AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
361 - 380 of 537 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18905949


still avoiding my video DBT question eh?

Not really. Just choosing to avoid being sucked into a vortex, which this thread now has become.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18905949


.. but the holier than thou attitude is just tiring and trite.

Religion has no part of my life, nor the universe, so the word holy is out of my vocabulary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18905949


..saving a life is much more interesting to me

Me too. So I am always amazed when people have such subjective filters and concepts...the very same people who in their daily lives depend on science and its practical applications. Like life-saving medicine which went through countless, properly constructed, clinical trials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18905949


...but i tell you what---i am happy to set up a DBT in my house up on my system...

That would be the first point of contention, and likely not the only one.


cheers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpjibberjabber /forum/post/18909184


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.

Precisely. One has to determine if the evidence (claims of whatever) have merit. As it stands, Nordost is doing the same things Josephson does - saying that the anecdotal stories have merit without examining them.

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

Well, they've already been able to establish some sort of 'difference' which they speculate is responsible for claims of audibility. So, do the controlled tests already. Write the method up in a way that others can replicate it. Submit it to something more than the court of public opinion.

Quote:
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.

You'd like my sister-in-law. She's nuts.

Quote:
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.

I haven't read anything that approaches an exact set of parameters. What do you know about their consultant in England?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by natchie /forum/post/18909729


Thanks for posting the article on Dr. Josephson...I enjoyed it!

He's a smart guy and we cut a lot of slack for really smart guys hoping maybe they'll come up with another really smart idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,102 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/18908977


...Why Brian Josephson Embraced ESP

October 16th, 2006 by John Horgan

Thanks for bringing him up. This shows you that some physicists(smart guys) are just not trained in trickery, and fooling people. Why would they be? Nature doesn't have such agendas to fool us or deceive us as those trying to peddle the paranormal.

Much has been written about such physicists trying to uncover the reality of such trickery without thinking of the fraud behind the events. James Randi,, James Garner, etc has shown us how easy to fool those investigators and some will never change their minds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Jibber, what are you personal boundaries in audio??


Chu mentioned that prior to examining something it needs to be determined that the 'thing' exists. Makes sense to me, but not to you it seems.


What are some examples of things you would NOT pursue on first glance?


Peter Belt (sorry for bringing up paranormal) for example, there are some that swear by it. Should we go looking for and funding studies to investigate them??


What about this one? http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com...que/index.html


Or this?? http://www.theadvancedaudiophile.com...ent/index.html


(just grabbed at random)


He obviously swears by them, should we first find out if they are real or potentially real before devoting time and effort in investigation, or just go for it?


If so why so, if not why not.


Just trying to get where your own boundaries lie. We all have them, just at different points.


I mean I'd hate for the answer to be 'I think I hear cables/power cords personally, so want them investigated, yet that sounds like rubbish so ignore'.


That would be hypocritical.


So we should also spend time to investigate these no??


OR, sort the wheat from the chaff and only check out those that have merit??


Hmm, how would we sort the wheat from the chaff I wonder....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,247 Posts
The thing with Peter & May Belt is that they're nuts but they write extremely well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,585 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/18910077


As it stands, Nordost is doing the same things Josephson does - saying that the anecdotal stories have merit without examining them.


[...]


Well, they've already been able to establish some sort of 'difference' which they speculate is responsible for claims of audibility. So, do the controlled tests already. Write the method up in a way that others can replicate it. Submit it to something more than the court of public opinion.

What bothers me about the Nordost video is that they appear to go through the motions of scientifically examining what their products do in a controlled fashion but they really don't. Let me try and make it clear what's going on and why I object:


1) there are three signals, lets call them:

sPC - the analogue signal from the PC playing the WAV file

sCD - the straight from the factory analogue output from the CD player

sND - the analogue output from the CD player with the Nordrost changes


2) First we take sPC and compare it to sCD and we get something we'll call


PCdeltaCD


Then we take sPC and compare it to sND and get a new output


PCdeltaND


3) we observe that PCdeltaCD > PCdeltaND


OK, so what's wrong so far?


a) We have not established any control for either of these delta measurements. We need to show that PCdeltaCD and PCdeltaND are consistent. Until we establish that PCdeltaCD has no run to run variation we cannot claim that we can treat it as a constant. (seems to me that given the nature of a PC the assumption that we can is treat sPC as a constant is highly unlikely.) We need to take several different trials of sPC and compare them to each other finding:


PC(i)deltaPC(j)


Only if that comparison is consistent for each comparison can we proceed. From the hypothesis in the video to be true this should produce very close to a straight line!


b) let's assume that we prove a) to be true. We now need to do the same thing for:


PC(k)deltaCD(l)


and


PC(m)deltaND(n)


(i), (j), ... (n) indicating we have different independent runs in each case.


c) Now, if each of these measurements is also consistent we can proceed to compare them to each other. Now, if


PC(k)deltaCD(l) > PC(m)deltaND(n)


proves true, in a statistically significant number of the cases, we are onto something (look up "p" values and how to calculate them to understand what this means and get a feeling for what (i)...(n) will need to be). (We will skip the fact that to do this comparisons we had to do an A to D conversion and we also need to figure out how to control for that.)


Exactly what we are onto remains to be seen, it is most certainly not a measurement of distortion, since as I have pointed out, the

relationship


PC(k)deltaCD(l) > PC(m)deltaND(n)


tells you that the sND signal is more like the sPC signal than the sCD signal. Unless you can somehow show that a PC with a sound card provides a better analogue conversion than your multi $1000 CD player I personally don't see why anyone claims that what has happened so far is a good thing? Moreover, if it does provide a better analogue conversion why don't we just chuck the CD player out and use the PC instead?


