JJ, thanks for the heads up.
Just curious as your talking about pressure waves in the ear,etc.
Have you or will you follow up with MIT/Eaton

It is a shame that the presentation is a bit too far to travel to, but hopefully some here will attend.

With the discussion on expectation bias and placebo effect, have you followed the research that has measured higher activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex (mOFC), associated with experienced pleasantness/hedonic experiences, and ties in with expectation bias?
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/3/1050.full.pdf

Thanks
Orb

Quote:
Most of us have happened on a high-end audio store, site, or salesman at least once in our lives, and find ourselves confronted with some very

Yeah I tend to think it seems from that summary a bit leaning towards the Randi style of making a point (which oversimplifies some complex factors IMO), however I think JJ would also include some interesting scientific studies.
Hence my interest if he has been following up on such investigations as I provided, and curious about others he may also present.

Cheers
Orb

I'd like to try to make this one, though I don't know if it will shed any light on why I distrust my own hearing when it comes to evaluating absolute sound quality.

Quote:

Quote:
JJ, thanks for the heads up.
Just curious as your talking about pressure waves in the ear,etc.
Have you or will you follow up with MIT/Eaton

Quote:

Quote:
Cool! Another anti-tweaker, anti-audiophile Randi style love fest. Guess you guys have plumb run outta gears.

Once again, the audio party of "no" shows up to pick a fight, interfere with dialog, and try to keep the argument as polarized as possible, I see.

Your malice is obvous, Geoff.

Of course the argument IS polarized, you don't need me to point it out or to emphasize it. It's the audiophiles vs the anti-audiophiles, the latter represented perfectly by the august members of AES, who apparently believe, like The Amazing Randi, to be on some sort of holy witch hunt, ferreting out the "paranormal," the "preposterous," the "obvious scam" - anything that appears to "disobey science" - their "science."

Anything to promote, extend and amplify their smug, self-congratulatory goals. Just like The Amazing Randi! The James Randi Educational Foundation, indeed! Yet, like Randi, you never actually investigate any of the audio devices you take such delight in ridiculing. So, tell me, how UNcurious can Science get?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Cool! Another anti-tweaker, anti-audiophile Randi style love fest. Guess you guys have plumb run outta gears.

Once again, the audio party of "no" shows up to pick a fight, interfere with dialog, and try to keep the argument as polarized as possible, I see.

Your malice is obvous, Geoff.

Of course the argument IS polarized, you don't need me to point it out or to emphasize it. It's the audiophiles vs the anti-audiophiles, the latter represented perfectly by the august members of AES, who apparently believe, like The Amazing Randi, to be on some sort of holy witch hunt, ferreting out the "paranormal," the "preposterous," the "obvious scam" - anything that appears to "disobey science" - their "science."

Anything to promote, extend and amplify their smug, self-congratulatory goals. Just like The Amazing Randi! The James Randi Educational Foundation, indeed! Yet, like Randi, you never actually investigate any of the audio devices you take such delight in ridiculing. So, tell me, how UNcurious can Science get?

Wow, stellar bullshitting there, Geoff!

"Audiophile vs. anti-audiophile".....where'd you get that, Fox News? I never thought I'd see you admit to being an 'anti-audiophile,' though. Thanks for the admission.

Then....those repeated references to the Amazing Randi - who would have expected that to spill out of your brain onto the keyboard?

All those great buzzwords you tossed in there at the end? Well, let's just say they are every bit as amazing as your friend Randi.

You were your usual eloquent self, for sure.

En fuego!

Nowhere to go from there. (Obviously there isn't because you've been stuck there for so long. If only there were some other sort of gear in your transission. It must be frustrating to have just the one. Condolences, amigo.)

Hey, it's almost the end of term, is this the semester you finally reveal the results of you placebo/placebo nocebo/nocebo studies?

PS - quit leaving out Sheldrake. Then you'd have two names to drop!

