| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
June 2, 2009 - 8:42am
#1
"But it does not end by merely closing a thread."
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
ms may: you make a valid point. however, it seems to me that when stephen finally does close a thread, the dead horse has been drawn and quartered, exanguinated, evicerated and then beaten to an unrecognizable bloody pulp. you may notice that the subject may change, but the parties seem to remain the same on one or the other side of the science/perception argument, as do the arguments. in fact, you could take many of the arguments that you mentioned in addition to science/perception and just change a few of the words and have the same argument all over again.
stephen says that when a thread is closed, that if someone wants to continue the argument, they can open a new one. have you noticed how infrequently that happens? maybe the combatants are looking to stephen as the UN to call a stop so that they don't "loose face" by being the first to withdraw.
>>> "when stephen finally does close a thread, the dead horse has been drawn and quartered, exanguinated, evicerated and then beaten to an unrecognizable bloody pulp." <<<
Yes, you are right, but in that case how can ANYTHING be discussed ?
>>> "maybe the combatants are looking to stephen as the UN to call a stop so that they don't "loose face" by being the first to withdraw." <<<
Good bit of psychology there, Tom.
Regards,
May Belt.
Sure we can start from there. I can at least. And I'll state from the start, I have no experience with the product. I am skeptical that an LP can be affected by just demagnatization in any audible way. And I did do the Classics clarity formula comparison under sighted conditions and could *not* discern any meaningful differences between it and the black vinyl formula.
I think the question on the objectivists' mind is can one consider the possibility that the result was purely a product of bias? I think the question on the subjectivists' mind is can one consider the possibility that something actually affected the sound of the LP? The question on my mind is can either side see that they are missing the bigger picture? Both sides seem to be in denial about bias effects. Yes, both sides. Many subjectivists seem to think they are not influenced by them. Many objectivists seem to think that by waving the DBT flag that they have conquored them or dodged them. Both positions are wrong.
No one is curing cancer here. No one dies if they are affected by their biases in audio. If that were the case we would all be dead, even the objectivists. If you think the Furtech is B.S. and have too many philosophical issues with a record demagnetizer, walk away. If you tried it, loved the results and found it a good value for your listening pleasure, buy it. What is really a bunch of B.S. is putting any onus on the consumers by demanding proof of their enhanced enjoyment. If anyone is concerned about marketing fraud then make your case against those doing the marketing. If anyone is upset that others are enjoying certain products just because of their biases I have some news for you. So are you. You can do all the DBTs you want but in the end, if you actually own a sound system and listen to it for your own personal enjoyment, that enjoyment is a product of your biases as well as the actual performance of the system. Really, that is a fact, and no amount of DBTs or hand waving about DBTs will save you from this inevitable reality.
If you've been going through the same silly debates that have raged between objectivists and subjectivists for years it may be time to step back and take a good look at your personal motives. I can tell you exactly what they are right now. Ego.
Yes biases affect our perceptions. That is true for subjectivists and objectivists. If manufacturers are making bogus claims about cause and effect they should be held accountable. If they are simply saying this what we do and we think it sounds better then there is no fraud unless they are flat out lying about the percieved improvement. Again, nobody dies when someone percieves an improvement that may or may not be the result of biases. What one gets is more listening pleasure. The point of our hobby I believe.
So, now, you claim to be able to read minds.
There are a lot (and I mean a lot) of ways audio delivery could be improved, almost all of them that would require new and more equipment.
None of these have anything much to do with LP demagnization, etc, but here we are, stick with LP and CD demags, etc, and NOT in actually using knowlege from the 1930's (that has been verified again and again) that has never been used productively to improve the experience.
THAT is why some of us find the whole argument profoundly annoying. Audiophilia has, for the most part, been stuck in an infinite loop of anti-physics and denial of basic human behavior since the 1970's at least (I won't go back to the "thorn needles sound more natural than steel idea), and so nothing changes.
The "high end" is still 2 channel, despite Steinberg and Snow, and then Fletcher and Snow's work. Radiation patterns and direct vs. diffuse power response are still not published, room treatment is often ignored ...
These are not small effects, but we do have LP demagnitizers, etc, that at best are small effects.
No, I do not claim to read minds. But people are often pretty easy to read. has nothing to do with the paranormal. Has everything to do with human behavior.
"improvements" are by definition subjective. "audio delivery?"
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
And yet you keep coming back for more. Is this a case of pure masocism? Maybe I was wrong about it being ego driven. Maybe it is driven by a desire for self inflicted pain.
It's a hobby. It's about hobbyists enjoying themsleves. I can asure you plenty of them are doing just that depite your protests.
Really? Multi channel is a myth? news to me. But you may be missing a bigger picture here. The music that some of us actually are concerned about listening to is mostly available in stereo or mono. Whatever new technologies come along we are stuck with our legacy of recordings and their formats.
How would publishing them change the sound?
Maybe by you. Not by me. what does that have to do with anything being discussed here?
And if you don't like the idea or find the product wanting then, as I said before, walk away. I can asure you that the existance of the Furtech is not preventing you from finding information about radiation patterns or doing something about your room acoustics.It does seem to me that you seek a fight were there is no need for one. IME that is ego based. No mind reading involved.
>>> "What one gets is more listening pleasure. The point of our hobby I believe." <<<
Exactly. The point of our hobby is more listening pleasure. Then WHY can't Michael Fremer and Stephen Mejias (and many others) write that they have HAD THIS more listening pleasure without being told that what they are claiming and what they are claiming it came from is Bullshit ??? This is exactly how the 'thread' which was closed originally started. Stephen describing what happened during "A Visit To Mickey's" !!!!!! Look what happened !!
