|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.246.51
In Reply to: RE: I agree - but it works both ways. posted by carcass93 on October 12, 2010 at 13:29:55
Well, some DBT proponents are out to prove that all audio equipment sounds the same, in which case they are entitled to their labcoats and $100 best buy stereo systems. Others want to devalue sighted listening auditions in general, the reasons being for this vary.
I think objectivists are far too quick to throw away the benefits of sighted listening, aural training and attempts to listen sighted without being biased. (Then again, some say that's not possible, yet most people audition and purchase gear this way). As for subjectivists, some seem to get hung up on the "null result" hypothesis and completely dismiss DBTs and all other forms of blind testing as 'irrelevant to audio'. The extremist from both camps, IMHO, are missing the picture.
Ask any speaker designer who does a/b comparisons between crossover iterations. He'll be trying to decide whether or not an added eq or impedance compensation circuit is worth the added cost and complexity. If the sonic benefit is not there (aka there is no sonic benefit or the benefit is extremely small) he may choose not to include the addition.
The design of the addition and it's measured effect are objective.
The choice to include them or not is highly subjective.
In this example, you can't have one without the other. Without objective design there is no design. Without subjective choice, all designs which theoretically improve the sound must be used whether or not they actually make audible improvements worth doing. And that's not how audio equipment is usually designed. A lot of "theoretically best" designs are changed so they sound good instead of just being theoretically best. In other cases, "theoretically best" designs are not always selected as the best sounding either.
At the end of the day, the exact corollary between what measures good and what sounds good is not 100% established. Although we have some general ideas, the right measurement for the "perfect sound" does not yet exist. And even if it did, it would surely not please everyone.
Cheers,
Presto
Follow Ups:
If the link works scroll to 08:30 and from around 25min it gets quite interesting.
It would seem that unbiased sighted listening is impossible to anybody because ALL our senses work together simultaneously. Effectively we do not have 5 or so separate senses but only one universal sense. Whatever we hear is made up of aural input as well as visual, what we think we taste by what we see, smell and hear etc.
Edits: 10/22/10
Elegantly said.
"Well, some DBT proponents are out to prove that all audio equipment sounds the same, in which case they are entitled to their labcoats and $100 best buy stereo systems."
So, who are those people? I can't think of anyone here who is "out to prove" any such thing. Of course, some attribute that sort of motivation to those they disagree with . . .
"Others want to devalue sighted listening auditions in general, the reasons being for this vary."
Of course, here you are taking carcass93's formulation (which is hardly original with him), which is hugely ambiguous. The big confusion is between determining whether one can detect audible differences between pieces of equipment, and determining a preference for a piece of equipment. If one is not particularly interested in establishing one can actually detect an audible difference between two pieces of equipment (which can be taken for granted with speakers, anyway), then there is no need to do blind tests or compare measurements with known thresholds. Actually using the equipment is certainly a way of forming preferences for equipment, and I highly recommend it. After all, there is not much point in buying equipment you don't like.
"I think objectivists are far too quick to throw away the benefits of sighted listening, aural training and attempts to listen sighted without being biased. (Then again, some say that's not possible, yet most people audition and purchase gear this way)."
I can't think of anyone who denies the benefits of training. Indeed, one of mkuller's objections to audio DBTs is the fact that audio DBTs are more sensitibe with trained subjects, unlike those medidal DBTs with which he is familiar.
The situation usually presented is that someone (i.e., a reviewer or other audiophile) he/she can detect the differences between the sound of various pieces of equipment. Interconnects and speaker cables are hardly the most egregious examples since they are in the signal path. Without supporting evidence, there is ordinarily no reason to believe such claims, not with 2-4 interconnects at line level or 10-12 foot speaker cables suitable for high fidelity use. And I suggest and will continue to suggest that people do not give any credence to such unsupported claims. On the other hand, if someone prefers some audio jewellery, that's fine with me.
That does not prevent anyone from doing their own auditioning in whatever manner they deem appropriate.
"As for subjectivists, some seem to get hung up on the "null result" hypothesis and completely dismiss DBTs and all other forms of blind testing as 'irrelevant to audio'. The extremist from both camps, IMHO, are missing the picture."
Quite a number simply misrepresent the matter. I can't think of anyone who thinks one can prove the null hypothesis in an audio DBT.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> Presto - "Well, some DBT proponents are out to prove that all audio equipment sounds the same, in which case they are entitled to their labcoats and $100 best buy stereo systems." <
> > Pat D - So, who are those people? I can't think of anyone here who is "out to prove" any such thing. Of course, some attribute that sort of motivation to those they disagree with . . . < <
Take a look at some of Andy19191's old posts. He's commented on more than one occasion that if any new component in his system was changed and he heard a difference, he would assume that component was broken. To him, everything sounds the same.
Now he's probably not out to "prove" this. I think, for him, it's already been proven.
In general, to those who claim they don't believe everything sounds the same, I'd ask them to compare amps from Krell vs Ayre amps, or any other brand they care to mention (solid state) or any two cables from any two brands. If we drill down far enough, they'll ultimately in effect claim that everything sounds the same. I think we can dispense with the usual disclaimers of wire gauge, amps operating within their limits, etc etc.
Care to try it? Have you ever heard any differences between two solid state amps that weren't driven to clipping or otherwise operating outside their limits, either because of the amp itself or its ability to power a certain speaker?
"Have you ever heard any differences between two solid state amps that weren't driven to clipping or otherwise operating outside their limits,"
Yes using very revealing speakers and in "blind" test too. The difference were small but if one used the right portions of music, then one could differentiate between several of them. Curiously (I thought) the differences were on the decay side of a musical transient, why that was i have no solid idea other than possibly a temperature effect within the circuitry.
In any case, it was possible to hear some differences blind IF one searched for musical passages that brought it out. A problem may be that because most hifi speakers are not even close to an idea device, it may be harder to hear these effects. If a person used a set of Manger's as near filed monitors, that should allow this, they are very good transducers except for a very limited output.
Two very valid objections. Practical ABX tests in particular are unlikely to detect those "special circumstances." And it's long been established that some speakers obscure distortion in electronics -- going way back, I remember a comparison in High Fidelity in which the panel members were unable to hear the difference between digital and analog on a pair of AR-LST's, but were able to hear it on stacked Quads.
You see, despite the maunderings of some on this board, I don't doubt your claim and similar claims that have been made by Dan Banquer. There are a couple of reasons for this:
first, I presume you guys know how to do controlled blind tests, and don't make up your own rules for doing so. And
second, you assert you have done the requisite blind tests.
It would be interesting if you could write this up for a journal such as AESJ.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
“It would be interesting if you could write this up for a journal such as AESJ.”
You said a mouthful by adding that little J at the end.
I have done about a dozen presentations at AES meetings and conventions, presenting on several new types of loudspeaker transducers and loudspeaker systems, I have been an invited speaker a couple times and was on two loudspeaker technology discussion panels.
While they apparently liked to hear what I say about loudspeakers, what ever it takes to get something in the Journal, I never found it.
Lotsa difficult math! :-)
> The difference were small but if one used the right portions of music, then one could differentiate between several of them <
Precisely. And for me personally, the differences are not worth the cost. I use a $1000 (retail) integrated amp because I'd rather spend my money on music. But the differences are there, often even when folks believe they shouldn't be.
