There's a reasonable article on my ancient views in the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/xenophanes/

Here are some old quotations of mine that have been preserved.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/Xenophan.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the collective writings of Bartholomew JoJo "Bart" Simpson from the chalkboard exercises. Bart writes:

I will not carve gods.

I will not aim for the head.

I will not expose the ignorance of the faculty.

I saw nothing unusual in the teacher's lounge.

Funny noises are not funny.

I will not snap bras.

I will not defame New Orleans.

I will not prescribe medication.

I will not bury the new kid.

I will not teach others to fly.

Teacher is not a leper.

I will not eat things for money.

I will not yell "She's Dead" at roll call.

I will not sell miracle cures.

I will not charge admission to the bathroom.

I will never win an emmy.

The cafeteria deep fat fryer is not a toy.

I am not authorized to fire substitue teachers.

My homework was not stolen by a one-armed man.

Organ transplants are best left to professionals.

The Pledge of Allegiance does not end with "Hail Satan!"

Garlic gum is not funny.

I will not encourage others to fly.

I will not pledge allegiance to Bart.

I will not grease the monkey bars.

I will not show off.

I am not a dentist.

Nobody likes sunburn slappers.

I will not bribe Principal Skinner.

I will finish what I started.

I will not torment the emotionally frail.

Interesting points and yeah totally agree.
Looks like I need to expand on earlier posts that got some negative responses by one or two (not you Buddha just easier not to associate my response to anyone in particular).

So does anyone else have the same critical thoughts with regards to the relevence of those research papers?
Or are able to expand on what James is trying to say, because there are IMO not enough facts/context with regards to his critique for me to reach a conclusion.

I must admit I am rather bemused why one is so hostile to those two papers, and yet supports Toole's behavioral test that has no measurements and no theory/models on why and how listeners chose their preferences.
My only conclusion is that one was presented to AES (Toole's), and these other research papers werent, go figure and this is a snap/hasty judgement of mine but it does seem that the works of others are being diminished by a one/few here (no named needed I feel).

Also yet again we see the same with the dismissive comments with regards to MIT's research, another article not presented to AES.
I have nothing against AES articles/presentations/etc as there is excellent engineering papers presented, but other publications are just as relevant.

Now can anyone else comment on James comments with regards to the MIT research I posted in another thread?
It seems to me James is saying that the research paper has done nothing new and is just expanding upon work by Zwislocki.
However my understanding (and it could very much be wrong, just likes the possiblity of James) is that Zwislocki summarised the ongoing reseach models of the time, which also including early research by MIT that was classic Cochlear mechanics (as also described by others).
From the research paper I posted:

Quote:
Consequently, the mechanical function of the TM has been variously described as a rigid pivot, a resonant structure, and a free-floating mass (11

Quote:
Consequently, the mechanical function of the TM has been variously described as a rigid pivot, a resonant structure, and a free-floating mass (11

Hehe yes you make a rather compelling point,
the ear model I must admit is bordering on the catatonic reading material but I felt had to be done to highlight some inconsistencies by one poster.
As you rightly show, maybe I could let misrepresentation go but that is rather tricky to do.

I guess the point with regards to the MIT ear research is that our understanding how the mechanism works and its sensitivity has recently been revised, meaning we cannot take for granted that how we hear has been fully known for years and something we should weigh up when some post otherwise.
And yeah your right, it could had been done without the catatonic technical/research paper post

I guess I am bemused as I like to think those involved with audio (James is secretary of AES/expert in PCM coding-DSP) could post unbiased.
After all others in the industry manage it including staff members of Stereophile.

But the other two papers while not for everyone has potential implications or offers information that I would think is of use to us all.
While we have seen much discussion about bias, we have not seen any information with regards to a model/theory to say how it works.
So for all readers its sort of like an urban myth, we are told it exists but with no proof apart from behaviour, meaning we know nothing in detail and resulting that the word bias is thrown around for nearly anything/everything when involving audiophiles.
The two papers expectation bias/emotion in expressed notation go some way to show a model and theory of a chemical bias reaction, which shows how we can be affected.
So now we have something more factual than just the vague concept of bias - the next step I was going to do but been sidetracked was discuss rationale bias, which in theory should be controllable by debiasing techniques.
But importantly it gives us all greater information and hopefully understanding to decide how bias may or may not affect us

I guess its a balance between the technical content presented for readers to take in, and those who like to argue against anything presented.

But I get your point.
Cheers
Orb

Quote:
But importantly it gives us all greater information and hopefully understanding to decide how bias may or may not affect us

That's fine research and useful in some measure I'm sure. But I am tending toward agreement with M. Lavorgna when he suggests audiophiles really should listen with all of their biases in place. This desire to disengage bias seems too much like a continual test that cannot be answered. If I had wanted that I would have taken up Zen Koans as a hobby.

Which, not to beat a dead horse, but the papers you have linked to seem more daunting than placing "zionism" in a search engine and following all the Wikipedia interpage links to their end.

Not without value but there is only so much time.

Indeed by all means have the biases in place if you want, but would you like to know what those biases are, or arent you the least curious why queuing a specific version of a song you like it seems to create greater enjoyment in anticipation?
And I totally agree, its not for me or anyone else to say biases are to be removed, or be critical of those who just want to enjoy the music.

But I feel information wise, there needs to something presented to put into context the continual and repeated bombardment by some that the only true listening experience is DBT ABX and that we always suffer from bias.
This has never really been answered fully by those saying it, so it becomes more of a blame game without actually enabling the reader to understand just what it is for themselves.

I dont think these research papers are a tool to be used by some to prove we all listen with bias and promote DBT/ABX, but they are there to help us deal with biases;
Such as dealing with being accused by some posters our hearing is distorted and our actual preference is fake (which I believe can be overcome as Stereophile staff show is possible with their writing and research on debiasing), or deciding the process on how to evaluate a music system, or indeed as you say take the Lavorgna approach and just ignore the bias aspects banded around - does it really matter if bias is in effect as long as your enjoying the music on your system.

Eventually playing around with ones experiences in audio combined with mulling these types of discussions over can help in the long term satisfaction of ones music, or at the least to be content against questioning oneself caused by self confidence loss generated by the objectivist attack and the word bias.

I know I love my system without the urge to upgrade and no intention to, and this done without the use of ABX (although done some long term blind preference vs ABX testing on certain components for experience) or concern that jedi forces mind manipulated me with bias.

And as you say it is about being content with ones music and how it is presented to produce enjoyment, whether taking note of bias or not.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
Eventually playing around with ones experiences in audio combined with mulling these types of discussions over can help in the long term satisfaction of ones music, or at the least to be content against questioning oneself caused by self confidence loss generated by the objectivist attack and the word bias.

Very quickly before I have to go for awhile; does it appear to you that either Frog, Geoff, Steve, May or I have had our self confidence diminished by the objectivists? I think I understand what you are getting at but there is more than one way to get to Rome.

Quote:
I must admit I am rather bemused why one is so hostile to those two papers, and yet supports Toole's behavioral test that has no measurements and no theory/models on why and how listeners chose their preferences.

Apparently Orb has decided to lie again, and insinuate that I am "hostile" to a couple of papers that he's presented indifferently.

I am indeed hostile to Orb's presentation, which continues to lie extensively and deeply about my positions.

It is time that Orb ceases his lies.

Quote:
I guess the point with regards to the MIT ear research is that our understanding how the mechanism works and its sensitivity has recently been revised, meaning we cannot take for granted that how we hear has been fully known for years and something we should weigh up when some post otherwise.

Oh, look, right to the appeal to ignorance.

Is there some part of measuring phenomina that wasn't clear?

Well, no, it was clear, but Orb has again chosen to play rhetorical games rather than face substantive discussion.

The malfeasance is truly rampant in this one, Yoda.

Quote:
But I feel information wise, there needs to something presented to put into context the continual and repeated bombardment by some that the only true listening experience is DBT ABX and that we always suffer from bias.

Yet another lie. Orb, if he or she has any ethics or morals whatsoever, is now obligated to produce evidence of any strongly held claim that ABX is the ONE TRUE WAY.

Perhaps Orb might have actually read and understood the thread that it lept into with its dishonest propaganda, and read the whole discussion around preference.

I call on Orb to capitulate, apologize, and retire in shame.

Quote:
Buddha wrote: "Maybe pictures of your listening rooms and where you rub your grease and tape your foil. The spots where the safety pins work best for you, etc. You know, what an actual enthusiast might want to provide as part of his/her excitement over the astounding benefits his/her 'products' provide!"

