Quote:
Scott, to be honest I think you may misunderstand what I am saying and your response is not a fair reflection of my post.

OK. Maybe you can help clarify my misunderstandings.

Quote:
Also please try to share some context on your points, I am trying to lead the way on this but both you and James still seem to be responding in a certain mindset as if in the trenches of a war.

Please tell me which points you feel lack context and I will do my best to provide the missing context.

Quote:
The perpetual cycle of this aggressive argument type posting needs to be broken by someone.

You may find this hard to believe but I tried that.

Quote:
Anyway moving forward, what I really would love is for the expectation bias research to be looked at by Stereophile staff, as it would be highly interesting to see in greater detail the mOFC mechanism at work.
Such ideas that come to mind;
1. Can the expectation bias be controlled by professional or experienced listeners?
2. Its been proven in other research that people can/do react more positively to the more expressive work when compared to an identical pure noted version.
http://www.ccs.fau.edu/~large/Publications/NairLarge2002.pdf
This raises the question, do we have expectation bias mechanism in effect when starting up music we really enjoy compared to those that we dislike or not interested in?
3. What is the duration of expectation bias once it initiates, and does it have certain behavioral patterns?

Those are just some I can think of.

Orb

I'll let JJ field those questions.

Quote:
You may find this hard to believe but I tried that.

And then you called May a crook and the Belt concepts bullshit. Nicely done, Scotty!

So, whether Orb finds it difficut to believe or not, many of us who have watched you bob and weave through this forum find it impossible to believe. You are just one more in the long line of holes who have insulted anyone who disagreed with you and then claimed you were the one making peace.

Didn't buy the goods then and I'm not buying them now.

Now don't get distracted by the pretty, shiny, new thing to play with, Scott. What have you got on that Rainbow Foil test you said was so easy?

Quote:
James,
you say bias cannot be measured but as I said earler.
Unless your an expert in this field how can you make such conclusive comments?

Ok, my patience is starting to evaporate here. I did not say that "bias can not be measured". Your last two articles seem to be full of fabricated positions you are attempting to lay at my feet.

And, yes, I am an expert in the field. That, however, should not matter as much as what one can actually demonstrate, eh?

Quote:

Also bear in mind the research I am providing has not and I doubt will never be presented to AES due to their interest purely in research and those in that specific area.
It might be good as secretary of AES to deem whether it could be beneficial for them to do so though.

Certainly the Toole papers have been presented to the AES.
No doubt at all. I sat in and listened to Sean's talk.

Quote:

It does not help the discussion when you just say it cannot be measured and that other models of bias are at work.

Repeating a position I don't hold does not force me to accept that position, you know. I have not claimed that bias (of some sorts, let us be pedantic here) can not be measured.

What is more, we need to establish what you regard as "bias". Is this something that is always predictable? Sometimes predictable? Is it due to experience and cognition, or is it due to basic function of the human organism.

Quote:

To me, the only other bias that would affect our judgement is rationale based such as that which cause racial discrimination/etc.

So, then, you reject modern theories of cognition? You reject the idea that concious or subconcious refocusing can result in differing results for the same stimulus, especially when dealing with signals very near JND's?

Quote:

So I feel this is another bias such as the euphonic which is not applicable to everyone or probably not even to most.

Well, then let's see your evidence for your feelings, ok?

Certainly, not everyone shares the same preferences. I would trust this is not surprising?

Now, your attempted psychoanalysis seems to have a few holes.

Allow me to ask:

Why are you consistently insisting that I hold positions that I have not taken?

Unless you start to show a great deal more care in your arguments, I am going to have to conclude that you are here to incite an argument.

Your choice.

Quote:

Despite JJ's claims otherwise, I think it's very instructive in terms of allowing one a chance to ponder things like intervals between stimuli, etc, with overlap with loads of different stimuli.

You can ponder all you want, for goodness' sake. Then you'll need to gather some substantial data to counter the various level-roving experiments and dl vs. time delay results, if you want to do more than ponder. Allen, Hall, and some others have some nicely developed data on this kind of issue.

I guess I could say "that's all it takes", but that may be a tall order.

Quote:

And then you called May a crook

I never called May crook. Please support your acusation with a quote of me calling May a crook.

Quote:
and the Belt concepts bullshit. Nicely done, Scotty!

What concepts would you be refering to? May has a lot of "concepts." Cite the ones I call bullshit and let's see if they pass any sort of bullshit test. Is it wrong to call bullshit bullshit? What exactly have I called bullshit that actually isn't bullshit?

Quote:

Quote:

And then you called May a crook

I never called May crook. Please support your acusation with a quote of me calling May a crook.

Quote:
and the Belt concepts bullshit. Nicely done, Scotty!

What concepts would you be refering to? May has a lot of "concepts." Cite the ones I call bullshit and let's see if they pass any sort of bullshit test. Is it wrong to call bullshit bullshit? What exactly have I called bullshit that actually isn't bullshit?

"Officer, what do you mean have I taken something that doesn't belong to me? Could you define "taken"? We'll see if we hold the same parameters for that variable. Did I take something from the store? Which store? I've been to a lot of stores in the mall today? The shoe store? Well, I wouldn't say I took something from the shoe store. But I wouldn't say I didn't. Where did I get my shoes? Which shoes would you be referring to? I have many pairs of shoes. The shoes on my feet? Which foot? I have two feet, you know. You're pretty stupid to not know that people have two feet. I think everyone can see that you don't know nothing, because you can't even count up to tw---{THWACK!} OW!

Hey, did you just hit me in the face with a phone book?! Because yeah, I'm pretty sure that's not legal. In fact, I don't think--- {THWACK!}OWWW! Ok, could you please tell your partner to stop hitting me in the face with a phone book? {THWACK!} OWW!! Ok, could you please stop hitting me in the face with a phone book as well? I swear, I'll tell you anything you wanna know! What did I do with my old shoes? I tucked them under the bench inside the store, just before I walked out of the store with the new shoes without paying for them. But I never stole any shoes! What do you mean I just said I stole the shoes? Could you please support your accusation with a quote of me explicitly saying "I stole the..." {THWACK!} Owwww! I thought we agreed no phone books?! {THWACK!} Owwwww!

While the city's finest are taking care of "our objectivist friend", I would like to take this time to remind people that "pseudo-objecticvism" is a disease. But you can get help. Call this number now. 1-800-DBT-FREE. For some, audio is a hobby. But for others? It's a fatal disease. Don't let this {narrator points to subject in the background, seated in the middle of the interrogation room on a chair under a single light bulb, while the men in blue are taking turns "at bat"} be you.

Quote:
.....That's part of the issue. Somewhere in another thread is a discussion of the apparent (one has to be careful there, since measuring it directly is impossible) levels of memory, and how focusing can change perception with or without volition, in the presence or absense of expectation.

James,
you may lose patience but read the quote, you did say it cannot be measured by "since measuring it directly is impossible".
You said that in response to my post that mentions it CAN be measured, because read the article and you will see it is related to mOFC and EP.
Furthermore I then added another research article showing again how emotion is measured in terms of listening to music, so if anyone should be losing patience it should be myself.

Here is a snapshot of the mOFC/EP article discussion section:

Quote:
The main hypothesis of this study was that an increase in the perceived price of a wine should, through an increase in taste expectations, increase activity in the mOFC.
The results described above provide evidence consistent with the hypothesis.
The hypothesis was motivated by several previous studies, which have shown that activity in the mOFC is correlated with behavioral pleasantness ratings for odors (10

Thanks for the welcome Buddha.
Ah you got to love the feel good factor built into us humans
How many readers look forward to sitting down with an alcoholic drink and listening to their favourite music?
We setup our own "marketing" mechanism to trigger our expectation bias
That to me is part of the interest with expectation bias, we probably trigger it everytime we want to hear and enjoy our music, let alone when comparing products.

