Quote:
Very very few people would even begin to understand me saying that everything does matter in the room, and also outside the room. It matters for different reasons in different ways. They may be small ways when and if they are observed individually, but significant in the overall scheme of things. Stones (though I have never heard of a "magic" stone) and mpingo discs are to me what Klipschorns and Magnepans are to you: big things. I have done perhaps several hundred experiments with objects slightly smaller than a grain of sand, perceptibly and reliably changing my perception of sound (though not always in ways I cared for, and certainly not in ways as evident as the aforementioned big things).

MJF,
There is a dilemma. On one hand, you can appreciate that 'everything matters'. In some ways I do agree with you. I have tried several tweaks that directly affect the signal path. The more of the same type of tweak I used, the better the sound got in the same direction of change. In that way, it appears that everything matters, from my own experience, as well as some experiences reported by my audiophile friends.

On the other hand, if the stones matter, and it's not directly in the signal path, I'm not discounting that it could matter, but rather putting forth other explanations that might be simpler.

The same argument I made here could be used against my reported tweaks too. I have not proved what I reported is free of bias, only that it appears to follow from the observation and in the same direction of type of improvement.

If what your hundreds of experiments show that the stones, or whatever else you tried show similar effects or a consistent direction of change in sound, then maybe it's worth nailing down a mechanism that says (perhaps more fundamentally) you can do 'this' and you'll get 'that'. You might consider publishing your results, if you haven't already.

Quote:
Very very few people would even begin to understand me saying that everything does matter in the room, and also outside the room. It matters for different reasons in different ways. They may be small ways when and if they are observed individually, but significant in the overall scheme of things. Stones (though I have never heard of a "magic" stone) and mpingo discs are to me what Klipschorns and Magnepans are to you: big things. I have done perhaps several hundred experiments with objects slightly smaller than a grain of sand, perceptibly and reliably changing my perception of sound (though not always in ways I cared for, and certainly not in ways as evident as the aforementioned big things).

Absent of a clear or "proven" mechanism, "personal bias" is not a "rational explanation".

What makes it an irrational explination?

Quote:
Not after hundreds of times, not resulting in a predictable sound, and not when it's been possible for me at times to have someone else confirm what I observed.

I don't see how any of those factors preclude bias effects as a possible cause.

Quote:
Rather, that's more of a (tired and tiring) catch-all for those who don't understand the mechanism, or won't believe the explanation for it.

I don't think that is entirely fair. Yeah, if you are talking about the same dorks who want to start babbling about belief in voodoo it does get tiring. But I think one has to be careful not to be caught in the opposite extreme in reaction to this barrage of B.S. There is a world of gray between the two extremes. Yeah, it's idiotic for someone to scream bias effects and only bias effects every time they hear about results that run contrary to their prjudices about audio. OTOH it is just as extreme to believe that one is utterly immune to bias effects when they are so extremely integrated into our evaluation processes.

Quote:
Those still stuck in a box and who choose to remain there, because it's warmer and safer for them. Those who just peer out of their box and call everything they don't understand "magic", and prefer to avoid what is outside of their comfort zone; if not regard it with disdainful skepticism.

I would be quite happy to believe I am immuned to bias effects. Knowing that everything I percieve is filtered through my biases, some unknown, does not give me a feeling of warmth and saftey. It is actually hard to accept and quite counter intuitive. But I have read enough about it that I just can't deny it. If I had a choice I'd chose to be immuned to bias effects.

Quote:
In my opinion, it's presumptious to say we have nothing left to discuss because of the fickle and mysterious nature of Nature. In fact, those small things that matter are to me things to discuss, particularly because they are mysterious and little known. And because there is a hell of a lot to discuss of this (though we never do here, because the politics of audiophilia are more important to audiophiles than the endless pursuit of good sound. Ironically). Although the sound and our perception of it can change minute to minute, does not mean it's enough for everyone to notice. Those with keener listening skills will be more aware of this. You can even miss an elephant in your driveway, if you're not looking, you know. So the constancy you seek was never there on audio forums. What does and doesn't have an effect almost always comes down to what people are able to hear, and what they are willing to hear.

But you *can* also over detect. That is human nature. We are pattern seekers. There was no harm in over detection in evolutionary terms but under detection was often fatal. We are human.

Quote:
The same argument I made here could be used against my reported tweaks too. I have not proved what I reported is free of bias, only that it appears to follow from the observation and in the same direction of type of improvement.

Well yes, that's me as well. What I have observed follows from observation, and each experiment repeated, or compounded, follows in the same direction of type of improvement. In fact, I can and have created many variations (I can literally create an endless variety), where each variation follows in a somewhat different direction, but is the same type of improvement for that variation, under repeated trials.

Like you and everyone here, I can not "prove" anything I observe is free of bias. It would require undergoing lengthy studies and publishing them in a peer-reviewed journal. Which is basically impossible, because to begin with, just for argument's sake here, who would consider it for peer review, and for publication? The AES?? Not the AES I know, and I think there's only one of those. These are not even stones I was referring to, these are objects smaller than a grain of sand, that can improve perception of sound (or at least change it) reliably, without having any effect on the signal path or room acoustics. "On paper", it doesn't sound very plausible, to say the least.

So the experiments I was talking about are for my own edification, and only ever will be. They challenge my scientific curiousity, and help me understand what's possible, or how sensitive our perception of sound can really be. AFAIC, they are part and parcel of science's "best kept secret". As for their mechanism, I already know what it is. I am merely exploiting a phenomenon discovered over a quarter of a century ago. Although the experiments may be my own, since the phenomenon they are based on isn't my discovery, it isn't for me to publish. Even if it were, not only do I have no reason for publishing them, no one in the mainstream, if anywhere, would take it seriously. Particularly when I explain that my experiments are based on the discoveries of Peter Belt, in the 80's. Just the name tends to create a knee-jerk trigger reaction in people who think they understand who he is and what he's all about - and by extension, anyone who believes anything he has to say or offer. For those who don't recognize the name, they will be told to dismiss the science by those who do. Cold comfort that Sheldrake, a working scientist, established and credentialed, seems to receive not much more consideration by the scientific "establishment". And is dismissed by such just as quickly. Skeptics taking only seconds to dismiss what took years to study and research.

I could feasibly explain what steps one needs to go through to re-create each variation of the "grains of sand" experiment (this is only one of many that utilize the same principle), if I wanted to release this to the public. And maybe someone else in another location might be able to reproduce the same thing I can, to at least some degree of what I can obtain (as the location itself has an influence on the experiment, exact same results can not be expected; mine can be expected to sound better than that of a "layperson"). What can not be so easily reproduced is one's listening skill; which comes from the experience you acquire. I am the only person in the world, with any significant experience listening to this particular "tweak". I know it like an artist knows his own work, as no one else does who observes it. I know what to listen for, to identify variations I have made. It takes me seconds to ID it. I know what effect I can expect each to have on the sound. And I know that one instance of this isn't a transformational effect that anyone will immediately hear. To become conscious of my "tiny" experiment, may require a type and amount of experience comparable to mine. Someone who already has plenty of experience with similar tests in this "domain of research" is probably going to ID things a lot faster, if not immediately.

But someone with zero experience, say a "fellow scientist" undergoing a peer review of this experiment, or an audiophile, is likely to never do so. With audiophiles, the usual reason is they don't have the patience to do long term experimentation that they may require, with things they are already biased against, and can't believe would have any effect. In the hypothetical case of a fellow scientific researcher using audio DBT test subjects, the failure to identify the subtle (to their untrained ears) difference, combined with the known homogenizing effect of the audio DBT, means the result is likely to yield statistics that won't convince anyone. Hence the reason only major differences ever get close to passing statistical significance in DBT's (which leads those with a religious belief in audio DBTs to mistakenly conclude that only major things can make a difference to the sound - obvious hogwash). Once you understand what is happening in experiments like mine, and that there actually is something happening, only then does it become easier to identify (especially if you're going to use blind conditions). For most, I expect it would be a gradual process. But until that happens, the lay person you are trying to prove something to will inevitably reach the usual conclusion we all know and love: "you're obviously deluding yourself".

