Thank you for your prolonged reply Doug. Again, no argument from me. I look at the manufacturers of such things as scam artists even if they believe in what they are doing.
Cable Cooker? I just returned from Audio Excellence's web site. Everything they make can be done in a home workshop with simple tools. None of it requires an education. None of it has a sound basis for operating as advertised. I think you should review the Audiodharma. Who buy's the equipment you review? Hopefully not you!
Every human ear has a mechanism of accommodation. A tiny muscle, the stapedius, tightens up the ossicles in response to louder sound. The reflex is rather slow. It can not respond to impulse noises like gun shots. As it responds to louder music the sensitivity of the ear decreases but this varies with frequency. The end result is that treble and bass increase disproportionally to midrange at louder volumes. Add to this our poor audio memory, perceptual changes that occur with mood and other psychological factors and you have...a mess. Humans in general are very poor at analyzing the quality of audio information. They can tell you what they listened too and in gross terms tell you what it sounded like but they can not remember in fine detail what they heard. They can not reliably identify a single system out of a group of systems. What they hear changes with too many variables to be able to predict. In order to be remotely reliable comparisons have to be made in rapid succession and repeated multiple times. Evaluations are relative. If a person's system is bright a system that is neutral will sound dull and so forth. What is normal for one person may not be to another. No method of calibration is used so you have no idea where a person is coming from.
I have made no reference to time frame; the hundreds of hours are over the course of the 14 years of reviewing. Obviously, when a person waits for "settling", which of course, has not been demonstrated, but has been shown not to occur via my informal testing, they will get much more of nothing done.
I expected that at some point the straw man argument of appeal to analogue might arise. ".. polishing a turd." Beautiful; I'm being called out for condescension by my opponents here, and then that kind of comment is made. An appeal to analog versus digital is a weak argument, a straw man, that has zero impact on the testing.
This paragraph is evidentially wrong, "
I might be willing to send you my Audio Dharma cooker but I dont [sic] think from this whole exchange you have indicated that you would be willing to admit any error. Kind of like sending a cable to Frank Van Alstine for review."
When Frank was visiting my home, I specifically demonstrated detachable power cords to show him the efficacy of using different aftermarket PCs, and encouraged him to put IECs on his equipment. At the next show, when I entered his room he called me over and had me look behind his component. There was an IEC!
Further, Frank made a component called the ABX Comparator, that was designed to do the same kind of testing as I did, but with more rigor. Does that sound like a man who prejudges, who shouldn't be trusted in evaluating things? BTW, I did a review of the ABX Comparator. Guess why? I wanted to see if all the talk about cables and ABX was true, and whether I could distinguish between cables in a blind/random testing environment.
Now, I just finished the article returning to further assessment of tweaks and methods such as burn in and break in. I'm doing all this voluntarily, and my judgment is not to be trusted? I revisited the topic to see if further testing would confirm or falsify, and I'm not able to have a balanced perspective? I am not interested in an ongoing defense of myself for you in the face of that heavy of skepticism. Take it or leave it, so be it.
I would appreciate it if you tried to rein in your wild, unsubstantiated judgments of me. I appreciate the thought of loaning the cooker, but if I work with one, I will source it elsewhere. :)
random thoughts reading the funny exchanges in this thread...
mc & audition audio -- pots calling kettle black... 🤣
doug writes here and elsewhere as his contribution... his beliefs his findings - yes he talks down to people, everybody gets irritated and gets short and rude, sometimes hard to avoid - lotta anonymous keyboard jockeying happens here from people who have shown less in experience and 'who are you' qualifications than doug
frank v a's abx unit is indeed a truth teller
bottom line, if you are curious enough about anything hifi - gotta find out by yourself, be rigorous with the methodology
which of course, has not been demonstrated, but has been shown not to occur via my informal testing, they will get much more of nothing done.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Douglas the point I was trying to make, is you have a view that is based on minutes, not hours, days, Weeks and MONTHS .. Do you understand? You said hundreds (100s) of systems. With minutes each.. That is NOT critical listening.. That is passive at best "a quickie".. PLAIN and SIMPLE..
Taking the time on just ONE complete system 1-400 hours. That is why manufactures have help lines.. You summed up your "DATA" in a nutshell, "more of nothing done".
The race is a mile long you quit at 50 yards pretty tough to say how you trained for a mile, but stopped at 50 yards..AND go on to tell others how hard that mile really is.