Jan Vigne put the enthusiasm and desire for 'more listening pleasure' felt by many quite well in another thread :-
>>> "The one thing that separates the inspiring from the trolls is the music lover's desire for me to find my own way through their leadership. They do not preach, they do not insist and they do not insult. They do not settle for "good enough" and do not want me too either. They remain open to the possibility there is still more to learn and to know and they are willing to give that knowledge freely and without malice. They encourage me to be more inquisitve rather than insist I need to stop thinking because they can and have done so for me - and, according to the trolls, they have done a much better job than I ever could. When faced with new information the inspirational seek truth by understanding how new information comes about. They do not force new findings into old formulas." <<<
Regards
May Belt.
Mike has the right and privilidge to express his opinions. But so do the people crying bullshit. But let's try to get down to the nitty gritty here. It's one thing to report an experience and another to assert cause and effect. I don't think even the most up tight objectivists are denying the perception. If they are they need to do their homework. That thread is way to long winded to review. What exactly in your view is being called "bullshit?" What are the actual assertions flying back and forth here?
Why, yes, that's exactly my point, and Axon's point, and Krabs' point, and maybe Arny's, too.
There's no questioning the perception, that's silly. The questioning comes in the "why".
AS the song says "if it makes you happy, then why are you so sad".
Ah, it's hierarchical.
I can see how it could be upsetting that audiophiles don't bring things up in the proper order.
Well, it's more than a question of "order", it's a question of where the most bang for the buck is going to come from.
It hasn't helped that most multichannel production has been (unbelievably gross and offensive expletive deleted) pretty bad, I suppose. There is some good content. SOME.
Things like speaker specs, amp specs, etc, are also stuck in the dark ages. I still get flack when I say in a talk that "thd is mostly harmless, just like the earth in hitchhiker's guide", but that's as good a thing as I can say about it. In this day and age, showing error spectra isn't exactly a huge effort.
Scott, I appreciate your comments and think you make many good points, but it is painfully obvious, if you read the forum, that all subjective claims of enhanced audio experience are challenged, ridiculed and dismissed as an assault on science by the usual suspects.
And equally frustrating are the subsequent pages and pages of back and forth bickering and name-calling between combatants.
Amazing, the stamina and ferocity of the attacks and rejoinders...
Awesome, the infinite time and supernova energy expended to sustain these feuds...
Perchance, to harness life in a million dormant universes- omnipotent and God-like creations of wonder...
....but NNnnooooooOOOO!!
[quote but it is painfully obvious, if you read the forum, that all subjective claims of enhanced audio experience are challenged, ridiculed and dismissed as an assault on science by the usual suspects.
Sorry, but no. Challenging a conclusion based on a perception is not the same as challenging the perception.
If you don't want name-calling, then don't falsely portray the actual scientists here in the extremely, ragingly offensive fashion that you do.
What you just said was actually extremely offensive name-calling. Did you even know that?
You know, several of us who get defamed, tarred and feathered here are actually in the forefront of trying to improve the sound you hear.
But the luddism so predominent here just doesn't encourage one much.
for me there are several issues that are keeping me away from multi channel. 1. It's a big investment. 2. It would require a new listening room which is an even bigger investment that would also disrupt the existing system. 3. The vast majority of recordings that I actually want to listen to are not multi channel recordings.
I sure missed his offensive name calling. Could you point it out? OTOH it does seem you are tossing out some random insults. "predominent luddism?" I would be interested in hearing about those who are tarred and feathered and how they are actually in the forfront of improving the sound we hear. Who? How so? By what measure?
IMO the thread is aready drifting away from May's original point.
The issue is not multi-channel sound or "Luddism" - though it's interesting to note who was the first to toss such terms into this thread. And it certainly is not that "science" or its practioners are being attacked.
Audiophiles comprise about 2% of the music buying public, so to lay any retrogression or stalling in audio quality at their doorstep is highly suspect. It is particularly so from someone who has just spent almost 30 pages arguing - defending actually - what is just "good enough".
Without trying to speak for May, her point is in the "alternative" treatments and products used by certain audiophiles - those who frustrate the "scientists" with their desire to "fight" over their perception of better sound quality. Those who argue that well known physical laws forbid such possibilities would prefer there to be no fight, just submission to their beliefs that what we now know is all we need to know. If those beliefs include multi-channel sound and acceptance of what is just good enough, so be it.
Personally, I have nothing in particular against the concept of multi-channel or "surround" sound, only its typical application and all too often the frustrations which face the listener when "better" sound is promised and not delivered.
Obviously I have many problems to a just good enough and that should be the end of the story approach to audio.
May began this thread with these words ...
That threads degenerate to the point of being closed is the issue here.
The arguments continue from thread to thread with the same words being stated over and over. No progress is made. Why? IMO because new information is forced into old ideas and those who have made a living off old ideas - even if they are attempting to move audio in any particular direction by promoting new ways to work with those things that are just good enough - are not in the moood for anything new that would upset the old apple cart.
Therefore, as May has pointed out numerous times, whether cables matter is still an issue that will reach a boiling point with the measurements-are-all crowd. And this is now decades after cables were first identified as being as important as any other component by more than a few respected listeners. By the time we get to demagnetizing discs, cables, and most interesting their cost, are merely the example thrown in our faces of just how much an "audiophool" will accept.
And there is the crux of the matter, "audiophools" who would have you believe in "psuedo-science" offend the "real scientists" who serve as the preaches and internet evangelists on the forums. There is a relatively small group of such guardians of what is known who spend their days and nights (and have for decades) trawling the forums spoiling for a fight against the audiophools. They have formatted their behavior down to a copy/paste degree of similarity everywhere they go. Accuse your opponent first of character assasination and charge them with insults then denounce their findings based on their preceived insults and weakness of character. They answer no questions but demand many.