The sad fact is, this is what trips people up most of the time, when we're talking about "controversial" devices or ideas, that are less than glaringly obvious to everyone. It doesn't necessarily mean others have no listening skills. Just different listening skills. Do you think that if you find yourself in a court of law under jury trial, that "being judged by your peers" (whomever they may be) or being judged by a tribe of Papua, New Guinea head hunters could be expected to produce the same result? It is the reason audio will never be an exact science, and audiophiles will never agree on what is and isn't important, or audible.

"There is a dilemma. On one hand, you can appreciate that 'everything matters'. In some ways I do agree with you. I have tried several tweaks that directly affect the signal path. The more of the same type of tweak I used, the better the sound got in the same direction of change...

On the other hand, if the stones matter, and it's not directly in the signal path, I'm not discounting that it could matter, but rather putting forth other explanations that might be simpler."

If I may be so bold, the stones ARE in the signal path. It's just an old wives tale that they aren't.

Cheerio

Quote:

Very very few people would even begin to understand me saying that everything does matter in the room, and also outside the room. It matters for different reasons in different ways. They may be small ways when and if they are observed individually, but significant in the overall scheme of things.

Wow, a "Sensitive child" story on the Stereophile forum.

Actually Frog, very many people would have a good understanding of what you are trying communcate in your post. Many of them would have studied personality disorders.

Frog, you're almost completely and totally self-absorbed, and the focus of your self-absorbtion appears to be your listening room and your stereo.

If you were any more self-absorbed, you might be autistic. Maybe you are. Have you ever received therapy for Autism or ASD? If not, you might want to pursue it.

Thanks Frog for sharing! This makes many of your posts here far easier to relate to.

Quote:
Wow, a "Sensitive child" story on the Stereophile forum.Actually Frog, very many people would have a good understanding of what you are trying communcate in your post. Many of them would have studied personality disorders. Frog, you're almost completely and totally self-absorbed, and the focus of your self-absorbtion appears to be your listening room and your stereo. If you were any more self-absorbed, you might be autistic. Maybe you are. Have you ever received therapy for Autism or ASD? If not, you might want to pursue it. Thanks Frog for sharing! This makes many of your posts here far easier to relate to.

Oh, shut up, Kruger. The adults are trying to have a conversation, so don't pollute this thread as well with your unprovoked infantile character attacks. If you're going to come into every thread on this forum just to crap all over it, prevent civil discourse and initiate conflicts (which is about all you know how to do), then go back to rec.audio.opinion. Don't keep trying to recreate on this forum what you did to the RAO group. Evidenced in the recent revival of the "On Banning Ourselves" thread, you've worn out your welcome here some time ago. One member even offered to sacrifice himself, just to see you banished from this place.

That is actually a "normal" reaction that people have, to the likes of you. I don't know why you're still trolling audio forums in a state of perpetual self-delusion, convinced that you still might have an ounce of credibility left to your name. I think the only person I can think of on the internet with a worse reputation than you, is Hitler. And just as he was nothing without an army, you're nothing without the internet. Seriously, considering where you are with this thing, you need to get a clue already. You're an embarassment to everything you stand for. Do you realize that if you died tomorrow, that your lifelong crusade against scientific progress would actually get a boost from your demise? It's probably the best thing you could do for your cause, because every time you spew your bile on an audio forum, you harm its credibility. You're about as convincing as David Duke in black face, trying to sell Jheri-Curl at a Rick Astley concert. Do yourself, and the rest of us a favour: go talk to your kids about finding an aging trolls retirement home for yourself, because you're going to need to think about that soon. You'll get to share your misery with like minded people who might actually want your company. Then maybe you won't have to die in misery, as you lived.

Quote:

Quote:
Not after hundreds of times, not resulting in a predictable sound, and not when it's been possible for me at times to have someone else confirm what I observed.

I don't see how any of those factors preclude bias effects as a possible cause.

That's because you don't do this kind of research. You only know what your theories tell you to believe. So I wouldn't even begin to expect you to. Bias does not create thousands of different sound characteristics, all of which can be reliably repeated. Never mind having the wherewithal to create that kind of a massively complex delusion, no one could hope to remember all that. "Bias" isn't anything you say it is, you know. What you are trying to argue against is a condition no different than the effect of a real change. Which btw means bias is irrelevant, even if you can prove it exists in my case. Which you can't.

Quote:
OTOH it is just as extreme to believe that one is utterly immune to bias effects when they are so extremely integrated into our evaluation processes.

Bias can indeed affect listeners, and so can other factors, btw. What you fail to realize is, those who are skilled at what they do*, whether it comes from extensive experience listening in research or review, can overcome bias effects quite easily and quite regularly. (Actually, I don't really know this, I just assume it is so. Because I don't want to be arrogant and say I'm the only one who can avoid bias effects. I am projecting what is true for me. I once read a comment by KBK, who appears to know exactly what I'm talking about, from his research. So based on that, I believe it may be true for others, if not a lot of others. I should also be precise and say I can only speak on what I have experience with, and not what I don't. For all I know, it may not be as easy for me to identify things I am less familiar with, and in possibility, that could help lead to the introduction of bias).

That plus the fact that I have no need to convince myself of what I am already convinced of. Much of audio research, if I can even safely call it that, is about moving sideways, not forward. So for me, this bias you speak of is of no consequence. Zero. For you, that's not likely to be the case, I understand. Perfectly ok. You should then take steps to avoid being biased, if that's an important issue for you. But talk about bias as it relates to YOU, not others. Your theory doesn't fit everyone you might think to target with it. Yes (sigh....), "even you're going to tell me it's a *proven fact* that bias affects humans, and that I am human". It's also a proven fact that humans get genital warts. Not everyone has genital warts.

Quote:

Quote:
Those still stuck in a box and who choose to remain there, because it's warmer and safer for them. Those who just peer out of their box and call everything they don't understand "magic", and prefer to avoid what is outside of their comfort zone; if not regard it with disdainful skepticism.

I would be quite happy to believe I am immuned to bias effects. Knowing that everything I percieve is filtered through my biases, some unknown, does not give me a feeling of warmth and saftey. It is actually hard to accept and quite counter intuitive. But I have read enough about it that I just can't deny it. If I had a choice I'd chose to be immuned to bias effects.

By "warmth and safety", I wasn't talking about bias effects. I was talking about those who limit themselves by going no further than the place their ideology has brought them to. In my usual research into improving my sound, I don't even come close to thinking about "bias effects". This is just some nonsense to argue on audio forums, because controversy sells. So it neither makes me happy, or sad, or anything, really. It has about as much use to me as a rubber fork. The fact that my research and understanding of audio has progressed quite satisfactorily despite absolutely zero consideration given to this great concern of yours, is a remarkable feat in itself, don't you think?

Quote:
But you *can* also over detect. That is human nature.

True, I *can* "over detect". I can "under detect". I can "partially detect". I can "detect nothing". I can "dream I'm detecting", I can "wish I'm detecting". I can alternately under detect and over detect, at 15 second intervals. I'm not doing any of those things. Sorry, if that doesn't fit in with -your- biases about human nature. It's also human nature to over analyze things and It's also human nature to be dead wrong in doing so, you know. It's human nature to apply what you may have learned and think is true, without even knowing whether it is appropriate or not, in order to feel you have some control over things, and can make sense of the world. Human nature covers such wide territory, doesn't it?

Quote:

True, I *can* "over detect". I can "under detect". I can "partially detect". I can "detect nothing". I can "dream I'm detecting", I can "wish I'm detecting". I can alternately under detect and over detect, at 15 second intervals.

The fact is Frog, unless appropriate experimental controls are in place, neither you nor I have any control over this at all.

Quote:

I'm not doing any of those things.

Oh so Mr. Frog, you want us to believe that you are superhuman?

Or should I say superfrogian? ;-)

Quote:

Sorry, if that doesn't fit in with -your- biases about human nature.

Biases? Frog, you are obviously highly biased towards yourself. You are sitting here telling us that you are superfrogian, somehow much much better than the average frog.

Why are you so much better than all the other little green frogs?

Quote:

It's also human nature to over analyze things

It's also frog nature to try to conceal your faults.

Quote:

and It's also human nature to be dead wrong in doing so,

It's also frog nature to be very optimistic about one's capabilities, especially where there are no checks and balances.