You can't talk about braking in something if you don't actually do it. Let alone assign 100s to the same analogy, it's just not good data. You literally haven't done your homework...
No the abx is not a truth teller. Check out all of the possible problems most if not all of them arise from the psychological phenomena of being tested. You either allow for any number of subconscious psychological influences on both sides or you dont get any.
I once had a pretty good ear. I have been a practicing audioguy for many decades now. In all my years I have only had two occasions where break-in and warm-up was audible to me. One was a pair of Klipsch loudspeakers that on startup were near reference sounding loudspeakers and 24 hours later they had declined to just decent sounding loudspeakers. The other was a tube amp that needed 20 minutes to get to top performance. Changes in cables, powercords, and other gear over time have not shown themselves to me. On the otherhand I seldom argue with what others have experienced, it's possible that they have had a different experience than me. I can't say with certainty what they have experienced, I can only trust what I have experienced. Good articles, though.
Russ is correct. Neither he, nor Doug can speak to each individual experience. Not hearing a difference isnt proof of anything. If Doug cant hear a difference I wouldnt expect him to buy into the whole burn in thing. However you cant blame people on this forum to comment and if Doug cant handle criticism he should not bring attention to his musings.
audio2 Well if you could create a blind test that wasnt perceived as a test this would be a start. I really dont feel the need for any type of test. I trust my personal judgement and my experiences. I would gladly participate in any blind test out of curiosity but I just dont think the results prove anything and it seems completely unnecessary.
mijostyn, ssjj49 and russ69 all make some pertinent, salient points. Thank you. I appreciate such contributions, even when they do not fully agree with me.
Doug, Just a few things and then I think we have discussed this enough
If you can honestly say you use digital because you think it sounds better this will never been discussed again. But be honest enough to list any reasons other than sonics that you prefer digital to analog. My guess is ease, speed and time have a huge part in this.
You references to Frank V. dont move me. Did you you ever think he added IECs after the realization that this was a good business decision. His incorporation of IECs speaks nothing to his belief in cables and to imply that he incorporated this item after visiting you is a bit much.
Regarding ABX did you ever think he designed this to substantiate his previously held beliefs about cables and perhaps burn in. I dont think your inability or willingness to hear a difference exceeds mine to deny that there is none.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing to me is your ongoing references to your work being gratis as if this adds anything to its legitimacy and more importantly to your objectivity. You probably do what you do for the same reasons I started selling vacuum tubes over 20 years ago. Shows, knowledge, industry accommodations, etc. I dont buy this martyr stuff.
I should not have gone back to your original article. Really a Peachtree component?
Apologies in advance as this all was written and is a first draft with no checking.
This comment. "I should not have gone back to your original article. Really a Peachtree component," and the repeated appeal to analog, confirms what I suspected initially.
Just as I thought. Remember that I am presenting my points as opinions and possibilities not as scientific facts established through some sort of methodology. I never placed myself in a position of authority just as an experienced listener with valid opinions. BTW I have a friend with this Peachtree component as well as the D-5 (I think) speakers, I got them for his college-bound son.
Doug - (or anyone) would you do an experiment? Run “burned in” cable to one speaker, and a brand new version of the exact same cable to the other. Invert the phase of one channel. Play a track in mono. In theory, shouldn’t there be silence?
if there isn’t silence, an explanation could be that the sounds from each speaker are different and therefore don’t cancel, therefore the cable differences are real. But, there are other explanations to discount. Maybe the reflection in the room are not perfectly symmetrical. So we can discount that by putting new cables to both speakers (or similarly burned in ones). Play mono out of phase again, and do we get silence now?
If we do get silence, then there is evidence that the lack of silence before was due to differences in the cables. If we don’t get silence, then we know any differences actually due to cables will need to be unpicked from differences due to the room. The noise in the room in the two scenarios can be measured (and listened to) and compared. We will then get an estimate of the relative effect of room reflection asymmetry as compared to cable asymmetry. Thoughts? Mine are that in any home listening environment, the room reflection effect (and tiny variations in speaker build, etc) will completely dwarf any differences arising from cable burn in. It would be nice to know though. First issue - am I right about inverting one channel of a mono sound resulting in noise cancellation?
bluemoodriver, while not an authority, I do not believe the presumption that flooding a room with two channels with opposing polarity will result in cancellation. Audiophiles have many times mistakenly played speakers that have one channel out of phase, and the result is not cancellation. I do not see how switching to mono will cause the sound to disappear, cancelling as with matter/antimatter.