(sigh) The sad thing is, actual enthusiasts usually don't care to share their excitement over the astounding benefits of products like the creams and foils you referred to, on public audio forums like this, because of hostile or otherwise adversarial reactionary responses they get, like yours, over products and concepts too unusual for and not accepted by those in the mainstream. In fact, I think I'm about the only person I know who is willing to share these kinds of experiences on audio forums, and I usually don't. Not because I'm bothered by the usual mockery and ridicule that ensues, but because the chances of getting beyond that to a true understanding of what it's all about, are usually slim and none. However, I did endeavour to try to share my excitement over the astounding benefits of such audio products in this thread very recently, when I mentioned that in a matter of a minute, I had improved the sound for everyone in a church, during a jazz concert I attended. I guess that wasn't interesting enough. Next time I'll try Wembley Stadium. But anyway, it does at least answer your concerns about Geoff, who actually doesn't sell "lampshade grease" or foil, and AFAIK, has never mentioned it here.

So, since you asked about those products and since Geoff is never going to give you an answer on that, the safety pin I mentioned using in the church recently was in fact the "CCU Ring Tie", from PWB Electronics. Or what you would refer to as the "magic floobydust safety pin snake oil thingamajig". The spot where I found it works best for me was on the label at the collar of my shirt, and I'm guessing that wearing the shirt makes things a bit better. (When I use the CCU Ring Tie at home, the best spot I have found so far, was attached to the rope that suspends my negative ion generator from the ceiling. Don't ask me why that, I can't say). This CCU pin was actually part of a series of devices I was using to improve the sound of the concert. One of the other devices I had with me, was a small jar of PWB's "cream electret", or what you refer to as "lampshade grease". No foils this time, sorry. The "music system", or source, was a piano, and a female jazz singer. Here's a picture of the listening room. Gee, I hope this all helps!:

So you see, in effect, you are right. I have in a sense "transcended equipment and listen directly to tweaks", because the only audio equipment in the room was my tweaks!

Another day, another insane demand by jay_jay for an apology.....

Quote:
I call on Orb to capitulate, apologize, and retire in shame.

Well, you've already managed the last one, and I'm not sure you would even know how to go about the first two,
so what's your goal here? Are you lonely and in need of company?

Quote:
Poor Linus.

He was wrong about Vitamin C oral dosing, but was actually closer than you might imagine.

Intavenous administration can achieve Vitamin C levels that actually do become active against cancer cells.

Many cancer cell lines are poorly able to handle oxidative stress, and at high doses, Vitamin C actually becomes a pro-oxidant...something the cells have to cope with rather than use, and this strategy shows up in many cancer cell line studies.

Vitamin C and Vitamin K can add to a cancer cells oxidative load and enhance tumor cell death.

Linus may get a second chance.

Showing that Linus was wrong about dietary supplement levels being adequate. However, IV is a different story.

So, Linus was wrong about eating it, but there is still interest in IV dosing to achieve adequate levels and experimenting with various tumor lines and types of therapies.

Kind of neat, a little Vitamin C is useless, but ALOT starts to have anti-tumor activity. Maybe.

Or, in keeping with some of the style of thinking on this thread - why insist on doing studies? Why not just believe the internet sales guy with the orange flavored pills that he SAYS will fight cancer?

Look a hair deeper. Vitamin C.

pH change in the blood.

So it is the pH change that is causing the cell walls to burst. MMS does exactly that. And will cure Any viral condition that I am aware of, for 5 cents a shot. No wonder big pharma and all those who desire control --- want that information dead, dead, dead.

More to it than pH change.

Otherwise, we could just alter pH in other ways and get the same result.

It's a bit of a Goldilocks thing. Not enough Vitamin C is bad, in the middle is good, and way too much can stress certain cells metabolically and they can't cope and die. Cancer cells are famous for a relative lack of anti-oxidant storage and an inability to handle excess Vitamin C. You could say that the cancer cells sort of O.D. on vitamin C!

The physiology is pretty neat, not as simple as you would think because the word 'acid' happens to be in 'ascorbic acid.'

That would be looking superficially rather than "look a hair deeper."

Cheers.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Maybe Xenophanes works with or under J_J, maybe a saleman for a company. Interesting that the "scientific" guys are the only ones who remain anonymous.

Pure speculation on your part. I don't know j-j personally. I never have worked with j-j nor have I ever been associated with any of his employers.

Oh, and I don't claim to be a scientist.

Was that sasaudio? He really IS paranoid, I think.

Typical nonsense from J_J as the reason for asking is that Xenophanes never provides any useful information or links/ evidence. He simply bolsters J_J, like a typical PR from a company, yet with no scientific credentials, how would he know if J_J were correct? That is why I probe, to check out their responses.

Quote:
It's funny, anyone who actually bothers to attempt to explain the real thinking of mainstream science is somehow or other "contrary to mainstream science" and they all have to be some kind of silly plot among conspirators, according to sasaudio.

Interesting since I provide information/evidence presented by such mainstream science as the National Institutes of Health, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, written by 26 RCA engineers and is a standard in the audio industry etc. Also presented are Dr. Kunchur and third party organizations such as the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS). You don't see J_J presenting to them, just his personal opinion. Besides that he is a "Fellow" in AES and his employer as well as other audio companies financially sponsor AES. As far as IEEE, J_J seems to present coding.

Quote:
I am relating the mainstream scientific understanding. (Of course it's tentative, all science is tentative) Once again, having a paper published is not "approval" or "endorsement" by any professional society. The AES is not beholden to manufacturers. Neither is the IEEE. It is interesting that in all of sasaudio's defamation, he avoids discussing the IEEE in any meaningful fashion whatsoever. Curious, isn't it?

See above. I present evidence. J_J makes vague and general statements with no evidence/links. Michigan provided a couple links.
http://notes.ump.edu.my/fkee/nurulfadzil...CM%20Coding.PDF

http://wiki.multimedia.cx/index.php?title=PCM

Quote:
Any claims that the AES is controlled by a manufacturer is a LIE, because that has been debunked.

See if you can find any evidence J_J has ever provided that debunks any conflict of interest. Just his say so, nothing more.

Quote:
Any claim that a publication of a paper constitutes endorsement is likewise a lie, because that has also been debunked.

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

1) Three national organizations, peer reviews, anonymous referees had no objections to the final print of Dr. Kunchur's paper. Dr. Kunchur states this.

Quote:
For those who have no idea what science and the (incredibly rigorous) scientific process is, let me explain what went into publishing the two above mentioned papers that have apparently generated controversy among lay readers (but no controversy whatsoever in all the professional circles, which include audiolists, otolaryngologists, acousticians, engineers, and physicists ). An experiment has to be carefully thought out and then submitted as a proposal to an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and approved by them before it can even begin. Then optimum equipment, methods, and a multitude of cross checks has to be developed (if you read my papers in their entirety, you will appreciated what went in). The results, analysis, and conclusions are then carefully considered and discussed with colleagues who are experts in their related interdiscplinary fields; for this I went in person to various universities and research institutes and met with people in departments of physics, engineering, psychology, neuroscience, music, communications sciences, physiology, and materials science. After that the results and conclusions were presented at conferences of the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS). Seminars were also made at numerous universities and research/industrial institutions (please see the list on my web site). After each presentation, the audience is free to tear apart the conclusions and ask all possible questions. Eminent people such as presidents of the above mentioned societies and corporations (ASA, ARO, Bose corporation, etc.) have been present during my presentations. After passing through this grueling oral presentation process, written manuscripts were then submitted to journals. There, anonymous referees are free to attack the submission in any way they want. More than a dozen referees and editors have been involved in this journal refereeing process. Only after everyone is satisfied with the accuracy of the results and all statements made in the manuscript, are the papers published in the journals. The entire process took around 5 years from initial concept to refereed publications.

Maybe not proof, but surely more mainstream than J_Js wild opinions with no evidence presented.

Quote:
This is the kind of "logic" and "ethics" that one sees from the voiciferous on this board.

At least we provide evidence, not just opinion and self proclamation claiming to be an expert....

Any self proclaimed "expert" who cannot provide evidence to the table, attacks those who present mainstream science such as Dr. Kunchur, national organizations, and his supporters, immediately raises a red flag in my book.

Quote:

Interesting since I provide information/evidence presented by such mainstream science as the National Institutes of Health,

That showed nothing contrary to my position.

Quote:

RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, written by 26 RCA engineers and is a standard in the audio industry etc.

Who have absolutely no qualifications in the area of audio perception, even though they certainly know their tubes, etc.

What's more, your attempt to make a point by using radiotron data showed that you had no more idea what "detection" means than Dr. K appears to from the quotes cited here and his equivocation at his web site.

Quote:

Also presented are Dr. Kunchur and third party organizations such as the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS).

Once again sasaudio insinuates that giving a paper somewhere is an endorsement. It's not.

Quote:

You don't see J_J presenting to them, just his personal opinion.

Gosh, no, I present to IEEE, AES, and a variety of universities instead. You do realize, don't you, Mr. Sammet, that one does not list "talks only". If I actually listed all the talks, you wouldn't have finished reading the list yet.

Quote:

Besides that he is a "Fellow" in AES and his employer as well as other audio companies financially sponsor AES.