Orb

Quote:
And, yes, I am an expert in the field. That, however, should not matter as much as what one can actually demonstrate, eh?

And this is the problem.
I am sorry to say but your an expert on PCM coding and digital signal processing, what you know with regards to other areas of audio research is not going to be greater than those actually in that field.
Yes I am 100% sure you know a hell of a lot more than me and others in general, but I find it hard you specifically know more than those actually doing the research in an explicit field of audio.
However this is definitely affecting your judgement in reading and responding to threads on this forum, although from what I see I doubt you care what I or anyone else who read Stereophile forums think.

While I very much doubt you will ever engage with those researchers I posted articles from (even though there is potential of it being of interest to AES), at least there is hope Stereophile staff may investigate and engage with them, although that is if they have not gone into a catatonic state yet reading the ongoing ding-dong in these threads
The real loss is having an insightful discussion about it on these forums.

Orb

Since you are actually responding to my quote, J_J, let me respond. First, though, Orb makes an accurate statement that J_J simply works with PCM coding and digital signal processing. Reading report results does not mean understanding the issues involved with DBTs.

Quote:

Quote:
It is clear you and J_J have little understanding of dbts and the flaws, and have consistently sidestepped information from the National Institutes of Health.

What "information" have we "sidestepped" here, pray tell?

It is quite obvious, as demonstrated below that you are not an expert by any means. Habituation to Stimuli is another one for starters.

Quote:
There are some things that are obvious here.

If that were the case, then you would have known the variables, which you did not until I posted them.

Quote:
ABX testing does not have to be "short term", yet we have claims to the contrary.

Again meaningless.

Quote:
ABX testing does not have involve "a memory test" any worse than any other auditory test, and in fact reduces the contribution from memory loss better than other tests.

Of course there are differences compared to typical home/store demonstration tests. Differences such as confusion (a memory problem), and many ABs of the same selection. Again, I suggest you actually do some studying before posting inaccurate comments.

Quote:
ABX testing, properly done, with controls, will detect desensitization, false positives, and the like, just like any other kind of subjective test.

This is one of the biggest "fish" stories I have heard in a long time. Not surprising you cannot provide evidence to back up this wild statement.

Quote:
Based on the various papers I've rejected in the past few yeras, not only CAN people do tests wrong, they WILL do tests wrong, despite extensive literature to the contrary.

Everyone rejects various papers, so what does this prove?

Quote:
ABX testing is no more fatiguing than any other listening test. Arguing for "fatigue" as an excuse is an equal bar for all listening tests.

Interesting. First, store/home testing usually does not involve 10s of ABs (back and forths) of the same selection. Secondly, the phychological atmosphere is different at the store/home verses the professional "testing" atmosphere.

Quote:
ABX testing can show reveal differences very, very close to the limits that physics permits when testing low-amplitude hearing response in a room sufficient to support the testing. Therefore, it is clear that ABX testing isn't missing much under well-executed circumstances, and "much" is little enough that detection theory suggests that it's missing nothing at all, but of course that's always probabilistic.

Hmmmmmmmmm.
1) First low amplitude testing does not minimize or even affect the habituation to stimuli problem when testing. So what you state contradicts physics and medical science.

2) A second time with your continued statement. If it "misses nothing at all", you have again contradicted the laws of physics/medical knowledge, that habituation to stimuli actually exists. Interesting how you just contradicted physics and medical science twice in just this one statement.

Quote:
And that's just the most reviled kind of DBT around here.

As seen above, J_J deals with magic and tells some pretty large "fish" stories. The "fish" just got alot bigger with this statement.

Quote:
In short, there is no, repeat NO evidence that properly done DBT's have any problems.

The exaggeration continues with this statement, or else J_J does not understand the basics of a subjective dbt/abx test. But then he has mulitple conflicts of interest, surprise, surprise.

Quote:
I never called May crook. Please support your acusation with a quote of me calling May a crook.

What do you think you called her? As Orb shows with a direct quote from your own post, you have a very poor memory for what you have actually said and you try to deny everything you get called on.

Quote:
What exactly have I called bullshit that actually isn't bullshit?

Do we really need to explain to you what's wrong with that sentence?

Quote:
ABX testing does not have involve "a memory test" any worse than any other auditory test, and in fact reduces the contribution from memory loss better than other tests ...

ABX testing, properly done, with controls, will detect desensitization, false positives, and the like, just like any other kind of subjective test ...

ABX testing is no more fatiguing than any other listening test. Arguing for "fatigue" as an excuse is an equal bar for all listening tests.

ABX testing can show reveal differences very, very close to the limits that physics permits when testing low-amplitude hearing response in a room sufficient to support the testing. Therefore, it is clear that ABX testing isn't missing much under well-executed circumstances, and "much" is little enough that detection theory suggests that it's missing nothing at all, but of course that's always probabilistic ...

And that's just the most reviled kind of DBT around here ...

In short, there is no, repeat NO evidence that properly done DBT's have any problems.

As I see this series of statements it would seem to me the most basic element of jj's argument is a paradox. He is saying that because ABX tests are known to work we know ABX tests work. By referring to ABX/DBT/subjective tests as proof that ABX/DBT/subjective tests are known among their practioners to be effective those practioners know those very tests are effective because those tests have proven themself to be effective- even when they are not.

Let's all stop and pat ourself on the back for realizing that no proof is its own proof - even when it is not. But we shouldn't let that stop us.

Or, put in other words, because ABX etc. are known to work all other tests are not known to work or, put in other words again, because ABX is known to work all other tests are known not to work.

Quote:
Merely from knowing the formula's meaning, one can infer its truth or falsity without any effort to derive it in the old-fashioned way, which requires one to trudge methodically "upwards" from the axioms. This is not just peculiar; it is astonishing. Normally, one cannot merely look at what a mathematical conjecture says and simply appeal to the content of that statement on its own to deduce whether the statement is true or false.

and ...

And yet when I say "strange loop", I have something else in mind

Quote:
This, together with our behavioral results and the additional imaging results described below,
support the interpretation that, by modulating the activity in the mOFC, changes in the price of a wine might lead to a change in the actual EP derived from its consumption.

Bear with me because I'm under time constraints that don't allow me to read the entire article searching for an answer when you might be able to provide a shortcut.

Does the article also determine the negative expectations concerning higher priced wine? IOW, if the higher priced wine is not perceived to be sufficiently "better" than the lower priced wine to justify its higher price, is there data that suggests the opposite effect might occur? This would address the issue of "diminishing returns" and also be applicable to audio.

Quote:
It would also offer indirect support for the theory that musical experiences tend to produce non-specific affective arousal, which may or may not be interpreted as emotion, rather than directly communicating specific identifiable emotions[11].

Taken in conjunction with the first quote, does this imply that someone sitting in a higher priced seat at a concert will experience a superior (emotional) perception of the music based on expressive performance when compared to someone in a lower priced seat?

Quote:

Quote:
I never called May crook. Please support your acusation with a quote of me calling May a crook.

What do you think you called her? As Orb shows with a direct quote from your own post, you have a very poor memory for what you have actually said and you try to deny everything you get called on.

Quote:
What exactly have I called bullshit that actually isn't bullshit?

Do we really need to explain to you what's wrong with that sentence?

Fact is you accused me of calling May a crook and when I challenge you to produce any quote of me calling her a crook you are a no show. So we can call your accusation Bullshit.
And if you think there is something I have called bullshit that isn't bullshit then yes you do have to explain what, how and why.

Quote:
It would also offer indirect support for the theory that musical experiences tend to produce non-specific affective arousal, which may or may not be interpreted as emotion, rather than directly communicating specific identifiable emotions[11].

Also, doesn't that sentence suffer from the same failure of proof as jj's statement of non-proof?

