We Need A Separate Forum for Fuses

The very best “Fuse” is no Fuse.

Kenny.

The very best “Fuse” is no Fuse.
kdude66

Totally agree with you but till then we have to put up with what we have so can't we just agree to disagree.

gdhal
Fair enough. Then, given the recent communication, I’d imagine you might consider extending an apology to me for using the word "fraud" numerous times. What we have is a simple disagreement as to how any kind of testing would be performed. No right or wrong per se, just a difference of opinion. Thanks.

>>>>OK, maybe it’s time to review the bidding. The reason I say it’s a “fraud” is not because gdhal is intentionally perpetrating a fraud or a hoax, at least as far as I know, but because of something fundamental to testing in general. Keep in mind blind tests are almost always presented by skeptics as PROOF that a particular device or idea is a hoax or false. Even though no test has yet been done. Uh, hel-loo! See the fallacy with the argument? So anyway, the fundamental flaw is that a single audio test, any test, even a test done with care and thoroughness, if the results are negative the conclusion cannot be drawn that the device or concept under test failed. The reason the single test with negative results has no meaning is because there are a great many things that can go wrong to produce negative results.  I’m not even considering the case where the test is manipulated to produce negative results. I don’t even have to go there.

geoffkait - ....The reason I say it’s a “fraud” is not because gdhal is intentionally perpetrating a fraud or a hoax, at least as far as I know, but because of something fundamental to testing in general. Keep in mind blind tests are almost always presented by skeptics as PROOF that a particular device or idea is a hoax or false....

The statement of mine that you've quoted was directed at cleeds. We know that you've already clearly indicated you are "the king of fiction" and (paraphrasing) "by tradition must have the last word".

Is it also your belief that you can and should respond on behalf of other forum members?

Further, I completely, utterly and entirely disagree with your assessment of the type of test I've proposed.But it's okay to agree to disagree, and at least you've recognized there is nothing "intentional".

geoffkait - I’m not even considering the case where the test is manipulated to produce negative results.

Given the simplicity and what should be relative ease of audibly hearing a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed given the test I've proposed (Amy > Bob > Amy > Bob), ***I'll allow YOU to manipulate it***. And you still won't hear a difference. Would you like to try?

gdhal

I’d imagine you might consider extending an apology to me for using the word "fraud" numerous times. What we have is a simple disagreement as to how any kind of testing would be performed. No right or wrong per se, just a difference of opinion.

Not so. There is a mountain of information about how to conduct scientifically valid listening tests, going back at least as far as Munson’s presentations to the AES in the late ’50s. (Yes, that Munson, the guy who worked with Fletcher.) What you proposed was a process we could politely call "scientifically invalid," but which was essentially rigged so as to ensure that the outcome of your $25,000 wager could be favorable only to you. And this was all to be negotiated in secret, outside of the forum, but somehow legitimized because you’d bring lawyers into it. The moderators concluded that it was a ruse and deleted all of your efforts to promote your "offer."