Sasaudio again insults the AES for no reason at all. Perhaps he ought to check out those precious organizations above, who also have corporate members. The AES, APS, ASA, IEEE, etc, all have corporate members, and the money from corporate members is not in any case allowed to influence the actions of the society. "Financial sponsoring" is not an evil thing, it is a responsible and positive behavior from a company who does or uses the science from the organization. Representing it otherwise is an attack on every one of Sasaudio's precious entities above just as much as it is an attack on the AES.

Why does sasaudio keep citing these groups, when he should know, if he has done responsible research, that they all have various kinds of corporate membership, etc, and by his logic, should all be "suspect"? Why? Because it wouldn't support his defamation campaign to admit this.

Finally, if sssaudio bothered to do his homewerk, he'd know that I worked for AT&T when I was elevated to fellow in the AES, and at AT&T when I was elevated to fellow at IEEE (for PERCEPTUAL coding, by the way, notice the word PERCEPTUAL, eh), and was awarded the James L. Flanagan Field Award in Signal Processing from the IEEE while I worked for Microsoft.

Kinda puts a dent in his dizzy conspiracy theories, now, doesn't it?

Quack! Quack! There goes that duck flapping off into the sunset.

Quote:

As far as IEEE, J_J seems to present coding.

Again, Sasaudio tries to misrepresent the facts of the matter in a clear and obvious fashion. Perhaps he ought to read the citation for my IEEE Fellowship more clearly, and understand that the key word "perceptual" is conspiciously present, hence my interest in, and knowlege of, human hearing. Oh, and "present coding" could it be that he's trying to avoid the fact that I'm also an IEEE Fellow and a field award winner?

Quote:

See above. I present evidence. J_J makes vague and general statements with no evidence/links.

How childish. Anyone can make a web page, anyone can make a link. You can find fortune tellers, homeopaths, and holocaust denier pages on the web.

Quote:

See if you can find any evidence J_J has ever provided that debunks any conflict of interest. Just his say so, nothing more.

The AES is in the same catagory as all your precious societies above. When you will produce any evidence, etc, etc.

The entire time you keep arguing about my "say so", it is nothing whatsoever but your paranoid schizophrenic "say so" that keeps this argument about the AES going. No, you made the claim, you provide the clear, present evidence. You're the claimant, and I don't think you can bend spoons with your mind, either.

Repeating your claim without full and clear evidence, having been told your paranoid fantasy is wrong makes its repetition a lie, plain and simple.

And you have no evidence, of course, because you just MADE IT ALL UP. You know it, furthermore, and if you don't know that the other societies you point out also have various supporting organizations, etc, well, you didn't do your homework. I shan't be surprised, eh?

Quote:

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

1) Three national organizations, peer reviews, anonymous referees had no objections to the final print of Dr. Kunchur's paper. Dr. Kunchur states this.

Right. No objections. He claims, according to you, that 3 "national organzations" had "no objections". Does you really imagine that the ORGANIZATIONS AS A WHOLE HAD NO OBJECTIONS? I don't. Maybe or maybe not the reviewers, and we don't know what the reviewers said. I, myself, have said as a reviewer "Well I think there are some serious flaws, but I have no objection to publication so this idea can be introduced". No, I didn't review any of his papers for the ASA, etc, just to be clear.

Many times as a reviewer you will compromise with the author and editor simply to allow things to move along.

What happened here? We frankly don't know. One thing that is obvious is that neither signal processing nor signal detection experts had a chance to digest the meaning of "detect", or comment on the claims regarding PCM, at least as quoted on this board.

Quote:

Maybe not proof, but surely more mainstream than J_Js wild opinions with no evidence presented.

Well, which lie should we deal with first? Passing ethics review is not evidence that you're right. Convincing an editor to approve your paper means you convinced the editor.

Now, let's see, about what proof I've offered. Well, in the various threads I've pointed to a variety of books, from Dr. K's own citation of Brian Moore's book on the psychology of hearing, William Yost's book on the physiology of hearing, through math books (Morrison, etc). This is, according to sasaudio, no proof. The problem is simple, Sssaudio accepts no mainstream evidence.

Sorry, I've offered proof as conclusive as possible in science. Is this a lie of sasaudio's, or does he not understand the evidence? I don't know, but given his other malfeasance I am not tempted by any presumption of innocence.

Quote:

At least we provide evidence, not just opinion and self proclamation claiming to be an expert....

You haven't provided a single bit of evidence, from your original failure to understand what 'detect' means, through your failure to understand how information on timing is preserved in a PCM signal, through your insane fantasies about the meaning of company members in the AES, and onward. You haven't proven ANYTHING nor have you provided any evidence.

Quote:

Any self proclaimed "expert" who cannot provide evidence to the table, attacks those who present mainstream science such as Dr. Kunchur, national organizations, and his supporters, immediately raises a red flag in my book.

Then you, sir, are wearing the red flag on your back. Let's see, who are Dr. K's "supporters"? As has been explained to you, none of the societies in which he's published qualify, nor do the journals, nor do the reviewers, etc. A supporter is someone willing to come forth NOW and offer support. Show me the beef here, sssaudio, show me the beef.

As to mainstream science, well, mainstream science very well and truly does conclude that a 20kHz bandwidth is sufficient for nromal adult hearing. So mainstream science is hardly with you on that one, is it?

And who's attacking the mainstream? Hardly me. I am the mainstream.

Quote:
More to it than pH change.

Otherwise, we could just alter pH in other ways and get the same result.

It's a bit of a Goldilocks thing. Not enough Vitamin C is bad, in the middle is good, and way too much can stress certain cells metabolically and they can't cope and die. Cancer cells are famous for a relative lack of anti-oxidant storage and an inability to handle excess Vitamin C. You could say that the cancer cells sort of O.D. on vitamin C!

The physiology is pretty neat, not as simple as you would think because the word 'acid' happens to be in 'ascorbic acid.'

That would be looking superficially rather than "look a hair deeper."

Cheers.

Hm, are there other kinds of cells that have the same reaction, ones that we need, perhaps?

It doesn't sound like a terribly specific mechanism, but now I am certainly out of my depth in this end of biochemistry.

Quote:
And who's attacking the mainstream? Hardly me. I am the mainstream.

Bummer.

Quote:

Quote:
And who's attacking the mainstream? Hardly me. I am the mainstream.

Bummer.

'tis a bummer indeed. I feel some vague responsibility for refuting some of the more egregious nuttery, and for actually entering the scientific process when something "new" is introduced.

The problem we see here is that anything that in any way rejects the most outre' insanity is somehow taken as "claiming that ABX testing is the only way", bow wow woof woof.

I must note that we have equal parts bully and parapsychologist here, except for a few bright spots. It's a perverse place where "engagement" means "lie about what the other guy said", for instance.

Cells bursting in air. Out of my depth in this particular area of biochemistry. Of course, I get my vitamin C from screwdrivers fortified with mango and papaya chunks. Mmmmm.

"I am the mainstream."

Of WHAT???

Sasaudio designs preamplifiers, as I recall. The only reason I haven't heard them is because I can't buy everything. I can buy a lot, but not everything. Who can? And why would anyone want to? Of course, there is an obvious comment that needs to be made. If you like what you have now, why keep buying new gear, especially if your reference is your memory of live concerts?

From everything I have read, Sasaudio makes sense as a designer of sound reproduction equipment designed for home listening. J_j, there are NO "facts of the matter" (ummm -- just what IS the "matter"???), when it comes to loving music, listening to it in live acoustic environments, and choosing components that re-create the memory of that experience for one's own home enjoyment. From flawed software.

"Preserving a PCM signal" has nothing to do with the above, other than the obvious listening fact that most PCM signals (compared to the live listening experience, and memories of it...) are not worth preserving.

IEEE. AES. Alphabet soup. Detours along the highway to musical enjoyment.

AT&T "elevated" you to a "fellow"??? A fellow WHAT? Flea? Octopus? Nerd? Alphabet soup expert? And where's the elevation??? From what floor to what destination???

My general question is, "what do all these smoke-and-mirror diversions have to do with real listening, given what real music lovers seek, when driving to and from the concert hall"?

Of course, j-j, my second general question would be, concerning Sasaudio, what have YOU designed lately? Where can I listen to it?

Sorry, j_j, your arguments are too abstract for music. Music is concrete. Music doesn't do alphabet soup.

Look. I am a careful reader. There is nothing in your posts that makes me want to listen to any music with your blather as ambient noise.

The theorist and the equipment designer? No debate, here. At least, with the equipment designer I get to listen to music, without all the abstract and distractive noise in the background.

Thank God, I have NO idea what you are talking about. I understand what Sasaudio is talking about. We both love music.

Happy tunes. No insult intended.

A final question. Who is Jerry Garcia, why should I care if you are or are not he (she), and what does he (she?) have to do with the picture of a bored mongrel? Is this some kind of weird Rebus? Oh, goody. I love puzzles. And what does all this have to do with YOUR audio desiderata ? Does this have something to do with your "scientific" credentials, or is it merely flat-tire humor?