Frog, did you know that even at the age of 62 I can run a 3 minute mile? Just don't ever put a stop watch on me! ;-)

Quote:

you know. It's human nature to apply what you may have learned and think is true, without even knowing whether it is appropriate or not, in order to feel you have some control over things, and can make sense of the world.

You mean frog, the way that you claim that you are perfect, and neither over-detect or under-detect?

Quote:

Human nature covers such wide territory, doesn't it?

Long story short, you want us to believe that unlike all the other little green froggies, you're perfect!

Pardon us frog, if we think you're just croaking in the night...

Quote:

Quote:
Wow, a "Sensitive child" story on the Stereophile forum.Actually Frog, very many people would have a good understanding of what you are trying communcate in your post. Many of them would have studied personality disorders. Frog, you're almost completely and totally self-absorbed, and the focus of your self-absorbtion appears to be your listening room and your stereo. If you were any more self-absorbed, you might be autistic. Maybe you are. Have you ever received therapy for Autism or ASD? If not, you might want to pursue it. Thanks Frog for sharing! This makes many of your posts here far easier to relate to.

Oh, shut up, Kruger.

That would be a score!

Quote:

The adults are trying to have a conversation,

So frog, is telling you to "shut up" how the adults treat you?

Quote:

so don't pollute this thread as well with your unprovoked infantile character attacks.

Are you delusional or what, frog? You are now claiming that you have *never* done anything to provoke me?

LOL!

Fact is frog that you do nothing but provoke. There's not a straight answer in any of your posts, Just more bragging and more insults.

I get it, frog. You are so self-unaware that you can't see your own bad behavior.

Scott, it would apppear your reason for existence on these forums is to argue both sides are wrong and uninformed. If, in your opinion, both sides are wrong, shouldn't you be offering a third way that would move audio forward? Without a resolution to what you perceive as problems with both sides, you are looking more and more like a forum skipping troll in your own right looking to play word games rather than move the discussion forward.

What's your solution, Scott? Where is the middle ground?

IMO, having seen the nature of both sides, I would have to conclude bias is a relatively small bore weapon to carry into this battle. We have seen the objectivists claim they are immune to bias and can easily work their way around any such entrapments by sheer force of willpower and decades of "professional" experience. They are, according to their own words, capable of overcoming any desire to improve their systems by the very act of never hearing any change they cannot rationalize away through their own self-described "science" - which usually would mean the change itself is defective and their systems, as is, still measure as perfect.

As Buddha has pointed out in numerous threads it is possible for at least a few of the objectivists who inhabit this forum to do the exact opposite of everything they preach. They prevail simply by knowing what can and cannot happen in advance of ever trying anything.

Would you not, therefore, be required to grant the same immunity to both sides when it comes to bias and its effects on listening?

By saying humans can "over detect" you seem to still be arguing nothing can occur if you do not approve of its occurence. What would we be "over detecting"? That something has made a larger alteration than could be possible? By whose standards? Are you accusing the subjectivists of being so dimwitted they cannot distinguish what actually occurs from what they immediately wish to have? That gives the short end of the stick to one side and allows the other to run with their claims of placebo, does it not? How then do you argue against both sides without your own bias being a factor? You say you've done "tons of research" but that research would appear to have been clouded by your own biases. And that bias would seem to be that everyone should share your own predilection.

arnie, watching you flail about is a testament to a lifetime of poor choices made by a professional troll.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Not after hundreds of times, not resulting in a predictable sound, and not when it's been possible for me at times to have someone else confirm what I observed.

I don't see how any of those factors preclude bias effects as a possible cause.

That's because you don't do this kind of research. You only know what your theories tell you to believe. So I wouldn't even begin to expect you to. Bias does not create thousands of different sound characteristics, all of which can be reliably repeated. Never mind having the wherewithal to create that kind of a massively complex delusion, no one could hope to remember all that. "Bias" isn't anything you say it is, you know. What you are trying to argue against is a condition no different than the effect of a real change. Which btw means bias is irrelevant, even if you can prove it exists in my case. Which you can't.

Quote:
OTOH it is just as extreme to believe that one is utterly immune to bias effects when they are so extremely integrated into our evaluation processes.

Bias can indeed affect listeners, and so can other factors, btw. What you fail to realize is, those who are skilled at what they do*, whether it comes from extensive experience listening in research or review, can overcome bias effects quite easily and quite regularly. (Actually, I don't really know this, I just assume it is so. Because I don't want to be arrogant and say I'm the only one who can avoid bias effects. I am projecting what is true for me. I once read a comment by KBK, who appears to know exactly what I'm talking about, from his research. So based on that, I believe it may be true for others, if not a lot of others. I should also be precise and say I can only speak on what I have experience with, and not what I don't. For all I know, it may not be as easy for me to identify things I am less familiar with, and in possibility, that could help lead to the introduction of bias).

That plus the fact that I have no need to convince myself of what I am already convinced of. Much of audio research, if I can even safely call it that, is about moving sideways, not forward. So for me, this bias you speak of is of no consequence. Zero. For you, that's not likely to be the case, I understand. Perfectly ok. You should then take steps to avoid being biased, if that's an important issue for you. But talk about bias as it relates to YOU, not others. Your theory doesn't fit everyone you might think to target with it. Yes (sigh....), "even you're going to tell me it's a *proven fact* that bias affects humans, and that I am human". It's also a proven fact that humans get genital warts. Not everyone has genital warts.

Quote:

Quote:
Those still stuck in a box and who choose to remain there, because it's warmer and safer for them. Those who just peer out of their box and call everything they don't understand "magic", and prefer to avoid what is outside of their comfort zone; if not regard it with disdainful skepticism.

I would be quite happy to believe I am immuned to bias effects. Knowing that everything I percieve is filtered through my biases, some unknown, does not give me a feeling of warmth and saftey. It is actually hard to accept and quite counter intuitive. But I have read enough about it that I just can't deny it. If I had a choice I'd chose to be immuned to bias effects.

By "warmth and safety", I wasn't talking about bias effects. I was talking about those who limit themselves by going no further than the place their ideology has brought them to. In my usual research into improving my sound, I don't even come close to thinking about "bias effects". This is just some nonsense to argue on audio forums, because controversy sells. So it neither makes me happy, or sad, or anything, really. It has about as much use to me as a rubber fork. The fact that my research and understanding of audio has progressed quite satisfactorily despite absolutely zero consideration given to this great concern of yours, is a remarkable feat in itself, don't you think?

Quote:
But you *can* also over detect. That is human nature.

True, I *can* "over detect". I can "under detect". I can "partially detect". I can "detect nothing". I can "dream I'm detecting", I can "wish I'm detecting". I can alternately under detect and over detect, at 15 second intervals. I'm not doing any of those things. Sorry, if that doesn't fit in with -your- biases about human nature. It's also human nature to over analyze things and It's also human nature to be dead wrong in doing so, you know. It's human nature to apply what you may have learned and think is true, without even knowing whether it is appropriate or not, in order to feel you have some control over things, and can make sense of the world. Human nature covers such wide territory, doesn't it?

Sorry to be so critical but that is pure argument from authority and a claim that simply runs contrary to a great deal of real scientific research on the human condition. I find your position to be as extreme as those of the hard core irrational objectivists. That is just my opinion about your position and your argument for that position. I'm not trying to make it a personal attack.

Quote:

What's your solution, Scott? Where is the middle ground?

Good question, but probably the wrong person to ask because Scott is nowhere near the middle ground.

Quote:

IMO, having seen the nature of both sides, I would have to conclude bias is a relatively small bore weapon to carry into this battle.

??????????

Quote:

We have seen the objectivists claim they are immune to bias and can easily work their way around any such entrapments by sheer force of willpower and decades of "professional" experience.

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Quote:

They are, according to their own words, capable of overcoming any desire to improve their systems by the very act of never hearing any change they cannot rationalize away through their own self-described "science" - which usually would mean the change itself is defective and their systems, as is, still measure as perfect.

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Quote:

As Buddha has pointed out in numerous threads it is possible for at least a few of the objectivists who inhabit this forum to do the exact opposite of everything they preach.

