 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
142.134.97.112
In Reply to: RE: I'm An Audiophile and I Won't Apologize for It posted by vaudioville on February 20, 2015 at 18:58:26
Well, he considers himself an audiophile, so why should he apologize for it? Has anyone asked him to apologize for it? So his article makes no sense from the beginning. On the other hand, when he makes claims about his abilities to detect differences in cables, interconnects, capacitors, accurate electronics and so on, some of us want to know if he can substantiate such claims. He apparently has not. That's his privilege, but then he shouldn't complain that some of us are sceptical about some of the things he claims to be able to hear.
But he should apologize for false statements in his article. His first paragraph contains an outrageous falsehood.
"Back then I read Stereo Review, which insisted that pretty much all audio components sounded alike. (If they measured the same on a test bench, they’d sound the same in your living room.)"
First of all, Stereo Review never said " pretty much all audio components sounded alike."
I have some hesitation in calling this a lie (although Kaplan should know enough to back up his statements), but he may be relying on his remembered impressions of SR. Still, that impression is simply flatly false.
The other sentence, the one in parentheses, is highly misleading. For one thing, as Mike Kuller has often assured me, different components never measure the same. In fact, a lot of equipment measured well above established limits of audibility.
Now, I am sure that listening to a good system 30 years ago (that would be about 1985) might amaze someone who had never heard a decent system. He doesn't give any idea what the system was that initiated him into high fidelity, but I can assure you that everything he described could have been obtained with systems costing a whole lot less than $50,000, less than $4,000 if memory serves me correctly.
"Trumpets sounded brassy, violins silky, tympani boomy, clarinets reedy, and they were all laid across the “soundstage,” just like in a concert hall, in spacious depth and lifelike proportions."
Yeah, like almost 3-D. The speakers were Altec 19s (properly adjusted), the cartridges were probably the top line Shure and the Grado F3E+, and I don't remember the amp or the TT. Yeah that system surely cost less than 4 grand. Now, I didn't consider the 3-D image to be particularly realistic, as live music seldom if ever sounds like that.
For another misleading incident, it was not Randi who pulled out of the challenge to submit the Pear Anjou speaker cables to a DBT it was actually the manufacturer, Pear. Indeed, the article by Michael Fremer you linked makes that clear, however MF decided to interpret it. MF then wanted to do a different test with his own cables, which was not the challenge Randi offered.
Then, he says something about an A-B test he took, only 5 trials, and being informed that his results may be a statistical anomaly. He proposes the alternative that maybe he actually heard the differences. Yeah, maybe, except he shows no interest in taking a better test.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Follow Ups:
http://www.funcage.com/blog/the-top-5-failed-attempts-to-win-the-one-million-dollar-paranormal-challenge/
He can lose his cool. Not a good idea when dealing with JREF! When will they ever learn, when will the ever learn?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 02/27/15
You have GOT to be shitting me. Who wouldn't lose his cool? That's kind of my point. No wonder Randi never lost any money on any of his million dollar challenges. What a racket!"The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested."
Edits: 02/28/15 02/28/15
Or alternatively, it might be because there was no audible difference to be heard and the applicant did not luck out with guesses.
The test procedure was not what upset him. Partly it was that he could not modify the CDs, which would be a clear violation of scientific protocols, and JREF told him so. Of course, JREF likes to make fun of those who do not want to follow scientific procedures and that no doubt upset him. Tuff. If you want to avoid that, don't raise silly objections. And of course, set up a testing date and keep it; don't keep call off the dates agreed to.
Anyway, the test is simple for the applicant. This is evident if we just break the procedure into sections. T1 does not know which discs were selected, and so cannot signal this to the applicant.
"The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant.
T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen.
T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart.
T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds.
T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination.
If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc.
Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested."
Child's play.
So what is it you think about the test procedure that would upset a reasonable person?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You little monkeys always think the thing under test is bogus. And you always say the same thing, "they can't hear it in a double blind test." As if. I can spot a tweakaphobe a mile away. Lol. Come on, with a name like the Intelligent Chip how can you possibly go wrong? I give you my absolute guarantee. Blind tests are for sissies, no offense to you personally. No one serious about audio considers blind tests for even a moment. Well, maybe some guys under a bridge somewhere. You guys are pissing up a rope.
Death threats to JREF staff is a totally bizarre new twist to the whole sordid affair. Lol. I was accused of threatening to kick the ass of some dude connected with Randi's Educational Foundation, too. You can still find the whole weird story in the JREF archives. Maybe Butthole Surfing Foundation would be more appropriate.
Edits: 02/27/15 02/27/15 02/27/15
Great post!Read the responses and my only comments are that religious fervour can never be held back and that special pleadings are held on to so extremely tightly.
Edits: 02/22/15
Do you have a translation for that?