Quote:
Well, if you do actually know who I am, you also know that your chosen form of address is insulting. Whoopsie. Which is it now?

Quote:
Yes, you want us to put appearance before substance. That is quite obvious. What's also obvious is that you're a veritable champion of straw men, and full of false positions you either claim or insinuate that I hold.

Quote:
When you post something actually relevant, rather than something that more or less says, in terms of auditory system sensitivity, that things above threshold are audible, well, then, maybe there is a discussion to be had.

Quote:
You haven't taken a position on the false dichotomy you insinuate ("objectivist" and "subjectivist" are not mutually exclusive, to say the least).

Quote:
An interesting insinuation, who here said "some here are idiots"? Sorry, nice try at insinuation of yet another false position into the discussion. You really do like to make things up left and right, don't you? When will your articles get back off the 'j' axis, pray tell?

Quote:
Yes, you did. You attempted to lay false positions on others, but you haven't even taken a position on the OP beyond saying something as redundant as True equals True. That's hardly news, is it?

Quote:
Your definition of "balance" is to make false claims, such as your claim that I said you can't measure (any) kind of bias, when I said no such thing? Really, now, it's an odd kind of dialog that addresses people in a way they dislike, quotes a bunch of papers that are mostly unrelated to anything, points out something about the basilar membrane that's been proposed, although not proven until now, since the 1950's, etc. Frankly, I'm not sure you even understand the papers you cite. It's starting to look like you came here with an obvious intent, and that's to "win an argument by trying to sell appearance over substance". You cite a paper without any substantive comments of yours, presenting it like some miracle of modern science, but without bothering to explain the lot.
So, that's your idea of "balance"? Sorry, no, your intent is obvious, your disingenuity is obvious, and your intended insult is blindingly obvious. What's more, your feigned insult, insult you intended to feign from the start, and your fear to reply to me is just a way to avoid actually replying to your malfeasance and your outright whoppers like "PCM Coding". You throw words around. Do you really even know what they mean?

Quote:
Was that sasaudio? He really IS paranoid, I think.

Quote:
Well, this is the kind of company Orb is keeping, and the same kind of argument structure Orb uses.

Quote:
This is the kind of "logic" and "ethics" that one sees from the voiciferous on this board.

Quote:
Then there's orb, who would have me being an expert in a mythical subject called "PCM Coding". Right. Talk about showing your ignorance right up front...

Quote:
I'm just pointing out to Orb that j-j can offer a lot of good information. You certainly cannot show otherwise.

ROTFLMAO!!!

It is funny
But this is the guy who is secretary to AES..... From that perspective the kindest thing I can say is that his posting is not what one expects from someone in that position at any professional organisation.

I have decided its more beneficial for me to spank my monkey with a wire brush or 10lb mallet than go through the posts of James and logically try to either engage with him or correct his posts that as others have said is misrepresentation.

Anyone know how he finds the time to post here when he must be writing to all the companies and engineers to cease and desist the use of "PCM coding", and furthermore to apologise strongly to James for using such terminology that is an affront to his experience and work!

While he was at Microsoft maybe he should had got them to stop using the term in their technet, or when involved with RFC/IEEE/ITU-T the use on specifications such as G.711 and amongst many others.
For a term that does not exist according to James (which he is still ridiculing me on), try searching for it in a search engine, it may humour the rest of you.

Cheers
Orb

I have just received my (printed) copy of the September 2009 issue of Stereophile and have therefore been able to read Michael Lavorgna's article you referred to, Jan.

Michael's description of the separation between the two camps - "objectivists looking for a better measurable, repeatable, and verifiable experience; and subjectivists looking for a better experience" is 'spot on' and put in a nutshell.

To pick up on one point though from Michael's article. Michael quotes Peter Qvortrup "Your Hi Fi is only as good as it's ability to play your worst recording"

I know what Michael was trying to say with the quote from Peter Q but I always fear that the expression "worst RECORDING" immediately puts on the blinkers, and once the blinkers are on, it is extremely difficult to get them removed easily !!

Let me explain.

When the expression "worst recording" is used, is it the worst RECORDING ? Or is it the worst SOUNDING disc ?

As soon as you (not you personally, Jan, but you as in the collective you) split it into two separate descriptions, then you can look at the subject differently.

If a disc is the worst RECORDING, then no amount of (say) demagnetising, painting with a particular colour, freezing the disc etc, will alter the actual RECORDING. The RECORDING (however it was done) is embedded in the disc. A BAD recording is a BAD recording !!

If, however, you (one) can improve the SOUND of what had been thought of as the worst RECORDING by applying a demagnetiser, painting with a particular colour, applying a particular chemical, or freezing the disc, then the fault cannot have been the RECORDING !! You have been blaming the wrong thing !!

So, if your aim is "looking for a better listening experience", then to try to get the best SOUND from a disc is surely firmly 'on the cards' ?

With the best SOUND you can get from a disc, then that means that you are finally 'hearing' just what your Hi Fi equipment is capable of handling - and the important thing here is - and HAD BEEN capable of handling all the time you had owned that equipment - you had just not been giving it the best chance !!

The implications are really quite huge !! I said 'the implications'.

If people have purchased some discs, maybe because they liked the composer, or liked the performers, or liked the music but when they listened to the recording they didn't like the sound. They blamed the problem on it being a bad RECORDING. So, they never play it any more. However, one day they have a demagnetiser to 'play with', or they are going to try 'colouring a disc a particular colour', or they decide to freeze the disc, or they are going to apply a chemical to the label side (CD) or to the labels of LPs. They decide to try the (whatever) 'technique' first on one of the discs they have not played since originally rejecting it as a bad RECORDING !! They listen to the disc first before doing any 'treatment' and confirm that it still sounds BAD !! They carry out the 'treatment' and listen again. Suddenly they hear some or all of the following improvements :-

"better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on"

So, all of a sudden, if they can hear any or all of the above improvements, then the problem cannot be blamed on it being a bad RECORDING !! But, if they have had that disc for a year, for 5 years, for 10 years, then they have been putting the blame on it being a bad RECORDING for the past year, 5 years, 10 years !! If the supposed bad RECORDING disc was not a bad RECORDING but a bad SOUNDING disc, then what had been causing it to be a bad SOUNDING disc ?????

And now, even more importantly, another question is raised. COULD all the other discs that they have, (and may have had for a number of years) actually sound even BETTER if they had the same new 'treatment' applied to them ???

As soon as you break away from the blinkered approach of 'something being a bad RECORDING' this opens up a whole new world. But, it can also open up serious psychological issues for some people. A reluctance to realise (and appreciate) that if one has been listening to those same discs for the previous 5, 10, 15, 20 years one has therefore NOT been 'hearing' just HOW much the 5,000 dollar, or 10,000 dollar, or 20,000 dollar, or 30,000 dollar Hi Fi equipment was perfectly capable of 'handling'. Certainly far more than anyone has ever realised !!!

If people prefer not to bother to do any treatments at all, to just sit and enjoy the music as is then, as Michael Lavorgna says "You don't have to prove your enjoyment or take a test. Enjoy"

But, as Michael goes on to say "If you've tried and want to buy a device that purportedly "demagnetisers" records, and you think you can better enjoy listening to your music because of it, good for you. Those who believe they need to bring science into that equation, or to the rescue, need to re-evaluate their priorities."

Surely that is all the journalists who report the effect of 'this tweak', 'that tweak' and 'that tweak' are doing. Informing people of what THEY have experienced, of what improvements ("better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on") THEY have heard ??

Add to that the various contributors to the Chat Forums. Such as WTL who described hearing the effect of passive components on the sound, of hearing differences in the sound from different fuses, only to have such a report met with a response from Scott (below) dismissing it as "anecdotal, from hobbyists, and therefore not "proof" of anything :-

>>> "IMO Blind tests single or double done by hobbyists are anecdotal either way. Don't think I am dismissing your tests. If you found them informative that is great but as fara s "proof" of anything I dismiss all such tests." <<<

What IS the purpose of a Chat Forum except as an exchange of ideas and experiences between enthusiasts ? I don't know who WTL is or what he does. But what such as Scott does not seem to appreciate is that it is not important whether anyone is a Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich man, Poor man, Hobbyist, Professional, everyone's listening experience is as valid as the next person's !!!

Of course let us aim for some scientific explanation or scientific consensus but not at the expense of dismissing, rubbishing, ridiculing other people's (I mean Numerous other people's) valid experiences !!

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

Quote:

But this is the guy who is secretary to AES.....

WTF? Secretary to what? Sorry, your claim that you know who I am, etc, is just dead in its tracks now. Secretary? Dude, you are so wrong it's almost amusing.

Quote:

From that perspective the kindest thing I can say is that his posting is not what one expects from someone in that position at any professional organisation.

Oh, look, the old saw about how the other guy has to take any kind of abuse that Orb hands out, but can't simply point out the rotten nature of Orb's entire performance.