Is there a bias to assume that if a difference is heard, that the more expensive component is automatically the better of the two "differences"? It seems this is common in demonstrations. What if one is not necessarily more true-to-source than the other, but they just sound different? Would it not stand to reason that the fact they are different just means there may be a subjective preference of one over the other?
Many sales pitches seem to be based on the claim that ANY difference that one can achieve can be offered as an improvement - so long as you charge enough, or insane amounts of money. I think there is a lot of "you get what you pay for" mentality built into audio marketing. I also think some differences are subjective and not necessarily "better" and folks may be paying for a difference that, albeit there, is just a difference and not necessarily better.
The psychology of expecting more because you're paying more is very interesting. Ironically, "expecting" more is in and of itself a basic form of bias. One may believe that "I get more since I pay more" when in fact they're just getting something different for more money. There are cables which employ passive components that some say merely CHANGE the sound. The listener hears a difference, believes the difference is a positive one as per the marketing-speak (I mean, why would a cable maker lie?) and pays more based on the fact a difference was heard.
It reminds me of the freshly cleaned, detailed and waxed car that is "happy" and drives smoother.
The human mind is a wonderful place where the line between perception and reality is not often clearly drawn.
Cheers,
Presto
> Is there a bias to assume that if a difference is heard, that the more expensive component is automatically the better of the two "differences"? <
I believe we tend to make that assumption. After having been nailed by that myself a couple of times, I later made arrangements to audition new gear in my home for 30 days. What happened on some occasions is that the newer component would sound "better" in one or two obvious ways but worse in other, more subtle ways that I discovered I couldn't tolerate.
I may be bass-ackwards, but the only time I audition blind is when I'm convinced I can hear a difference and I can't decide which component I like better. Ok, not always but usually.
But I think we're geared to thing more expensive is better... and I've found it to be the case most of the time, but not always.
All true, I think. Toole (or Olive?) did an experiment in which they found that a cheap-looking little speaker outperformed more expensive speakers in blind tests, but was rated lower in sighted ones. This was apparently true not just of inexperienced listeners, but of company engineers who were convinced that they could compensate for that sort of bias as well.
"Take a look at some of Andy19191's old posts. He's commented on more than one occasion that if any new component in his system was changed and he heard a difference, he would assume that component was broken. To him, everything sounds the same."
Sorry, but your conclusion does not follow. Since you haven't provided his precise text for quotation--I seriously doubt he would expect new speakers to sound the same!--I would suggest he merely thinks they ought to sound the same. It might turn out not to be so.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> Since you haven't provided his precise text for quotation... <
If I may paraphrase a comment from Andy as well as from many others that E-Stat mentioned... "Do Your Own Homework"! :)
> I seriously doubt he would expect new speakers to sound the same! <
He did not omit speakers when he said "a component".
> I would suggest he merely thinks they ought to sound the same. It might turn out not to be so. <
You're summed up the very basis of the "objectivist" argument in your first sentence beginning with "they ouught..." and the "subjectivist" one in your second. What ought to be often isn't.
If you seriously want to know what Andy19191 thinks about speakers sounding different, you should see where he actually addresses that. That is pretty basic when trying to analyze a text. He does not even think different samples of the same speaker model can be depended upon to sound the same.
"This is not comparing apples with apples because the variability between speakers is far too large. You must compare a speaker with itself after "burning in" if this is the objective."
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=34085&highlight=broken+andy19191&r=
As for electronics sounding different, well, one can always design inaccurate ones.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
lol - well, you were skeptical so you searched and found something that refuted what he posted a different time. Since I've read a lot of his posts over the years, I was not at all skeptical when he posted that if he replaced "a component" in his system and heard a difference, he would expect that the new component was broken. Therefore, I felt no need to pursue further. I'll give it a little time later and see if I can find the exact post. Unfortunately, I remember only the general lunacy and not the title or date.
No, I just looked at the link Tony provided and looked for his opinions.
It is clear you are no longer interested in fair discussion.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
> It is clear you are no longer interested in fair discussion. <
Beliefs seem to rule you rather than facts, but ok.
kerr
"Beliefs seem to rule you rather than facts, but ok."
No, I proved it. I will quote what I said above.
"If you seriously want to know what Andy19191 thinks about speakers sounding different, you should see where he actually addresses that. That is pretty basic when trying to analyze a text. He does not even think different samples of the same speaker model can be depended upon to sound the same."
You still continued to misrepresent Andy19191's position. So you are not interested in fair discussion.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
...is that discussion with you is pointless. So continue to declare yourself the winner here - time to move on.
... to talk to a gramophone, that's playing a broken record?
No? Well, here's your chance with Pat.
I was tempted to say "turntable" at first, but upon further thinking about it - no, considering level of fidelity, it's really a gramophone.
...and hold untenable ones at that, are usually perceived as broken records. And the only thing that will fix the record is them going into a blind test with a truly objective mind. Shouldn't take too many tests to dispel the beliefs and create actual knowledge.
.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
nt
I don't know. You have the actuarial advantage, I expect.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"> Since you haven't provided his precise text for quotation... <"
Here you go...
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I didn't notice the main post of his that came to mind, but it may be somewhere in there. Thanks.
"I didn't notice the main post of his that came to mind, but it may be somewhere in there. Thanks."
I didn't find a perfect match, but the main gist of your comment is present in the posts.
The word "broken" is used several ways. These include defective equipment (e.g. ones with clearly audible hum), ineffective experimental procedures, and incorrect reasoning. As you move down this list the clarity of the them "broken" becomes obscured. All an all I don't object to the use of the term, but it allows a lot of wiggle room for argumentation. In particular, it allows for rejecting any positive test results, something that is important to die-hard skeptics, including, perhaps, James Randi. (And something that I would do, too, were I to be involved in a $1,000,000 wager.)
After reading a number of the posts, what I found most objectionable is the derogatory connotation put on "audiophile". There may be some who have the characteristics described, but most of the audiophiles I know do not deserve this abuse. (I could care less, personally. I prefer the appellation "music lover" or "audio engineer".)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Yes, and I appreciate your efforts. I found enough to satisfy me but I'm not stuck in the belief rut that Pat D resides in. It'll take more than "main gist", I think. ;)
I know a fair share of audio scientists, mostly recording engineers. They are not the ones that use the term "audiophile" disparagingly. Usually that comes from those who are happy with their Ipods and earbuds (and prior to that, their Sony rack systems) and can't even begin to imagine why anyone would spend X amount on a single component that cost more than their entire system.
As for the abuse heaped on us, all I can say is that Andy, as intelligent as he appears, is not easy to take seriously. Consequently, I find that I'm happiest in whatever pigeonhole he places furthest from himself.
fits the bill and covers one of my others as well. SM thought that his Dynaco amplifier and H-K preamp (I owned one back in '74) was not audibly outperformed by any other on the planet in any fashion.
rw
That's not the exact post I recall. Seems to me he was responding to you (his favorite audiophile). So far I haven't found it but I'll keep looking as I have time. Now my own curiousity is aroused.