Fremer was wise to pull out if in fact he did since Randi's tests are impassable. Hence the million dollar prize. same with the dude who was going to take the million dollar challenge for Intelligent Chip. A very silly scam. All carefully orchestrated by the dude from Butthole Surfers, Kramer. But the reason Randi went after audiophiles is he somehow got in it his head that audiophiles who bought or reviewed expensive cables or whatever had paranormal abilities. So very funny. You cannot make this stuff up.
Edits: 02/21/15 02/21/15
Lets say you have two familiar sets of speaker cables, and have listened to both extensively between the same familiar amplifier and speakers.
Each cable has measurably different L, C, and R properties, and a different (however slight) measured effect on the frequency response of your speakers -- maybe half a decibel difference above 14kHz.
If your ears are naturally sharp enough, and you are experienced in critical listing, you can certainly train them to hear this small difference consistently and repeatedly, and feel confident about doing so in a double blind test, at least in YOUR room and on YOUR equipment. Nothing paranormal here.
But if you framed the issue this way, Mr. Randi (or any other wise gambler) would probably be reluctant to bet much money on proving you wrong.
Under normal circumstances at home with no pressures exerted on you by folks trying to prevent you from winning one million dollars and trying to make a fool out of you at the same time I would agree with you. Do you honestly think the whole Amazing Randi Thing, the Million Dollar Challenge, was on the level? No need to answer, it's a rhetorical question. And of course there is nothing paranormal about what audiophiles do. That's kind of the whole point. Randi had his way with gullible audiophiles who were naive enough to believe their listening skills were actually going to be tested.
Even if it were on the level, as a professional magician Randi would know how easy it is to rig demonstrations and "tests" that appear to be on the level, but are not.
But only a million dollars at play? Loose change, not much at play compared to some scientific experiments that involve billions.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
So, you think Randi was on the level? Hmmm...interesting. You poo poo a million dollar prize? Again, interesting... Comparing Randi's $1 M prize to a billion dollar Government Experiment or Government Project seems a little, uh, what's the word? Do you think Randi's made of money? Lol
Edits: 02/24/15 02/24/15
I can think of at least two ways that billions of dollars are being scammed by scam artists. Hint: it ain't in Audio. And at least one way that trillions are being scammed.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Not sure what all that has to do with the topic under discussion. As titillating as it might be.
> Fremer was wise to pull out if in fact he did since Randi's tests are
> impassable.
Fremer didn't pull out, Randi did, after Fremer had got the editorial staff
of Scientific American to organize and proctor the tests. Randi saw that
million dollars potentially disappearing. :-)
Randi subsequently said that even if Fremer had passed the listening test,
Randi wouldn't have to pay up the million dollars because Fremer wouldn't
have been able to prove that he passed the test due to psychic means.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
What test are you talking about? The test Randi offered involved Pear Anjou speaker cables, and even Michael Fremer's article is quite clear that Pear backed out of the challenge. From a business point of view, I think they were wise to back out, because I don't think MF could have detected the differences.
Michael Fremer put forward his own offer, a test with some Tara Labs Omega speaker cables. In the end, Randi did not accept MF's challenge, and there is no reason why they should. Your throwing in that MF had persuaded the editorial staff of Scientific American to "organize and proctor the tests" presumes that they had the expertise to be able to do so. I see no reason to suppose they have any expertise in doing controlled audio double blind tests.
But actually, MF noted that they did not accept using his own cables because they could not be sure they were not altered in some way. That is actually a very good objection, no matter what spin MF tried to put on it.
"Why did Randi's advisors reject my offer? They told him that I might "do something" to my reference TARA cables, or put some kind of secret signal on them that only I could hear, and that would alert me to their being in the system. (I'm not making this up.) Why the advisors thought I couldn't also do that to the Pear or Transparent cables, he didn't explain."
Trying to ridicule this objection, or bringing up the advisors supposed attitude to Pear or Transparent cables (were they asked about them), does not affect the validity of the objection. I remember someone wanted to have Randi test something or other (a Machina Dynamic product?) but wanted to use CDs which were treated with something or other (a fluid?), and they told him the test would have to be done with identical, undamaged CDs, and that no, he could not modify the CDs in any way. He was upset. OK, so Michael Fremer was upset, too, but the objection was quite sound.
And, as bashpromt pointed out in a comment on MF's article, he doesn't need Randi to do a DBT. He could have one done at a university--or, for that matter, Tom Nousaine or Arny Krueger might agree to administer a DBT for him. But no, he just wrote a self-serving article.
As I mentioned in another post, MF is quite capable of calling names so he is not in much of a position to call out Randi's group for similar behavior.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
> as bashpromt pointed out in a comment on MF's article, he doesn't need
> Randi to do a DBT. He could have one done at a university--or, for that
> matter, Tom Nousaine or Arny Krueger might agree to administer a DBT for
> him.