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Quote:

They prevail simply by knowing what can and cannot happen in advance of ever trying anything.

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Quote:

ould you not, therefore, be required to grant the same immunity to both sides when it comes to bias and its effects on listening?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Quote:

By saying humans can "over detect" you seem to still be arguing nothing can occur if you do not approve of its occurence. What would we be "over detecting"? That something has made a larger alteration than could be possible? By whose standards? Are you accusing the subjectivists of being so dimwitted they cannot distinguish what actually occurs from what they immediately wish to have? That gives the short end of the stick to one side and allows the other to run with their claims of placebo, does it not? How then do you argue against both sides without your own bias being a factor? You say you've done "tons of research" but that research would appear to have been clouded by your own biases. And that bias would seem to be that everyone should share your own predilection.

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

What was the question?

If you wish to label my response as "arguing from authority", then I will cite yours as "arguing from ignorance". That's a logical fallacy as well, so we both score a point on that. LIke I said, there's great deal of scientific literature on genital warts too, because humans are susceptible to that. Not everyone has genital warts. (That's 2 points to 1 now, if you're keeping score). Try to understand Scott that there is a HUGE GAP between theories you read, that have convinced you of one thing, and what actually occurs in the real world and is observed by real people doing real research.

Your extensive "research" on audio that Jan alluded to, seems to be limited to reading about very generalized theories on the science of sound that are popular with all the internet's audio skeptics. And not actual tangible audio research that explores how sound and perception of sound can be affected. Which is nevertheless what you are arguing you are an authority on, by telling me you know better than I do what is occuring in my own research. It's kind of like someone who's only ever played Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" game arguing with an F1 jet pilot about what occurs at 40,000 feet. In irony of this, is the fact that I do far more real research into how listening is affected by quote "human bias", simply by doing frequent listening tests, than someone who's primary understanding of this is from thumbing through old copies of Sound and Vision. Most audio skeptics I find talk about listening tests far more than they actually do any (blind or sighted).

Furthermore, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with me. That I should apply for a research grant and get 1,000 subjects involved in a major DBT for each and every one of the thousands of listening tests I have done or may do, to ensure I am not being influenced by the hypotheses you read on bias at the library the other day, which convinces you that I might not be getting anywhere in my observations? Wouldn't I know better than you whether I am advancing in my research, or is that going to get me another charge of "argument from authority"? I don't think you even know yourself, what it is that you're trying to say. It appears that you're just trying to win an argument. One completely abstract from reality. Not understand what may or may not be true in audio, and specifically in what we were talking about.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the goal of all other audio skeptics I've debated with. Progress in audio never even enters into it. Please understand I'm not trying to convince you of any beliefs you don't wish to be convinced of. Whatever steps you think will help you progress in your audio research, you should feel free to take them. And if it takes you 70 years to make any visible progress whatsoever, don't worry about that. What matters is that you have some confidence in what you think you are hearing. Me, I don't lack confidence in my listening evaluations, I'm already more than confident enough in what I hear. So I will use my own methods to guide my own research into understanding how to improve my sound. Which have worked for me very well all these years, thank you very much.

Kruegeroid n5411-X03 emitted:

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

You're joking, right? Can you document these claims?

Don't worry folks. I've seen this happen before. Every once in a while, a new trainee gets on the shift to program the Kruegeroid, doesn't clean the contacts properly, and the Kreuger-bot gets a glitch in its thinkspeak module. Giving it a swift kick in the behind usually gets things working again. Who would like to volunteer?....

... Okay, I can see this is not going to be simple. Way too many have responded to the request, and the people in the front are getting crushed. If some of you would please ease back a little, we'll get a system in here to take numbers, so everyone can get a chance....

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, shut up, Kruger.

That would be a score!

What's this? You think you score a point every time someone tells you to shut up? If that's true, you must have like a bazillion points by now, from what I've seen. So what are you going to do with all these points, Krooger? Is there like a troll's catalogue where you can cash in your points at the end of your illustrious career of making a complete ass of yourself on all the audio forums? Hoping to finally replace your old, worn ball gag or something?

Quote:
Frog, did you know that even at the age of 62 I can run a 3 minute mile?

Yeah, right. I think you "forgot" to say that this only occurred after getting a visit at your home from someone on the internet that you abused from behind your PC. I'll bet anything that one of these days, one of these guys you've made provocations upon is going to catch up with you, and land one on you that's going to make you forget who you are, where you came from, and what you're doing in the middle of a cow patch in your skivvies. Pow, right in the kisser!

Quote:
Scott, it would apppear your reason for existence on these forums is to argue both sides are wrong and uninformed.

"reason for exiatance?" I'm just here to discuss audio.

Quote:
If, in your opinion, both sides are wrong, shouldn't you be offering a third way that would move audio forward?

A fair question. I think we can go somewhere from this. It all starts and ends with this simple principle. Learn all you can BUT keep your eye on the ball. For me "the ball" is better sound as I percieve it. We can go from there and ask really good questions about bias effects and how it relates to this goal. The answers IMO are quite interesting and quite ironic when it comes to the objectivists who try to use bias effects as a weapon in this bitter rivalry.

Quote:
Without a resolution to what you perceive as problems with both sides, you are looking more and more like a forum skipping troll in your own right looking to play word games rather than move the discussion forward.

I am not worried about such appearnaces. I'm interested in discussing audio, honestly and critcally. I'm not interested in being politically correct. Or scoring points with any particular club.

Quote:
What's your solution, Scott? Where is the middle ground?

My solution? 1. Keep your eye on the ball. 2. Accept my nature as a human being 3. Keep my eye on the ball.4. Move beyond the "great debate" and shed the baggage that comes with it and try to learn as much from each experience and each individual I interact with. 5. keep my eye on the ball. I know my answer is a bit vague and if you wish I'd be happy to go into more detail. You might be surprised by what logically follows when one accepts the reality of bias effects and keeps their eye on the ball if "the ball" is the persuit of better percieved sound.

Quote:
IMO, having seen the nature of both sides, I would have to conclude bias is a relatively small bore weapon to carry into this battle.

IMO once you go into battle you have already made the first misstep.

Quote:
We have seen the objectivists claim they are immune to bias and can easily work their way around any such entrapments by sheer force of willpower and decades of "professional" experience. They are, according to their own words, capable of overcoming any desire to improve their systems by the very act of never hearing any change they cannot rationalize away through their own self-described "science" - which usually would mean the change itself is defective and their systems, as is, still measure as perfect.

That sounds like hypocricy does it not? Who cares what such people think or say? call them on the actual B.S. and all they will have is ad hominem.

Quote:
As Buddha has pointed out in numerous threads it is possible for at least a few of the objectivists who inhabit this forum to do the exact opposite of everything they preach. They prevail simply by knowing what can and cannot happen in advance of ever trying anything.

Extremists prevail if we lower oursleves to their level by being as extreme and as vile.

Quote:
Would you not, therefore, be required to grant the same immunity to both sides when it comes to bias and its effects on listening?

Based on what I have learned from reading up on psychoacoustics and some very specific studies on sound perception and bias effects I have concluded that bias effects are in integrated part of our process of making aesthetic evaluations. So immunity is not mine to grant. Not to either side. I suppose I appear to be calling both sides wrong because I accpet the fact that bias effects will not go away, either by will power and experience or by a battery of DBTs. There in lies a great irony.

Quote:
By saying humans can "over detect" you seem to still be arguing nothing can occur if you do not approve of its occurence.

Be careful. Try not to take "can" and turn it into "always will."

Quote:
What would we be "over detecting"?

Whatever we detected that was not there. I am afriad your broad question can only be answered with a broad and obvious answer. But I would like to offer the opinion that over detection in audio as in evolution is largely harmless. This is not a trivial point.

Quote:
That something has made a larger alteration than could be possible? By whose standards?

How do you know what is and is not possible?

Quote:
Are you accusing the subjectivists of being so dimwitted they cannot distinguish what actually occurs from what they immediately wish to have?

No. in effect you are. I see nothing dimwitted about humans being affected by biases or over detecting. The problem is that it is also counter-intuitive. So it does not make one dimwitted if one has more confidence in their own objectivity about their personal perceptions than is actually warrented.