I was just looking through those in the search list that illustrate Andy's simplistic thinking. As for his favorite audiophile , perhaps this thread and my interaction might qualify. :)
rw
... bizarre "Silver Eared John" freak?
Even against the background of usual mentally disturbed "objectivist" characters in that thread, he looks like something special. "Y'all" and "slick" help too, of course.
rw
> "Silver Eared John" freak? <
We all suspected that was jj in another guise. It looked, walked and quacked like a duck so it was probably a duck but I don't think anyone knew with absolute certainty.
Howdy
It was he, tho he usually took care to anonymize his IP address, etc. in person he was proud of his various guises.
-Ted
...although I thought his comment was more recent than 2005. I'll wade through this stuff.
The world can say what it wants to about Mtrycrafts, but when he made an argument, he always had his "citations" in order. I should have learned to do the same. :)
one can quickly discover they involve low end gear.
Mtry's folly
rw
Well, mtry certainly showed you didn't understand the burden of proof. Apparently you still don't.
If you guys could give any testable meaning to words and phrases such as "low end gear," "resolution," and the like, you might be able to say something useful.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Well, mtry certainly showed you didn't understand the burden of proof.
and lack of understanding context as demonstrated by both of you. Let's start at the beginning with Mytry's claim found here (where you also posted):
"Yes, you may be right if there was only one test. There isn't. 30 years of testing on any different number of gear, including very expensive cable maker's gear with null results.
Naturally, I asked him to support his claim since THE BURDEN OF PROOF was on him to support his assertion. Do you understand? It was afterwards that he admitted that he has no such citations. Only fig newtons of his equally poor memory. He just makes $hit up that he thinks folks won't try to verify.
Apparently you still don't.
Apparently still don't what? Remember Mtry was unable to back his claim? Remember his citations (like yours) either talk about zip cord back in 1983 or don't give the remotest clue of test conditions?
rw
If you had read the whole thread, you would have found that it is not possible to prove the null hypothesis.E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."You have evidently given up trying to show that there are audible differences between audio cables, which would mean providing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. You then you try to suggest mtrycrafts should prove a null hypothesis, to provide reports for something it is impossible to establish. There is no burden of proof to establish something does not exist, the problem is to show that they do. So not only have you tried a "tu quoque" argument (which is irrelevant to the audio questions), but you have failed to provide true one.
The real problem is to find reports which establish that there are audible differences between speaker wires -- and and of course, DBTs have found audible differences if the differences in resistance are great enough to audibly affect the frequency response into a speaker load. And you have consistently refused to figure out how much that difference would be.
Now, if you had bothered to read the sophisticated discussion in the whole thread, you would find that one can not establish that two things sound the same--which is the null hypothesis. There is no burden of proof to establish something it is impossible to establish.
Yet you are silly enough to ask the mtrycrafts provide evidence to support a negative hypothesis *YOU* have laid out! The problem is to disprove the null hypothesis. You have still failed to do so. You haven't come up with any studies. Mtrycrafts and Richard Greene have at least looked for them.
mtrycrafts ----- 100%
E-stat ---------- 0%
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Edits: 10/15/10
My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?The real problem is to find reports which establish that there are audible differences between speaker wires...
The real problem is finding anyone who bothers to test the highest performance cabling. Such doesn't happen or they use erroneous test procedures using unproven assumptions.
There is no burden of proof to establish something it is impossible to establish.
Ever the pedantic reply. Perhaps if I simplify the story, you might be able to understand it.
1. Mtry claimed that expensive (I would say high performance) cables have been involved in DBTs.
2. I ask him for examples
3. He declines saying he doesn't need to prove his claim.Yet you are silly enough to ask the mtrycrafts provide evidence to support a negative hypothesis *YOU* have laid out!
Are you really incapable of understanding the above? My question to him has nothing at all to do with the null hypothesis. I questioned his claim and he folded. Surely you are smarter than that - even if your memory is poor.
Do you understand the question now?
edit: You probably don't any better today than long ago. here is where we first discussed his inability to document any of his claims. I replied to a really funny post of his where he demonstrates that he is utterly incapable of following a story (like you) and rants on. Here is my reply to his post. I should have included this other line from his post:
"They are not equally expensive as one was $990. the other a cheapo."
One cost $300 while the other, about $110.
rw
rw
Edits: 10/15/10
E-stat
"My question to him had nothing to do with the null hypothesis. Can't you figure that out?"
Nonsense. The concept of a null hypothesis is not limited to audio DBTs. You not only want articles, but you state:
E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."
That is a null hypothesis. But, like it or not, you want something which is impossible. You didn't ask for tests using equipment meeting certain parameters, you wanted ones with results which "support" the silly notion that "all cables sound the same," which has been shown to be false--indeed, your own reference to a Stereo Review article from 1983 proves you should know it be false. Thus, what you are maintaining is that he has not met the burden of proof to supply articles meeting criteria which YOU, not mtrycrafts, have set out. It's a scummy little trick. So, you have tried to put forward a "tu quoque" argument, one of the standard fallacies. You're like a little kid shouting "He does it, too." But you even failed in that.
Now let's look at your attempted summary of an exchange in the 2004 AR thread, which simply does not represent what is in the thread.
E-stat
"1. Mtry claimed that expensive (I would say high performance) cables have been involved in DBTs.
2. I ask him for examples
3. He declines saying he doesn't need to prove his claim."
I have already shown that in fact, you said something different than No. 1 and No. 2.
E-stat
"I still await a single report of any findings to support the "all cables sound the same notion" using equipment better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers."
So, you didn't even state what you yourself had said!
Mtrycrafts has quite properly pointed out that those who say that two pieces of equipment are audibly different have the burden of proof. And so, let us go to the context of something you quoted:
"Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff."
So No. 3 is false as well.
I tried to indicate this more gently below, but you stubbornly persisted in misunderstanding that 2004 discussion.
I should point out that if you look up the AR thread you will Richard Greene participated in a test with expensive cables.
Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You remain unable to understand the core concept. Constantly acknowledging that folks can hear the difference between 12 gauge zip and 24 gauge toy wire only has significance to you. No one else cares.rw
Edits: 10/17/10
You say no DBTs have been done with expensive cables, even though Richard Greene's post refutes that. So mtrycrafts was right about that--and, well, see link below.
You maintain mtrycrafts says he has no references, you even said he lied--but he did not say that he had no references. He just asked you to come up with positives. You know there are some, yet you still wanted reference to support the idea that all cables sound the same.
I hope you will not pretend we had not referred to the ABX site before. Below is a link to the results.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
which also includes the need for scientific validity. We already know the unverified assumption that the ABX box and its additional cables doesn't affect the results. Circular reasoning involves the use of more zip cord between each end of the *test*.
I'm learning from Tony about ignore lists. You just made mine.
rw
Now you want to argue about something else. I have shown DBTs have been done on expensive cables--but I don't see you apologizing for saying mtrycrafts lied.
Now you bring up the alleged faults of the ABX box. But here again, you show you don't understand about the null hypothesis. You ask for proof that something makes no difference! You sometimes get it straight that the null hypothesis cannot be proven, but then you turn around and whine about it:
E-stat
"We already know the unverified assumption that the ABX box and its additional cables doesn't affect the results."