Quote:
Fact is you accused me of calling May a crook and when I challenge you to produce any quote of me calling her a crook you are a no show. So we can call your accusation Bullshit.
And if you think there is something I have called bullshit that isn't bullshit then yes you do have to explain what, how and why.

ROTFLMF'ingAO!!!!!!

Oh, Scotty, you are a trip!

Hey, Scotty, how's that easy test for the Rainbow Foil coming along?

Quote:
I am sorry to say but your an expert on PCM coding and digital signal processing, what you know with regards to other areas of audio research is not going to be greater than those actually in that field.

Really, now. The basis of psychological and physical limits of the auditory periphery are "PCM Coding" (interestingly, even your use of that terms shows you don't know what PCM stands for, and in fact Shannon proved the validity of PCM coding a LONG time ago, it's a 'given' in the science, so I'd say a lot of people are "expert in PCM Coding") and "DSP".

You have now made a formal, testable, professional statement that those are my ONLY areas of expertise.

Since my papers and patents cover a great deal more than that, it's obvious that either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're uttering deliberate professional disparagement.

Notice: Your claim, quoted above, is wrong in that it is incorrectly limited. You can no longer claim ignorance in this regard, so any further misconduct on your part will be obvious, intentional false disparagement.

Quote:

Yes I am 100% sure you know a hell of a lot more than me and others in general, but I find it hard you specifically know more than those actually doing the research in an explicit field of audio.

You mean like me? Right. I don't know more than I know about my own field. Seems kinda redundant.

You have yet to explain why you've tried to place positions on me that I don't hold. I've caught you in bald-faced misrepresentations several times, and I see an attempt at semantic quibble about one ONE remark of mine that you've taken out of context in regard to your misrepresentations of my positions. In general, you've just dodged the entire issue of your now repeated misrepresentations of my positions. In this, you're starting to remind me of sasaudio.

It would be good of you to acquire at least a modicum of decency here, and address what I've actually said, rather than some rhetorical well-poisoning and attempts to mislead the soldiers of audiophile trVth.

It is clear to me that you are poisoning the well, repeatedly misrepresenting my positions, attempting to justify your misrepresentations with out-of-context quotes that do not refer to the subject that you represent them as referring to, and then engaging in disparagement and professional insult through your various misrepresentations.

It is time for you to stop these games and actually address the issues at hand.

Fact: I have not, did not, and do not, claim that one can not measure ANY bias. You made that up.

Fact: I have said that one can not directly measure models of human cognition and memory. Sorry, even the most complex PET scans aren't going to help you with that. What we can do is observe the phenominon and the external results. If you want to argue that's something we can measure at the mechanistic neuralogical level, then you're also arguing for a fully physical mechanism for human conciousness, which is something I think we will see at some point, but that I certainly haven't seen hide or hair of in terms of direct, PET-scan level proof.

Your issues regarding "perceived emotion" are irrelevant to basic JND's, which arise demonstrably from the periphery, not the CNS, to say the least. What they are, in regard to this discussion, are simple, sheer misdirection. Musical features are well over JND's, to the extent that the same basic mechanisms don't even apply. What's more, your citations are doing exactly what I said I do, measuring the PHENOMENON, not the actual mechanism. So your presumed refutations agree with my position. Do you even understand the difference between measuring phenomenon and measuring actual, physical mechanisms?

I'm sorry, but your first attempt at disparagement via trying to lay a false position at my feet failed, your second failed and now you're trying to equivocate away your bad performance with extractions from context and barely veiled insults.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You'll have to do a lot better, and stop throwing irrelevant "facts" at me in an attempt to argue away from your misconduct regarding my positions, in order to convince me of anything beyond the fact that by now you're obviously trolling.

Not only are you trolling, the best you can claim to be in regard to what I actually do for a living is tragically negligent.

And you don't know what's wrong with the term "PCM Coding". Nor do you seem to know that modelling spatial hearing is not DSP. Ditto that acoustics is not DSP, etc.

None the less, you insist on telling me what I know, and what I don't.

Right. I get it, oh yeah. I get it.

Jan, I'm pretty sure calling anyone else on these boards a crook is a violation of the rules. Why don't you just report me to the moderator and have me suspended? Could it be that your accustaion was pure bullshit?

Quote:
You mean like me? Right. I don't know more than I know about my own field. Seems kinda redundant.

That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Scott, you're the one that's upset by my words. I'm the one ROTFLMF'ingAO at you!

So report away, Scotty, report away.

Say! how's the easy test coming?

Quote:
Jan, I'm pretty sure calling anyone else on these boards a crook is a violation of the rules. Why don't you just report me to the moderator and have me suspended? Could it be that your accustaion was pure bullshit?

It can't be. Since sasaudio has said I'm a crook, by way of insinuating that industry memberships in the AES make it "beholden to manufacturers" or something like that, and yet he's still defaming away, calling someone a crook can't possibly be against the rules here.

I mean, he's said, basically, that not only me, but all AES members and the organization itself are crooks. That's what his claims directly mean. It's what he's clearly indicated.

So it can't be against the rules, can it?

Likewise, it's obvious that telling lies is not against the rules here, since I am the (*&(*(* mainstream in the kind of science these people discuss, and yet some of the liars here insist on claiming that my positions are contradicted by the mainstream.

Sheesh. It can not be against the rules to either lie or call someone a crook, based on what keeps going down.

That is pretty accurate Jan. One thing I might add is the fact that J_J has managed to destroy the law of physics/medical science by making extraordinary claims and exaggerations. For instance, he has magically eliminated Habituation to Stimuli simply by stating so.

Next, J_J claims subjective dbt/abx testing does have problems as all the variables are all accounted for.

Quote:
ABX testing does not have involve "a memory test" any worse than any other auditory test, and in fact reduces the contribution from memory loss better than other tests ...

ABX testing, properly done, with controls, will detect desensitization, false positives, and the like, just like any other kind of subjective test ...

ABX testing is no more fatiguing than any other listening test. Arguing for "fatigue" as an excuse is an equal bar for all listening tests.

ABX testing can show reveal differences very, very close to the limits that physics permits when testing low-amplitude hearing response in a room sufficient to support the testing. Therefore, it is clear that ABX testing isn't missing much under well-executed circumstances, and "much" is little enough that detection theory suggests that it's missing nothing at all, but of course that's always probabilistic ...

J_J sounds like he is selling magic tonic at a side show. What happened to accurate explanations. He even claims he can break the laws of physics/medical science. See my previous post for more complete information. Are we talking snake oil salesman?

Quote:
And that's just the most reviled kind of DBT around here ...

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Another sideshow moment. I guess the better DBTs don't have any problems to contend with, or do not have to break the law of physics??? Sounds like a PT Barnum comment.

Quote:
In short, there is no, repeat NO evidence that properly done DBT's have any problems.

Are we talking the reviled ones or the good DBTs??? After seeing him break the law of physics and medical science by eliminating Habituation to Stimuli, I guess J_J ( the "expert") does not consider that a problem. Isn't J_Js work dependent upon DBTs being accurate??

Kinda reminds me of the gent who posted awhile back that 'he knows all there is to know about audio'. Then we found out he could not design a 1st semester, simple one gainstage circuit. Talk and claims are cheap.

PS. I stated J_J has a conflict of interest. His employer sponsors AES and he is a Fellow of AES, and many manufacturers financially sponsor AES. Here is a definition of conflict of interest. You, the viewer, decide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Quote:
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a policeman, lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or any other entrusted individual or organization) has an interest that might compromise their actions. The presence of a conflict of interest is independent from the execution of impropriety.

PS. Orb, the patents J_J refers to is developing MP3, I would call an inferior musical format.