Well its your choice if you want to ignore certain scientific studies that are published at PNAS involving two research labs with actual data, of course IMO you may be wrong to do so

I thought being a scientist involved investigating reported research
Forgive my cheekiness just making me smile that comment.
Cheers
Orb

Quote:
"Audiophile vs. anti-audiophile".....where'd you get that, Fox News? I never thought I'd see you admit to being an 'anti-audiophile,' though. Thanks for the admission.

Then....those repeated references to the Amazing Randi - who would have expected that to spill out of your brain onto the keyboard?

All those great buzzwords you tossed in there at the end? Well, let's just say they are every bit as amazing as your friend Randi.

You were your usual eloquent self, for sure.

En fuego!

Nowhere to go from there. (Obviously there isn't because you've been stuck there for so long. If only there were some other sort of gear in your transission. It must be frustrating to have just the one. Condolences, amigo.)

Goodness, gracious, must have been a rough night.

Please give my condolences to your liver.

My liver thanks you for your concern, but the rest of my organs wonder why you seem to care about my liver but then persist in throwing such bullshit at the rest of them.

Maybe you need to put on a seminar to come up with some new schtick!

Your great grandpa stopped by and told my Ouija Board that he's very disappointed in you...

Quote:

Quote:

Goodness, gracious, must have been a rough night.

Please give my condolences to your liver.

Dissembling again?
Could it really be Satan?
Or just a blowhard?

Your post about your seminar must have rattled his cage, but you'd think he'd have already known about it via the morphic resonance vibrations.

Quote:

Quote:

Goodness, gracious, must have been a rough night.

Please give my condolences to your liver.

Dissembling again?
Could it really be Satan?
Or just a blowhard?

Better let Buddah handle the jokes. You're much better posing as a know it all. Heh heh

Quote:

Better let Buddah handle the jokes. You're much better posing as a know it all. Heh heh

Posing?

Quote:

Quote:

Better let Buddah handle the jokes. You're much better posing as a know it all. Heh heh

Posing?

Good catch!

Quote:

Quote:

Better let Buddah handle the jokes. You're much better posing as a know it all. Heh heh

Posing?

Ok here is my attempt on the same line...

As Agent JJ opens his locker at the AES Bureau, the Stereophile forum member creatures living there look up and as a group sing out loud.
"JJ is back! The keeper of the light! All hail JJ! All hail JJ! Oh JJ can you see by the dawn's early light..."
Its from a new film called Men in AES based on a real life person AKA JJ, plotline as follows.

Quote:
For Agent JJ, it is another day at the office, monitoring, licensing and policing all audio activity on Earth. One day, JJ receives a report of an unauthorized golden ear presentation near New York. It is an old enemy of AES, a golden ear subjectivist named Geoff. Who is searching for a powerful artifact called The Art of Quality Music. JJ investigates and quickly realizes he is going to need help. Unfortunately, the other AES agents do not work up to par like JJ can

Cheers
Orb

Still needs some work. Not ready to option this thing yet.

I see Ted Danson in the lead.

Let's do lunch.

Blast, but great news on Ted Danson for lead

Cheers
Orb

Currently accepting ideas for the geoff role.

Buddha , I hope, will agree to play himself.

Quote:
Currently accepting ideas for the geoff role.

I nominate Clark Rockefeller.

Quote:
Currently accepting ideas for the geoff role.

Buddha , I hope, will agree to play himself.

What I had in mind was Foghorn Leghorn playing yours truly. Buddha and jj can fight over who gets Henery the Chicken Hawk or Barnyard Dog to play them.

Foghorn Leghorn is good, he was always opposed to science and invention - a skeptic trying to foil Ehhgead Jr.'s progress....perfect.

Let us hope that the 'Randiites' do not prevail to the point that audio progress is EVEN MORE actively suppressed.

Quote:
Let us hope that the 'Randiites' do not prevail to the point that audio progress is EVEN MORE actively suppressed.

Once you let them get a foothold in your house, it can be very difficult to get rid of them.

Quote:
Foghorn Leghorn is good, he was always opposed to science and invention - a skeptic trying to foil Ehhgead Jr.'s progress....perfect.