You have a singular lack of evidence that it has any audible influence on the results. E. Brad Meyer has given me permission to post this text of his to AA:
"
"I understand that an old issue has arisen here concerning the supposition that the ABX box is not only audible when inserted into a signal chain, but also somehow spoils the sound passing though it, rendering previously audible differences inaudible. To anyone at all familiar with Ohm's law, this would be akin to magic -- and is certainly far enough out of the ordinary to be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary proof. I am talking about proof that is required of those claiming audibility; it is certainly not a requirement for anyone conducting such a test to prove that the box is NOT spoiling the sound.
"Here are the facts: Instead of a six-foot connecting cable between the source and the line-level input, the signal goes through a three-foot cable, an RCA jack, an inch of hookup wire, a reed relay with a resistance of about 0.3 ohms (this is in a circuit where the input impedance at the far end exceeds 10 kOhms), though another inch of hookup wire to a second RCA jack, and then another three-foot cable. Yes, two sources are connected to the ABX relay module input. Only one at a time is connected to the output, and in any event having both connected is no different than having two sources connected to a preamp at the same time -- a configuration that I daresay describes virtually all systems out there.
"The original claim, in print, that an early version of the ABX box somehow ruined the sound was made in TAS by John Cooledge (not sure I spelled the name right but everyone remembers JWC). His assertion was entirely unsupported by any evidence other than his personal testimony, based on non-blind listening. I do not consider it credible given the electrical parameters involved. I can't prove he didn't hear anything, of course, but I can't prove that the universe wasn't created ten seconds ago, and neither question really interests me. If anyone wants to blind-test the box, I'd be happy to hear how that goes.
"If you don't think double-blind testing is necessary or helpful, well, perhaps you are the first person in history who can't be fooled, and good for you. But the experience of people who do try it has never, in my experience, been that the test setup changes anything. All the differences we or our subjects hear in sighted tests remain with the box in place, as long as we're just listening to A or B. It's just when X is pressed that things seem to get difficult. I have had a subject (this was in a demo at and AES convention) swear to me that what he heard when X was pressed was different from BOTH A and B, though A and B were the only sources around. And it doesn't really matter whether you use the box, either. That's just a convenience that makes it possible to do the test more easily. Hiding the source from yourself, by any means, is the essential, and the really vexing, thing."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The web page lacks basic detail. If one submitted this to a high school science lab back I went to school one would get an incomplete.
One needs complete documentation of the entire equipment set up, starting at the source material used for the tests, and including some kind of diagram of room. Listeners should be identified and described by experience. Other experimental parameters need be noted, e.g. setting of all control knobs on the equipment, physical location of ABX box, wiring lengths of all cabling, SPLs at the listening position(s), power levels out of the amplifier, etc. With this material it would be possible to begin talking about "evidence". Without it, results must be considered "anecdotal". Perhaps this material is available in someone's attic. Perhaps not.
This material would be evidence relating to what the listeners heard on one occasion. Additional testing and evidence would be required before this evidence would have value in a broader context. (This would include, for example, evidence that the test setup was sensitive to the matters to be decided and testing to qualify the listener and verify that their hearing was normal and they had been appropriately trained.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If you search text "ABX" by me, you'll find nearly thirty times in the past (and you've responded) where I've pointed out the lack of controls used with ABX boxes. Try again.
E Brad can theorize all he wishes. Such does not constitute a scientific approach.
rw
Oh yeah, you mentioned some assertions by Pass, which some knowledgeable people showed were not correct and did not actually reflect the ABX box circuitry.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"I should point out that if you look up the AR thread you will Richard Greene participated in a test with expensive cables."
I did. The URL was bad. I got beyond that. I looked at all six pages, no reference to Richard Greene's test.
It's best to preview one's posts with the "Preview Message" button, and click through all links to verify they are good.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I am using Firefox.
If you found the thread, you have to realize there are different display modes at AR. If you use the Linear mode, all the texts of the posts should show up.
In the threaded or hybrid modes, you have to look at the thread maps up on top, where you will notice that it tells you there are more posts below some of the subthreads, and you will have to click on the last post and see if it's there, or if not, go to another such and click on it to see if it's there.
I have linked the single post below.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
That worked. I must have missed the post the first time.
I also use Firefox. The original bad link had a double "http" in the string.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
There never was. You'll note that immediately following his claim, I asked for substantiation. It never came.
rw
.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Since you miss the obvious point, I guess I need to spell it out. There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide. Fools like Mtry twist the null result into assuming that provides a conclusion. It does not. If all you did was compare a Ford Taurus against a Buick Regal, dialtones like Mtry would conclude that ALL cars had limited acceleration and cornering capability.
Tests speak for only that which is tested. Nothing more. Extrapolation of results to that which has not been tested or (my favorite) what didn't exist at the time of the test is wholly unwarranted.
rw
E-stat
"There have been ZERO valid tests using high performance cables that anyone has ever been able to provide."
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire such as my old 12 gauge Angstrom cables or heavy speaker wire from the hardware store--which isn't cheap as it used be, either. And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think. Whoops! Game goes to mtrycrafts!
A second point is what on earth your assertion actually means. If only we could give some definite meaning to "high performance cables" for audio purposes. How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not? How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
By listening to it?
In the absence of blind tests, we have sighted ones. They aren't of coruse completely reliable, but -i-t- -s-e-e-m-s- -t-o- -m-e- -t-h-a-t- they're significantly better than no evidence at all.
Sighted tests are quite reliable for a lot of things. A couple of examples. They can show the equipment works and is not obviously malfunctioning. They can show that an amplifier can drive the speakers to one's satisfaction--or not.
As well, sighted tests can work quite well for forming preferences. I have often advised people to get the equipment they prefer, and to form their preferences by the methods they prefer.
For determining small audible differences--sighted auditions are not reliable.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The problem is, neither is practical forced choice testing. Just look at the DBT reports on Hydrogen Audio, the results are all over the place. So what do you do, wait for the blind tests to improve (or to be done in the first place, since most equipment one might be interested in buying hasn't been subjected to DBT), or accept the evidence of one's ears?
I suppose I should add that this isn't just a rhetorical question. The purported superiority of certain esoteric cables, the audibility of certain differences in contemporary power amplifiers and converters -- in many cases, I just don't know. All I can do is use my ears and a bit of common sense, and hope I'm right.
Ah, well that illustrates a different concern: what to buy. I don't tell people what to buy, or how they *should* go about choosing equipment, though I can tell them what has worked for me and others. I don't have to change speakers every couple of years because I get tired of them.
This bothers many people. They expect me to tell them what to buy--after all, that's why many of them come here, to get advice on what equipment to buy. I'm not answering the questions they have in their minds--but seldom ask.
I often suggest speakers I think most people would like, or amplifiers that should drive their speakers, if I know. But I don't tell them not to buy expensive equipment, and I don't suggest they buy the cheapest. What I suggest is that they buy the equipment they prefer.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I think the best you can do is outline some of the options. Needs and tastes differ too much. However, within a given category, there are almost always components that are a better value than others. And some, arguably, that have no value at all, or are ridiculously overpriced for what they are (not that I'm thinking of certain estoteric cables . . .).