Yadayada!
It's all too familiar by now. The partisanship runs high and never stops. Audiophools are commanded to realize how phoolish they truly are. Charlatans are unmasked by those with science in their back pocket. Perception must bow to their charges bias and placebo. Anyone who has been involved in any of these threads knows the drill by now.
And then, finally, the thread is closed and no real discussion has occurred - which suits one side's agenda quite well since they have once more stopped any advancement of new thought. If that's all they have to accomplish to stop thought from progressing, they are prepared to fight again tomorrow.
And the question then is, why? What are they so afraid of? What harm does it do them if someone sitting in their own room hears an improvement from a cable or a demagnetizer or acoustic treatments smaller than a refrigerator? What are they afraid of when the news is spread on the forum that sound quality can be made better by using "untraditional" means?
Why do they continue to defend that which is "just good enough" when there is better sound to be had? And why do they do it day in and day out, night and day, year after year?
What exactly is it they are protecting?
Whatever it is does not end with the closing of a thread.
To some extent, yes.
A new listening room is not necessarily required. There are a variety of ways to go about this kind of thing.
Agreed, and the multichannel recordings, for the greater part, are not so great.
But I don't see the industry moving on, and the high end seems to be pushing backwards, rather than forward, as well.
Sorry, but that's a straw man, Jan. Not your first.
There is a whole flock of known improvements available. Yes, they involve more speakers and amplifiers, more tracks in storage media, digital signal processing, etc, but they are there, they are available, and the high end, at least for the most part, simply avoids them.
Wow... what I'm REALLY impressed by is that you managed to get in around 79 exclamation points in one post!!!!!!!!!!!!
The "problem" as I see it is this- we got a very classic battle of Catholics (let's say May, Jan and all others who fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all) and Protestants (Ethan and Alex and all the others who equally fervently believe objective fact above all else).
The Catholics value beauty, mystery, inner mysticism, ceremony, ornamentation, transmutation. The Protestant sees all that as obscuring Truth, worldly temptation, worshipping false images and general corruption of purity of thought.
From this vantage, there can be no reconciliation. And like politics, they both will claim to want to "reach out across the aisle" but we all know it's just to yank the other guy (or gal) over to there side and beat them senseless with there version of how the world should work!
If anyone had any sense whatsoever around here, they'd just stop posting discussions that OBVIOUSLY (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) will never, ever (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) go anywhere. Right?
Or maybe they'd have already figured that out after posting upwards of 100-thousand words and got no where. Yeah...Ok, carry on!
What I find fascinating is someone getting butt-hurt about a closed thread on the INTERNET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tit for tat, jj, tit for tat.
In this thread alone you have already posted ...
He did not and no one here thought so other than you. Your first strawman of this thread.
Awwww, isn't he a cute little bugger?
No audiophile with whom I am familiar has denied "basic human behavior" and certainly you cannot come up with a more laughable strawman argument than audiophiles are "anti-physics". That, of course, is the issue that May is trying to address, the strawman argument put forth by the anti-audiophile squad who state repeatedly that audiophiles are
"anti-physics", "anti-science", "audiophools", "biased", "blind to their bias", "blind to human behavior", "unable to understand basic laws of nature", "under the infuence of placebo", "charlatans", "snake oil salesmen", etc., etc., etc.
You're right about one thing, though, jj, nothing changes. You have the debating points down and you copy/paste them as fast as you can. You are always on the attack claiming someone has insulted you or wronged you or they are feigning fake outrage. Claiming anything other than what is the subject of the debate.
Enough already, man!
This is how you derail any thread that broaches a subject you care to "fight" over. If the average objectivist's system were as transparent as you are, there would be fewer probems on audiophile sites.
And now the strawman to beat all strawmen, you claim the audiophiles are to blame for what they have heard and how they describe the experience. You have no proof that claims for CD or LP demagnetization are not real while audiophiles have some proof they are. One objectivist had to be shown the proof of ferrous particles that work their way into the material's of CD's and LP's. He ignored the proof. A denial of reality is the evangelist's best weapon next to ignoring a direct question.
Recently a group of anti-audiophile forum members have invaded this forum with one intent in mind - to "falsely portray the actual" audiophiles "here in the extremely, ragingly offensive fashion". So tit for tat, jj. You play the game and you get back what you give though you are far ahead on numbers alone.
It was not and no one here thought so other than you. And no one would have claimed it was other than you.
Not that that isn't a ridiculous statement coming from you, but, if you are so unhappy here, you are free to leave you know.
"Luddism'? A fine thing from a professional internet skeptic! And yet you want us to believe you are not setting up strawmen as fast as you can?
How you have convinced yourself the "high end" is to blame for the failure of these "improvements" is not stated. But we are to believe there must be a connection there somewhere since audiophools are the luddites and they are responsible for the entire industry rejecting things such as more tracks on the storage media and digital signal processing. Those awful, awful audiophiles and the 2% of purchases they represent!
No proof is offered to support your ridiculous claim but we are supposed to make that connection for ourself because you have tried to establish your own argument from authority. Therefore, you hope we will gladly follow your implied lead right over the cliff of reality.
No, jj, you have outdone me at every post in this thread so, please, stop squealing like a stuck pig. If anything, you should be flattered that I have learned from a master so adept at setting up flasehoods in order to tear them down and claim that proves his point. In the establishment of false arguments, I cannot hold a candle to your years of experience. But then, this is very much your job now, complaining that audiophiles are attacking you without cause.