>>> "maybe I am missing something (bit hard not to with these threads) but I do not think anyone discounts the merit of blind testing and that there are a few types of bias that affect us." <<<

I am glad that someone who has been reading all these 'postings' has at least 'picked up' that there isn't anyone here who is DISCOUNTING that "there are a few types of bias that effect us". By the word 'discounting' I mean no one taking part in these discussions is DENYING that there is such a thing as 'bias'. I, for one, DO, however, argue that in the normal cut and thrust of everyday living and working, and particularly with people working professionally in audio (or any other profession for that matter) be they reviewers of audio equipment, editors of audio magazines, equipment manufacturers and designers etc, ALREADY consider such things as a 'bias' effect (as well as auto-suggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing, etc), and take all those into consideration before they come to certain conclusions. Conclusions for either just discussing a subject, writing an article or actually producing an audio product.
THAT is what intelligent people do, constantly, in the normal course of their working lives !!!

So, THAT is the point where we should be starting the discussion. NOT dismissing everyone's 'perceived experience' as "it must be 'bias", or 'autosuggestion, or the placebo effect, or imagination, or effective marketing, or a need for a ritual to carry out etc'.

>>> "Other types of comments I have seen recently from some objective posters putting on a scientific front was that the model of the ear has been known for years, however what they omit is that the understanding of the ear was never complete.
And the next step of research seems to prove the ear model was not only incomplete but fundamentally missing key aspects." <<<

I have also tried to point out that ALL is NOT known about the hearing mechanism.

"Sas audio" has given descriptions of 'hesitant words' from scientists :-

>>> "As mentioned earlier, the real experts, Dr. Timothy Johnson use words like "suggests", "indicates", "more research is needed" etc. <<<

I have quoted from the hearing text books what I call 'hedging words". Words which allow people to converse, to investigate, to suggest, to describe what THEY themselves have discovered. Words such as :-

>>> "It is presumed that"., "Such and such a person has suggested that", "It is believed that", "There seems a possibility that", "This could have an effect on that which could then affect that" and so on. Or, "the mechanism is not yet fully understood." <<<

From the few articles I have seen published in such as audio magazines which have attempted to give a good description of the hearing mechanism, these articles devote three or more pages on the actual hearing mechanism and then, at the end, just a couple of SENTENCES stating that "at the base of the inner and outer hair cells is where they are joined to the auditory nerve and the information transformed to electro-chemicals (positive and negative ions) for it's (the information) journey along the auditory nerve to the working memory" !!!!!!!!!!!!!
TWO sentences !!! For this CRUCIAL part of the journey the information has still to take !!!

THIS is the real world we all live in. Where 'strict clinical trial results' or 'proof of following rigorous scientific procedures' are NOT the everyday procedures one does in the course of everyday work, when decisions regarding time, energy and money HAVE TO BE TAKEN - often within the space of a few hours !!!! The REAL world does not afford the luxury of providing 'strict clinical trial results' or 'proof of following rigorous scientific procedures' to every Tom, Dick or Harry who might demand such. NOR does it afford the luxury of providing Double Blind Trial results !!!!! Nor does it afford the luxury of absolute measurement proof !!!

So, the people who argue constantly for such proof live in a beautiful world of certainty and they can repeat Truisms after Truisms (i.e that the TRUE scientific way is by proof with strict clinical trials and proof after following rigorous scientific procedures) and can therefore appear to be SO, SO scientifically correct (because, OBVIOUSLY, in an Ideal world such PROOF would be so beautifully certain). You note I emphasise the word 'obvious' - because it IS so obvious that in an Ideal World wouldn't we all just love such beautiful certainty ??? In fact, it is SO 'obvious' it goes without saying between intelligent people.

Thanks for deciding to participate.

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

Quote from Orb :-
>>> "maybe I am missing something (bit hard not to with these threads) but I do not think anyone discounts the merit of blind testing and that there are a few types of bias that affect us." <<<

Your reply to Orb, Scott :-

>>> "I think a few people here do discount it. But what can you do?" <<<

Please, Scott, see my reply to Orb !!!!!

Your comment to Orb, Scott :-
>>> "I think the crux of this argument is the difficulty some have in seperating their perceptions which are inarguable and don't need any objective varification with the desire to ascribe mechanisms of cause for those perceptions." <<<

OK, Scott. In your opinion, "some people have difficulty in separating their perceptions from their desire to ascribe mechanisms of cause for their perceptions". Perhaps, then, you could give your opinion on whether any or all of the following, which are claimed to give improvements in the sound, are described as giving improvements from people's own PERCEPTIONS only, OR have actual mechanisms as the cause of those perceptions ?

P.W.B. Foils and Creams etc.
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Crystals and/or Brilliant pebbles.
Clever clocks.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.

>>> "These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions. So when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions." <<<

WOW. " proposed mechanisms VERY, VERY unlikely" ?????? Strong conclusions indeed !! Stemming from arrogance, or from naivety, or from ACTUAL personal experiences ? Which ??

Yes, you and JJ are not challenging people's PERCEPTIONS - you have said so with your "their reports are merely anecdotal', from 'hobbyists', and if that is what floats their boat and makes them happy, then that is OK with you, their perceptions are valid.
But your challenges to the mechanisms being put forward are not challenges with other ideas, with other concepts, with other 'findings' from your own experiences which might alter the suggested mechanisms, no, they are merely demands for PROOF (results from strict clinical trials), for PROOF (results from rigorous scientific procedures). OR 'measuremental proof'. OR Double Blind Trial proof.

OR, your own 'proposed mechanism' - "bias" !!

So, Scott. Taking just four from the above list.
1) Is the reported improvement in the sound from applying a demagnetiser to discs "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?
2) Is the reported improvement in the sound from freezing discs, wires, components etc "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?
3) Is the reported improvement in the sound from applying a specific colour to discs, "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?
4) Is the reported improvement in the sound from connecting certain wires in a specific direction "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?

With No.1, you have yet another person (positive feedback online August 2009 issue) describing the improvement from applying a demagnetiser to discs !!!!
With No.2, the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.
With No.3, again the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.
With No.4, again the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.

For example. With No.4, in 1983 a certain well known audio journalist in the UK said :-

>>> "I had an interesting conversation with a contributor to HFN/RR some months back. "Isn't it about time", I was asked, "that we organised a test to show that this business about cables being directional is a load of rubbish, dreamed up by unscrupulous con men ?"......

How could such a phenomenon like directionality in conductors, therefore, have been missed by researchers all this time ? Surely it is too much to believe that it hid if an engineer bearing measuring equipment approached, but it was only too willing to be heard if carrying a music signal ?...........

My initial reaction, therefore, to this new fact, was to dismiss it as moonshine. However, a less-than-open-mind is nothing to be proud of, even when confronted with statements which appear to contradict everything one has learnt or been told.

The dogmatic approach adopted by some engineers and scientists that a phenomenon can't be held to exist until it can be satisfactorily explained, is obviously unsound.

During a single-blind listening test, both my wife and I were satisfied that we could consistently identify which was A and which was B. You can imagine my distress at the end of the session, when John (Farlowe of Exposure Electronics) showed us that the only difference between A and B was the direction of the 1 m length of interconnect between pre and power amps !!!!

Since my experience at Exposure, Russ Andrews has also shown us that the effect can be demonstrated with speaker cables, and likens it's importance to the 'fine-tuning' of a high performance car: the better the system, the more important the effect." <<<

*************

In November 1983 issue HFN the Editor wrote :-

>>> "Additional confirmation of the phenomenon (directionality in cables) comes from Bob Stuart, who tells me that care is taken in production of his new Meridian modular amp to ensure that cable is connected the preferred way round. He can't explain why it should sound better one way round than the other." <<<

************
May 1985 issue of Hi Fi News reports on the talk given by (the highly respected electronics engineer) Peter Baxandall to the British section of the Audio Engineering Society.