And so by your own admission, you have no good evidence that those alleged "high performance cables" sound different from large heavy gauge speaker wire...
How can you find evidence when they have never been tested? How many times do you need to be told the same thing before you understand the concept? Three? Four? Never?
And that was mtrycrafts' point then and still is, I think.
His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied.
How does one know whether a cable is "high performance" or not?
Smart people know several ways. Do they achieve a low dielectric constant? Zip cord clearly does not. Do you test what countless critical listeners say sounds good? Why would you possibly want to do that?
How could one test a hypothesis which has no definite meaning?
The answer involves a very complex procedure that is likely far beyond your level of comprehension: you include them in your tests. Did you get that?
I'm done with kindergarten for today.
rw
E-stat
"His point? He claimed that there were tests that included what he dismisses as "expensive cables". He lied."
No, mtyrcrafts did not lie. Indeed, if you look in the same 2004 thread at AR, you will find Richard Greene said participated in such a DBT, so you should know what mtry said was true.
Richard Greene
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan. The test was conducted by DLC owner Dave Clark (inventor of the DUMAX dynamic driver measurement system) and Tom Nousaine. Both work full-time in the audio field and both are internationally known."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Mtry didn't provide that *test*. He remained unable to provide any such information. He admitted that he was unable to provide any such detail. He lied. Let's examine your example of a scientifically valid test. Here's the entirety of the scholarly test procedure, gear used and results:
"Ten feet of Radio Shack 14AWG zip cords versus ten-foot $995 Tara Labs speaker cables at DLC Design, an audio consultancy in Michigan"
That's it? Now, go back and tell us the contents of the very next post in that thread. BassNut's was 11. Read 12. Then, tell us if the question raised in that post was ever answered.
rw
No, mtry did not lie. First, what mtrycrafts said was that tests with expensive cables have been done. I'll link some results below, and I hope you aren't going to pretend you haven't seen the ABX site before.
You maintain DBTs have never been done with expensive cables, yet the refutation of your assertion was in that very thread, in Richard Greene's post.
Second, mtry never said he could not supply any references. He pointed out that he didn't need to do so, since it is up to those who claim there are audible differences to establish it. After all, those null results don't prove a negative(as if we hadn't told you this many times). It doesn't do much good to supply references around as hardly anyone either reads them or bothers to remember they have been given--do you recognize yourself?
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
You're supposed to ASSUME that the test was done with something other than Bose Accoustimass and Yorx electronics, somewhere other than a cave, that the people failed to discern differences, and that there was a test at all! Where's your faith???
The question at issue is whether tests of expensive cables have been done. They have.
Now you want to ask some other questions. Fine. Why don't you ask DLC what was done? But why you are interested in more negative results is a question, since so many think negative results mean nothing.
I'm looking for positive results. There are some, as E-stat keeps telling us, but he doesn't like them.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Richard claims to have been present at the test he cited. You happen to believe it was a proper test and, however much I may disagree with his audio beliefs, I've always found him to be honest. But see Tony's post above (titled: Evidence?). Your beliefs and my beliefs have no place in the discussion. E-Stat doesn't share the same faith, and there's no reason he should. Richard's claim is nothing more than anecdotal evidence. I would guess that you don't see this because you share the same audio beliefs.
> I'm looking for positive results. <
Not very diligently. The best way to find positive results is to participate in some blind tests, either as a participant or as an observer. It shouldn't take many... as long as you don't insist on comparing two brands of zip cord or two brands of plastic receiver.
rw
And if it is, why? After all this time?
Can accuse you of succumbing to expectation bias, can we? :)
... than being a fool, is pretending to be an even bigger fool than you really are -
- they are right.
I'm sorry my post was above your head.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Nobody here is bored enough, or has futility fetish strong enough, to have actual audio-related discussion with you, so you'll have to make do with name-calling.
"Well, mtry certainly showed you didn't understand the burden of proof. Apparently you still don't."
The burden of proof is a purely subjective concept. It's ironic that it's the objectivists who raise this red herring.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
you'll find that the burden of proof was upon the clown named Mtrycrafts. Read my reply to Pat where I cite the original conversation.
rw
There is no burden of proof to prove the null hypothesis, that is, prove that two things are the same. You were (and still are) expecting mtrycrafts to prove the null hypothesis, which is impossible.
So let's provide the link to the whole thread.
But I have discussed this in another post farther above.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
"There is no burden of proof to prove the null hypothesis, that is, prove that two things are the same. You were (and still are) expecting mtrycrafts to prove the null hypothesis, which is impossible."
There is tremendous confusion here as to what is being discussed (possibly deliberate). You seem to be discussing some combination of statistics, physics or psycho-acoustics. E-stat is discussing history, a completely different subject. There are also questions of linguistics or epistemology, e.g. what is meant by "prove" and "same". An experiment can never prove or disprove anything. It can at most provide evidence one way or the other. After learning of the experimental results one's beliefs may change or not, depending on what those beliefs were. For example, if one's beliefs were based on a completely different model of the underlying reality from the experimenter's the results will likely have little impact. (One may dismiss a result as incompetent, irrelevant or inconclusive.)
In a court of law, "proof" has a defined meaning. This is because the force of law (potentially manifesting as brute physical force) will be applied. My innate suspicion is that people who speak of "burden of proof" are hoping that brute physical force will be brought to bear to enforce their beliefs if they are unable to persuade by peaceful argument. There is a long history of this method being used to enforce heretical religious beliefs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
If you read what E-Stat said he was looking for in the AR thread, it was articles supporting "no cables sound the same."
I have some big objections to that. First, it is to ask for support for a rather general null hypothesis, and it can't be done. He asked for the impossible, so don't blame me for it.
Second, as E-Stat forgets, he already mentioned in sneering terms about a DBT written up in Stereo Review which showed audible difference between longish lengths of 24 gauge and 16 gauge cables.
So, he was asking atupid question on all counts and expect mtry and me to straighten out what he thinks he really, really meant to say bud didn't.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
There is tremendous confusion here as to what is being discussed (possibly deliberate).I don't think it is deliberate because the question is so easy for the rest of us to understand. When confronted with facts, Pat gets all whipped up in his religion and loses the ability to reason. Regarding the same topic, I asked why *researchers* would never bother to compare zip cord to something like Nordost Odin. His response after first ignoring the question (this is very telling):
" You didn't ask a meaningful question."
Why would anyone who genuinely seeks to extend our scientific grasp possibly want to include one of the best available? Why would anyone want to want compare the performance of a sports car to a Ferrari Italia? He just doesn't get it. Instead, he babbles about how the guys at Stereo Review spent fifty hours comparing 12 gauge zip to 24 gauge zip and concluded they sound different. Stop the presses!
rw
Edits: 10/17/10
I'm not so sure that an experiment can't prove. For example, if my theory is that cannonballs fall down, and I perform an experiment by dropping a cannonball, and the cannonball falls up, I've disproved my hypothesis. But if I drop the cannonball and it falls in the down direction and lands on my foot, I've done a pretty good job of proving that cannoballs fall down.
One could quibble to be sure, and suggest that the dropping down might be the result of a quantum fluctuation, or that I've merely been hypnotized into believing I see the cannonball falling down. In that sense, yeah, I agree, an experiment can't prove; proof is the province of mathematics, not experimental science. But fortunately for those of us who depend upon experimental results to get through the day without floating off into space, the universe isn't generally that capricious.