Tom Nousaine, of course, passed away a couple of years ago. But why does
Michael have to organize a blind test of cables to test Randi's case?
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
I'm sorry to hear Tom Nousaine died. It was last year on June 8, 2014.I have never suggested Michael Fremer HAD to do DBTs. If you guys don't want to do DBTs as regular parts of equipment reports, that's your privilege.
But I want to have reasons to believe the reviewer when he/she claims to detect small sonic differences. If you don't want to give those reasons, that's up to you. The only consequence is that I won't take a lot of things the reviewer says seriously.
Of course, speakers do sound different, so I don't demand DBTs, though they would be nice, too. But a good set of measurements is very handy, and usually more helpful than subjective reviewer's comments.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 02/25/15
The issue is really what system is selected and how the test is performed. If Randi has most of the say in this, then by all means I would back out too. You would prefer to have your own system and be free to treat the system AND the CDs ANY WAY you wish. Wellfed just wanted to give himself the best chance he could to detect differences with the chip in the test. Nothing wrong with that. That's when things went South at chez Randi, when Kramer and Randi started to smell a rat and suspect well maybe this son of a bitch really CAN hear the freaking chip, and pulled the plug.
I think wellfed pulled the plug because he knew he could not win. He went from being able to hear the ic at a crowded audio show to being scared to have one person in his room because that would make a difference.
You might be right. In any case, Wellfed realized eventually the whole thing was rigged. Duh!
Edits: 02/24/15
Hah! I hardly think Michael Fremer is in any position to chide Randi on name-calling!
What difference does it make whether the abilities some audiophiles have are paranormal or not? It makes no difference to the test.
Taking the test is easy, if one is willing to follow scientific protocols, which would include being sure that the cables were not modified.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Making sure the cables are not modified. Good one! How about making sure the Intelligent Chip is not modified? Ha! The test was going to be done where? On Randi's super duper high end boom box? Lots of Laughs!
The test has to be agreed to by both sides. It was going to be done at wellfed's place. They had agreed to a test but wellfed kept wanting to change things till they got tired of it.
Wellfed wanted to give himself the best chance of success, that's why he wanted to use CDs that had been ready been treated by himself rather than CDs right out of the box as JREF wanted to do. If you were an audiophile you'd understand. But since you're not...Besides, how many months did these "negotiations" go on? Talk about brow beating. It's no wonder nobody even won any money from Randi.
Cheers
Edits: 02/24/15 02/24/15
Of course he wanted to give himself the best chance. Unfortunately, modifying the CDs would introduce another variable into the mix, and one which was not controlled. Even if he were successful, how would anyone know what made the audible change?
I think a big thing was that he could not come up with a date for the text that he could stick to. They eventually gave up on him. There was nothing to prevent him from putting in a new request later.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think you misunderstood. What Wellfed wanted to do is use is standard testing CDs, the ones he treats. Math at way he actually has the best chance to hear whatever it is he's testing for. You probably aren't an audiophile, otherwise you wouldn't ask. After months of haggling with the Eductaion Foundation LOL who can blame Wellfed for pulling the plug? Get real. The whole thing is so ridiculous on so many levels. The Amazing Randi setting up audiophiles. His Amazing Randiness sure knew how to bring in the viewers, I'll give him that.
I don't think I misunderstood.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Everything in Wellfed's system was tweaked. What difference would tweaking the CDs used in the test make? You have to remember, Randi's team were not audiophiles, well, one if them was in Butthole a Surfers but thst doesn't count, they were WORRIED maybe these goddamn audiophiles have some magic shit that will beat the system, which was pretty freaking airtight by then since nobody ever won a freaking dime from those things. Their only mission was to NOT LOSE one million dollars. They were just out snookered by Wellfed in the end IMHO.
Edits: 02/24/15
I just don't have your take on the story.
The test was to determine if one particular product made an audible difference. To use CDs belonging to the participant means they were not controlled. Coating the CDs would introduce another variable, so if there were an audible difference, we would not know what caused it.
Using unaltered CDs ensures that the participant cannot 'snooker' the test, that he cannot cheat on the test. In your own words,
". . . they were WORRIED maybe these goddamn audiophiles have some magic shit that will beat the system, . . . "
It's just good methodology not to depend on the honesty of the test participant, or perhaps, inadvertently introduce another variable in the test.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You really think Randi is on the up and up, don't you?
I have no reason to suppose otherwise. Randi and JREF have received a number of awards.