Perhaps my understanding is not nuanced, but I suspect this test will not do what is suggested. Those more knowledgeable than me may disagree and instruct.
You can call it science or psychoacoustics the truth is that there is very little in terms of scientific proof to support either side. The problems with blind tests are well known as are the manufacturers that make wild claims. Listen, decide for yourself and dont listen to any of the "experts". All of the inclinations conscience or not are just as present among the experts as they are among the hobbyist. But once you voice your opinion as an expert it is doubly difficult to go back and admit you were wrong.
Douglas is right about switching phase in a system. I am not sure though what would happen if you ran 180 degree out of phase channels into an oscilloscope. Interesting to try. @russ69, I hate to tell you this but the last thing you want to trust is your ears. Human ears and perception are not trustworthy in this regard. None of us can make the claim of having trustworthy ears. This is exactly why more rigorous testing methods are required to come to any reasonable conclusion. It is also the reason for the popularity of "Tweaks" It is also the reason many of us do not have to hear an item to know the claims are false such as the cable cooking thingy Douglas mentioned. The claims made for it are downright stupid. They embarrass themselves with such rhetoric demonstrating that they have no idea what they are taking about. Don't be shy. Call things out for what they are. I want my system to sound it's best like anyone else but I refuse to spend money on silliness when there are so many things to buy that might or will make a meaningful improvement. In evaluating equipment never trust your first impression. repeat the comparison over and over until you are sure. When you are not sure of a difference assume there is not any. If you can set up an AB comparison then by all means. I have several ABX boxes that I made in the early 80's that run on 12 volt relays and a push button switch that is not marked in any way. I have no way of knowing what side is on.
By Helmholtz acoustical science which he contributed greatly to found , only a few inches straw can transform a room in an acoustic paradise or in an acoustic hell... A single straw can make a costly amplifier sound bad and a bad one give a better result... Did you know that after installing hundred of systems?
I installed only mine and i learned that.... Do you know the cost of a straw? Peanuts.....Sometimes what is important is not the branded name of the amplifier and his price, but the precise lenght and location of the straw....This is my first lesson in acoustic....It is free😁😊😎
What you call useless "tweaks", useless costly secondary addition to a system are in fact SOMETIMES essential devices making the system able to work at his optimal peak... The only problem is that many are too costly for me... I decided to create mine.... I called them controls over the 3 working embeddings dimensions of a system... I never bought anything, i sell nothing, i created all my devices homemade at no cost...My 500 hundred bucks system fill my room 3-d with imaging, encompassing listener soundstage, natural timbre perception, in 2 main listening positions...Is there better one? Yes, but i will let you guess their price....It is not 500 bucks....It is the embeddings controls not costly electrical design ONLY and MAINLY the road to a good sound....
Am i hallucinated? Am i a liar? For some here deluded by dogmas probably... It is not the PRICE paid who give us good sound , it is the way we are able to control our system, the electrical grid, the vibrations and resonances, and tune the room...
Some people are incredible and even repeat here that our ears must subordinate their power to any objective number they will see on a dial....If they are doctor they call ears impressions " illusions".... And incredibly they listen to their system and call what they hear "good" because the equalizer said so.....
I will mute myself astonished by human voluntary blindness because of sheep walking.....
Dont buy and dont plug and play no more, be creative think and listen .....
Dont upgrade anything before everything is rightfully embedded in his 3 working dimensions and under controls...
Audiophiles really need to grow up and stop regurgitating this unproven nonsense. Blind testing is the bare minimum. There is absolutely nothing, nada, zip that can be stated as a negative to blind testing.
it never occur to you that what is asked by "testing for" by some companies and engineers cannot be the same that is asked for by a listener implementing controls and installing his audio system in his three working dimensions in a long period of time?
Yesterday i post to you a research article by 3 japanese scientists about the law of the first wavefront... I dont know if you even read my citation and probably not the article...
This reading inspired to me a simple experiment this evening with small Helmholtz devices that improve extraordinarily the sound effect in my room which was already good ....The important fact for my discovery was the precise location of this 3 small devices... I will let you guess where i place them and will say it to you if you read the article....