I'm afraid I can't agree with your assertion that "if one's beliefs were based on a completely different model of the underlying reality from the experimenter's the results will likely have little impact. (One may dismiss a result as incompetent, irrelevant or inconclusive)." That just isn't true, not in the hard sciences, anyway. Scientists do contest the valididity of new experiments, and require that controversial experimental results be reproduced to minimize the possibility of error. Both are essential components of scientific method. But once the experimental evidence is sufficient to disprove a theory, scientists generally discard it pretty quickly. Or accept it if the experiment verifies in a spectacular way its predictive power. Rather, where scientific disagreements do persist, it's usually because experimental and observational evidence haven't yet reached the point at which the issue can be decided conclusively one way or the other. It's during that interregnum when you you typically see the "old scientist" phenomenon, with the older people in the field rejecting the paradigm shift. But they are doing so as a matter of opinion, not scientific fact.
An example of such an interregnum: the question of whether our ancestors descended from Neanderthals. For many years, there were paleontologists in both camps, since the observational evidence, basically skeletal similarities or dissimilarities, was inconclusive. Then, the Neanderthal genome was sequenced, showing that Neanderthals were an independent species. Recently, with more complete sequencing, evidence was found that interbreeding did occur, but on a very limited scale. Now that the evidence is in, I don't think you'll find many paleontologists arguing the old positions.
Many other questions remain open, e.g., whether the existing experimental evidence for life on Mars (structures within Martian rocks and a lander experiment that found evidence of metabolism) are valid. In that case, scientists argue both sides, and will until more exhaustive observations can be made.
As to cannonballs falling upward, I think it preferable to use pigs. :-)
I stand by my comment about people's beliefs. My comments were an observation on what is, not what should be. Whether/when/how cables audibly affect sound is less important than other contentious subjects, e.g. ESP, low energy nuclear fusion, or human induced climate change. In each of these areas one faces difficulties ferreting out truth because of various systemic reasons.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hey, you're missing what's important! Cables, of course, since they affect audio, rather than unimportant stuff like the fate of the earth.
I guess what I'd say about ESP, cold fusion, and warming is that there's a huge difference between what scientists think about these things and what the general public thinks about these things, and sometimes, between what scientists think about these things and what the general public thinks scientists think about these things. Scientists have seen no evidence for ESP, despite any number of controlled experiments, and my uncanny ability to clean out casinos -- oops, shouldn't have mentioned that. Nor is there any real evidence for cold fusion, which was debunked rapidly after its announcement. And despite an industry sponsored campaign of disinformation, there are few if any credentialed limate scientists who don't accept anthropogenic global warming at this point, some hundred years after the theory was proposed by Arrhenius. After years of debate and research, the experimental evidence is just too overwhelming, not to mention that nobody has been able to come up with a consistent computer model that *doesn't* predict global warming. The actual scientific debate is on the magnitude of the effects.
For some reason, the popular press doesn't do a very good job of representing the beliefs of the scientific community. The press regularly touts unreproduced experiments like cold fusion, but scientists learn early on to be more cautious. Or results that are statistically insignificant (certain ABX tests, anyone?), or that confuse cause and effect. Or, in the interest of journalistic fairness, they quote quacks and shills, giving the public the impression that something like the existence of AGW is scientifically controversial when it no longer is.
But I do wish someone would do some real experiments on those esoteric cables! Because then I'd know whether my long-standing policy of not bothering with them was foolish or not.
Scientists have to support their families. Don't confuse what people say with what they believe, at least not until they are retired. If you look deeply into some of the subjects with an open mind, you may be surprised.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
The thing is, while a minority of scientists can be pressured or corrupted (20%, according to one study I read about), you can't subborn everyone in a field, and such is the nature of science that it takes only one scientist to overthrow established dogma. So from what I've seen, the worst that can be done is to keep scientific results from the public for a while.
The tobacco companies, forex, suppressed their own research on the addictiveness of tobacco, but within a few years scientists working independently discovered it. The delay here was, I think, due to a difference in resources: the tobacco companies had vast funds to throw at research. Similarly, the drug companies have in recent years repeatedly tried to suppress or underplay research on the side effects of the drugs they sell -- but they've repeatedly been caught in the act. Once independent researchers have repeated the experiments or gained access to and analyzed the original data, their nasty little subterfuge ends.
Other sources of error seem to be countered rapidly, e.g., fudged data and outright frauds like Piltsdown Man.
What I think is more likely to happen is that a result will "sit on the shelf" either because of inadequate evidence, or because no one thinks to question it. The cold-bloodedness of dinosaurs is an example of the latter, it was accepted for almost a century before someone thought to re-examine the evidence and discovered that they weren't cold blooded at all. AGW is an example of the former, it took almost 100 years before computers became powerful enough to establish the theory. So too for plate tectonics, which was rejected for many years by geologists because there was no known mechanism whereby it could occur.
"AGW is an example of the former, it took almost 100 years before computers became powerful enough to establish the theory."
You hit on the main problem with AGW. It's not the basic physics, it's the "multiplier" that comes out of computer models of a chaotic dynamic system, models that don't even account for the most powerful greenhouse gas. These models have so many parameters that curve fitting can be used to get any desired result. This is not what I would call "science" by any stretch of the imagination.
Whenever "science" feeds back into the political system there is little chance for anything but a corrupt result to come out. This was the case with the tobacco and drug industries where the corruption resulted in many people being killed. In comparison, the AGW scam has been relatively benign.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I haven't seen any evidence of curve fitting: to the best of my knowledge, the AGW models are consistent with the laws of physics, and, with occasional lapses of the sort that are inevitable in a complex model with partial data, with observation. And, as I said, no one has been able to come up with a consistent AGW model that doesn't predict warming. That means that the anti-warming position has no scientific credibility, which is why, after years of lively debate, the vast majority of climate scientists no longer accept it.
The scam here, as so often and in the case of the tobacco and drug companies, is on the part of industry. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of a scientific scam that had another source, unless you perhaps consider the occasional hoax or laboratory fraud -- all of which I think occur on a small scale, involving an individual or a small group of researchers. What has happened here instead is that the energy industry has used the tactics of politics in an attempt to discredit science, when in fact only science can do that. Generally, that means vague and general objections and accusations, conspiracy theories, and attempts at character assassination, rather than competing models and data, which they can't present because they don't have 'em.
Have you ever worked with computer models of non-linear systems? Do you understand the issues with any computer model, especially one of a complex dynamical system? Do you understand the importance of the multiplier effect to the arguments being made that draconian measures be taken to curb AGW?
If you're going to pick on an industry, it's the finance industry that you should be picking on. If AGW is believed or legislated, it will spawn a trillion dollar market in carbon credit trading.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I'm an EE who studied physics as an undergrad, so yes, I'm familiar with the issues. That familiarity also tells me that AGW can't be debated on a scientifically meaningful level by non-specialists, myself included, who aren't immersed in the literature and don't have access to the computer models. And that science isn't conducted in the pages of the Guardian!