Judging from correspondence about the Million Dollar Challenges, they do not suffer fools too gladly, nor those who try to complicate what should be a fairly simple test. And I am sure they love people who can't keep a cool head.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Nothing is easy when there's a million dollars at stake. It's all a little too close to the witches dunking chair. If you drown you're not a witch. Besides the whole idea that audiophile tweaks and expensive cables are the work of the devil or that audiophiles have paranormal abilities is totally ridiculous on the face of it. You don't really take this Randi Educational Foundation crap seriously do you? I mean, going after that spoon bender dude and dowsers and other paranormal or unexplainable phenomena was one thing, but going after the Intelligent Chip and the Clever Little Clock is quite another. And browbeating poor Wellfed with their whole stupid idea takes the cake. The butthole surfers, indeed. At least Randi was clever enough to know that (1) the Intelligent Chip was the product of the year and (2) figured pretty quickly that Wellfed would be just a little bit of the nervous type, the type Randi loves. Lol
Edits: 02/25/15 02/25/15
He tried to complicate what should have been a pretty simple test, and was upset when he was not allowed to muck it with irrelevancies. As I recall, he could not come up with a firm date and kept changing it, which is highly inconvenient. He also has a temper and often resorts to name calling. Not a good idea with JREF.
MF also has a temper and will resort to name calling.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36074
You have GOT to be shitting me.
"The test will consist of 10 listening sessions of 30 minutes, with a one-hour break after 5 sessions for lunch. Additionally, one fifteen-minute refreshment/bathroom break will be allowed before and after the one-hour break upon request of any participant. T1 will deliver 1 unopened test CD to applicant in listening room. Applicant will open test CD and place in CD transport. T1 will return to selection room and allow applicant 20 minutes to listen. T1 will step into private area. T2 will affix the cardboard squares to the tops of the GSICs, using a coin toss to randomize whether A=1 and I=2 or the reverse, and record the result. T2 will place the GSIC devices with the cardboard squares affixed to them side by side on the table and will cover his recording chart. T1 will step back into the room and use a coin toss to select one of the GSICs. T2 will record which device was selected. T1 will take selected GSIC into listening room. Applicant will instruct T1 to place the GSIC on the CD transport. Applicant will remotely put CD transport in play mode for 5 seconds. T1 will remove GSIC and return it to selection room. Applicant will be allowed to listen to test disc, control disc, and reference disc alternately as necessary to make a determination if an active or inactive GSIC has been used. Applicant will record his result. Applicant will be given 10 minutes to make a determination. If applicant has made a determination earlier than 10 minutes he may request a new session immediately. T1 will take next unopened test CD into listening room, and remove previously used test disc. Operation will repeat until all discs have been tested."
Originally posted by Wellfed
That's funny, because just the opposite is the truth.
No it isn't. A Member here called Gulliver's has offered to finance and spend time setting up a rather simple test that would go someway to establishing if you could hear a difference or not. You are not interested in this test, as far as I am aware there is no other test available to you therefore as I stated the evidence is that you do not wish (or will not allow yourself as I stated it previously) to be tested.
Geez, you guys act like the test is supposed to prove something. These sorts of tests don't actually prove anything one way or the other, ESPECIALLY if the results are inconclusive. Hel-loo! You probably didn't get the memo. Wellfed was wise to hang his star on someone from The Butthole Surfers.
The test was ten trials all of which had to be passed. That is not a simple test as you say. Besides the real test is all the haggling over where to hold the test, etc. No wonder Wellfed got frustrated. If Randi's guys couldn't handle the pressure get out of the kitchen.
At the end of the day who really gives a flying you know what since negative results of blind tests or any tests mean practically nothing, anyway?
You're too funny!
The comparison would have to be between a CD allegedly modified by the Intelligent Chip and one without the Intelligent Chip. Modified or not, show that it makes an audible difference.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You're kidding, right? The Amazing Randi is a has been Vegas magician. Why would he give two hoots about what audiophiles can or cannot hear? I mean, basically his Foundation was strictly going after spoon benders and dowsers. He was just using audiophiles because they were convenient and made good copy.
Edits: 02/21/15
None of that has anything to do with the test protocols. The motives and beliefs of the participants and testers are irrelevant to the validity of a good blind test.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
But it's not a good blind test. It's a rigged blind test.. Hel-loo!
Really? Why do you say that? Are the rules not clear?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The rules were very clear. Obviously nobody would be able to pass such tests. I was privy to the goings on at the James Randi Education (as it were) Foundation regarding the test protocol for the Intelligent Chip so I have the inside scoop. The whole audiophile blind test thing is ridiculous on so many levels. It's all extremely hilarious and was a brainstorm on the part of Randi to go after unsuspecting audiophiles like he went after spoon benders. Johnny Carson would be proud.
Carson would be proud as he gave the Foundation $400000.
Did Carson have something against spoon benders and dowsers, too? Was Carson also an audiophobe? Will Penn and Teller be taking over from Randi?
Edits: 02/24/15
(nt)
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
