes you can take good pictures on both, but most people will still go out and buy the Canon or Nikon because they are less expensive (Except for their highest end models 1D, D1, etc... which cost almost equal to the Leica and their higher end lenses which are also more equal) and have the features they want (as on many consumer grade devices, such as effects, surround sound, etc... on receivers for example). One might not exactly be able to tell the difference, but a professional with a trained eye (perhaps like somebody with a trained ear?) might be able to tell the difference in the BOKEH of the shots for example between a Leica and Canon (The Bokeh is much softer and rounder, especially in the lights on my Summicron 50 than on any Canon I have used). On top of that handling and taking the pictures is quite different (I've owned both and still own the Leica M3 for example, I prefer the RF format to SLR and have had much more artistic shots from it than from the SLR), just like using a high end audio system might "feel" different to handle and experience. However, if you look at resolution tests the Leica lenses will have a much higher resolution (lines per millimiter) and sometimes higher sharpness. Perhaps this is like the "Higher specs on the data sheet" that SACD/DVD Audio might have, but in the real world in most situations, most people might not be able to tell the difference, or might simply not care.
BaronKatz is offline  
post #114 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
There is a huge difference between that and being able to hear the difference between different cables or SACD/DVD Audio vs. CD.
True. It is much easier to imagine hearing a difference between two things that sound the same than to imagine you've just walked through a wall.

BTW, how old are you?

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #115 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JHAz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,861
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 148
You can lead a horse to water . . . . If I predict correctly 53 percent of the time whether the horse will drink, will you accept that as proof that I can read horses' minds? can I extrapolate it to humans without further "proof?" If you refuse my proof, my response will be to calmly and repeatedly inform you that you simply cling to the wrong belief system and would obviously recognize my prescience if not hobbled by your preconceptions . . .

barely better than guessing might indicate a real demonstrable difference. But not over 10 or 100 trials . . .

Why do I bother
JHAz is offline  
post #116 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 02:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
ccotenj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: the toxic waste dumps of new jersey
Posts: 21,915
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 89
David lopan can walk through walls... disbelievers... smile.gif

the op still doesn't get that he has an indefensible position? I kinda blipped past the last post when it became obvious that he hasn't accepted how statistics "work"... hint op: the dut doesn't matter...

- chris

 

my build thread - updated 8-20-12 - new seating installed and projector isolation solution

 

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1332917/ccotenj-finally-gets-a-projector

ccotenj is offline  
post #117 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 03:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Reminds me of a website that would predict the sex of your unborn child after providing a lot of random details about the parents. Only $25, with a money back guarantee if they are wrong. I think they would find an easy victim here.

Bigus is offline  
post #118 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 03:20 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
BaronKatz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

True. It is much easier to imagine hearing a difference between two things that sound the same than to imagine you've just walked through a wall.
BTW, how old are you?

Does my age matter that much. I'm 28... Are you Ageist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

You can lead a horse to water . . . . If I predict correctly 53 percent of the time whether the horse will drink, will you accept that as proof that I can read horses' minds? can I extrapolate it to humans without further "proof?" If you refuse my proof, my response will be to calmly and repeatedly inform you that you simply cling to the wrong belief system and would obviously recognize my prescience if not hobbled by your preconceptions . . .
barely better than guessing might indicate a real demonstrable difference. But not over 10 or 100 trials . . .
Why do I bother

No, but again you can't compare it. It's not "Predicting" If you actually saw the horse drink. Why does it have to be "Guessing" or "Reading minds"? If the person says he heard a difference or can pinpoint differences then why can we not believe it? Statistically 50% say they heard a difference and even pinpointed them. This cannot by any logical means disqualify it as guessing, unless we "Assume" that they were guessing simply based on the fact that it was 50% of the people. Why can't those 50% have more trained ears or have better hearing? Or is that IMPOSSIBLE? It seems more possible and logical than "Assuming" that they were all just guessing and not one of them could have heard a difference. Or maybe you all believe that it's impossible so strongly that you refuse to believe that it could be possible? It could be that they were all guessing, and not a single one of them really actually heard a difference, but we cannot prove that, just like we cannot disprove the possibility that some of those 50% actually heard a difference. No statistical assumption in the world will be able to prove what the people actually heard, that's not hard science, that's assumption based on statistics. It's not the same as using statistics for "Counting facts" for example that 50% of the population of a certain state is male and 50% is female, those can be facts based on a census for example or 50% vote democrat while 50% vote for republican, well if they voted for that it means they did... and it's still 50/50, it doesn't mean that 50% of them guessed... and we can't assume they just made random guesses on who to vote for, some of them obviously believed in that parties ideology, just like some could have heard it, but we will never know the true percentage...
BaronKatz is offline  
post #119 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 03:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mcnarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,037
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 282
Quote:
Does my age matter that much. I'm 28... Are you Ageist?
No, but depending on your answer it might have explained your behavior.
Quote:
If the person says he heard a difference or can pinpoint differences then why can we not believe it?
Because:

1) Anybody can think they heard a difference, even when nothing changes. We need to separate the imagined from the real.

2) They cannot do it consistently. Give me 100 tries, I can get it right about 50 times without even listening. So to convince me (or anyone whose brain is engaged), you need to do much better than that.
Quote:
Why can't those 50% have more trained ears or have better hearing?
Because if they did, you wouldn't have gotten 50% correct. You'd have gotten 75% correct, as I explained earlier. (See the first paragraph of post 94.)

This is all science. It just happens to be science that you are unfamiliar with. Do you believe you know everything, and that all science you are unfamiliar with is wrong? You really are behaving like a 15-year-old.

If you can't explain how it works, you can't say it doesn't.—The High-End Creed

mcnarus is offline  
post #120 of 134 Old 10-07-2012, 03:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 50
You're wasting your time. This clown doesn't want to be helped. He doesn't want to learn or understand. He just wants to argue and has a pathological need for his beliefs to be true. He's one of those who would light themselves on fire before letting the police get to them in a raid...

Harsh? Hardly. I'm holding back. This guy can't even add correctly and is trying to argue logic and statistics. I'm being kind.

Bigus is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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