In that talk, amongst other things, Peter Baxandall said :-
>>> "I do not believe that the use of expensive, special loudspeaker cable - no matter which way round they are connected - confers any sonic benefit whatsoever. I do believe that all this business about single-crystal, high purity, oxygen-free, connecting cable is just a load of ABSOLUTE HOGWASH" <<<

In Hi Fi Critic Forum, this month (2009) 26 years !!!!!! on, they are STILL arguing about 'directionality in some cables' !!!!!!!!!!!!

For Peter Baxandall to say that he "does not believe in the directionality of certain wires" is one thing - it is an opinion !! His opinion.
But, to go on to call
>>> "this business about single-crystal, high purity, oxygen-free, connecting cable is just a load of ABSOLUTE HOGWASH" <<<
in the face of so many 'professionals in audio' struggling, day after day, to get to grips with the differences in sound from different wires, is something entirely different to being a 'mere opinion' !!!

Do you really believe Scott that such as John Farlowe of Exposure, Bob Stuart of Meridian, the late Julien Vereker of Naim (and many others) ALL heard differences in the sound from connecting the same wire the other way round purely because of "bias" on their part ?

You see Scott. Whilstever you give yourself the explanation of "bias" for practically every reported 'improvement in the sound which either you cannot understand or have not heard for yourself', you can excuse yourself from thinking - because there is nothing to think about, nothing that needs investigating - you already have the simplistic answer - whilst we are all still struggling with the questions, Why ? How ? What is going on ?

Hence 25 - 30 years of controversy !!!

The controversy as far as you are concerned is that we won't accept your simplistic explanation of "bias" !! Or we can't give 'valid measurement proof of what we have heard'. Or we can't give any meaningful results from DBTs of what we have heard. Or we can't give proof from strict clinical trials of what we have heard. Or we can't give proof from rigorous scientific procedures of what we have heard.

If such as directionality in wire could actually be changing the signal travelling along it, and it COULD be measured, then those measurements would have already been shouted from the rooftops.

Many of us know there has to be something else "going on" !!! The problem for so many of us is WHAT ??

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

Quote:
Scott wrote: Jan, I'm pretty sure calling anyone else on these boards a crook is a violation of the rules. Why don't you just report me to the moderator and have me suspended?

What are you basing that on? What rules? I'm pretty sure if what you said were true, a number of people here would have been suspended a long time ago, since you are hardly the first here to imply that Machina Dynamica or PWB are crooks, and I'm pretty sure you won't be the last. If someone has some solid evidence that an audio company are crooks, then sure, I want to hear about it. 3 or 4 people saying "They billed my CC but I never received the product I ordered", or "the product arrived damaged and they have refused to rectify this or will not respond to my contact" would be a good place to start. But "I think these guys are scammers because I'm too narrow-minded to see how their products can work" or "I tried it, and I couldn't hear a difference, but then, there's a lot of things I can't hear either..." is just ignorant prejudice, and ignorant prejudice doesn't justify condemning an honest company.

Quote:
jj wrote:It can't be. Since sasaudio has said I'm a crook, by way of insinuating that industry memberships in the AES make it "beholden to manufacturers" or something like that, and yet he's still defaming away, calling someone a crook can't possibly be against the rules here.

Ok, we know that your primary duty in life is to feel slighted at every single word that every single respondent writes about you and troll for sympathy (good luck with that, btw), but what you are describing here my friend is called "conflict of interest". I believe he is suggesting that the reason for posting your misguided anti-audiophile opinions with such religious fervour, is that you are promoting the agenda your corporate backers are paying you to promote. That doesn't make you a "crook", even by the largest stretch of a drama queen's imagination. It simply makes you someone that has an agenda to promote, and who's corporate affiliations should be taken into consideration by less informed readers. I mean, in case anyone doesn't already know not to take you or your "80's 16/44 Redbook CD is as perfect as it can get" rants seriously. SAS is simply providing context for who you are, what you're doing here, and what you're all about. Especially since you claim to have a professional affiliation in audio, but unlike other reputable professionals here, you refuse to identify your affiliation at the end of your posts, and inform readers.

This is very different from your friend Scott suggesting that two of our audio professional members are scammers ripping people off, based only on his ignorance and many personal prejudices.

You see, Scott, the best way for you to end all of this "crook" stuff is for you to simply state on this forum that you do not now believe nor have you ever believed either May or Geoff have engaged in behavior that could be considered less than honorable and conducted in good faith.

If you have never described either of them as "crooks" or suggested they take money for "bullshit" that is worthless, that should be fairly simple to accomplish, don't you think?

Of course, if you can't post that, then we are left with only one logical conclusion as to your feelings regarding both May and Geoff. It won't get you kicked off the forum but we will know what your agenda really is.

So, what say you, Scott? Are Geoof and/or May dishonest crooks in your opinion? Are they taking people's money for "bullshit" that is worthless? That would constitute being a crook, would it not? Or, possibly, you have another concept of what being a crook means or what peddling "bullshit" for money amounts to.

Do you stand behind what you have said regarding May and Geoff? Or do you want to weasel this one too?

Quote:
This is very different from your friend Scott suggesting that two of our audio professional members are scammers ripping people off, based only on his ignorance and many personal prejudices.

Frog, you need to be careful here. You know how they both hate to be "misrepresented" even when you can post their own words back to them. I'm not at all certain jj and Scott are friends. Other than the occasional aside to Scott to congratulate himself on something he thought clever, jj hasn't had much to do with Scott. Which is rather understandable I would say. I think jj even smacked him down one or twice.

Now, it's true Scott claims he and jj are only working together to debunk the mechanisms of the PWB and MD products. Scott would very much like to camp in the same tent with jj on that one since Scott hasn't come up with an original idea in his stay here at Stereophile forums. But I haven't seen jj put a pot on the fire and invite Scott in for a cup of coffee and cozy up to anything Scott has said.

I think their "friendship" might be a bit lopsided with the "science savant" hoping to gain some glamour from being buds with the esteemed audio profesional in our midst. But that's about it for the two of them going out for dinner or anything.

Hey, Scott, how's that test comin'? jj giving you any help there?

Scott, you have stirred up the troika of nattering nabobs of negativism.

This may help:

1) Ask them to list the equipment they listen to so we can better discuss certain tweaks.

2) Ask them if there has ever been a tweak that they tried and heard nothing from and, if so, what was the failed tweak?

3) Michigan is an honorable guy and honestly interested in these phenomena. It's the other three who stand around in "Macbeth's Cave" and mutter "Fair is foul, and foul is fair."

Scott, you've angered a religious cult. Nothing but "Double, double toil and trouble!"

As in Shakespeare, for the hobby, they represent darkness, chaos, and conflict. It's pretty obvious who's who, but I will let you work out the details.

Time to relax and enjoy their show.

Pity, the original topic was quite interesting before the usual kicked in.

Aww, Buddha! Haven't you put enough ideas in Scotty's head? And it's your goofball ideas that are getting him in trouble here. Sooner or later the kid's gotta come up with something on his own.

Report what? Fake laughter?

Uhhh .... Scott, this thread, Scott, stay with this thread.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Quote:

OK, Scott. In your opinion, "some people have difficulty in separating their perceptions from their desire to ascribe mechanisms of cause for their perceptions". Perhaps, then, you could give your opinion on whether any or all of the following, which are claimed to give improvements in the sound, are described as giving improvements from people's own PERCEPTIONS only, OR have actual mechanisms as the cause of those perceptions ?

Thank you for so aptly proving my assertion. What are "perceptions only?" All perceptions have mechanisms that cause those perceptions. Your question seems to be based on a fundamental lack of understanding of percpetions and mechanisms of cause of perceptions. So thank you for proving my point.