Now, we can forget about your "known improvements" because this thread is not about audiophiles rejecting technology the "tarred and feathered" "scientists" insist is unnecesssary. Remember, jj? remember how the "scientists" have spent the last week "proving" 16/44 is "good enough" and there is no need for higher resolution formats? Surely you remember, you copy/pasted your way through thirty pages of your own strawmen arguments.
The thread is not about audiophiles rejecting formats that the inventors, designers and manufacturers of the technology do not produce well let alone support. And having more gear has never been the failing of any audiphile. This thread is not about any of that because nine out of ten audiophiles I personally know have owned or still do own a high rez player and now lack sufficient new material to buy for that player. Your attempt to make that the fault of the audiophile community is too laughable.
Forget your "improvements", jj, this thread is not about any of them.
This thread is about those who have become the professional internet booggiemen bent on intimidating audiophiles with their strawman arguments, arguments from authority and logical fallacies repeated over and over on forum after forum. It is about the sort of abuse you and others like you have heaped on forums for the last how many decades.
Are you trying to say you and your anti-audiophile friends from HA have never once accused an audiophile of "psuedo-science'? I don't think you want to do that, jj, as it won't fly on this forum and it would be too easy to disprove. You surely cannot not be claiming you have not acted as the chief evangelist for the "good enough" squad over the thirty plus pages of the "papers" thread.
No, your claim that I have created a strawman is just one more ... shall we say "misleading" little ploy to add to your already growing list of ... shall we say "overt fallacies" in the not quite two pages of this thread.
And that, jj, is exactly what this thread is about.
I agree this is a classic battle of partisans but not as you lay it out. When was the last time your good Baptist neighbor came over to your Catholic church to tell all those receiving communion they were charlatans and fools who clearly did not understand the basic laws of physics?
What would you think of someone who did that?
>>> "Wow... what I'm REALLY impressed by is that you managed to get in around 79 exclamation points in one post!!!!!!!!!!!!" <<<
I put in many exclamation marks where I want to have emphasis because I have not yet been able to do those smiley or frowning or scowling or 'showing surprise' faces successfully !!
I have also apologised, in past 'postings' for doing some words in Capitols. This is because the word programme we use on our computer here, when I type Bold, or Italics here, when I then actually send the message, they do not go through as Bold or Italics, they just go through as normal as everything else. So, I emphasise with Capitol letters - for which I apologise again - because I understand that Capitol letters can be construed as shouting !!
>>> "The "problem" as I see it is this- we got a very classic battle of Catholics (let's say May, Jan and all others who fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all) and Protestants (Ethan and Alex and all the others who equally fervently believe objective fact above all else)." <<<
This is another presumption on your part. I, and I can only speak for myself, no one else, do not fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all !! I repeat - above all !! This type of wording is usually used as a 'put down' (dismissive) technique !! I will change round what you have said to look at it another way. Your implication, with your sentence, is that I, Jan and others have no knowledge, have no experience of "objective facts". For my part, (again I cannot speak for anyone else) you could not be more wrong.
I have worked alongside Peter from the time in audio when everything was valves - NO transistors. From the time when everything was mono - NO stereo.
I am quite knowledgeable on conventional electronic and acoustic theories and I KNOW what conventional theories dictate. The problem facing me (and many others) is what happens when conventional electronic and acoustic theories cannot explain what we have just experienced ?
So, I would like to change YOUR definition of the two groups - more to how I see it.
There is Group A. Members who KNOW conventional electronic and acoustics theories - forwards, backwards and upside down - but who have experienced things, changing sound, which cannot be explained from within those conventional theories.
Things such as applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
Things such as applying colour to the edge of CDs.
Things such as cryogenically freezing CDs.
Things such as applying a chemical to the LABEL side of CDs, to the LABELS of LPs, to the outer insulation of cables.
Things such as different cables giving different sounds.
There is Group B. Members who KNOW conventional electronic and acoustic theories - forwards, backwards and upside down - but who have NOT experienced those same things inexplicably change the sound.
Both groups A and B KNOW conventional electronic and acoustic theories - most of the time equally as well as each other. And, I would submit, as soon as some of the members of Group B DO SUDDENLY experience what the members of Group A have experienced, then they too join Group A. For members of Group B joining Group A does NOT mean abandoning their existing knowledge - it means that all is NOT known - it means that there are things which yet have to be worked out !!!!!!
Haven't you noticed just how many people have commented such as "Oh I always firmly believed that different cables COULD NOT give different sounds until I heard it happen for myself"? Haven't you noticed how often this has happened over these past 30 years ?
Haven't you observed one 'professional in audio' after another 'professional in audio' change from being a complete sceptic regarding cables to completely advocating changing cables to obtain better sound ? How, from reading the electronic text books over and over again or from actually experiencing it for themselves ?
Things are not as black and white as your comment:-
>>> "The "problem" as I see it is this- we got a very classic battle of Catholics (let's say May, Jan and all others who fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all) and Protestants (Ethan and Alex and all the others who equally fervently believe objective fact above all else)." <<<
Portrays !!
Do you REALLY think that such as Michael Fremer, John Atkinson, Robert Deutsch to name but three "fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all" - that they do not have as good an understanding of conventional electronic and acoustic theories as most others in the audio industry ?
Do you REALLY think that 'professionals in audio' do not know what conventional electronic theories dictate regarding cables ? That they do not know that conventional theory dictates that any changes which might take place along a cable a metre (sometimes half a metre) long would be so infinitesimal that no one, no human being could possibly hear it ? Now, if people began to claim that they could hear differences between different MILE long cables then the conventional theory would allow, yes, OK, people could hear those differences, they might be able to hear 'losses on the line'. But a metre (or half a metre) long - NO WAY !!!!