Ignoring all of this, we now need to show what happens when the Nordost equipment is used with the PC instead of the CD player and perform the measurements all over again. Those of you who have followed with me so far will observe that for the Nordrost claims -- that their equipment makes a difference -- to be true the PC signal should look different with and without their equipment. This unfortunately, is a contradiction to their earlier hypothesis that the PC signal can be treated as a constant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18909355


Not really. Just choosing to avoid being sucked into a vortex, which this thread now has become.


[Religion has no part of my life, nor the universe, so the word holy is out of my vocabulary.]


[Me too. So I am always amazed when people have such subjective filters and concepts...the very same people who in their daily lives depend on science and its practical applications. Like life-saving medicine which went through countless, properly constructed, clinical trials.]



[That would be the first point of contention, and likely not the only one.]



cheers.

no, you just refuse to argue anything that hasn't been argued 10k times on an internet forum--you don't provide anything new to the table, which i just proposed. video always gets a free pass and i've said it many times on the forums since i joined 10 years back. never, ever have seen or heard of a video DBT but its amazing how many differences are "seen" on projectors with even the same chip!!!


you are trying to save the audiophile world with your posts on cables, not me. i could care less. audiophoolery to me is for everyone to figure out for themselves---if a guy goes crazy on cables, its his prerogative. who am i to judge how another spends his hard earned $s?


i offered up my house for your DBT. fly on over and lets make this happen. if you care about saving so many audiophiles, i think it would be a good use of funds! you have setup proper DBTs right? or you have at least participated in them correct?


Cheers!


Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18916542


...if you care about saving so many audiophiles, i think it would be a good use of funds! you have setup proper DBTs right? or you have at least participated in them correct?...

This is descending into the completely idiotic. I could care less about saving "audiophiles"... yet another meaningless term in search of a definition. Ditto for saving the audio world. It's too late for that anyway. The cult has already drunk the koolaid.



Go try to start a fight with someone else. You're not getting into one with me. Been there, done that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,470 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Dear William,


So, all the studios and musicians have active imaginations? Sounds interesting. If not, then Shunyata paid all of them to lie about them using their power cords and conditioners in their studios and the resulting positive sound quality changes. Even more interesting. If the manufacturer lied about all these endorsements, then they should be sued by all those who are mentioned on their website. That should be fun to watch. You should personally contact all these people to let them know of their potential law suits against Shunyata.


Penngray was going to speak to the people at Crest about these products and report back to us when he had the time. But, there it is in writing for us to read right now. If Crest has an active imagination or was paid to lie about these products, should we believe any quotes or endorsements they ever make in the future? If Penngray has a positive report, it should also be considered as anecdotal and without basis? Perhaps all the engineers were also paid to lie about these products. If it is a negative report, should it also be dismissed and not to be trusted? I think you've stumbled on to something BIG here!


Hmm...you suggested that they either have active imaginations, were paid to lie, and that the manufacturer is posting misleading or non-truthful statements. ( That is what I took your - "Are we really supposed to take the manufacturers website as some type of evidence?" - to mean. ) Do you have evidence to support these claims, or is it just anecdotal rambling? Shouldn't you be contacting all those musicians and studios to provide evidence for their claims?


BTW, you forgot to ask if we also should also believe in astrology, homeopathy, and alien abductions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,445 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpaik /forum/post/18917720


This is descending into the completely idiotic. I could care less about saving "audiophiles"... yet another meaningless term in search of a definition. Ditto for saving the audio world. It's too late for that anyway. The cult has already drunk the koolaid.



Go try to start a fight with someone else. You're not getting into one with me. Been there, done that.

because the only reason you are on this site is to spout objectivist dogma and not further a rational discussion when questioned.


the value you even add to that debate is questionable, at best unlike several members/objectivists of this forum that i enjoy reading.


the fact you can't even disclose if you have been in a DBT speaks volumes.


anyways, that sums it up for me---good luck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,102 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithR /forum/post/18921153


....


the fact you can't even disclose if you have been in a DBT speaks volumes.

...

And how is that relevant to anything? What if he hasn't? So what? What if he has? What then? One makes him more credible than the other answer???

Why not ask what gear he has? Same relevance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,102 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18921010


....their power cords and conditioners in their studios and the resulting positive sound quality changes. ...:

There is the catch. How was that 'positive sound quality' established? By controlled testing, or just the usual subjective bs mode??? I bet the latter. Worthless, really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
Charles,


Is this yet another claim that a determination of sound quality change was gained by BS methods? Do you have evidence to back your claim? Think not. Do you really think these well-established studios and musicians simply plugged in a cord or power conditioner, yawned, and said, 'Well, hmmm, yah, I think I hear a difference, maybe... Hey, Frank, do you think you hear a difference? Put down your sandwich for a minute. That's okay, I'll put you down as a yes.' Do you really think they would damage their reputations by putting their endorsements in writing? Perhaps they all were so overwhelmed by the nice bag the cord might have come in that the engineers automatically thought, 'Boy, this HAS to sound good.' You have got to be kidding.


But then, taking these endorsements into consideration would go against the sacred truth that everything about electronics is already known. (I just got a flashback to an old Star Trek episode when the Oracle chanted to a girl who questioned new ideas, '...the truth of Yonatta is YOUR truth...' Remember?)


I think it might be a good time for objectivists to gaze at the 'I want to believe, I want to believe' posters on the wall.


Happy listening.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,366 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by theborg7of7 /forum/post/18922310


Do you really think these well-established studios and musicians simply plugged in a cord or power conditioner, yawned, and said, 'Well, hmmm, yah, I think I hear a difference, maybe... Hey, Frank, do you think you hear a difference?


Do you really think they would damage their reputations by putting their endorsements in writing?

If you have to ask, you're not ready to discuss it.
 
361 - 380 of 537 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top