No, professionals are not obliged to take loads of BS. If you think they are, and you think they do, then you clearly lack experience in the subject.

Quote:

James

And again, after claiming you know who I am, you continue to address me in this fashion. Sorry, fella, but your "facts" are hurting.

Let's see. You don't know what "PCM Coding" is. You presume I have any effect on language in Microsoft Documents. You engage in dishonest hyperbole, and you refuse to take responsibility for any of your false claims about my positions, your insinuations, or your false claims about what areas my expertise lies in.

And, then, after you repeatedly engage in deceit, disparagement, and outright insult, you have the brazen dishonesty to accuse me of having a bad attitude.

You don't get along with many people, do you, "Orb"?

Quote:
Michael's description of the separation between the two camps - "objectivists looking for a better measurable, repeatable, and verifiable experience; and subjectivists looking for a better experience" is 'spot on' and put in a nutshell.

And that, as always, is something between a bifurcation fallacy and an fallacy of the excluded middle.

The two "goals" are not mutually exclusive. In that, the entire article rests on a silly mistake.

Quote:
I'm just pointing out ... that j-j can offer a lot of good information. You certainly cannot show otherwise.

http://www.calvinhsia.com/vfp%5Cmonkeys.htm

Quote:
It

Well let's take a look at what J_J states and notice a few things.

1) He provides no evidence yet again, just his say so, his personal opinion.

2) He leaves out critical information that allows him to make misleading conclusions.

3) He plays the double standard card. What is good for him is not good enough for others.

4) Generalized, vague statements with no proof, and that any 10 year old could post.

Me:

Quote:

Quote:

Interesting since I provide information/evidence presented by such mainstream science as the National Institutes of Health,

(J_J) That showed nothing contrary to my position.

Notice no evidence just his say so, opinion.

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.

If that is the case habituation to stimuli cannot exist since ABX testing measures right down to the level of physics. Either ABX testing does not measure down to the level of physics or habituation to stimuli is false. Habituation to stimuli has been known for decades and occurs in our daily lives, so J_J has come to some wrong personal conclusions/models.

Quote:

Quote:
RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook, written by 26 RCA engineers and is a standard in the audio industry etc.

Who have absolutely no qualifications in the area of audio perception, even though they certainly know their tubes, etc.

Seems you left out whole chapter

Quote:
Fidelity and Distortion

concerning perceptions, coverning Fletcher etc. Typical of J_J leaving out critical information.

Quote:
What's more, your attempt to make a point by using radiotron data showed that you had no more idea what "detection" means than Dr. K appears to from the quotes cited here and his equivocation at his web site.

Oh really. Remember you did not even understand the terminology used (had to ask me and I did not give you the answer), let alone understand what was said, so how could you know what the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook was even stating.

To be continued.

Quote:

Quote:
Also presented are Dr. Kunchur and third party organizations such as the Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO), and American Physical Society (APS).

Once again sasaudio insinuates that giving a paper somewhere is an endorsement. It's not.

If that is the case, then your presentations to AES and IEEE mean nothing either. Can't play the double standard J_J.

Quote:

Quote:
You don't see J_J presenting to them, just his personal opinion.

Gosh, no, I present to IEEE, AES, and a variety of universities instead.

Dr. Kunchur also presented to a variety of universites. So what is your list. Dr. Kunchur is also very well versed in higher order mathematics, so you have nothing on him.

Secondly, does Dr. Kunchur present to organizations sponsored directly by audio companies. Now how about AES?
IEEE is a very broad organization where you presented coding and filtering, and not much else. Do you know what

Quote:
Acoustical Society of America (ASA), Association of Research in Otolaryngology (ARO)

major in J_J. Perception. And Dr. Kunchur presented to them, and you did not.

Quote:
You do realize, don't you, Mr. Sammet, that one does not list "talks only". If I actually listed all the talks, you wouldn't have finished reading the list yet.

So we just have your say so. Dr. Kunchur lists some of his, and to some prestigious entities. Here is a link to his resume and presentations.
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf

Education: Ph.D. in Physics, Rutgers University, 1988.

Professional experience:

Quote:
Sasaudio again insults the AES for no reason at all. Perhaps he ought to check out those precious organizations above, who also have corporate members. The AES, APS, ASA, IEEE, etc, all have corporate members, and the money from corporate members is not in any case allowed to influence the actions of the society. "Financial sponsoring" is not an evil thing, it is a responsible and positive behavior from a company who does or uses the science from the organization. Representing it otherwise is an attack on every one of Sasaudio's precious entities above just as much as it is an attack on the AES.

However, you left out that the financial sponsors of AES are audio companies/manufacturers, including your own employer, and you are a fellow of AES. You just can't manipulate your way out of this one J_J.

Quote:
Why does sasaudio keep citing these groups, when he should know, if he has done responsible research, that they all have various kinds of corporate membership, etc, and by his logic, should all be "suspect"? Why? Because it wouldn't support his defamation campaign to admit this.

Sounds good until one reads the above reply by me. Notice J_J again left out important details. That is his financial sponsors are audio companies/manufacturers, including his own employer, and he is a "fellow".

Quote:
Finally, if sssaudio bothered to do his homewerk, he'd know that I worked for AT&T when I was elevated to fellow in the AES, and at AT&T when I was elevated to fellow at IEEE (for PERCEPTUAL coding, by the way, notice the word PERCEPTUAL, eh), and was awarded the James L. Flanagan Field Award in Signal Processing from the IEEE while I worked for Microsoft.

Yes for signal processing which means what?

Quote:
Signal processing is an area of applied mathematics that deals with operations on or analysis of signals, in either discrete or continuous time to perform useful operations on those signals. Depending upon the application, a useful operation could be control, data compression, data transmission, denoising, prediction, filtering, smoothing, deblurring, tomographic reconstruction, identification, classification, or a variety of other operations.

Quote:

His is a quote from the James L Flanagan Field Award concerning J_J (assume James D. Johnston).

Quote:
One of Mr. Johnston

Quote:
Repeating your claim without full and clear evidence, having been told your paranoid fantasy is wrong makes its repetition a lie, plain and simple.

What don't you understand about your relationship, your employers relationship, and other audio companies/manufacturer's relationship to AES.

Quote:
And you have no evidence, of course, because you just MADE IT ALL UP. You know it, furthermore, and if you don't know that the other societies you point out also have various supporting organizations, etc, well, you didn't do your homework. I shan't be surprised, eh?

The differences were presented earlier in these posts. So again you seem to fabricate whatever you want and mislead by leaving out critical information.

Quote:

Quote:

Interesting for a couple of reasons.

1) Three national organizations, peer reviews, anonymous referees had no objections to the final print of Dr. Kunchur's paper. Dr. Kunchur states this.

Right. No objections. He claims, according to you, that 3 "national organzations" had "no objections". Does you really imagine that the ORGANIZATIONS AS A WHOLE HAD NO OBJECTIONS? I don't.

Again your biased opinion but no evidence presented, and I received the email from Dr. Kunchur 5-27-2009, 1:19pm. Attempting to mislead about me yet again J_J.

Quote:
Maybe or maybe not the reviewers, and we don't know what the reviewers said. I, myself, have said as a reviewer "Well I think there are some serious flaws, but I have no objection to publication so this idea can be introduced". No, I didn't review any of his papers for the ASA, etc, just to be clear.

Interesting. So you are claiming you have allowed inaccurate information to be passed along to the public. Not surprising. By the way, Dr. Kunchur's subject is hardly new.

Quote:
Many times as a reviewer you will compromise with the author and editor simply to allow things to move along.

Right......

Quote:
What happened here? We frankly don't know. One thing that is obvious is that neither signal processing nor signal detection experts had a chance to digest the meaning of "detect", or comment on the claims regarding PCM, at least as quoted on this board.

And what is Otolaryngology? Maybe you can prove your statement using a crystal ball. How could you know since you just stated

Quote:
Maybe or maybe not the reviewers, and we don't know what the reviewers said.

And how would you even know who the reviewers are?

Quote:

Quote:

Maybe not proof, but surely more mainstream than J_Js wild opinions with no evidence presented.

Well, which lie should we deal with first? Passing ethics review is not evidence that you're right. Convincing an editor to approve your paper means you convinced the editor.

Maybe you should read the quote I posted in these posts yet again J_J to explain the process.
Still attempting to discredit Dr. Kunchur because his conclusion is at odds with your personal opinion. I was wondering and asking, if you are shown to be quite mistaken, your models inaccurate, does your employer still receive the additional millions over the next 5 years or do you get disciplined?

Quote:
Now, let's see, about what proof I've offered. Well, in the various threads I've pointed to a variety of books, from Dr. K's own citation of Brian Moore's book on the psychology of hearing, William Yost's book on the physiology of hearing, through math books (Morrison, etc). This is, according to sasaudio, no proof. The problem is simple, Sssaudio accepts no mainstream evidence.