So, when they CAN ????????? Then what ???????
Regards,
May Belt.
>>> "Mike has the right and privilidge to express his opinions. But so do the people crying bullshit." <<<
Yes, people can say that they personally have tried it (whatever is under discussion) but it didn't do anything for them. Yes, people can say that within their knowledge, they don't see how it COULD work. Yes, people can do that because we have the luxury of free speech. But with that luxury comes responsibility. So, in my book, implying fraud or accusations of dishonesty does not form an acceptable part of ongoing discussions and debates.
When some people DO resort to that in any discussion, then other people will respond. Or, are YOU saying that they shouldn't react ?
Regards,
May Belt.
I don't think too many strict Baptists adhere to Physics either...
I wasn't choosing sides Jan, just laying out the futility of the battle.
As the wise super computer on War Games said in his best Speak 'n Spell voice: "An interesting game, the only way to win is to not play."
"Do you REALLY think that such as Michael Fremer, John Atkinson, Robert Deutsch to name but three "fervently believe the gospel of inner experience above all" - that they do not have as good an understanding of conventional electronic and acoustic theories as most others in the audio industry ?"
I didn't say that there were only two ways of seeing things, but I can see how you might think that. I was laying out the two apparent sides that seem to want to gear up and charge into battle at every opportunity. The people you mention by and large don't get into these matches.
They are some where in between and don't feel the need to evangelize the poles of objective/subjective. Neither do I, which is why I largely avoid even commenting on what I can see will turn into yet another black hole of postings.
I think the most obvious next question is what to do when the subject is broached.
IMO one "side" (as they like to call themself) would prefer nothing more than their "opponent" be kept quiet. One "side" would prefer to distract you with talk of how audiophiles stand in the way of progress that the "scientists" can certainly achieve if only those pesky audiophools would get out of their way. If jj wishes to argue for fuller disclosure of specifications, I doubt any audiophile would disagree to that. However, when he claims audiophiles are standing in the way of progress in the form of additional information tracks or digital signal processing, then I believe most thinking, experienced audiophiles can see through that ruse. If not, they only need look at their collection of SACD's, DVD-A's and so forth to understand that jj is hoisting up pitchforks in order to build a argument made of straw.
In the "pages" thread I posted the statement, "The average audiophile only wants better music reproduction and not a fight over how to get there." To which jj asked me, "Why ARE you fighting?" My response to that was as always, audiophiles are not seeking a fight (a portion of that reply was reposted by May earlier in this thread and can be found in the "pages" thread here, #69184 - 05/31/09 02:00 PM.)
That doesn't mean audiophiles cannot say what they chooose and it should not mean saying it will automatically result in the 50 page battles that go on here. Are you suggesting that anyone who perceives an improvement that is not "traditional" should just shut up? Should all of those reviewers, JA, MF and RD included, though they do not actively engage in the food fights, have kept their mouth shut about what they heard when they froze a CD, changed cables or applied a chemical to the surface of a disc?
If someone looses the freedom to report these findings through intimidation of 50 page battles, how does that serve anyone interested in improving the system they own now? Isn't the issue possibly that these battles exist because there are protected interests who do not care to see them go forward? If that is the issue, then what are those interests and why are they so important that we must constantly engage in 50 page battles each and every time someone either says they heard something or asks if someone else heard the same thing they have? Why do those who honestly report what they perceive have to defend themself against the partisanship of those who start the battle with claims of "charlatan", "snake oil salesman" and proceed from there?
Would you have preferred to have never been told cables can improve your system? Or would you prefer to see those who truly believe they can assist you in hearing better music reproduction not say how? The other option is to simply cave into the "snake oil" charges and say their experience is improbable if not totally imposible and therefore cannot posibly exist and they were wrong and then shut up forever.
If you believe any of those three options are the proper course of avoiding conflict, why are you reading Stereophile? Why are you on this forum?
May, you have created a false dichotomy that ignores the well established fact that all people are susceptable to bias effects and that *may* be the reason one hears the *unexpected* in any given instance. While it is plainly wrong for objectivists to insist that this is the cause of every reported experience without any actual physical follow up simply because in some way it defies their expectations, it is just as wrong to deny that it is a *possible* cause as well. Both views are extreme and self serving nonsense.
What I am saying is there are no special privilidges or protections here. If you have something to say say it. If one's assertions hold water then those assertions should be easily defended. If contrary opinions are bogus and prejudicial it should be easy enough to nail them for what they are. If someone is breaking any rules it's up to the moderators to do something. If one likes the envirement, stay and play. If one doesn't, move on.
Except, that as I am weary of repeating, in the case of my comments on the effect of the Furutech "demagnetizer," I didn't have any expectation bias because I was ignorant of what was being demonstrated.
That much is true.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I didn't read your account of your experience. Given my ignorance I have to ask, were you aware that you were being given any demonstration whatsoever? If so, expectation bias is a *possibility.* If not, if it was an ambush demo (I've done those, they are tricky) then you may not have had any expectation bias. But it is tricky to do any side by side comparisons without knowing you are doing them.
>>> "May, you have created a false dichotomy that ignores the well established fact that all people are susceptable to bias effects and that *may* be the reason one hears the *unexpected* in any given instance." <<<
Again with the presumption that I (and others) are *ignoring* the fact that all people are susceptible to bias effects !!
If you use the argument of *bias* then, logically, *anyone* steeped in conventional electronic and acoustic theories would be *biased* towards different cables NOT sounding different !! Towards applying a demagetiser to LPs and CDs NOT changing the sound. Towards freezing CDs NOT changing the sound.