Quote:
That gives the short end of the stick to one side and allows the other to run with their claims of placebo, does it not?

Have you seen me letting the objectivists run with their claims of placebo? Acknowledging the possibility of bias effects is a far cry from screaming bias effects every time one doesn't like the reported perceptions of another person.

Quote:
How then do you argue against both sides without your own bias being a factor?

I don't. my biases are in play to. All I can do is try to be humbled by that reality.

Quote:
You say you've done "tons of research" but that research would appear to have been clouded by your own biases.

To a degree sure. but that is quite different. Bias does cloud one's "reason" as well but that is a different mechanism altogether than that of bias effects on the evaluation of perception.

Quote:
And that bias would seem to be that everyone should share your own predilection.

Quite the opposite. I don't question peoples' perceptions or criticize them for being different from my own. I keep my eye on "the ball." We each have our own goals, aesthetic values and perceptions. "The great debate" would not exist if everyone accepted that at face value. But it is not enough for one to be right, others have to agree or be wrong and be stupid for being wrong. IOW it is an ego based fight.

Quote:
If you wish to label my response as "arguing from authority", then I will cite yours as "arguing from ignorance".

But this is just another argument from authority. make no mistake about it, I am ignorant of many things. such is being human. But if you wish to make this argument from something more than just an argument of authority you need to cite that which i am ignorant of and how it logically follows that that ignorance leads to eroneous conclusions.

Quote:
Try to understand Scott that there is a HUGE GAP between theories you read, that have convinced you of one thing, and what actually occurs in the real world and is observed by real people doing real research.

could you be specific here? what theories are you specifically talking about and what actual research are you talking about?

Quote:
Your extensive "research" on audio that Jan alluded to, seems to be limited to reading about very generalized theories on the science of sound that are popular with all the internet's audio skeptics.

1. Lets not confuse research one does when reading up on a subject to research one does when going into the lab or field to do scientific research. 2. the research (scientific in the lab type) I have read about is not all genrealized at all but very specific and often very on topic. It is the amalgemation of that information that IMO leads to a very reasonable generalization about how our aesthetic evaluations of our percpetions are affected by biases.

Quote:
And not actual tangible audio research that explores how sound and perception of sound can be affected.

No, the studies I read were quite in the catagory of tangeble research on sound perception.

Quote:
Which is nevertheless what you are arguing you are an authority on, by telling me you know better than I do what is occuring in my own research.

Whoa. where have I said I am an authority?

Quote:
It's kind of like someone who's only ever played Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" game arguing with an F1 jet pilot about what occurs at 40,000 feet.

Please explain that logic? It seems you are not acknowledging the reality that I have been an audiophile for just about 25 years. It seems you are suggesting I have no experience with high end audio.

Quote:
In irony of this, is the fact that I do far more real research into how listening is affected by quote "human bias", simply by doing frequent listening tests, than someone who's primary understanding of this is from thumbing through old copies of Sound and Vision. Most audio skeptics I find talk about listening tests far more than they actually do any (blind or sighted).

This is just another argument from authority.

Quote:
Furthermore, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make with me. That I should apply for a research grant and get 1,000 subjects involved in a major DBT for each and every one of the thousands of listening tests I have done or may do, to ensure I am not being influenced by the hypotheses you read on bias at the library the other day, which convinces you that I might not be getting anywhere in my observations?

If that is what you are getting from my posts clearly I am not communicating well with you. I will try to do better in expressing my views.

Quote:
Wouldn't I know better than you whether I am advancing in my research, or is that going to get me another charge of "argument from authority"?

That is an unfair question given I know very little about your research and have expressed no specific opinions about it. OTOH are you against peer review based on the idea that the researcher simply has more intimate knowledge of the research presented to a review board? I mean if we are talking about *that* kind of research.

Quote:
I don't think you even know yourself, what it is that you're trying to say. [list]

No. I know what I am trying to say. I don't know I am saying it well enough.

Quote:
It appears that you're just trying to win an argument. One completely abstract from reality.

That may be how it appears to you. It certainly is not my intent.

Quote:
Not understand what may or may not be true in audio, and specifically in what we were talking about.

I think a lot of these comments lack context and thereby lack any meaning.

Quote:
Unfortunately, that seems to be the goal of all other audio skeptics I've debated with. Progress in audio never even enters into it. Please understand I'm not trying to convince you of any beliefs you don't wish to be convinced of. Whatever steps you think will help you progress in your audio research, you should feel free to take them. And if it takes you 70 years to make any visible progress whatsoever, don't worry about that. What matters is that you have some confidence in what you think you are hearing.

How on earth does that matter? This may be where we simply disagree in a basic belief. For me it's the perceptions that matter. Not my confidence in my belief about their underlying mechanisms.

Quote:
Me, I don't lack confidence in my listening evaluations, I'm already more than confident enough in what I hear. So I will use my own methods to guide my own research into understanding how to improve my sound. Which have worked for me very well all these years, thank you very much.

I have no problem with you doing things the way you wish to do them. I really don't. I feel you are still in fight mode here. If you look at my posts from the perspective of a warrior in the "great debate" you will probably find my opinions antagonistic regardless of which side you are on. I'm not taking sides in that debate. I am neither Hatfield nor McCoy. hell I've been both. I do actually know a little bit about both sides.

Quote:

There is NO "utter lack of blind trials" !! There have been Blind Trials on 'treating' batteries - some 24 years ago - they were just not published !!!!
When they took place, I did not know that, 24 years later, I would need proof of those trials or I would have asked for copies of those trials way back then !!

Over 75 % of the people taking part in those Blind Trials registered an improvement in the sound - describing it as 'clearer', 'clearer', 'more natural', 'a lot better', 'clearer'.

Regards,
May Belt.

Batteries for what?

I should have known I would get a line by line rebuttal.

Scott, I have to agree with Frog on this one, I still do not understand what point you are trying to make here.

Quote:
I'm just here to discuss audio.

When are you going to begin discussing audio? Maybe I missed it because all I've seen you do is insist the subjectivists are subject to bias and the objectivists are not backed up by science. You travelled all this way to say that?!

Quote:
IMO once you go into battle you have already made the first misstep.

Right, and insisting everyone is wrong is not going into battle. It certainly is not discussing audio.

No, no, it's not, Scott, so don't argue with this one!

And, Scott, I was not the one who declared there were "sides" and "opponents" in this whole affair. And I did not name it the "great debate". It looks to me like you've done this before and on other forums. You and arnie are ol'chums, eh?

So, please, keep your platitudes in storage until they really matter.

Quote:

My solution? 1. Keep your eye on the ball. 2. Accept my nature as a human being 3. Keep my eye on the ball.4. Move beyond the "great debate" and shed the baggage that comes with it and try to learn as much from each experience and each individual I interact with. 5. keep my eye on the ball. I know my answer is a bit vague and if you wish I'd be happy to go into more detail. You might be surprised by what logically follows when one accepts the reality of bias effects and keeps their eye on the ball if "the ball" is the persuit of better percieved sound.

Why would anyone be surprised? That is what we are after as audiophiles - "better" sound and a higher degree of connection with the music (one not necessarily being the equivalent of the other). The "ball", as you call it, is not difficult to spot or to keep your eye on in that case as long as you are competely aware of what the ball looks and sounds like to you. Note, your ball and my ball and Frog's ball might not at all be the same ball.

If you were not interested in the "great debate", as you call it, and were not affected by its baggage, you wouldn't be on this thread or any of the others you've engaged. To suggest others here cannot rise above "bias effects" is a litttle too self-serving and gratuitous for me, Scott. That would appear to be your entire argument, that we are all listening with bias while you have embraced your biases and after that, you have nothing to say.

So what else do you have to say? Do some audio discussing.

MJF: If you wish to label my response as "arguing from authority", then I will cite yours as "arguing from ignorance".
But this is just another argument from authority.

And this is just another argument from ignorance. Should we call it a draw, then?

But if you wish to make this argument from something more than just an argument of authority you need to cite that which i am ignorant of and how it logically follows that that ignorance leads to eroneous conclusions.

I did cite what you were ignorant of. In quite some detail.