You're forgetting I'm the one who's actually for science and invention, silly goose. I am the real skeptic. I am the establishment.

We are the world.

Quote:

Quote:
Foghorn Leghorn is good, he was always opposed to science and invention - a skeptic trying to foil Ehhgead Jr.'s progress....perfect.

You're forgetting I'm the one who's actually for science and invention, silly goose. I am the real skeptic. I am the establishment.

We are the world.

Yeah, you and your main man Randi are "skeptics."

OK, jj, thanks for giving me the invitation. If everyone will look at preprint:
'Phase Modulation and Intermodulation in Feedback Audio Amplifiers'
#1751 (g3) presented at the Hamburg 1981 AES Convention.
There you will find an example of a paper that was REJECTED by Lipshitz and the boys, who were in charge of the AES publications at the time.
How do I know? Matti told me that Pat McDonald, of the AES told him so. We all knew Pat for years, a very nice lady.
I spoke about the problem, years ago, when John Eargle asked me at an AES exhibit, WHY I stopped contributing to the AES. He was as in the dark as you appear to be, jj.

Same old bullshit. If you guys ever got around to discussing audio, the majority of you would be counting your toes and even more would have to leave the country.

I thought you canned Frog and that whiner so you could "get a lot more room for the conversation to actually grow."

How's that "conversation" thing workin' out for ya?

Randi's not a real skeptic, he just pretends to be one. Superstitious is more like it. He's just a retired Las Vegas magician who knows a good thing when he sees it.

jj, you are not nice, or even reasonable. I ALREADY wrote a pre-print for the IEEE for the Tulsa Convention in 1978. No problem there. I could have been president of the AES, IF I had continued from 1978 on the same path. I was a full MEMBER of the AES for more than 40 years. The AES should have been the place for me to contribute, as I did in a talk at the LA AES convention in 1972, and for numerous other audio groups.

Quote:
Debate ala Kait and "Orb":

38 Ways To Win An Argument
by Arthur Schopenhauer
...

Hey I just offered you an interesting scientific study regarding new information on the ear model relating to waves and you came right back with it is nothing new without researching what they did.
Now thats strange considering you work as a scientist.

So maybe you should put yourself into that same category as me
Honestly it does come across that if you know something JJ, anything else has to be argued and proved to you even if it involves multiple research labs and a valid peer review - PNAS (as valid as those at AES anyway).
I would not mind if you actually took the time to do a bit of background research on the new information, but look back what you said in this thread and it stands out you do not care about the new information and wrongly associate it with the older debates.

So glad you joined me and Geoff in the same category you created to name us part of
Anyway, it may not be the same but I notice Gedlee suggests in his own presentations that there is new research relating to the ear sensitivity to waves in time domain, will be interesting to eventually see what that research is, interesting to some of us and I would also hope you as well.
It is not my fault if you cannot be bothered to actually investigate/research some of these reported studies that may have some relevance to your own presentations or analysis.
As I said its your choice, even if IMO it may be a bit wrong.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:

Quote:
Let us hope that the 'Randiites' do not prevail to the point that audio progress is EVEN MORE actively suppressed.

John, show me this imaginary 'suppression' from AES members, as opposed to people who want to make money at the lowest common denominator, of which there are certainly many out there.

Quite easy from your previous strings J_J.

1) Attacking Niteshade Audio as incorrect when Niteshade stated that using a lower output impedance on an 8 ohm speaker would tend to flatten the response. Thus you went against, or didn't know basic 1st year electronics theory while degrading Niteshade's name.

2) Your example in the Teo string. You used an extreme example of 1.1/1 ratio in order to infer Teo cables may have ultra high capacitance and therefore altering the sound if used, thus degrading the company, or at least creating doubt in the public's mind.

Let's take a look at the 1.1/1 ratio J_J used in the Teo thread, part of the forumula for calculating capacitance of a coax cable, and see how extreme it was.

1.1/1 ratio is the ratio of the inner diameter of the outer shielding (D) divided by the outer diameter of the center conductor (d) of a coax. The difference in radius is the thickness of the dielectric insulation between the conductors.