Oh really. Care to provide the links to the first two, to prove your point, as I must have missed them.
Concerning the math, we have requested many times for links to back you up, from the books or from the internet for the public to see. No links were ever provided, week after week. If your math is mainstream you could easily have produce such evidence, no? By the way, Dr. Kunchur and all the other PHds involved in the papers, reviewing them etc. certainly know the advanced math, and don't concur with you. So where does that leave you and your personal opinions....

Quote:
Sorry, I've offered proof as conclusive as possible in science. Is this a lie of sasaudio's, or does he not understand the evidence? I don't know, but given his other malfeasance I am not tempted by any presumption of innocence.

As seen above, J_J has produced no evidence, just his say so while listing a few general books that he cannot pull evidence from, not even a quote from a book.

Quote:

Quote:

At least we provide evidence, not just opinion and self proclamation claiming to be an expert....

You haven't provided a single bit of evidence, from your original failure to understand what 'detect' means, through your failure to understand how information on timing is preserved in a PCM signal, through your insane fantasies about the meaning of company members in the AES, and onward. You haven't proven ANYTHING nor have you provided any evidence.

As seen above it is hard to trust J_J on any comment he makes. Just read above and see how J_J was caught over and over in deceptions.

Quote:

Any self proclaimed "expert" who cannot provide evidence to the table, attacks those who present mainstream science such as Dr. Kunchur, national organizations, and his supporters, immediately raises a red flag in my book.

Quote:
Then you, sir, are wearing the red flag on your back. Let's see, who are Dr. K's "supporters"? As has been explained to you, none of the societies in which he's published qualify, nor do the journals, nor do the reviewers, etc.

That is interesting since two of the national organizations specialize in hearing perception and include not only PHds, but medical PHDs. And Dr. Kunchur covered several areas at universties to make sure he was safe. You have not J_J. Want to play more smoke and mirrors.

Quote:
As to mainstream science, well, mainstream science very well and truly does conclude that a 20kHz bandwidth is sufficient for nromal adult hearing. So mainstream science is hardly with you on that one, is it?

That is interesting since the debate has raged for decades, so this is obviously your own opinion. Dr. Kunchurm, three national organizations, RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook and others either disagree with you or contend a debate rages, and you have never performed ultrasonic testing yourself, so you obviously don't know. You are a big talking but nothing to back it up.

Quote:
And who's attacking the mainstream? Hardly me. I am the mainstream.

As has been seen in other strings, and in these strings, you state only your opinion, not mainstream science. Like IEEE's comment, and in general, you always seem to be associated with degrading musical quality, never enhancing it.

Quote:

So we just have your say so. Dr. Kunchur lists some of his, and to some prestigious entities. Here is a link to his resume and presentations.
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf

Typical. He's a physicist. He's not a student of the human auditory system. I would expect he has loads of credentials AS A PHYSICIST.

As to your insane blathering about the AES, I notice you dodged the whole timeline issue, as well as the fact that every technical society has corporate members. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING to your idiocy about the AES and corporate "sponsors".

Furthermore, you not so slickly avoided the fact that I worked for AT&T when I was elevated to fellow of both AES and IEEE. So your paranoia about DTS is simply shown to be resolutely, absolutely insane. Are you suggesting that the IEEE is also in on the conspiracy?

If they are, then why isn't the ASA, APS, etc? They all have corporate members as well.

As to the radiotron handbook, well, you're trying to throw out words without a context, and then take the opposite stance no matter what I say. You're using a transparent technique called the "magicians force" that is well-known among flim-flam artists.

Face it, Sasaudio, you're no linus pauling. Nor are you reasonable or constructive. You have nothign to offer, you do not understand sampling, you do not understand detection theory, and you relate everything to analog experience, which simply does not apply in many fashions to digital signalling.

Quote:

Quote:

So we just have your say so. Dr. Kunchur lists some of his, and to some prestigious entities. Here is a link to his resume and presentations.
http://www.physics.sc.edu/kunchur/resume.pdf

Typical. He's a physicist. He's not a student of the human auditory system. I would expect he has loads of credentials AS A PHYSICIST.

As to your insane blathering about the AES, I notice you dodged the whole timeline issue, as well as the fact that every technical society has corporate members. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING to your idiocy about the AES and corporate "sponsors".

Furthermore, you not so slickly avoided the fact that I worked for AT&T when I was elevated to fellow of both AES and IEEE. So your paranoia about DTS is simply shown to be resolutely, absolutely insane. Are you suggesting that the IEEE is also in on the conspiracy?

If they are, then why isn't the ASA, APS, etc? They all have corporate members as well.

As to the radiotron handbook, well, you're trying to throw out words without a context, and then take the opposite stance no matter what I say. You're using a transparent technique called the "magicians force" that is well-known among flim-flam artists.

Face it, Sasaudio, you're no linus pauling. Nor are you reasonable or constructive. You have nothign to offer, you do not understand sampling, you do not understand detection theory, and you relate everything to analog experience, which simply does not apply in many fashions to digital signalling.

You just stated the same comments on page 27, which I addressed above. I see you conveniently dodged the issue of you winning the "prestigious" James L. Flanagan Field Award in Signal Processing from the IEEE award for deteriorating the signal quality while reducing bits. I would too if I were attempting to dupe the public.

See my previous posts to answer all J_Js comments, repeat post presented here.

Quote:

You just stated the same comments on page 27, which I addressed above. I see you conveniently dodged the issue of you winning the "prestigious" James L. Flanagan Field Award in Signal Processing from the IEEE award for deteriorating the signal quality while reducing bits. I would too if I were attempting to dupe the public.

See my previous posts to answer all J_Js comments, repeat post presented here.

Your fraud and unrepentant, willful defamatory behavior is hereby noted. You have been offered both evidence and opportunity to retract your defamation, and have failed to do so.

Quote:
Who is Jerry Garcia, why should I care if you are or are not he (she), and what does he (she?) have to do with the picture of a bored mongrel?

One can not cure intentional ignorance, and Clifton is an outspoken proof of that fact.

Quote:

Quote:

You just stated the same comments on page 27, which I addressed above. I see you conveniently dodged the issue of you winning the "prestigious" James L. Flanagan Field Award in Signal Processing from the IEEE award for deteriorating the signal quality while reducing bits. I would too if I were attempting to dupe the public.

See my previous posts to answer all J_Js comments, repeat post presented here.

Your fraud and unrepentant, willful defamatory behavior is hereby noted. You have been offered both evidence and opportunity to retract your defamation, and have failed to do so.

Kinda interesting since you cannot answer/refute any points in my above posts. Just a generalized generic personal attack with name calling. We are getting a good look under your facade.

Oh here is the link and quote from IEEE.
http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/pr/1990-presentprh-k.html

Quote:
James D. Johnston
IEEE Donald G. Fink Prize Paper Award
1995
(Co-Recipient) "Signal Compression Based on Models of Human Perception," PROCEEDINGS OF THE IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 10, October 1993, pp. 1383-1422

And this was said about J_J and Flanagan award.
http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/about/awards/bios/2006FlanaganSpeechAudioProcessingAward.html

Quote:
One of Mr. Johnston

Quote:

Quote:

But this is the guy who is secretary to AES.....

WTF? Secretary to what? Sorry, your claim that you know who I am, etc, is just dead in its tracks now. Secretary? Dude, you are so wrong it's almost amusing.

Quote:

From that perspective the kindest thing I can say is that his posting is not what one expects from someone in that position at any professional organisation.

Oh, look, the old saw about how the other guy has to take any kind of abuse that Orb hands out, but can't simply point out the rotten nature of Orb's entire performance.

No, professionals are not obliged to take loads of BS. If you think they are, and you think they do, then you clearly lack experience in the subject.

Quote:

James

And again, after claiming you know who I am, you continue to address me in this fashion. Sorry, fella, but your "facts" are hurting.

Let's see. You don't know what "PCM Coding" is. You presume I have any effect on language in Microsoft Documents. You engage in dishonest hyperbole, and you refuse to take responsibility for any of your false claims about my positions, your insinuations, or your false claims about what areas my expertise lies in.

And, then, after you repeatedly engage in deceit, disparagement, and outright insult, you have the brazen dishonesty to accuse me of having a bad attitude.

You don't get along with many people, do you, "Orb"?

Ah your right must had slipped my mind, its Bob Lee who is AES Secretary (or was awhile back), so my apologies for suggesting you actually had a reason to post in a professional manner.
Of course I am surprised you did not know that with how much you go on about AES or with regards to your involvement in audio.

Anyway regarding the PCM saga.
How can you tell me that I do not know what PCM coding is, when you stated it does not even exist?
And yet PCM coding from the early days is what has given us CD.
So everytime you go on about PCM coding, just remember you need to correct AES meetings, those who designed the G.xx standards, the audio companies who still use the term, the network carrier providors and those who design and manufacture those network carrier hardware solutions,etc, etc.
However I used the terminology because I believe you mentioned working at a telecom lab - Bell Labs/AT&T, where I would had thought you worked on complete and diverse PCM coding solutions.