Question: do you think i need a blind test? or an AB test? to verify my discovery and listening experience... Answer is no....
What is useful for market science, or what can be a tool for engineers working on a simple task is not necessary very useful or always useful for a listener experimenting in a continuous set of experiments for months to improve his system...
I dont know if you understand the timbre or the imaging concept....But my own understanding of the imaging concept is better after reading this article of the three japanese physicists and after that i just created a new device improving soundstage and imaging for my speakers...Perhaps it is a proof i read and understand the article, no?
Am I deluded? Did i need a blind test? Or a psychiatric test?
Or perhaps i am right and you will thanks me to point this article to you if you dare to read it ?
By the way i know perfectly well that you know way better than me about all aspect of audio, after all it was your job....But knowing thousand of facts or equations dont replace understanding.... They are plenty of things in audio you dont understand well even if you understand much more than me, it is just not the same things....Be less arrogant about "audiophiles" i will be less arrogant with you....We are all different, and we must listen each others not insulting groups of people, "audiophiles" also must be respected....And all people testing Schuman generators at 10 bucks are not necessarily idiots...
Blind test are useful to test ONE small change.... Not an incremental series of changes or big changes....By the way....I dont need blindtest to "see" through my own improving sets of experiments....Someone insisting on blindtest prove to me that he NEVER install rightfully his system and never improve it by himself....Period...
Controlling the 3 dimensions of his audio system is not, BOUGHT ,PLUG and PLAY......The customers could be reassured by blindtest, the company too, but i dont need to be reassured , i was experimenting with my system for 2 years to install it...
Is it difficult to understand?
Or like someone else you know, call me "placebo" plagued and completely in delusion... Who knows ? The world is full of "nuts" after all....
When someone instead of answering clear arguments "yawn" there is in my experience 2 possibilities only :
I am boring when i meet myself an idiot and in this case i understand you perfectly... I myself "yawn" with some people...
The problem is the people that make me "yawn" are those who are not creative and have no arguments, and not only dont understand anything but dont wanted to....
I am perhaps one of these people .... Why not? 😁
But wait a minute, i post to you a research article about the law of the first wavefront, i said that it gives to me an idea for a simple experiment that transform the S.Q. in a room ,i even explained in my post the usefulness of blind testing for some people and its not so usefulness in some circonstances and for some people... No answer from you?
Then i cannot BE the main idiot myself, at least completely, in this dialogue between you and me...
Guess who is idiot, playing mute to the arguments, to some serious science article and a simple experiment by his "yawning" reaction then? And lack of curiosity? Are you afraid?
Knowledge is not understanding sorry....It is sometimes even the opposite... An open mind dont confuse the 2....
Good night.....
After speaking to you , it is me who yawn now.....But the absence of any thinking reaction from someone could be a sound reason for yawning no ?
Mahgister - I can’t think of anyone who needs to accept and use blind testing or null testing more than you. You have all the characteristics of an innovator - an inquiring mind, a desire for improvement, and a willingness to experiment. But you have no proof. The null tester in the link I posted has proof - scientific and engineering proof - that the $3 and $1000 interconnects passed the audio in exactly the same way. You have no proof that painting that cable, or lifting it up on blocks, or burning it in, or switching it with another makes any difference at all. You only have claims.
Mahgister - I can’t think of anyone who needs to accept and use blind testing or null testing more than you. You have all the characteristics of an innovator - an inquiring mind, a desire for improvement, and a willingness to experiment. But you have no proof. The null tester in the link I posted has proof - scientific and engineering proof - that the $3 and $1000 interconnects passed the audio in exactly the same way. You have no proof that painting that cable, or lifting it up on blocks, or burning it in, or switching it with another makes any difference at all. You only have claims.
You miss my point read my last post a second time...
Blindtest are useful for ONE single small change, for an engineer in a small task or a company driving a scientific and a commercial project to reassure customers and themselves...
I am NOT a customer nor a manufacturer, i dont need to be reassured by blind tests...I dont work in a commercial project like an engineer who was sometimes in the need to convince another engineer in the same project about a very small audible change...My project is my audio system and room...
Most of my changes are not small, they are big enough to be very audible for the best or worst, they are incremental and cumulative....No need to be reassured at all...
When Helmholtz designed his famous bottle do you think he ask for a blind test? An experiment is repeatable generally and very evident...