So, I am back again, asking HOW, with all this (agreed) *bias* do numerous people, already steeped in conventional electronic and acoustic theories HEAR different cables sound different, applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs change the sound, freezing CDs change the sound, applying colour to the edge of a CD change the sound - when their *bias* tells them that those things CANNOT ?
Is this 'thread' going to copy the same pattern again ? Is the next person going to now introduce how it COULD BE *autosuggestion* which makes people HEAR the things mentioned ? Then after that how it COULD BE *the placebo effect* ? Then after that how it COULD BE *imagination* ? Then after that how it COULD BE *audio faithhealing* ? Then after that how it COULD BE *effective marketing* ?
Scott. Can't you understand that intelligent people have ALREADY taken those *possibles* into consideration BEFORE reporting what they do ????? That is what intelligent people do !!
For example. Michael Fremer did not want the demagnetiser to work !! He said so in his article. He admitted that it had laid on the floor for three months before he decided to try it !!
It was obvious that John Atkinson also did not want the demagnetiser to work. In the Stereophile talk at the Montreal Show, he admitted that after finding out that the improvement in the sound he had heard at Michael's was after an LP had been demagnetised he thought:-
">>> "Oh No. I know if I tell anyone outside of our (audio) community they will laugh. They will think we are crazy and that we all have fairies at the bottom of our garden, sitting on toadstools." <<<
How could *bias*, in those two examples, be considered as the probable explanation under your comment:-
>>> "the well established fact that all people are susceptable to bias effects and that *may* be the reason one hears the *unexpected* in any given instance." <<<
Please, give people credit for having a modicum of intelligence.
We *know* of all the studies done on *autosuggestion*.
We *know* of all the studies done on *the Placebo effect*.
We *know* that people can have a *vivid imagination*
We *know* that people can be influenced by *effective marketing*.
Regards,
May Belt.
I can answer this one for John. No, he was not aware of a demo. And it wasn't an ambush type of thing. It wasn't anything scientific or calculated, and, as an FYI, we never said it was. It was all very innocent. Michael Fremer and I were just having a good time, listening to records, while JA was working on some measurements. I wrote about the experience here.
>>> "If not, if it was an ambush demo (I've done those, they are tricky) then you may not have had any expectation bias." <<<
Now we have the term *an ambush demo*. !! I haven't seen THAT one put forward before.
Don't tell me I have to add that one to the list also ?
Sorry, still can't do those faces !!
Regards,
May Belt.
Perfect!
If we *know* these things, then discussing ways to make sure an impression is/was not the product of these phenomenon should be quite agreeable!
May, since you *know* these things, then how do you make sure they are not in play?
We *know* that those phenomenon exist, even when someone claims that they themselves are not subject to these considerations and that their own experience could NEVER be the result of those phenomenon.
If we *know* these things exist, how do we *know* when they can be ruled out?
Is there some sort of *test* or something you could envision so as to avoid the phenomena you *know* to exist?
I think your statement of what is *known* is great, now how do you solve the dilemma? How would you work around the issues you *know* to exist?
Perfect place to start!
Another great example of sighted listening 'improving' on blind results is the copy code fiasco that a manufacturer had tested and found to be 'inaudible' on blind testing, but when sighted tests were allowed, many people quickly heard the difference and the copy code was withdrawn.
Forgive my vagueness, I can't recall the company name, but I bet people here can fill in the details!
Interestingly, once the previously inaudible artifact was heard on sighted testing, people could then hear it blind.
An examples of the sighted leading the blind!
There is this small little bit about the human body being built with two ears. Stereoscopic vision is predicated/intertwined with/on humans having two eyes. Not 7.1. The ear does not escape this point of analysis. Thus High end audio is predominantly 2 speakers, symmetrically located from the ears. I'm sure you know all that, but what relevance it has for you, I'm not sure.
Most specifically the layman's scientific agrument falls down and cries for it's mommy when you bring home the point that:
In linear weighing and measurement systems, the distortions we speak of..measure in the 0.0x% range or maybe, on a good day as high as 0.x%. that's linear weighting.
However, the ear-brain mechanism does not 'hear' that way.
It only hears sum totals of the given structure. It then has to deal with harmonics and transients as a combined and separate structure. This small distortion is heard as a comparative coloration, no matter how small it is in linear weighted measurement systems.
The whole thing falls down when you show that in the most basic sense, in measurements vs hearing that it's apples to oranges up to this point in time, with regards to attempts in correlation.
I wonder where the Hell 7.1 sound came from, then?
Notice, we don't put more video screens around us with 7.1, just sound sources, almost as if we can hear sonic sources that are behind us, or something!
This is as basic as the day is long. They needed a stable and identified multiple comparative initial test structure --- in order to figure out how to aurally quantify and qualify the very small differences that exist between the two. This is fundamental to understanding that people need to be given a chance to understand the differences before being thrust into a 'abx' pile of shit. the differences are small, and the person needs to learn how to sort them out. Initial sighted testing allows this to take place.
Yeah, like I said!
This is often also the benefit an audiophile can provide to a civilian when assisting with shopping for gear. Previously "invisible" differences become readily apparent once pointed out!
Okay, now pay attention before we go in because this is important. As discussed in the car in addition to the power control there WILL be a volume control someplace. Do you understand? It's your job to find the controls on the equipment. I'm just going to stand back and make sure you find the apparent. From there we will move on to other things like bass and treble controls but DO NOT touch any controls other than a volume control AND THEN the power control. The volume control goes up all the way before you press any power control. You got that? Volume control is set to maximum and then the power control. I DO NOT want the salesperson to think you don't know what you are doing. Okay, you ready? Open the door.