I could provide various quotes supporting this discussion, but what is the point as you just seem to be on a roll and not interested in any articles/quotes posted here.
However lets not forget it was YOU who said PCM Coding does not exist.....
So a bit cheeky of you to now insinuate it is me who is at a loss.
Last post from me on this subject so last words yours James.

Oh and regarding your name...
You dislike it when posters here do not accept who you are, and yet you dislike it when someone acknowledges who you are and uses your 1st name.
If you actually thought about it for a minute, did it ever cross your mind that I used your 1st name in support of who you are?
Of course not.

Orb

OK looking for honest answers here where we try to hold back our bias/annoyance with James.

Has anyone seen anything that is actually constructive from him in this thread in the last 5-10 pages (let alone from the start)?
Because I am having a great deal of problem finding something that could be described as food for thought/informative/educational/fun/enthusiastic from him.

Its becoming more disruptive and pointless posting anything that fits into one of those categories on this forum due to him.

Cheers
Orb

Quote:
OK looking for honest answers here where we try to hold back our bias/annoyance with James.

Here we have Orb, who claims to know me, know about me, etc, and who continues to call me "James".

Even Mr. Sammet knows better.

He wants to know what I've contributed lately? Well, that's none of his business, science-wise, he doesn't have the rights to it. As to here, well, I exposed Orb for the wannabe quote-miner and propaganda-player it is.

Cherio, Orb.

If you want to have a productive conversation, reply to the substance. I think the reason you haven't done that is that you're not able to hold up anything more than a list of disjoint quotes, spewed randomly forth at irregular intervals.

Quote:
I have just received my (printed) copy of the September 2009 issue of Stereophile and have therefore been able to read Michael Lavorgna's article you referred to, Jan.

Michael's description of the separation between the two camps - "objectivists looking for a better measurable, repeatable, and verifiable experience; and subjectivists looking for a better experience" is 'spot on' and put in a nutshell. ...

May, I read the column Michael wrote with interest. The summary is about the gist of it. However, one of the problems of experiencing sound with all biases is that we tend to make judgements and conclusions about the sound without bases other than that experience. If one is interested in one's own experience and enjoyment, Michael is right-on, basically use your system as you 'hear' fit.

In any scientific experiment that is to pass muster with peer review, one must control the variables and eliminate the factors that may cause misleading conclusions. Personal biases are some of those factors. Sighted listening tests include those biases that have not been removed as factors. SBT or DBT or ABX attempts to remove or at least reduce those factors. No one would claim that these types of tests are the end-all. When people make claims about the sound without controlling for those factors, it becomes 'opinion' of the claimant, not a conclusion. That opinion is testable, but many a time the claimant does not go farther to actually test it and prove it.

I think Michael is talking about two different things, and should not imply IMHO that scientific analysis has been claimed by some as a substitute for experiencing music. It comes down to the opinions of experience vs. the conclusions drawn from real data and hard science.

Quote:
Surely that is all the journalists who report the effect of 'this tweak', 'that tweak' and 'that tweak' are doing. Informing people of what THEY have experienced, of what improvements ("better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on") THEY have heard ??

Add to that the various contributors to the Chat Forums. Such as WTL who described hearing the effect of passive components on the sound, of hearing differences in the sound from different fuses, only to have such a report met with a response from Scott (below) dismissing it as "anecdotal, from hobbyists, and therefore not "proof" of anything :-

>>> "IMO Blind tests single or double done by hobbyists are anecdotal either way. Don't think I am dismissing your tests. If you found them informative that is great but as fara s "proof" of anything I dismiss all such tests." <<<

What IS the purpose of a Chat Forum except as an exchange of ideas and experiences between enthusiasts ? I don't know who WTL is or what he does. But what such as Scott does not seem to appreciate is that it is not important whether anyone is a Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor, Rich man, Poor man, Hobbyist, Professional, everyone's listening experience is as valid as the next person's !!!

Yes, journalists report on the tweaks and the sound, among many other things. There's a difference between reporting and concluding. Sometimes that is not always clear in the written word.

If one compares two amplifiers and the sound is different in subtle ways, is the difference in sound due to the difference in amplifiers alone, if all other parts of the system are kept the same? Not always. It could be the interaction of the pre-amp with the amps. Another pre-amp may show no differences with either amp. Then the conclusion that come from the listening experience stated as opinions could be incorrectly attributing the difference to the amps alone, or ascribing individual character to each amp. How do we tell? We must control the variables in a scientific way to find the answer. Listening experience may or may not be correct. Once we have found the answer, we can then learn from that to sharpen our listening skills.

Regarding your support of my opinions on the sound of passive components or fuses, and of Scott's apparent rebuke, in some ways I do not disagree with Scott and in other ways I disagree. Either way, his response is understandable. He has not heard what I heard in those tweaks; it's as clear as the difference in two pianos for example.

I could not scientifically claim that the my test had all the factors controlled, and said something to that effect in my post on that topic. On the other hand, I do remain convinced that the SBT run with my musician friend was good enough to settle the question for me (confirming my own experience) from an enjoyment perspective, but is one that would not pass peer review if I had submitted those results to a scientific journal as conclusions. (More work would be needed before it can be submitted).

FYI, I both enjoy listening to and playing music, and have a technical background. My education is in math, and also in physical, life and engineering sciences. I have several advanced degrees in those fields and play two musical instruments. I also can identify notes by ear without references.

What do I do with this background? Basically, I try to use the varied background I have, as applicable, to improving the sound in HiFi. Audio is a hobby, but I sometimes wonder whether I should have made that a career instead... , but no. It's more fun to tinker with audio on my own time and hold a job that does something else that pays for the fun, so I'm not doing audio during the day and can come home to enjoy it.

Quote:

However, one of the problems of experiencing sound with all biases is that we tend to make judgements and conclusions about the sound without bases other than that experience. If one is interested in one's own experience and enjoyment, Michael is right-on, basically use your system as you 'hear' fit.

Absolutely! The only folks who imagine otherwise are the hardcore "subjectivists" who wish to claim that objectivists think otherwise.

De gustibus ...

Quote:

In any scientific experiment that is to pass muster with peer review, one must control the variables and eliminate the factors that may cause misleading conclusions. Personal biases are some of those factors. Sighted listening tests include those biases that have not been removed as factors. SBT or DBT or ABX attempts to remove or at least reduce those factors. ...

I think Michael is talking about two different things, and should not imply IMHO that scientific analysis has been claimed by some as a substitute for experiencing music.

Indeed, nobody has claimed that, and putting forth that myth is nothing more or less than picking a fight on his part.

"Objectivists" and "subjectivists" are not mutually exclusive, despite the bizzare bifurcations and excluded middles we all see here.

Quote:

Quote:

However, one of the problems of experiencing sound with all biases is that we tend to make judgements and conclusions about the sound without bases other than that experience. If one is interested in one's own experience and enjoyment, Michael is right-on, basically use your system as you 'hear' fit.

Absolutely! The only folks who imagine otherwise are the hardcore "subjectivists" who wish to claim that objectivists think otherwise.

De gustibus ...

Quote:

In any scientific experiment that is to pass muster with peer review, one must control the variables and eliminate the factors that may cause misleading conclusions. Personal biases are some of those factors. Sighted listening tests include those biases that have not been removed as factors. SBT or DBT or ABX attempts to remove or at least reduce those factors. ...

I think Michael is talking about two different things, and should not imply IMHO that scientific analysis has been claimed by some as a substitute for experiencing music.

Indeed, nobody has claimed that, and putting forth that myth is nothing more or less than picking a fight on his part.

"Objectivists" and "subjectivists" are not mutually exclusive, despite the bizzare bifurcations and excluded middles we all see here.

Apart from some show extreme forms of bias;
1. Myside
Volume 4

Just messin' around with You-tube....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8

Cheerio

Quote:
Wonder if this list can be applied to anyone here.

The test of critical thinking is evidence.

Now, produce some for your insinuations that "ABX is the only way to do anything", that I ever claimed "you can't measure bias", etc.

Sorry, evidence is the cure, and you don't have any. Yes, I see quite a lot of defensiveness here, and quite a lot of whining about form over function when the evidence does not emerge.

Quote:
Just messin' around with You-tube....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8

Cheerio

Touche

Cheers
orb

Hi Gents,

As one has seen in other strings, I am quite comfortable with others addressing me by my first name. Humility is always in style.