Quote:
P.W.B. Foils and Creams etc.
Cryogenic freezing.
Colouring the edge of CDs.
Directionality in wires.
Dieter Ennemoser's C37 lacquer.
Shun Mook devices.
Harmonic Discs.
Shakti Stone.
The lacquer which Sonus Faber use on their speaker cabinets (which they claim is 'friendly to audio').
Nordost ECO 3 liquid.
Applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs.
(Small size !!) Room resonance devices.
Crystals and/or Brilliant pebbles.
Clever clocks.
Aiming a hair dryer containing Tourmaline balls at a CD.
The Schumann Resonance device.

Yes May there is a mechanism or mechanisms that would cause one to percieve the improvements wrought by any and all the tweeks you cite. Does that answer your question? None of those perceptions were born in a void. They are all based in stimuli and mind set. *All* perceptions are caused by stimuli and mind set.

Quote:
>>> "These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable. It seems that some can't seperate these beliefs about the mechanisms from the original perceptions. So when JJ or I challenge those mechanisms it is assumed that we are also challenging the perceptions." <<<

WOW. " proposed mechanisms VERY, VERY unlikely" ?????? Strong conclusions indeed !!

The claims of mechanism I am refering to are pretty extraordinary. You won't find one scrap of scientific research that supports them. IMO that makes them unlikely at best. If you have any varifiable data that would suggest that I am underestimating the likelyhood of those mechanisms please feel free to cite it.

Quote:
Stemming from arrogance, or from naivety, or from ACTUAL personal experiences ? Which ??

None of the above.

Quote:
Yes, you and JJ are not challenging people's PERCEPTIONS - you have said so with your "their reports are merely anecdotal', from 'hobbyists', and if that is what floats their boat and makes them happy, then that is OK with you, their perceptions are valid.

That is true of all human perceptions May. So are you upset that we don't give certain people more credit for than I would give any other human being for their perceptions? I am not saying your perceptions are any less valid than anyone else's. So is it an ego thing that you would want me to make your perceptions special? I have said in no uncertain terms that *my* perceptions are anecdotal ones of a hobbyist and that they float my boat. Are you suggesting that I should give your perceptions more merit than I give my own? I don't get your problem. Well, maybe I do. I did mention that some peoples' ego will not allow them to accept their perceptions for what they are but will insist that their perceptions are objective references. no May. Not yours, not mine, not anybody else's. No one is superman or Spock.

Quote:
But your challenges to the mechanisms being put forward are not challenges with other ideas, with other concepts, with other 'findings' from your own experiences which might alter the suggested mechanisms, no, they are merely demands for PROOF (results from strict clinical trials), for PROOF (results from rigorous scientific procedures).

Yes May. that is how it works. Unlike perceptions, assertions of mechanisms are objective and are testable. If you want *me* to believe your assertions on mechanisms you are going to have to support them accordingly. Until then IMO they remain highly unlikely conjecture. If that bothers you then show me the beef. you are not going to change my standards of proof for objetive testable claims of mechanisms.

Quote:
OR 'measuremental proof'. OR Double Blind Trial proof.

OR, your own 'proposed mechanism' - "bias" !!

Again May, please don't speak for me. you have a very poor track record of getting my beliefs right. I proposed it as a *possible* mechanism. I draw no conclusion without the data needed to draw conclusions.

Quote:
So, Scott. Taking just four from the above list.
1) Is the reported improvement in the sound from applying a demagnetiser to discs "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?

Once again you demonstrate your inability to understand the issue of perception and mechanisms that cause perception. Bias *is* a form of mechanism or cause. The question you pose is testable but untested to the best of my knowledge. So at best all I can say that the perception has a mechanism or mechanisms as do all perceptions and until bias is eliminated as a *possible* cause it remains a *possible* cause. But my question to you May, is if this something of concern to you then why don't *you* fund a proper scientific investigation?

Quote:
2) Is the reported improvement in the sound from freezing discs, wires, components etc "perception only" ? Or "bias" ? Or "has it an actual mechanism as the cause" ?

Your question demonstrates once again your fundamental lack of understanding of the issue. If you understood the issue you wouldn't draw a false dichotmy between bias and actual mechanisms since bias is a subset of "actual mechanisms" nor would you draw a most bizarre dichotomy between "pure perception" and mechanisms. I mean really mechanisms cause perceptions and you are asking if something is "pure perception" *or* an "actual mechanism." wow. It's as if I said the engine in a car makes a car run and you ask me "well what is it? Does the car run or does it have an engine?"

Quote:
With No.1, you have yet another person (positive feedback online August 2009 issue) describing the improvement from applying a demagnetiser to discs !!!!
With No.2, the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.
With No.3, again the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.
With No.4, again the controversy is STILL raging, and over the past 25 years to my knowledge.

Your point?

Quote:
You see Scott. Whilstever you give yourself the explanation of "bias" for practically every reported 'improvement in the sound which either you cannot understand or have not heard for yourself', you can excuse yourself from thinking - because there is nothing to think about, nothing that needs investigating - you already have the simplistic answer - whilst we are all still struggling with the questions, Why ? How ? What is going on ?

1. again, plaese stop misrepresenting my position. I have never claimed bias is anything but a *POSSIBLE* P_O_S_S_I_B_L_E explanation as a mechanism until such time that someone does bias controlled tests to test that *POSSIBILITY* Get it? Do you ****ing get it this time?

sorry, a bit of frustration set in.

Quote:
Hence 25 - 30 years of controversy !!!

wait, you say you are struggling with the questions "why? what's going on?" Where is the struggle? I see the assertions from your webpage:

"Question 1
Does it rely on autosuggestion for P.W.B. devices and techniques to work ?
Answer.
No - The devices are actually superimposing a 'friendly' energy pattern on any object which they are attached to."

"The devices have been specially treated to provide 'friendly', 'relaxing' energy patterns."

where is the struggle there? Where is the testing of these assertions which are stated as fact? I don't see a struggle. i see a history of wild assertions of cause that ignore or flat out deny other known *POSSIBLE* mechanisms with no testing whatsoever to eliminate those known *POSSIBLE* mechanisms or to test the assertions put forward.

Quote:
The controversy as far as you are concerned is that we won't accept your simplistic explanation of "bias" !!

No May. And ::sigh:: Once again I have to ask you please do not misrepresent my positions. the contravery isn't that you won't accept bias effects as the mechanism. The *dispute* I have with your position is that you choose not to even do a decent test to eliminate the known *POSSIBLE* mechanism of bias effects and yet you state as fact that they are not a cause. Yep, I got a problem with that.

Quote:
Or we can't give 'valid measurement proof of what we have heard'. Or we can't give any meaningful results from DBTs of what we have heard.

You could. Or you could hire someone else who could. You just don't. That is a choice.

Quote:
Or we can't give proof from strict clinical trials of what we have heard. Or we can't give proof from rigorous scientific procedures of what we have heard.

It's not about what you heard it's about why. You make assertions as to *why.* assertions that are objectively testable. then you choose not to test them. and then you state those untested assertions as fact and deny other *POSSIBLE* mechanisms in your own literature.

Quote:
You see, Scott, the best way for you to end all of this "crook" stuff is for you to simply state on this forum that you do not now believe nor have you ever believed either May or Geoff have engaged in behavior that could be considered less than honorable and conducted in good faith.

Huh? Do you know what a crook is? We are talking about a criminal or a thief. I have no reason to believe May has engaged in criminal activity or thievery. Nor have I ever made any such accusations. Geoff OTOH. Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that his whole Machina Dynamica is a big hoax but since he is taking money it may actually be considered crooked. I'd say it certainly is fraud. But the problem is someone would have to admit they fell for the hoax to make a claim against Geoff. If geoff wants to take legal action against me for making these assertions then let him do so. But I think he would have a big problem on his hands. That being his operation is a hoax.

Quote:
If you have never described either of them as "crooks" or suggested they take money for "bullshit" that is worthless, that should be fairly simple to accomplish, don't you think?