My last discovery this evening is very powerful and could change acoustically completely a room S.Q., do you think i was needing a blindtest this night for reassuring me? I will speak of it later after new experiments not blindtest.... 😁
Blindtests are for mass designers or consumers, or they are in audio threads for people that have never themselves designed listenings experiments at all and never created their own triple embeddings controls over the working dimensions of their system.... Blind test are for those who bought something generally costly, plug it in the wall and play the source.... They need to be reassured...
This is not my case at all.... I never bought anything, i dont wait passively after plugging it.... I think experiment, listen, after that i think anew, i experiment anew, i listen anew... I never blindtest myself, save accidentally, guess why by yourself?
To satisfy those who accuse without trying anything all audiophiles to be passive idiots needing to be tested against placebo?
Are you kidding?
Thanks for your generous assessment of my character.... I am only a little bit active because i was lacking the money to buy plug and play.... If not i would have never worked during 2 years on my system and room and would have never devised all my "nutty" devices, i will be here after spending my money on consumer products asking for a blind test for some costly doubtful product before or after satisfying my "upgrade" urgency...
I dont upgrade because i dont need it.....I will perhaps accidentally like this night devise another new experiment, i dont know but without needing to test my listening experience in my room .... For sure i will let blindtest for manufacturers and those in the "skeptic club".....My room is my day by day experience no need to prove it, to whom? I sell nothing, only propose peanuts cost experiments to improve S.Q.
I dont have claims, i only suggest experiments and new simple concepts....
«Thinking is like walking , no need to doubt no need to believe at all...For sure your doubts or beliefs could IMPEDE your walk like your tought process tough.»- Anonymus Smith
« You are wrong, when i go to the grocery i must believe the grocery is always there»-Groucho Smith
«But Groucho you dont need to believe or doubt an internal perception or an axiom no?»-Harpo Marx
You have no proof that painting that cable, or lifting it up on blocks, or burning it in, or switching it with another makes any difference at all. You only have claims.
My listening methods and experiments are not ADDING "tweaks" after buying something...
The three things you listed here are NOT my propositions but claims always discussed in all audio thread beginning with Abel And Cain....True or not, i dont even know for sure...
I propose myself simple experiments in the mechanical, electrical and acoustical dimensions... I called that controls over working embeddings dimensions not "tweaks"..
My controls devices are not secondary addition to a system, they are more powerful than the system upgrade itself...
I learn only one thing in audio: tuning a system is more important than buying a system....
I am not in a cable obsessions club either nor in the "skeptic club" but in listenings experiments...
«Skeptic club are like club for men unable to marry accusing women, myself i am in love and i dont doubt, i create»-Myself
«What in the hell do you create ?»-Groucho Marx
«My own joy and my own audio system.»-Myself
«How do you know without blind test ?»-smiling Groucho
Page upon page of philosophy and preaching, not a single bit of self reflection.
Apply this to yourself, mocking all people who dare to differ and insulting all group especially those you despisely call "audiophiles"..
i suggested to you a research paper from 3 japan physicists acoustician published in 2008 about "imaging" a concept you are supposed to understand like the "timbre" concept ... Not only you "yawned" but never read it...
I read it 2 days ago and this night make a simple original experiment that change the acoustic of my room at no cost...I will speak about it in the time to come after some others experiments...It is my last successful listenings experiment with NO cost devices....
I will wait for your criticism of their take on imaging probably till end times....
It is way better than your own take on imaging by the way...
Try to guess what is this simple experiment that i devised last night proving them right for myself...no the experiment i devised is NOT in their paper....Sorry you will need what some call thinking to figure it out.... call that homework... 😁😊😎 How do do call my talk and walking? am i stupid like all audiophiles are supposed to be?
How do you compare this article and experiment with your attack on people?
Who need self reflection here?
It is me now that "yawn" discussing with you....
In my job i advised students about their readings in their field, them they looked for truth not for dogmas....I miss all of them, not some few teachers tough, those few full of themselves....Guess who you remind me of?
«I am done seeking answers,my pocket is full of those i will ever need»-Groucho Marx
Ya know Douglas, I kind of figured it would go that way.. Ya can’t do something 10% and expect 100% results. I’d say the conversation is over X two.
Null testing is as OLD as the people that use it . It is not a tool people use in critical listening. It is a tool developed for just that null testing..