MJF: Try to understand Scott that there is a HUGE GAP between theories you read, that have convinced you of one thing, and what actually occurs in the real world and is observed by real people doing real research.
could you be specific here? what theories are you specifically talking about and what actual research are you talking about?

Your theories. My research.

Lets not confuse research one does when reading up on a subject to research one does when going into the lab or field to do scientific research.

I thought that was the point -I- was making?

the research (scientific in the lab type) I have read about is not all genrealized at all but very specific and often very on topic.

Great. Then it can't be applied to the "research" I do. I was already making that point as well.

It is the amalgemation of that information that IMO leads to a very reasonable generalization about how our aesthetic evaluations of our percpetions are affected by biases.

Just because you add "reasonable" to a generalization, doesn't make it any less sillier, or more accurate. Or not a generalization, which is what I've been saying. I see you doing just what other "pro audio skeptics" on the net often do: misinterpret science to reflect your beliefs. "Our perceptions are affected by biases", is a misapplied blanket statement. You can only state that they can be. Not that they are. You say I'm arguing from authority, where it appears you are "arguing from God". Claiming you know things you can not possibly know.

MJF: And not actual tangible audio research that explores how sound and perception of sound can be affected.
No, the studies I read were quite in the catagory of tangeble research on sound perception.

Really? Then explain to me: what exactly did they have to say about "bias" creating thousands of different sonic signatures, each with its own unique imprint of characteristics, and the ability of every human listener to recreate that, knowing exactly which signature fits which device? Even if they may no longer be aware of which device they are listening to? And then, how about the ability to recreate the specific signature, by the specific device tested, as originally heard, while keeping track of the thousands of specific characteristics from others they may have tested?

I didn't think so. The problem with people reading these studies that have so influenced their thinking on audio is not realizing they may only be meant (and of use) as a guide, and mistaking them for a bible.

Which is nevertheless what you are arguing you are an authority on, by telling me you know better than I do what is occuring in my own research.

Whoa. where have I said I am an authority?

I answered that in what you have quoted.

It's kind of like someone who's only ever played Microsoft's "Flight Simulator" game arguing with an F1 jet pilot about what occurs at 40,000 feet.

Please explain that logic? It seems you are not acknowledging the reality that I have been an audiophile for just about 25 years. It seems you are suggesting I have no experience with high end audio.

Simple. I am suggesting you are speaking as an expert on a subject (audio research) you have absolutely zero, or little experience with. That you are speaking on abstract theories, with apparently little or no point, that have no bearing or value on concrete research. That you have been avoiding discussing the specifics of day to day research when I mention it to you, tells me that you have no knowledge of that, and this is all just an academic excercise for you. Which is fine, as it is for just about every audio skeptic I've ever seen. But you should not confuse these academic exercises on the internet as having any value or relevance to real research. They only have relevance to "conceptual research", because they are only "conceptual" in nature. These academic arguments have no meaning to my experiments, and never will. Note that being an "audiophile" does not denote doing research in audio. Most audiophiles are not what I call "active audiophiles". (Arguing on audio forums about audio is not what I call "active" either. Neither is just buying audio components you've read on review).

Wouldn't I know better than you whether I am advancing in my research, or is that going to get me another charge of "argument from authority"?

That is an unfair question given I know very little about your research and have expressed no specific opinions about it. OTOH are you against peer review based on the idea that the researcher simply has more intimate knowledge of the research presented to a review board? I mean if we are talking about *that* kind of research.

It doesn't matter whether you know about my research or not. I don't know why you think it should. It's a given that you don't know more about it than I do. What I'm talking about would be classified here under the umbrella of "tweaks". I think you're talking about scientific research. For I don't know too many devices used as audio tweaks that are submitted for "peer reviewed study". Nor do I know too many audio researchers who are members of the scientific community, and even in a position (financial or otherwise), to make submissions of devices for peer review. Let alone actually getting accepted for such. Given my experiments are not at all for commercial purposes, talking about submitting anything from them for "peer review" makes the idea even more ridiculous.

Skeptics who I see make these same arguments all the time always seem to think that submitting a product for peer reivew or even being in a postion to do so is just ridiculously easy. Like walking into Kinko's to order photocopies. And doesn't have any kind of cost associated with it, other than maybe that of one's "reputation". If only the real world were like that. (sigh). Anyway, I went into more great detail in an earlier message, about why I am not hopeful about so-called "peer reviews", because in subjective audio testing, there is a certain expertise involved. Which means those doing the reviewing may not be your peers. After hundreds of trials, I'm pretty familiar with what these things do (how to recognize what they are doing). To expect "scientists", or anyone, to gain this expertise instantly is unrealistic, in my experience. Speaking for myself, I just wouldn't want months of my research to be judged on that basis.

Unfortunately, that seems to be the goal of all other audio skeptics I've debated with. Progress in audio never even enters into it. Please understand I'm not trying to convince you of any beliefs you don't wish to be convinced of. Whatever steps you think will help you progress in your audio research, you should feel free to take them. And if it takes you 70 years to make any visible progress whatsoever, don't worry about that. What matters is that you have some confidence in what you think you are hearing.

How on earth does that matter? This may be where we simply disagree in a basic belief. For me it's the perceptions that matter. Not my confidence in my belief about their underlying mechanisms.

Yes, I agree. It's the perceptions that matter. it is MY perception that I am hearing what I know I'm hearing; and that's based on a number of different types of feedback. And I was referring to one's confidence in what they're hearing, nothing to do with the underlying mechanisms of what they're hearing. It appears that if one isn't sure of what they're hearing, then they may feel they should jump through hoops to be sure of what they're hearing, when trying to research sound or improve their sound. Even if I believed that had any merit, I can not afford to do that. I am only human, after all.

I have no problem with you doing things the way you wish to do them. I really don't. I feel you are still in fight mode here. If you look at my posts from the perspective of a warrior in the "great debate" you will probably find my opinions antagonistic regardless of which side you are on.

Well so far, I don't actually see any difference between your opinions and that of any other "objectivist warrior" I've known. Especially since it looks a lot to me like you're "screaming bias effects when one doesn't like the reported perceptions of another". Except that unlike the agenda-driven warriors, you're more honest and consistent in your beliefs, and you attempt to be fair in presenting them. Which is more than I can say for any of the Hydrogen Audio dolts that also joined us recently, and will never get anywhere with anyone, lurker or participant. Don't take it personally, but I find any opinions "antagonistic", when someone is essentially telling me they are more of an expert on my experiences, what I'm hearing or what I'm doing, than I am, because they read something somewhere about "human biases". And then they carefully present me with their interpretation of what they read, like is if the concept of bias and placebo had never been considered before by anyone who doesn't make an obsession of it. What if I told you there is no way to guarantee complete freedom from bias ? Not much to discuss thereafter, is there? I can not stress enough how important it is to understand whether whatever studies you are following really apply to whatever situation you are critically evaluating from a theoretical standpoint. When it comes to evaluating high resolution audio, they often don't.

I'm not taking sides in that debate. I am neither Hatfield nor McCoy.

Whatever kin you belong to son, you'd better mosey back to your side of the pasture. 'Cos I sure plumb don't like the way you been eye'in ma daughter. (insert shotgun smiley here)

hell I've been both. I do actually know a little bit about both sides.

So have I been both. So do I actually know a lot about both sides.

Quote:
If proof was required BEFORE Joseph Lister could introduce his carbolic spray and his concept of "germs in the air" to the medical profession, then nothing would have happened 100 years ago. Even though Joseph Lister did not sell his numerous attempts at antiseptic gauzes, if proof was required before he could introduce them to the medical profession, then no progress would have been made !! Surely what one does is to introduce whatever it is one has discovered and let others try it for themselves ?

If (say) someone who suffers from Tinnitus says that their problem has been eased by doing yoga, do they wait for proof or do they describe what they have found (and which works for them) or do they keep silent ?

As I say, it is a grey area. Does one share knowledge and experiences without PROOF or does one keep silent ?

1) Lister

Quote:
Martin's results merely echoed what Peter and I had discovered in the early 1980s when designing and manufacturing our actively driven low mass diaphragm orthodynamic speaker system and which I have described much more fully in my various talks. And, obviously, from KBK's description and Michigan J Frog's description, others too have discovered similar things.