The problem there is that worth is subjective and laws for the sale of "bullshit" are pretty loose. if they weren't then Horoscope slaes would be illegal. They are not. But I never said May was selling "bullshit" did I? Of course your inability to seperate percpetions from mechanisms ascribed to those perceptions prevents you from seeing that. The fatc is it is possible to sell a product that actually does what is claimed but that the actual mechanism claimed is bullshit. so one can sell a legitimate product and use bullshit as a sales pitch. But again you just can't spereate these things.

Quote:
Of course, if you can't post that, then we are left with only one logical conclusion as to your feelings regarding both May and Geoff.

One has to be able to apply logic to be left with a logical conclusion. that seems to leave you out.

Quote:
It won't get you kicked off the forum but we will know what your agenda really is.

ask Art Bell what my agenda is. LOL

Quote:
So, what say you, Scott? Are Geoof and/or May dishonest crooks in your opinion?

Dishonest crooks as opposed to honest crooks?
Geoff is being quite dishonest in selling his products to people who believe they make a physical difference to the sound of their systems. I beleive May believes in what she is selling. I see no reason to believe she is "crooked" or "dishonest."

Quote:
Are they taking people's money for "bullshit" that is worthless?

Again, "worth" is subjective.

Quote:
That would constitute being a crook, would it not?

Actually no. that would constitute major consumer dis-satisfaction.

Quote:
Do you stand behind what you have said regarding May and Geoff? Or do you want to weasel this one too?

I totally stand behind it. To bad you don't understand it.

"Geoff OTOH. Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that his whole Machina Dynamica is a big hoax but since he is taking money it may actually be considered crooked. I'd say it certainly is fraud. But the problem is someone would have to admit they fell for the hoax to make a claim against Geoff. If geoff wants to take legal action against me for making these assertions then let him do so. But I think he would have a big problem on his hands. That being his operation is a hoax."

Seeing as how MD has been number one on Audiogon for the last several years in sales and rating, by a mile, and seeing as how MD just received an award from US Commerce Association for outstanding small business, your "observations" don't add up to much of anything. Geez, if I had a dime for every snippy out-of work hairdresser wannabe who threatened to take legal action, turn me in the Better Business Bureau or rat me out to the Amazing Randi or The New Scientist...sigh

~ Flashman

Quote:
"Geoff OTOH. Yeah, I'm pretty convinced that his whole Machina Dynamica is a big hoax but since he is taking money it may actually be considered crooked. I'd say it certainly is fraud. But the problem is someone would have to admit they fell for the hoax to make a claim against Geoff. If geoff wants to take legal action against me for making these assertions then let him do so. But I think he would have a big problem on his hands. That being his operation is a hoax."

Seeing as how MD has been number one on Audiogon for the last several years in sales and rating, by a mile, and seeing as how MD just received an award from US Commerce Association for outstanding small business, your "observations" don't add up to much of anything. Geez, if I had a dime for every snippy out-of work hairdresser wannabe who threatened to take legal action, turn me in the Better Business Bureau or rat me out to the Amazing Randi or The New Scientist...sigh

~ Flashman

How many out of work hairdresser wannabes have threatened legal action against you? What are you doing Geoff? Breaking into cosmetology schools at night and stealing the shampoo?

I'll do the laughs here. You're much better as the straight man.

Glad to see you're not still having a bad hair day. I just hate it when you get all, like, discombobulated.

Quote:
Frog, you need to be careful here. You know how they both hate to be "misrepresented" even when you can post their own words back to them.

Or quote from their own IMDB page. Yes, I know.

Quote:
I'm not at all certain jj and Scott are friends.

I see what you mean. A manservant relationship doesn't imply "friends". I should be more careful with my words, you're right. I guess I wasn't careful, because I understand they both have me on ignore. Which is great, because it means I don't have to worry about offending either of them. Just one less thing to worry about.

Quote:
Other than the occasional aside to Scott to congratulate himself on something he thought clever, jj hasn't had much to do with Scott. Which is rather understandable I would say. I think jj even smacked him down one or twice.

But jj smacks everyone down. Including himself. Little known fact: jj got himself fired once from a job as a dept. store Santa, for scaring all the children. So if you're correct, I'm not sure how to interpret that.

Quote:
Now, it's true Scott claims he and jj are only working together to debunk the mechanisms of the PWB and MD products.

Uh-oh. You realize you're going to need a direct quote of that, n'est ce pas? Not that it will help, because Scott can deny a direct quote as firmly as he can an implication, an insinuation, or an inference.

Quote:
Scott would very much like to camp in the same tent with jj on that one since Scott hasn't come up with an original idea in his stay here at Stereophile forums. But I haven't seen jj put a pot on the fire and invite Scott in for a cup of coffee and cozy up to anything Scott has said.

I think you'd better stop talking about jj cozying up and inviting Scott into his tent. You're getting our friend Scotty all hot and bothered for nothing.

Quote:
I think their "friendship" might be a bit lopsided with the "science savant" hoping to gain some glamour from being buds with the esteemed audio profesional in our midst. But that's about it for the two of them going out for dinner or anything.

Oh dear, you see what you did? You got Scott all upset and now he's run out to the woods to dig a hole to sit in.

Quote:
Hey, Scott, how's that test comin'? jj giving you any help there?

You might be waiting a long time for that, bro'. Scott doesn't do tests. Tests would defeat the purpose of going online to argue that people should do tests if they're going to talk about things he doesn't believe in.

Quote:
I totally stand behind it. To bad you don't understand it.

Well, there you have it!

Scott is a dining room table;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2I...player_embedded

And as Barney says, there is no way to discuss anything with a dining room table.

No logic, no thought, no reality can pass unscathed through his ears on the way out the other side. As with Buddha no sentence can be entered and exited in the same vehicle and without a change of pants. He is the audio equivalent of the birthers and the deathers just as Frog had suggested. Provided facts, Scott turns them into this own private bias grinder.

Do you suppose Scott also rails against General Mills insisting they prove to his satisfaction their claim "Kix are for Kids"? Possibly he stands at the front door of the brothel telling the johns he is indulgent of the pleasure they derive from their actions but he strongly denounces the madame for her lack of hard scientific proof that pleasure is derived. Or on his vacation he drives obese people to McDonalds while insisting he cannot abide the biased illusion of "Happy Meals".

For, you see, Scott exists in a world of delusion.

Is there anyone here who doesn't understand Scott's position now?

Well, that is, of course a problem for us since our, " ... inability to seperate percpetions from mechanisms ascribed to those perceptions prevents you from seeing that."

BooHoo!

We are the dumb ones. We cannot see that Geoof is perpetrating a hoax and May, while not an actual "crook", is caught in that loose web of believing what she does is not criminal. Scott will not define "crook" or "criminal" but he knows it when he sees it - he just won't define it here in print.

Scotty, my boy, you have proven your ignorance and your arrogance. No different than a few dozen others who have sat in that very same chair on this forum. You show up saying you are fair and balanced only to launch into your unbalanced prejudices. You want us to believe you are for calm discussion while shouting that several members of the forum are engaging in behavior which you find distasteful and bordering on the criminal. For that alone you are dishonest, young man. Not a good start IMO.

You are, like those before you, arrogant in your demands. You say May and Geoff must prove their claims of "mechanism" to your satisfaction. Since you've never discussed the mechanisms May and Geoff claim and you are not willing to debate those mechanisms - only shout they are not proven to your satisfaction - you are exceptionally dishonest in that you do not seem to know what mechanisms May and Geoff claim. But you do know they are not being forthright about their answers because only one answer will suit you, Scotty.

Bias.

You are fine with the johns' .. sorry, the listener's bias but you cannot abide by the idea that May is doing anything other than peddling in bias with purely unsubstantiated claims of extreme satisfaction from her clients. Though you've made no attempt to prove her clients are not extrememly satisfied or that her clients all know more about the mechanisms they work with than you do now or could ever know. Your entire experience with Belt was years ago and relied on a "friend" to set up the experiment.