1. I was only responding to your post May so don't presume I included anybody else.
2. There is no presumption. You created a dichotomy that did not include the possibility of bias effects as a cause. Check your post again May. You did not mention bias effects. You did ignore it.
My point was simply that your dichotomy was a false one that ignored the possibility of bias effects as a cause. I did not argue that bias effects were the cause of people hearing differences with the Furtech specifically. Secondly, you are now making unfounded presumptions about the biases of unnamed people in general. That is a presumption that runs contrary to well documented peer reviewed studies on bias effects.
Sorry May but you have no evidence as to the state of any of these peoples' biases. So your question is simply not valid. You are using a plainly false premise. You simply have not ruled out the very real *posibility* that bias effects are in play.
May, I would suggest that you actually do some research on psychoacoustics and find out the answers to your questions.
actually it is very possible and very common for intellegent people to completely ignore bias effects. I can say that you quite clearly ignored it in your creation of a false dichotomy. If I am wrong please feel free to correct me and point out where you actually did mention the possibility of bias effects being in play in your post that I have asserted creats a false dichotomy.
That does not preclude the very real possibility that he may have been somehow biased to hear differences. Now let's be clear here. I am not asserting that Michael Fremer's perceptions were unquestionably the result of bias effects and nothing else. I am simply pointing out that one does not have such control over bias effects that they can't will them away with deliberate "anti-bias" or "reverse bias." So, until properly eliminated, bias effects remain a possible factor in the results. That's life as a human being! It is not an insult nor an attack on any individual's credibility. It is a simple human reality that is present in all of our percpetions and opinions.
May, you simply don't seem to understand the very well documented nature of human bias. Like I said, you can't will it away or counter it with some sort of self-willed "reverse bias." None of the conditions you have describe with JA or MF preclude the very real world possibility that bias effects were in play. If you do not understand that then you simply need to read the research.
Then you should know that none of the conditions you cited above would preclude the very real possibility of bias effects being in play. Again, please don't confuse the acknowledgement of the possibility of bias effects being in play with the assertion that they definitely were the sole cause. Huge difference.
An ambush demo is a great way of doing a blind test. There are some issues. there is no measure for sensitivity so a negative result can't be well interpreted and even with a positive you don't have a statistically significant sample. OTOH given the possible lack of sensitivity one might find a positive result as somewhat compelling. I have used this method when i was surpised by the results of sighted auditions and was looking for an unbiased, unsolicited second opinion.
Having been selected to participate in some of the best sounding systems at the show in Vegas, as judged by senior reviewers, seasoned audiophiles - and wives of same, I am pleased to report that only sighted techniques were employed in the setting up of these big, advanced systems AND - AFAIK - in the design and development of the components of those systems, including parts selection. Mapleshade/Gallo exhibit in 1997, Curl/Crump Blowtorch preamp, Curl/Crump BBQ amp,Reimer Speakers in 2001, Tenor Audio/Rockport Hyperion Speaker system at the Tuscany in 2002 and Curl/Wisdom Audio exhibit the same year, and 2005 in the Golden Sound room.
Food for thought.
Cheers
Me neither. Must be a "Scottism".
If you do, you'll also have to add an "I have no idea what the hell you just did because I was in another room demo" to the list. 'Cos that's what applies to JA.
Of course, every interminable skeptic on this audio forum comes forward with their own quaint reason for the bias. That's the only way I can tell their rhetoric apart. If Ethan is told of JA's example, then we learn that because JA's head moved .0000004 degrees while he was listening and setting up his speakers in the next room, he's yet another victim of "comb filter bias". See, this is why Ethan recently developed the "audiophile head clamp" (available exclusively at RoomTrap). Made of the finest grade oak and solid lead bolts, it secures your head to the chair, so that you don't become comb filtering's next audio victim.
For j_j, the answer is simple. By the time the second rendition had played, JA was affected by a past "memory" of the sensation of listening to a fleet of trucks rolling past his house; and the LF impact they had on everything. Thus he believed he heard more bass in the second playing.
For Arny Krueger, hiding the name plate of the gear automatically makes the sound worse. Because as every good anti-audiophile "objectivist" knows, high-enders equate the quality of their sound with the cost of the gear and the name on the faceplate. Thus Krueger's rationale would be, while he was in the next room, the more JA moved away from the nameplates on the gear, the worse the sound got. Easily, that explains the differences he thought he may have perceived.
While they may have different reasons for why JA allegedly heard what he allegedly heard, the members of the Perpetual Skeptics Club only agree on this one thing: he didn't hear anything. For anyone "with a brain" or a a minimal understanding of "science" already "knows" you can't demagnetize plastic, and so an LP demagnetizer is nothing but a silly snake oil audio tweak which works on "magic", not "science", and JA is simply a victim of the ubiquitous "bias effect".
As are all of us audiophiles, as I have just sadly learned from our objectivist superiors who come here as a gift to us from the Hydrogen Audio forum, to open our eyes to the audio truth. If I had known at the beginning of my audiophile career, what I know now from listening to the Hydrogen Audio Preachers, that there are no audio performance gains in any system over $500 dollars, I could have saved... oh, I don't know.... approximately a gazillion dollar$, I guess. And put it all towards buying more cassettes and mp3 downloads. Instead, I became saddled with this really costly hi-fi system, and just one vinyl record (because it's the only thing I could afford, after the gear was purchased).
So anyway, if anyone was wondering, that's the reason I can recite the lyrics to Scritti Politti's "Songs To Remember" backwards, and in my sleep.
If you wish to, you can try inserting these within your text...