Carbon credit trading, BTW, is preferred by industry to regulation, and has been employed with great success to control other pollutants. It isn't, from an economic perspective, the optimum way to reduce CO2 emissions -- a zero-sum (returned to the consumer) carbon tax that makes the price of carbon emissions reflect extrinsic costs is almost certainly better -- but a carbon tax isn't politically tenable. In any case, Arrhenius predicted AGW almost 100 years before there was talk of carbon credits.
Beware of experts who hide their data and models and who have the ears of politicians.
For any credibility all raw data and models, including computer source code, must be public. The work was funded with public money and the work product belongs to the people. This should be a general rule for any publicly funded science. It should also be the policy of scientific journals. Not many people will have the time or ability to review material outside of their immediate field, but some will. Overspecialization will lead to societal collapse.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
AFAIK, most of this information is already public.
The thing is, there's no scientific case against AGW. None. If there were, all it would take is one young climate scientist, eager to make his name, and an article in a peer-reviewed journal, and we'd be done with the whole thing.
The energy industry has virtually unlimited financial resources. They can do all the research they want. And yet they haven't produced any science to refute AGW. Why? Because like the tobacco industry, they know full well that the science isn't on their side. So instead, they use the techniques of public relations and politics to fool the public. They can't do science, so they attack the credibility of scientists, the way hack politician smear their opponents.
This doesn't affect the science, any more than the tobacco industry's "more doctors smoke Camels" ads and blackout in health coverage in most popular magazines prevented scientists from making the smoking-cancer link. But, like the tobacco industry's subterfuge, it results in terrible harm to the public, since it becomes politically impossible to take the steps necessary to mitigate warming. So we face the terrible consequences of warming, and the probable added costs of desperate last-minute attempts at mitigation.
There's a sound scientific case for mild warming, based on 100 year old physical principles. Beyond that, there are a bunch of computer simulations that can be debated. The proponents of AGW are making extraordinary claims that we are doomed unless we completely change our entire economy. Before acting on these claims any sensible person would make certain that these claims are sound. In addition, he would need to see that the actions proposed will actually make a significant difference and that they won't have worse consequences than no action. This is not just a matter of science (knowledge) — it is a matter of action. The "scientists" can have all the theories they want, right or wrong, but that's not the same as forcing people to turn their lives upside down because a group of intellectuals are able to persuade a bunch of politicians and other crooks and thugs who have figured out how to capitalize on the theory (viz. Al Gore).
Personally, I think it much more likely that we are heading into another ice age. About the only thing that I agree with the climate "scientists" about is that climate will change. That's a safe bet and it's akin to how the stock market pundits generally operate. The trick in all such scams is to bet with other people's money.
Experts have been called "polished satans". Beware.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
You put the word "scientist" in quotes. Do you believe that the world's universities are granting PhD's to poseurs, and that universities and organizations like NASA are staffed with fakes? And whose predictions do you expect me to believe, your prediction of a new ice age or the prediction of working, credentialed climate scientists with access to sophisticated computer models?
You suggest that warming is minor. In fact, it looks like 2010 will be tied for hottest year in the historical record:
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/2010-tied-so-far-for-warmest-on-record/?hp
Here's another article on Aspen die-offs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/science/19aspen.html?src=dayp
A few weeks ago, it was coral reefs. If they die, the reef fish will die, and people in tropical countries who depend on them will go hungry.
One can't go very long without reading news like this. We face -- are already experiencing -- an environmental calamity, and this is just the beginning, because the greenhouse gases we pour into the atmosphere now will remain there for years. Warming is a delayed phenomenon.
You say before acting a sensible person would make sure that all the claims are sound. How exactly would that sensible person do that? By listening to talk radio hosts? Because scientists working in the field say, almost to a man and woman, that the claims are sound, and honestly, I don't know of anybody who is equipped to dispute them.
Meanwhile, we're living in the test tube here. We're performing the experiment on ourselves. The results are already pretty startling obvious -- vanishing glaciers, an open northwest passage, a high incidence of freak weather, the beginnings of vast die-offs.
And all for what? Despite what the corporate shills claim, doing something about warming wouldn't have much effect on our way of life, or our wallets.
My belief is that certain areas of science have been corrupted by money. Most of this money is coming from government, some from large industry. The peer review process is broken and cliques review each other's papers. The problem is by no means confined to Climate Science. Occasionally, there are researchers who are caught with perpetrating blatent frauds. The Universities are no longer independent bastions of knowledge, as they get most of their research money from government or industry. Finally, government and large corporations are in bed with each other, as anyone who has followed the financial bail out can tell. There is a name for this system: fascism. Because of this corruption, it behooves one with the abilities to do one's own investigation. However, if one discovers something wrong, one has to keep one's mouth shut or be prepared to experience lots of difficulties.
BTW, I worked for a few years doing scientific programming in support of scientists at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the mid 60's. It was clear then that some of the scientists didn't appreciate the problems with computer simulations, e.g. were interpreting printouts that were nothing more than accumulated round off error. I moved into computer systems and communications and did research and development in computer network protocols. There we made extensive use of simulation and took care to validate our simulations against physical devices which we constructed and measured. We became quite familiar with many ways of distorting results, as business competitors did their simulations of competing designs and some of these researchers were notorious for distorted presentations, particularly deceptive graphic charts.
There is an inherent conflict of interest in any researcher who is earning his living doing research. He must please his employer, i.e. the one paying the bills. As much as one tries, it is very hard to escape from this conflict completely. This is why one sees most dissent coming from retired persons whose livelihood is no longer at stake. In previous centuries, scientific research, by and large, was not nearly as corrupted.
If you want to dismiss these observations as "conspiracy theory" feel free to do so. I call it as I see it.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Well, yeah, that's the thing. As Einstein said, if I had been wrong, one scientist would have been enough. Even if someone were suborning scientists, you couldn't corrupt the entire field, because not everyone is corruptible and even if there were, there are lots of tenured professors out there who can say whatever they want without fear for their jobs. Not to mention that there was in fact a lively scientific debate about whether AGW was real or not, which persisted until the evidence became overwhelming a few years ago. And that the scientific conclusions didn't change during the eight years of the Bush Administration, even though an Administration appointee at NASA was caught trying to suppress news about warming.
My interpretation of the retired scientist business is that you always have a few elderly scientists opposing a major paradigm shifts. Even Einstein played that role, in his rejection of quantum mechanics despite his own substantial role in the creation of the theory.
I've also noticed that most of the scientific critics, retired or not, of AGW aren't climate scientists.
Bottom line for me: if someone had an alternative model, they'd send it off to a peer-reviewed journal. And if the journal didn't accept it, they'd post their report on a web page. But no one has, despite a hugely wealthy energy industry that would be delighted to finance any such investigation and undoubtedly has its own scientists working on the issue privately, as the tobacco industry did.
"I've also noticed that most of the scientific critics, retired or not, of AGW aren't climate scientists."
I had my doubts about AGW because the material I came across sounded suspicious. It wasn't until I became familiar with the work of Richard Lindzen that I realized there was substance to my suspicions. That's when I began to look into the material in more depth.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Lindzen certainly has valid credentials. The question is, given that the great majority of climate scientists continue to disagree with him, do we continue to use the planet as a test tube?