Very scientific of you I might add!

And your issues with Belt would be due to your inability to perceive the benefits of the Belt devices your friend used many long years ago.

You cannot perceive the mechanism ...

and you cannot discuss the mechanism ...

but you are unsatisfied with what you do not know ...

and so in your opinion the only other explanation is ...

Bias.

Just as the birthers and the deathers believe the liberals are for Obama because the liberals are biased toward Socialism and pulling the plug on Grandma.

Not that you've taken the time to investigate what is being said or made the effort to investigate the claimed mechanism ...

but you know it is not a mechanism you can accept ...

unless it is ...

Bias.

Your uninformed and uneducated bias will only accept ...

"Bias" ...

as the only answer.

So while you are accepting of bias in the listener, you cannot abide that any other form of mechanism is sufficient explanation for what Belt devices affect other than what your bias says must be happening. So bias is OK with you as long as it it your bias that is being accepted.

ROTFLMAO!

That bit of lunacy falls into the same "non-proof is proof of itself" logic that jj promotes. Pat yourself on the back for that one, Scotty.

I really don't have much more patience with dishonest and arrogant people, Scott. Nor do I have any patience for someone who will lift this one sentence and turn it into a snide remark without content or thought.

You are just like all the others only you have your own brand of distastefulness.

Two questions for you, Scott, I hope you'll actually answer them both and not turn them into sentence by sentence "I gotcha's".

First, you claim May must prove to your satisfaction the mechanisms by which Belt devices operate. It would appear that like the birthers and the deathers, you have not paid any attention to what is available for you to read and absorb. Therefore, prove your extensive research into this topic and tell us from what you've read about the Belt devices and experienced with your friend and in your own opinion, Scott, what are the mechanisms under which Belt devices operate?

If the only acceptable answer for you and the other audio-deathers is Nazi-like mind control, just say so and you need not go on and on about how this is proof of a devious plot to steal your brain and implant it in a chimpanzee - though that might actually be an upgrade for you if you get the chimp's brain in return.

Second, these are, if I am not mistaken, your own words, "These proposed mechanisms are often very very unlikely and are rarely tested even though they are very testable."

If you know the mechanism the Belt devices are claimed to operate under are- in your own words as quoted - "very, very unlikely", then you must know what those mechanisms are. You could not honestly make such a statement without such knowledge, eh? It would be dishonest of you to do so, would it not?

You must then know how those mechanisms fail to be proven in your own eyes. I've asked you multiple times and you've ignored the question multiple times, what test would satisfy you, Scott? If it is so easy to test the mechanism, surely you can produce such a test? Even if that test only shows bias, why can't you come up with such an easy test? 'Splain it to us, Scott, because we - the poor unwashed - are unable to see the problems you so clearly envision. Just a few lines will do, just an outline of a test will do. Wha'cha got, Scott?

And, if you refuse or cannot answer these first two questions, a third question then arises, why are you complaining so loudly when you don't have any solutions to what you are complaining about? What solution would actually please Scotty in this situation?

Really, Scott, I hope you'll not blow this of as you tend to do with your line by line gibberish. But provide some answers, that seems to be your weak point other than your obvious bias as the only answer you can produce.

If you cannot do so, then I suppose it will be up to May to decide how much more time she wants to devote to a birther/deather who hears nothing but what they have already decided is the only answer they will accept - that answer being that any answer you do not accept can only be an illegitimate answer.

Therefore, you will IMO remain a Looney Tunes character in search of yet another looney idea and unable to let this one go.

Jan I have one question for you. Why are you such an idiot? If you do not answer this question it proves that you are an idiot.

I'll explain it to you now. that was a parody of your "questions."

Feel free to ask honest questions. I'll answer those. But the sort of questions like "do you still beat your wife yes or no?" are bullshit questions. So get back to me if and when you decide to have a reasonable conversation on the subject and are willing to ask honest, reasonable, thoughful questions.

A Loony Tunes character? I can only think one one such character on this forum.

"hello my baby......"

"What do you know about the Belt Mechanisms?"

Seems a very simple, quite honest question to me. You complain they are not to your liking, well, what do you know about them that is not to your liking???????? What exactly are the mechanisms that you feel are "very, very unlikely"?

Those are your words, Scott, we can call them up again if need be. If you truly insist on weaseling out of another group of words you've strung together without basis for complaint, we can pull them up and show them to you again. You said them, now defend them.

They do exist, you know, the Belt mechanisms. All I'm trying to find out is whether you have any idea what it is you are complaining about. That is a perfectly fair question to ask any birther/deather and any good b/d'er can at least regurgitate the BS they have been provided. It appears you can't even do that much.

To make anything more of my question than what it is is to be dishonest in the extreme. You like tossing around the word "bullshit". Well, bullshit is what I see coming from you with every post. Calling me an idiot only says you have no answer for a very, very simple question. Calling me an idiot only proves you to be a dining room table.

There is no "do you still beat your wife" aspect to it. I'm not asking you when you started learning about Belt or stopped learning about Belt or whether you continue to learn about Belt. There is nothing criminal or highly immoral about what you do or do not know when it comes to Belt - you've said so yourself.

I'm asking you what you now know about the Belt mechanisms that you complain so bitterly about. That's all I'm asking and that is all you need to provide to answer part one of my post.

Don't play cute here, Scott, or dumb.

And your response does nothing to satisfy me about a test. You demand May put forth a test that satisfies you. Well, in equal portion, I ask that you put forth a test that satisfies me. No beating anyone, no asking for personal data - just asking for a test. You say they are quite easy to construct.

You're so very good at insisting on answers to your demands and insisting those answers are easy to produce.

Let's get some answers here, Scott, before someone sets a hot dinner plate down on you.

Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

Quote:

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

Well, now that gives you a conundrum, doesn't it?

But you are not stupid, so you must already know the way to get around the perceptual biases. It's called controlled blind testing!! Now, in a DBT, all those psychological factors are still present and active, but with proper controls, they don't affect the statistical results of a DBT!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

Well, now that gives you a conundrum, doesn't it?

But you are not stupid, so you must already know the way to get around the perceptual biases. It's called controlled blind testing!! Now, in a DBT, all those psychological factors are still present and active, but with proper controls, they don't affect the statistical results of a DBT!

No, the answer is to remove these biases from one's mind and then listen in normal fashion.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Oh come on, Jan. The most significant question is whether the Belt tweaks make any audible difference--indeed, whether they even make any measurable difference.

If not, the most obvious tack is that the differences are in the perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors.

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

Well, now that gives you a conundrum, doesn't it?

But you are not stupid, so you must already know the way to get around the perceptual biases. It's called controlled blind testing!! Now, in a DBT, all those psychological factors are still present and active, but with proper controls, they don't affect the statistical results of a DBT!

No, the answer is to remove these biases from one's mind and then listen in normal fashion.

So, you think you can just remove the factors that bias auditions? But some of them are built into your perceptual apparatus.

It was a joke.

Then again, no, it wasn't.

I can remove all preconceived notions and biases from my mind and listen in non-blind fashion and I am infalable.

Quote:

How do you manage to listen to your audio system without letting perception, which is subject to all sorts of psychological factors I hear, messing things up?

LOL!

But you are not stupid, so you must already know the way to get around the perceptual biases. It's called controlled blind testing!! Now, in a DBT, all those psychological factors are still present and active, but with proper controls, they don't affect the statistical results of a DBT!

It has already been previously pointed out there are factors that are not properly controlled, Xenophanes, thus affecting accuracy. Now if you have some proof to back up your statement I suggest you post it, as so far we have seen no evidence of DBTs being factual. I also suggest you start a basic study in the medical sciences, including Otology and Laryngology etc.