I love when sound Evangelicals lock horns with Engineers. It’s just fun.
I’m not an engineer, BUT I’ve worked with quite a few. NEVER on sound, "Sound Walls", maybe. Null testing is done all the time on pre made cables used in heavy construction. 30-150K (300 pigtails). They can’t have problems with outside, RFI, EFI. or onboard issues. Besides Germans are picky.. At least the ones I worked with for years.. SLOW as hell but smart..
You’ll think NULL test when you drill through a plate of iron pyrite 15 feet thick. All your test equipment goes NUTS. Hit a magnetic plate, with a conductive drill string. NULL TESTING.. LOL Nothing on the machine test the same again... Computers shut down, WON’T reboot. Have to demag the machine and change some parts.. Anything with diodes or transistors quits working. Not often, BUT stuff happens..
Do this, open the hood of your car and wet your hands, run your hands down the spark plug wires.. LOL Go ahead... Please video.. We will all enjoy.. Null testing.. Ethan Winer, mercy HE’S DEAF.... Wires leak, 500.00 spark plug wires LEAKS, you can't null test that... BUT I can change the environment to make a cable more conducive to LET that happen... Moisture on my hands, or in the air..
Again do this, hook one cable to the left side, turn the system to mono (older equipment has this feature) and leave the old cable on the right. It's gonna be an eye opener to a lot of folks. Switch left to right in MONO, play through BOTH. Let them play for one week.. HOOK up the right side. Can you hear a difference? Maybe not.. I CAN..
(I don’t) Douglas is starting a "CLASS" of his own. Tough at the top, lonely too.. An army of ONE. LOL (Lots of Luck) "Eeyore Redux, Army of One".
Your too nice Master mahgister. :-)
If your quoting Groucho I’m quoting Confucius. "Man who eat jelly bean Fart in Technicolor" :-)
Respect.. That is what it means to me.....A.F. rip
Thanks but you are a gentleman and i only tried to be a little bit like you are with me and others... You observation about organ pipes was spot on thanks....
Your Confucius is more humorous than my Groucho tough, and i am afraid of competition now....😊
If you call a blind test fruitless, you have just basically stated that your opinion is worthless.
Do you think Helmholtz ever needed an equalizer in his times to set his music room right? A clue: no more than the Wright brothers needed a boeing 747 to prove flight....
Do you think he ever needed a blind test to prove his room is acoustically well set? A clue: no more than Faraday, devising experiments for the coming Maxwell, needed blind test....
If you think so in spite of common sense and history of science, you are doubly wrong, it is called acoustic and it is also an empirical science even today....
Then apply to yourself this sentence you wrote for others....
You may want to think on that one a bit more before saying it again.
Have you read the japanese acoustic article yet?
I cannot wait to communicate to you how an "idiotic audiophile" like me read a research paper with an experiment of his own on the "imaging" concept you seems to know like the "timbre" concept .... A clue: it is acoustic not material or electronic engineering....
With this experiment i just created my last control device for the acoustical working embedding dimension ... Cost: peanuts....Effect on S.Q. : Huge, that is to say, more than audible if you want, transformative....
But you can call that a stupid "tweak" and speaking of placebo effect .... But it is a pure application of Helmholtz science, nothing less, nothing more.... Thanks to the Japanese article for the inspiration....
empirical: adjective based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
thesaurus: practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on, observed, seen, heard, evidence based
I guess that covers what we hear for ourselves and not what's written down somewhere. Just saying. You can challenge what someone hears to a parlor trick of a "test" but that's going overboard when all you want to do is discredit what one hears.
If you ever discover what the word empirical means in a scientific sense, not an audiophile sense, then maybe we would have something to talk about. I don’t hold up much hope of that happening though.
I dont just serve only insults like you did...
I give you a serious research article....
I suggest an experiment...
You discreetly avoid these 2 points, article and experiment about "imaging", not from wiki here, but research paper, and go on attacking the person...
You take the same attitude in the last month with EVERYONE who disagree with you or everyone you disagree with...They are liars, deluded and incompetent... I am not a liar but i could be deluded, why not?, and i am certainly incompetent in audio science but i can understand a research paper not too slowly and i can experiment by myself and learn fast....I did it in the last 2 years and i am proud of my peanuts cost very good audio system...Thanks to my low cost embeddings controls...