Although unaware of Martin Collom's (or anyone's!) research on electronic PCB-mounted components, I discovered once tweaking an integrated amp, that I could totally transform the sound of it by simply manipulating the position of these components, every possible way. This turned out to be a good and a bad thing. Armed with nothing but a knitting needle, trained ears and a remarkable amount of patience, I could change and actually improve all kinds of aspects of the sound (but just as easily degrade it). I guess I'm just a "seriously disturbed individual" for even thinking of doing this in the first place.

Speaking of Peter, my experiences relevant to this argument is that fact that I discovered the "odd-even rule" independently of Peter, while experimenting in the "Beltian domain". I could not help but realize that every second application of a particular thing I was experimenting with resulted in a "correct" sound, while every other one resulted in a sort of incoherent sound, somewhat comparable to the in-pase / out-of-phase nature of polarity effects. Really threw off my attempts to judge my progress, and meant I had to keep track of every application I made. I didn't know why it was happening, until I later read something in the discussion group about this rule, which Peter had long since been aware of. But even after realizing I didn't just discover the phenomenon, since then, I observed that it has been happening in a lot more areas than I have ever read about (although I am hesitant to say "that anyone is aware of", because I was wrong about that the first time!). I still don't fully understand how this mechanism works, as I haven't really focused on studying it, independently of the applications. But I am pretty sure it's definitely one of those "cloudy areas" that we find when experimenting with audio sound!

I don't mind cloudy areas, though. Cloudy areas to me, mean room for progress and learning.

I'm not going to go over this point by point. To much to correct to many complete disconnects to try to fix. I will address a few points though.

Quote:
Well so far, I don't actually see any difference between your opinions and that of any other "objectivist warrior" I've known. Especially since it looks a lot to me like you're "screaming bias effects when one doesn't like the reported perceptions of another".

I suspect this is the result of being so dug in that it eventually leads to a mind set of "if you are not with us you are against us." I challenge you to find one instance of me actually not liking the reported perceptions of another and then screaming bias effects. I OTOh can easily show you many posts in whcih I have condemned that very act.

Quote:
What if I told you there is no way to guarantee complete freedom from bias ? Not much to discuss thereafter, is there?

Actually there is a great deal to discuss *thereafter* but so long as you cling to the misinformed belief that you can will away your biases, so long as you can't get past your need for a belief in objective certitude of your perceptions we will never get to "thereafter"

Quote:

1) Lister

One of the best books, ever

Quote:

Say, hypothetically, that Robert used that particular disc to try the cryogenic freezing technique and described the improvement exactly as he described in his article:-
"The sonic picture became more vivid and immediate. The acoustic bass took on a more rounded character and it's musical contribution seemed enhanced. There was a greater degree of air and life around the instruments; they suddenly became more palpable."

Now, the cryogenic freezing technique cannot ADD information which is not already on the disc.

How do you know that?

Quote:
If the sound of the disc is improved after cryogenic freezing, then that technique must be reducing some sort of adverse effect which had been preventing all the musical information (already available on the disc) being resolved correctly.

That is an conclusion drawn on unsupported presumptions with zero evidence in support. How do you know the impression was not the result of added distortions?
I have no problem with Harley's impressions but when you start talking about cause and effect with so many variables....

Quote:
How would you propose to test Belt products in such a way? After 40 years, it would be a coup!

Are you suggesting that Belt products are not "testable?" I would very much disagree.

Right you are, they are readily testable - try floating a way to test and see how May receives the idea. Maybe we'll accomplish something!

Quote:
Your usual flopping around about how a previous theory was later proven positive is not proof of your own concept. I know I

"Not my job to prove aganist a claim. It's the claimaint's job."

That's quite amusing.

www.machinadynamica.com/machina68.htm

Quote:
"Not my job to prove aganist a claim. It's the claimaint's job."

You so funny.

Thanks for pointing out the typo, but what's there now is what I said.

But I wasn't pointing out the typo.

Quote:
Right you are, they are readily testable - try floating a way to test and see how May receives the idea. Maybe we'll accomplish something!

What does May have to do with it? Nobody needs her aproval.

Quote:
Not my job to prove aganist a claim.

It's the claimaint's job to provide affirmative 'proof.'

Actually it's the job of those who feel the need to have it done. What if I demanded such proof from you when it comes to your personal perceptions of your system's performance? what would you have for me?

Quote:
Demanding a negative proof, then claiming lack of negative proof as evidence in favor of something places the claim at the level of the Easter Bunny.

Yeah but I must have blinked. I didn't see that happen.

Quote:
At that level, claims become faith based, and you can do with them what you will - at a personal level.

No, the claims of perception are perceptually based. Just like any claim any objectivist may make about sound quality of speakers or recordings. Given the anecdotal nature of such claims and the myriad of variables, any specific assertions of underlying mechanisms tend to be as much based in prejudice as anything else.

Quote:
Then we get, "I KNOW electrical and acoustical theory, I've been doing this for thirty years. I am an authority on all other aspects of sound reproduction, and this goes beyond that."

I share your problem with that sort of thing and I took May to task on it. Twice now actually.

Quote:
So, Scott, I encourage you to think of ways that you would propose that May's claims be tested/verified. I'm all in favor!

Certainly you don't need me to come up with something that simple do you? Personally I'm just not interested in putting her claims to the test. If it matters to you then I suggest you do something about it.

Quote:
>>> "May's claims are cleverly made:

First, she claims a given ritual or object improves the sound in her room. (So far, so good!)

Then she extrapolates from there to the ritual or object improving her perception of sound to a level better than what others are hearing who are without the object or ritual." <<<

OK, Buddha. Let us see if we can establish some ground basics here from which to expand on.
1) Are you saying that cryogenically freezing a CD (let us stay on that one thing for the moment) is a "ritual" ?
2) Are you saying that applying a demagnetiser to an LP or a CD is a "ritual" ?
3) Are you saying that applying a particular colour to a CD is a "ritual" ?

You 'bandy' the word "ritual" about quite a bit, so I think we need to know what exactly you regard as a "ritual" and what not.

I don't regard those things as a "ritual", do you ?

Regards,
May Belt.

Audiophile rituals, yes.

A detailed method of procedure faithfully or regularly followed

Yes, many things we do are ritualistic.

And the ritual seems to definitely play a part in the subsequent sound for some.

Others do not require the ritual to have the same enjoyment of the experience.The tweaks may be a relaxation totem for some, or a cue for expectation for others, and that's great. All those things can enhance the sound for some.

Some need two beers to get with Coltrane, other get with him with water. Same event, just different rituals to make the experience what thre listener wanted.

I think we ritualize our hobby all the time, based on many factors. Mostly these act as keys/cues to remind us about our listening state and to try to use sense memory to find and compare what's currently taking place.

For others, the ritual and fetish objects may take away from the experience.

Still others can have the same enjoyment, talismans be damned!

Yup, I'm saying that people can have the same level of listening pleasure with or without certain tweaks. Some are susceptible, some are remedial, some are already fully actuated.

Takes all types, eh?

Bell curves and what not.

Nothing wrong with rituals...until the ritual saelsman arrives with his/her one size fits all BS.

For wine connoisseurs only:

Hottest Wine Bar in the World?

Imagine a wine bar with a list of wines by the glass like this:
Chateau Petrus 1982
La Tache 1990
Brunello di Montalcino, Biondi Santi, 1997
Batard Montrachet, Domaine Leflaive, 1995
Kosta Browne Pinot Noir Russian RiverValley 2004
Kistler Chardonnay, Dutton Ranch, 2005
Caymus Cabernet, Special Selection, 2002
Guigal Cote Rotie, La Landonne, 2003
Chateauneuf du Pape, Chateau de Beaucastel 1989
Grange Hermitage, 2002
Chateau Musar, 1999

Now imagine that the most expensive glass from the above is only $18.00. And we

Quote:
a lot of the time you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative - merely picking on particular phrases or sentences or even words does not advance things further forward. !!

Quote:
I'm just here to discuss audio.

Quote:
Scott, I have to agree with Frog on this one, I still do not understand what point you are trying to make here.

Quote:
... Right, and insisting everyone is wrong is not going into battle. It certainly is not discussing audio.