So for a large 10 gauge inner conductor of a coax, J_J's ratio would require the insulation thickness to be only slightly more than the thickness of one sheet of typing paper. And that is for a huge diameter interconnect cable.

For a 16 gauge center wire of a coax, J_J's ratio would require the dielectric insulation thickness to be little more than 1/2 the thickness of a sheet of paper.

For a 20 gauge center wire "d", J_J's ratio of 1.1/1 would require the dielectric insulation thickness to be a little more than a fourth, 1/4, that of the thickness of a sheet of paper.

I think one gets the idea of how easy it is to manipulate scientific conclusions and cause doubt. In this case just a simple change in the ratio of D to d and the average individual would be no more the wiser, all the while wondering if Teo cables have extraordinarily high capacitance. By the way I don't have any affiliation with Teo, haven't even met or talked to the gent.

You will have to come to your own conclusions as to why the degrading of these two companies.

Hope this helps the public.

Surely your proposed talk, j j, will be STARTING from an ALREADY POLARISED position ??????? Surely, therefore, nothing to do with Geoff, alone, personally, trying to "keep the argument as polarized as possible" as you have suggested ? Surely YOU had already started the 'polarisation' process by announcing the talk you are going to give and what form that talk will take ?

A quote from the introduction to your talk :-
>>> "We've all seen advertisements for expensive audio cables, and those of us who have looked know that the 100 dollar cables are just the tip of a very expensive iceberg." <<<

Again, using the theme of concentrating on the 'PRICE' of such as different cables !! The old tactic of concentrating on the 'price' so that one does not have to consider HOW and WHY such as the "Liquid cables" discussed elsewhere (and many other cables for that matter) can be described as giving 'improvements in the sound'. Surely j j, doing a talk around a thorough investigation as to WHY and HOW different cables can sound different would be of greater use to the world of audio ??? From reading the 'blurb' given as the introduction to your talk, your talk looks to be concentrating on being a de-bunking talk - I e already POLARISED in that direction !!

Before you react, I accept that it is your choice to do a de-bunking talk if that is what you wish to do and for people to attend if they wish - you do live in a free country after all. What I, for one, am reacting against is you attempting to place responsibility on someone else for POLARISING the subject !!

Like Orb, I will be interested in hearing what your (and others if others are taking part) latest thinking is on the subject of the hearing mechanism.

To quote from the introduction to your talk :-
>>> "In the first part of this talk, the way that an audio signal progresses from the ear, through the inner ear, and on into the brain, some of the phenomena of how it is reduced from a pressure wave to memory, and how that process is both noisy and guided by both expectation and (in)attention will be mentioned in a conceptual way (no mathematics required)." <<<

This will be particularly fascinating. Will there be a video available ? The latest thinking on that subject will be extremely interesting. I look forward to THAT bit !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

>>> "If you guys ever got around to discussing audio.................. I thought you canned Frog and that whiner so you could "get a lot more room for the conversation to actually grow." <<<

THIS is the problem - getting people to actually stay talking about audio !! I.e the HOW and WHY things are being reported as 'sounding' so much better after doing certain things. When one reads the introduction to the talk which j j is proposing to give, it appears to be a talk primarily aimed at de-bunking some things which j j either does not like, cannot understand and maybe even does not want to understand !!

Implying some things are 'bullshit' or even actually NAMING some things as 'bullshit' (as EW did on a number of occasions) is an insidious form of suppression - it does not have to be a direct suppression (banning) of a mention/discussion !! But the technique is often used as a means of stopping further discussion !! Other techniques are mockery and ridicule - it will be interesting to see if j j uses those techniques also during his talk !!

Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.

Quote:

Quote:
Randi's not a real skeptic, he just pretends to be one. Superstitious is more like it. He's just a retired Las Vegas magician who knows a good thing when he sees it.

Now, one true skeptic?
Isn't that old saw aging?
Shopenhauer, more?

Actually, Randi and I have a lot in common. His Educational Foundation attracts pseudo skeptics like flies on horse manure. So do my products.