(remove quotation marks, and/or remove spaces between colon and word, from these examples):
";)" or : wink : = wink
":)" or : smile : = smile
: grin :
: laugh :
: shocked :
: confused :
: smirk :
(remove spaces between the square bracket and letter contained within):
[ i ] Place text between these two start / end brackets to create italics. [ /i ]
[ b ] Place text between these two start / end brackets to create bold type. [ /b ]
Jan, this is yet another example of a controversial subject in audio resurfacing yet again. It was some 21 years ago when Christopher Breunig (the then Musical Editor of Hi Fi News) first broached the subject (in the actual audio press) of colours on CDs and sound.
Regards,
May Belt.
Scott, I'm going to assume you are relatively new to both the forum and to May Belt. Your charges that she has ignored bias or does not understand human tendencies is well off the mark. You can do some research on the work Peter and May have done on these topics and their findings with little effort.
Why don't you do some research and then come back to ask questions? Here's a place to begin; http://www.belt.demon.co.uk/The_Importance_of_Colours_and_sound.html
Notice the number of respected reviewers who participated in this experiment. The conclusions may be controversial but the research is well thought out. And, after all, "controversy" is what this thread deals with.
It sounds like you have an inquisitive nature so do some research and see what you find. Consider this a written version of your "ambush demo" techniques.
My charge was very clear. That was her dichotomy was both false and ignored the possibility of bias effects. If that actual charge is wrong feel free to show me where she acknowledged the possibility of bias effects in the actual post for which I took May to task.
The only research anyone needs to do in regards to my assertions would be to review the actual content of May's post. The one that I charged created a false dichotomy. My only assertion at that point was that *the post* asserted a false dichotomy and ignored the *possibility* that bias effects were in play.
I'll check it out but please understand, it has nothing to do with the content of this thread. And please understand that I actually haver a great deal of respect for real science. I am not one to give anecdotal evidence any more or less creedence than it warrents. We live with perceptions and accept them and our opinions about them at face value on a daily basis. I am fine with that. But one has to come to grips with the difference between the certitude of anecdotal evidence we witness and evaluate on a daily basis and scientific evidence. But then others need to understand that a lesser degree of certitude is not an absense of substance. Those folks also need to come to grips with any number of other basic truths of science, such as it aint real science if there is no peer review. But I digress. Lastly, it matters not how many reviewers were involved or how "respected" any of them are. I am not impressed by any arguments by authority.
I have done tons of research. I will check out the link you provided. But don't get the wrong idea. I'm not one of the percpetion police force. Remeber what I said in my first post on this thread. If someone tries the Furtech, likes the results so much that they think it is a good value for the percieved improvement, buy it. If someone has some philisophical issues with it that would preclude the possibility of getting any enjoyment out of it, walk away.
More to the point IMO is the fact what controversy there is has been deepened by two more audio engineers! Must we simply assume these two engineers did not understand human tendencies toward bias? Should we assume they acted alone without the input of other audio engineers in a company the size of Sony to get this project off the ground and into reality? That not one other engineer at Sony was involved in this project and the biases of these two engineers alone could bring about the demonstrations of these green discs under the Sony name and reflecting on the Sony reputation at major audio shows across the globe?
I'm sure there will be someone who mentions any number of other projects Sony has embarked upon that have never seen more than a passing interest in a trade journal. That's a given for a company the size and scope of Sony. None the less their successes would appear to outweigh their dropped projects. Even if the project is dropped, that does not negate the findings. Even if this is nothing more than a passing stage in their research, the interest shown and the monies committed to this projest should alert at least a few audiophiles to something stirring - something that could prove beneficial and "controversial" no matter how many times it is proven to be both real and consistent.
Naysayers are a committed lot and no matter what proof you offer or how may times you offer it they will always insist you jump through another hoop and then another of their design. MF is finding this to be true with the demagnetization effects. Even when members of this forum have reported their unbiased opinions - most starting threads with words similar to MF's, "I didn't want this to work" - the naysayers claim bias and placebo. And so for those who make it their life's work to sit on audio forums enagaging in their "defense of science" routines nothing is ever good enough, they insist and they insult. Threads are closed when the shouting overcomes the reason for the thread. The reason being in most cases to examine something not well known or accepted in the scientific community. Any such topic is sure to result in a closed thread sooner or later. The course of the thread is easy to predict as anyone of us can certainly do by this time.
Sooner or later you have you make up your own mind where you stand in these matters if you are to be involved at all. "Perception is all" or "Perception is ultimately biased". If you believe the former, you can be happy. If you believe the latter, it would appear you can never be content as there will always be another "battle" in which to engage.
It does sound as though you are a "one answer is all I will accept" researcher. I guess the important thing would be whether you've already decided what that answer is supposed to be.
Do your research, Scott. Most of us here do not insist every member repeat each and every detail of their life story with each post in order to be taken seriously. Particularly when the research is so easily found.
Gee, where have I heard that before?
Oh, yeah, in the sentence you posted just before this one.
Saying it once is sufficient, Scott.
Then I would have expected you to find the BS jj posted absolutely infuriating.
But you cannot expect each one of us to repeat our entire life's work with each post.
Appparently you are also fine with believing jj is a "real" scientist, audiophiles are to blame for the current state of the world and that you did resort to name calling.
Did jj offer any such proof? You asked jj several questions. How many answers did you receive?
Then you should have been tougher on jj. Asking jj a question or show proof is like asking a river to stand still.
Then you'll have to get more aggressive on this forum than, "Show me". And you should have done your research before you began with your "dichotomy" and ignorance charges against May.
Do some reading, Scott.
Pages