Quote:
So what else do you have to say? Do some audio discussing.

Quote:
For wine connoisseurs only:

Hottest Wine Bar in the World?

Imagine a wine bar with a list of wines by the glass like this:
Chateau Petrus 1982
La Tache 1990
Brunello di Montalcino, Biondi Santi, 1997
Batard Montrachet, Domaine Leflaive, 1995
Kosta Browne Pinot Noir Russian RiverValley 2004
Kistler Chardonnay, Dutton Ranch, 2005
Caymus Cabernet, Special Selection, 2002
Guigal Cote Rotie, La Landonne, 2003
Chateauneuf du Pape, Chateau de Beaucastel 1989
Grange Hermitage, 2002
Chateau Musar, 1999

Now imagine that the most expensive glass from the above is only $18.00. And we

Quote:
If I may be so bold, the stones ARE in the signal path. It's just an old wives tale that they aren't.

geoff,

I understand your view. I do not think your statement is 'bold'. It says how you look at things.

I was limiting the signal to what's in the equipment, unless you are referring to the stones are applied to the equipment and not just in the room. I've had others who applied various things to the equipment that's not directly in the electrical signal path, but has affected the sound that comes out (note that I didn't say it affected the electrical signal, although it may have).

Things in the room rarely affects the electrical signal unless it is close enough to, or contacts the equipment, or influencing the equipment through other contacts. One way is through structural or airborne vibrations.

Publishing your experiments in a hobby magazine would be interesting, like the former The Audio Amateur, now AudioXpress. We can learn a lot from each other there too.

"Things in the room rarely affects the electrical signal unless it is close enough to, or contacts the equipment, or influencing the equipment through other contacts. One way is through structural or airborne vibrations."

Bingo!

"Publishing your experiments in a hobby magazine would be interesting, like the former The Audio Amateur, now AudioXpress. We can learn a lot from each other there too."

I published the theory of operation of Brilliant Pebbles, Power to the Pebble , more than 5 years ago. I suspect you just never googled it.

Quote:
Scott. Following my reply to Buddha, what problem do you have ? My problem with so many of your 'postings' Scott, and that is why I do not reply to them, is that a lot of the time you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative

Well jeez where is one supposed to go from there May? That is just ad hominem with zero substance. Really May, if you wish to discuss audio I'm there. But if you are going to try to make it about personal attacks. No thanks.

Quote:
- merely picking on particular phrases or sentences or even words does not advance things further forward. !!

I suggest you read that last post in which I took you to task on presumptions you made that I believe to be unwarrented. I did not pick on any "words" or "phrases" May. I challenged your presumptions on cause and effect when it came to Robert Harley's perceptions. If you feel I am wrong then please state your case. but let's keep it about audio if possible.

May, you pick a great example with Lister. (An improvement from your claims that Cuckoos can look at another birds egg and then produce a Xerox copy the next morning!) Lister offered redily testable hypotheses. How would you propose to test Belt products in such a way? After 40 years, it would be a coup!

Not gonna happen, though, is it?

What are you talking about? I've given you many examples of testing PWB's products. Two just recently, whereby one included clinical trials and the other included over 1,000 subjects. That's already more third party blind testing than you would ever hear of for most audio companies. I don't know why you would ignore that, unless you're simply trying to be argumentative or contrary. And BTW, if you really mean 40 years, PWB was producing state of the art orthodynamic loudspeakers and headphones within that time frame. If speakers, headphones and amps are not "readily testable" as you claim, then clearly nothing in audio is. What a shame! What WILL we do now?! If everything in audio is not "readily testable", then we're all just ducks in a shooting gallery for the greedy snake oil merchants!

Suddenly, I feel very vulnerable.

As for your mockery of the claim that cuckoos mimic their hosts, have you ever heard of a reference book called "The Encyclopedia Britannica"? Well, have a look-see, and you'll find cuckoo mimicry "claimed" as biological fact, there (citing studies that number beyond 1500): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/383252/mimicry/11905/Cuckoos

Here's some related bonus "wacky scientific-sounding claims" for you, about pigeons this time: "Many animals can home or migrate, but no one knows how. Research with pigeons has refuted all theories based on known scientific principles. Homing cannot be explained in terms of smell, the sun, landmarks or magnetism. An unknown sense or field seems to be involved. Pigeons linked to their home by a connection like an invisible elastic band. Can pigeons find their home if the home is taken away from the pigeons, rather than the pigeons from the home? Results of preliminary experiments with mobile lofts. Does homing depend on a sixth sense or an inherited map?

from "The Evolutionary Mind", Sheldrake, McKenna, Abraham.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/9703114/Rupert...olutionary-Mind

Instead of Lister, I would suggest as your example the case of Franz Joseph Gall. His claims were more in keeping with yours &#8211; that sighted subjective trials give valid results. Nice, self-fulfilling, circular...everything you could wish for!

I see that Franz Joseph Gall's claims are really more in keeping with John Atkinson's, as he also claimed sighted subjective trials can give valid results. I tend to give his claims more weight, because he probably has more real DBT-trial experience than anyone here. I'm sure you know that audio DBT's are not the same animal as what is practiced in say, medical science. You can call anything a "DBT", doesn't mean it's all the same thing. So what makes you think audio DBT's are more valid than sighted tests? In case you missed the common denominator, they both rely on subjective trials.

"Lister was right, therefore I am," is not valid.

Well if you wanna get picky, neither is your strawman argument here.

At that level, claims become faith based, and you can do with them what you will - at a personal level.

Welcome to the world of high end audio. We've got some cappuccino over in the corner that's not half bad, and some Miles Davis playing on the hi-fi. We just got some DBT results back from Sean Olive and so I'm obliged to warn you that we can't prove there's anything coming out of the speakers, but a lot of us here don't have a problem believing that something good is going down.

May's claims are cleverly made:
First, she claims a given ritual or object improves the sound in her room. (So far, so good!)
Then she extrapolates from there to the ritual or object improving her perception of sound to a level better than what others are hearing who are without the object or ritual.
That's a good marketing move, because it implies connoisseurship and ehnanced ability on the part of the customer.

Oooh clever! Which means it's even more "clever" of you to have "figured out the ploy", Buddha. Which of course is SO clever in fact, that every single other company in the history of audio stole her idea. But remember, PWB invented it first!

I found more strawmen in the rest of your comments in this message than I would expect in a Kansas corn field. They're easily refuted, but I've left them out because I could be here all day refuting them, and I think they're obvious enough distortions and inventions of May's statements, they don't warrant being addressed. A big "E" for the effort, though!

Audiophile rituals, yes.
A detailed method of procedure faithfully or regularly followed
Yes, many things we do are ritualistic.
And the ritual seems to definitely play a part in the subsequent sound for some.
Others do not require the ritual to have the same enjoyment of the experience.The tweaks may be a relaxation totem for some, or a cue for expectation for others, and that's great. All those things can enhance the sound for some.

I tend to sweep my records of dust before playing them. It's neither a means of "relaxation" for me, or a cue for "expectation". But it is a ritual and can ehance the sound. Seems your hypothesis on "audiophile rituals" needs to ferment a bit more.

Still others can have the same enjoyment, talismans be damned!

I can buy that. I know there are plenty that don't or didn't clean their records before playing them. I guess they are so used to the snap, crackle and pop they hardly know its' there. And/or don't know they can reduce the noise (not to mention stylus wear) by cleaning their records. Same thing with audio products you call "rituals". If people don't know and can't understand how it can improve their sound, or lives, it's not going to be important to them. Takes all types, indeed!

Nothing wrong with rituals...until the ritual saelsman arrives with his/her one size fits all BS.

Of course, one could argue that you're "the salesman", and you are selling a "one size fits all" BS theory that you invented. Because what you're saying really, is that everyone has the same degree of listening experience and aptitude. The only thing that differs is "belief". Unfortunately, that doesn't bear out in scientific trials.

Quote:
Each number or each layer 'flips' - 'flips' what ???? That is the million dollar question.

Indeed, it may literally be that for whoever can fully understand it. The flipping is only one characteristic of this unusal field Peter discovered, that can be changed. There are a million ways this mysterious field can be changed. But this is probably the most mysterious (and intriguing).