Steve

Quote from WTL
>>> "I think Michael is talking about two different things, and should not imply IMHO that scientific analysis has been claimed by some as a substitute for experiencing music. It comes down to the opinions of experience vs. the conclusions drawn from real data and hard science." <<<

I think that last sentence " it comes down to the opinions of experience vs. the conclusions drawn from real data and hard science." is crucial. To answer both you and j j. I KNOW that objectivists go through the whole range from 95% relying on real data and hard science and 5% relying on their own actual listening, to closer and closer to a balanced 50%/50% !!! But, it is what happens when the real data and hard science don't give any significant clues as to what might be happening. THEN it is the 'opinions of experience' (what is usually referred to as 'subjective listening') which have to be seriously used and considered. You say you play two musical instruments. It is your experience which will govern what you choose to buy and why - not 'measurements or DB trials'. So, regarding 'bias'. Yes, of course you would take price into consideration, of course you would take how the instruments look into consideration, of course you would take the Brand name into consideration. No one is denying 'bias' or the effect of 'bias'. But, all of those would have paled into insignificance if the musical instruments did not 'sound' or 'play' well enough for YOU - not anyone else !!!

>>> "In any scientific experiment that is to pass muster with peer review, one must control the variables and eliminate the factors that may cause misleading conclusions." <<<

Of course again. No one is disputing that, Not me and not Michael Lavorgna, et al. But when certain listening experiences are throwing up challenges (to find explanations) when no such experiences could have been anticipated, then a lot of the time we have not even REACHED that part where scientific experiments would come into the picture.

>>> "Yes, journalists report on the tweaks and the sound, among many other things. There's a difference between reporting and concluding." <<<

Again, Of course. But, surely most intelligent people realise that the journalists are REPORTING on what they have experienced (not actually giving final conclusions). But, WTL, you started with the word 'tweaks' in that sentence and then, in the next paragraph, the example you gave was of comparing the difference between two amplifiers (which is not really discussing 'odd ball tweaks'). I specifically chose the list of 'tweaks' I gave because they are VERY controversial, (as opposed to the difference between two amplifiers), have been (subjectively) heard to be effective and described by many, many different people, in different environments, with different equipment over quite a number of years and Michael L's article specifically made reference to one such controversial 'tweak'.

>>> "Regarding your support of my opinions on the sound of passive components or fuses, and of Scott's apparent rebuke, in some ways I do not disagree with Scott and in other ways I disagree. Either way, his response is understandable. He has not heard what I heard in those tweaks; it's as clear as the difference in two pianos for example.
I could not scientifically claim that the my test had all the factors controlled, and said something to that effect in my post on that topic." <<<

Yes, you described a couple of experiences of your own and you said that, on one part you agreed with Scott's reaction and you were "apologetic" because your experiments were not fully scientific. Excuse me, sir, but why would you be apologetic ? You say you play two musical instruments. Would you be as apologetic if Scott dismissed your experiences in choosing your musical instruments as "anecdotal" because you did not have scientific PROOF as to why they sounded good to you ?

It is HOW much weight (percentage of importance) people place on either measurements and DB trials (your 'scientific experiment that is to pass muster with peer review') and HOW much weight (percentage of importance) people place on what people are 'hearing' (experiencing improvements in their sound).

I have been heavily involved in manufacturing (the technical side) as well as heavily involved in the subjective side (the listening side). Listening to our own designs, in our own listening environment but also listening to other people's equipment and in other manufacturers listening rooms, in retailers demonstration rooms, in journalists listening rooms and in giving live demonstrations at Hi Fi Shows !!

I have seen vast improvements take place in some aspects of audio (from the early period when there were only valves - no transistors, mono only - no stereo) and also seen no improvements at all in other aspects of audio.

So, I am perfectly aware that people involved in audio range from 95% objective ( will only consider absolute scientific proof) but still admit to listening (subjectively) to their own Hi Fi system - through to 95% subjective (are only slightly interested in measurements or such as results of BT trials).

But it is NOT as simple as people wishing to claim that they come within the balanced 50% objective and 50% subjective.

You WTL would be able to discuss the effect of passive components on the sound with someone as technically competent as Martin Colloms (even though both your experiences would be 'anecdotal') but would not be able to discuss the same subject with such as Scott - even though Scott would, presumably, regard himself as coming with the balanced 50%/50%. Scott, in his own words, dismisses 'anecdotal' experiences as not scientific.

You, WTL, would have been able to discuss such as the directionality in some cables with technically competent people like Julian Vereker of Naim and Bob Stuart of Meridian (even though all your experiences would be 'anecdotal') but would not have been able to discuss the same subject with the well respected (technically) Peter Baxandall - even though HE would presumably have regarded himself as coming within the balanced 50%/50%.

Let me pick one 'technique' from my list to use as an example. The cryogenic freezing treatment.

Robert Harley's article on Cryogenic freezing appeared in Stereophile in 1990 - 19 years ago !! For Robert H to write about this technique and Ed Meitner (one of the major initiators of this technique for audio) means that this technique was known about prior to that article. So, the technique of freezing objects (many objects) at cryogenic temperatures and gaining improvements in the sound has been known about for over 20 years !!
Incidentally, WTL, Robert Harley's article includes 'freezing the strings of musical instruments' in the list he mentions. I will come back to Robert Harley's article in a minute.

If you are interested, the New York Times did an article on the cryogenic freezing of musical instruments in 1999 - link to it below.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/02/scienc...DRON&st=cse

http://tinyurl.com/nhmgxt

Back to Robert Harley's article. If the circulation figures for Stereophile in 1990 were around 85,000, then that means that over 85,000 people, from 1990, will have been aware of that freezing technique and a goodly number of those 85,000 will have been "professionals in audio".

So, looking at someone such as j j who, I am presuming, would regard himself as coming within my evenly balanced 50% objective and 50% subjective, if he had taken notice of Robert H's article, if he had taken notice of the cryogenic freezing technique, if he had carried out all the measurements he could possibly think of, and carried out all the DB trials he could think of to the best of his ability and if the measurements showed nothing significantly different and if the DB trials gave no meaningful results, then what would he do ? Announce that therefore no changes were taking place with the freezing technique and sound (however many people reported there was), and no changes were taking place with the audio signal ? Would he then pack up and go home or would he do what so many of us have HAD to do - and that is to continue listening, listening, oh, and more listening, trying to find the answers, or trying to think out what the explanations could be for the changes many of us can hear ?

You certainly could not discuss 'freezing techniques' with such as Scott because any discussion would have to be around 'anecdotal' experiences and he dismisses 'anecdotal' experiences as not scientific proof ! Of course they are not scientific PROOF but the listening experiments and various people's listening experiences are far more likely to give far more "clues" as to where to look for possible answers or what avenue to investigate than outright dismissal.

It is obvious that Micahel Lavorgna has met such people (as have I) and THAT is why he can say the descriptive sentence "Those who believe they need to bring science into that equation, or to the rescue, need to re-evaluate their priorities."

As well as the 'cryogenic freezing technique' one can add so many of the others. Such as 'applying a particular colour to CDs etc technique' which the Sony engineers are re-evaluating (which technique again was first mooted 20 odd years ago) and one can add the latest technique to appear on the audio scene - the Schumann resonance device !!! It will be interesting to see if it is the 'objectivists' who can come up with the answer as to why (how) those techniques can 'improve' sound. And, if they DO come up with some answers, will they do it by their measurements or DB trials or will they do it with their listening skills and 'thinking it out' ?

>>> "I could not scientifically claim that the my test had all the factors controlled, and said something to that effect in my post on that topic. On the other hand, I do remain convinced that the SBT run with my musician friend was good enough to settle the question for me (confirming my own experience) from an enjoyment perspective, but is one that would not pass peer review if I had submitted those results to a scientific journal as conclusions. (More work would be needed before it can be submitted)." <<<

Can't you see. WTL, that your listening experiences with the fuses, giving you "an enjoyment perspective" has taken you further ahead than where Scott is ? It would appear that such as Scott is waiting for the results of strict clinical trials or the results from rigorous scientific procedures and from published papers in a scientific journal before he could even TRY !!!!

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

Quote:
Can't you see. WTL, that your listening experiences with the fuses, giving you "an enjoyment perspective" has taken you further ahead than where Scott is ?

Or, it has helped him catch up with where Scott already is in terms of listening enjoyment.

Scott may be out-enjoying everybody here.

May, thanks for your sonic hegemony speaking for Scott and WTL in terms of their "sonic enjoyment."

"Or, it has helped him catch up with where Scott already is in terms of listening enjoyment."

Scott may be out-enjoying everybody here."

What pleasant thoughts.

Ignoratio beatitudo est.

Ah, here comes the other saleperson who tries to promulgate the notion that it requires certain Barnum-esque products to achieve sonic bliss.

Ignorance does likely promote sales, I can see that same motto appearing on your clock blurb!

Heck, that would make a great Machina Dynamica PWB motto!

"Machina Dynamica, because ignorance allows you to buy bliss!"

You should hurry and trademark that.

Quote:
Ah, here comes the other saleperson who tries to promulgate the notion that it requires certain Barnum-esque products to achieve sonic bliss.

Ignorance does likely promote sales, I can see that same motto appearing on your clock blurb!

Heck, that would make a great Machina Dynamica PWB motto!

"Machina Dynamica, because ignorance allows you to buy bliss!"

You should hurry and trademark that.

You know, an ELP song from "Brain Salad Surgery" comes to mind here...