Then you dont answered to my arguments only give me like usual an attack with no meaning about something a little far from my article and experiment : my alleged ignorance of what is "empirical" and your knowledge of it...
An article of research is not ethereal philosophy and an experiment is something very empirical to do....
Why going back to epistemology now?
I will mute myself .... Discussing with you is not very rewarding, it was so about the acoustical concept of timbre and it is the same thing now for imaging....
Meditate on this: knowledge is NOT understanding....Experiments are located between these 2 and encompass them at the same time....It is my koan ....
Try to imagine that attacking "audiophiles" make no sense at all, because this group encompass idiots and geniuses and all there is in between like any group, even the group to which you are a proud member.....
Biases are pervasive in all experiments and science fields, that does not invalidate experiments.... The truth is that without biases there will not exist any experiment only robots... Experiment are born in the mind of a scientist with his own conclusions and biases, his own humanity so to speak... There is no problem with that....
It is the "repeatability" that characterise empirical science not the erasing of biases "per se", except in the "skeptic club" ....Some biases are right being conscious, others are wrong being habits or unconscious... Biases must be controlled not erased....Self controls of our own prejudices is necessary but erasing them completely is futile and impossible anyway...
Collective consensus in science is in relation with repeatable experiments...Not necessarily a blind test....😁
Biases are like moles and blind spots, you dont want to erase them all at all cost it is impossible for some but you want to be conscious of them or make them conscious in the course of the experiment itself....
Peer reviewing is another matter i will not discuss related also to big problems of his own...It is also a way to social corporate control of science in some aspect and is not always positive.... Look now where many scientific publish all their results on the net to keep their freedom and go away from dictatorial institutions...
I think I've posted this before but , from Science Daily
The scientific method begins with scientists forming questions, or hypotheses, and then acquiring the knowledge through observations and experiments to either support or disprove a specific theory. "Empirical" means "based on observation or experience," according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Empirical research is the process of finding empirical evidence. Empirical data is the information that comes from the research.
Before any pieces of empirical data are collected, scientists carefully design their research methods to ensure the accuracy, quality and integrity of the data. If there are flaws in the way that empirical data is collected, the research will not be considered valid.
In a scientific sense "empirical evidence" doesn't mean I oberserved a UFO therefore there is life on other planets and they're visiting earth.
Show me what technical apparatus Stradivarius used in building violins other than his ears and we might be getting somewhere on this....Acoustics is a multidimensional, inexact science, that’s why concert halls are built by masters using lots of technology AND their ears. Any half decent sound engineer will tell you the same.
Show me what technical apparatus Stradivarius used in building violins other than his ears and we might be getting somewhere on this....Acoustics is a multidimensional, inexact science, that’s why concert halls are built by masters using lots of technology AND their ears. Any half decent sound engineer will tell you the same.
Acoustic is at the exact crossroads of many sciences and your post is right on the target...
Ears are mandatory in this science and object of study and tools at the same time...
This is why acoustic is very complex and the last book i begin to read about "timbre" concepts appeal to more than a dozen fields...
Timbre Acoustics, Perception, and Cognition by Kai Siedenburg, Charalampos Saitis, Stephen McAdams, Arthur N. Popper, Richard R. Fay
Only "skeptic club" sunday scientist think otherwise...
I even read by one audiophile "professional" skeptic here that we must not trust our own ears in any time.... It is very comical and tragic also to read this amount of insanity....He think an equalizer suffice to controls a room acoustic...This is pure market conditioning... You dont construct a house with one tool.... Better many tools especially the main tool : the ears...
And audio2design misses the point or deliberately derails things. There is no need to scientifically prove something that you hear through experimenting with your system to someone else as if we live in a science lab just and they're playing lord of the manor.
They are not here to enjoy the hobby but to make sure you don't. What drives them is up for debate and differs from troll to troll and of no real concern. They have issues and exist simply to provoke.
Maybe once the vaccines are more widely distributed, they can get out, relax, and get a life. Until then, we here who enjoy this hobby have to endure their affliction for awhile longer.
I dont think audio2design is some sort of troll or has some failing I just think he and others feel some need to save us from ourselves and our hard earned dollars which I dont understand. This camp does usually seem to imply either gullibility or stupidity which is a bit frustrating. I defer to them as being wiser, more educated and having better hearing. But for now I thank the stars that I am stupid and gullible. Also you can throw in a bit of first world decadence for good measure.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