There are always a few contrarians late into any paradigm shift, which is fine and even desirable when the issue is something that has no immediate practical consequence, e.g., whether birds are late model dinosaurs or Europeans are descended from neanderthals. But in this case, the potential consequences of continued inaction are so serious, the observed warming so rapid, the consequences of current emissions so long-lasting, and the cost of a rapid change in infrastructure so disproportionately great, that inaction seems to me a dangerous course. Whereas my understanding of the engineering is that we could reduce emissions at little net cost, and with little effect on our way of life, if Congress weren't paralyzed by special interest money.
I have to wonder why even those who doubt AGW want to continue sending money to countries that use it to develop nuclear weapons or support terrorism.
I checked out Lindzen's arguments against those areas where I had appropriate (e.g. mathematical) knowledge and he was consistently in agreement with what I knew or believed. That was far from the case with other climate "scientists". I had a lot of problems with their methodology. I go with mathematical and physical laws that have been well established. I check arguments and references. I do not count heads to ascertain truth, and above all else I do not pay attention to governing bodies as the authority on scientific truth, as these are invariably headed by people who are concerned with politics.
As to the "precautionary principle". The problem is that climate is a complex dynamical system. Things change, and even more than the weather one can not predict the effect of any actions. The outcome is chaotic, to the application of intuitive laws will not be useful. In some of these systems any change has an unpredictable effect and even the sign of the effect is in question. Yes, anything we do will change the outcome, we just don't know how much or possibly in which direction. We don't know what would happen without human activity, for that matter, although a good guess would be another ice age. So a case can be made that the net effect of AGW might even be beneficial. Doing nothing in the absence of knowledge is generally a good policy, and wasting a huge amount of economic resources in a misguided quest is stupid and violates a different precautionary principle: conserving one's resources in the presence of uncertainty.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
As I think I said, I don't consider myself qualified to weigh the scientific arguments. This is fairly unusual, even unique, given that I have a scientific and technical background. But warming is a complex modeled phenomenon, and I feel that I'd have to immerse myself in the literature before I could make a valid overall assessment; otherwise, I'd run the risk of concentrating on local phenomena without understanding their significance to the whole. And I'd be running blind without access to the models. So while I agree that science isn't done by majority vote, I have no scientific reason to suppose that this isn't playing out like a textbook paradigm shift -- lone scientists proposes a new theory, after a period of skepticism a majority of scientists come around, some gray hairs continue to raise objections.
As a practical matter, you speak of "doing nothing in the absence of knowledge," and yet it seems to me that we're actually doing something in the absence of knowledge -- pouring vast quantities of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So --
- We're adding greenhouse gases
- Most climate scientists, and all the computer models, predict warming
- We measure warming unprecedented in modern times
- Barring extraordinary intervention with unproven technologies, the greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere will remain there for many years
Do we then continue pouring vast quantities of known greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in the chance that a few elderly scientists are correct?
What I am qualified to comment on is the cost of preventing greenhouse gas emissions. It is negligible, *if* done in a timely matter. The average road life of an automobile is 13 years, and a coal-fired power plant is designed to have a 50 year life expectancy. It would cost little to replace infrastructure and equipment with low-carbon alternatives as they reach the end of their life expectancy, and most of the added investment and operational costs could be countered through efficiency improvements. It would cost a fair amount to replace it before the end of its life expectancy, though still less than the anticipated cost of warming, to the extent that can be calculated. An example of a crash program would be the French shift to fission generation in the wake of the oil crisis of the 70's. They did it in short order, without hardship or significant economic harm.
Don't put yourself down. If the model codes were published then they could be critiqued. Otherwise, a safe working assumption is that they are bogus, just like most computer software unless it has served the test of time in the real world.
As to the cost arguments, now you are into politics and economics and that's another matter. If alternate energy technology continues to progress it will eventually become competitive with existing energy technology, e.g. progress in photovoltaic technology and battery technology. Sufficient progress in both of these technologies seems likely in the next decade or two. Then the process of orderly replacement can take place at reasonable cost.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Even though the topic of the thread concerned the NH, my question to Mtry had to do with his claims as to what has been tested. Do you understand the difference? Does your religion allow you to think through the answer?
rw
I would agree that his stuff was analogous to having seats on the 50 yard line during a bye week, but he was at least prepared. lol
Soundmind
AJ in FLA
Silver Eared John
Caymus
BassNut
Jitter by Coffee
Monstrous Mike
All dearly departed. Here's a great quote from Monstrous:
" A well conducted test with a null result most certainly does have some meaning. A null result has implications which are not meaningless. I hope I don't need to go into detail about this, it should be accepted as fact. "
rw
You are not correct about most of those listed.
Your quote from Monstrous Mike does not specify just what the meaning might be to a null result, any more than carcass93's quote tells what meaning theaudiohobby thinks there might be.
Me, I'm a practical person: I want to be aware of what is known to make an audible difference. You aren't much help there.
__
"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not."---Flanders & Swann
Hi
“The extremist from both camps, IMHO, are missing the picture.”
That posture is generally a requirement in order to be an extremist or adopt any type of fundamentalist position on a subject.
“Ask any speaker designer who does a/b comparisons between crossover iterations. He'll be trying to decide whether or not an added eq or impedance compensation circuit is worth the added cost and complexity. If the sonic benefit is not there (aka there is no sonic benefit or the benefit is extremely small) he may choose not to include the addition.
The design of the addition and it's measured effect are objective.
The choice to include them or not is highly subjective.”
Here is a good example of where a casual blind test is most powerful and a situation I have been in personally.
Lets say you made a crossover for the speaker, one made of generic but proper parts, the other made from all exotic audio parts.
When you listen, the exotic one clearly sounds better as it should given what you know at this point. You set up so that you can quickly switch back and forth between the two crossovers and search for music that brings out the differences the best.
Now, with a selection of music and a clear picture of how it sounds different, arrange the test so that you do not know which was which and go back and forth again.
When I have done this with parts and speaker cables, the differences that were pretty clear before hand, became much smaller or inaudible. The only thing that had changed was “knowing” which was which.
For the home listener, that “knowing” is part of the experience, part of what makes the system satisfying.
For the person engineering a product, he is only concerned with the things that can be heard blind because he has no way to communicate his beliefs, his “knowledge” to the end user.
As a speaker designer, the arguments about flaws with blind testing appear to focus on the scientific method and data issues, all of which are valid concerns when one is writing a paper or developing a new drug. Also though, these same arguments ignore the tremendous and otherwise unrecognized effect of prior knowledge on ones perceptions, which is the whole point of why one does this kind of reality check. People consciously perceive in part what they believe, know and expect.
Does this cable really sound better than my old one?
Does this amplifier sound better than that one? Does the $800 inductor sound better than the $8 one? Can I hear these marbles or magic clock?
Ask these kinds of questions without a causal blind test and your sighted judgment might be fine as an end user but potentially misleading / costly in the design / development process .
Lastly, the critics cite examples of companies saying “look this is perfect in blind testing”.
The appearance of science is an effective marketing tool, heck, look to the largest in audio or any area and you usually see companies with the image of technology with much less real substance behind it.
Using data or science to sell is not a new idea and having a technique or measurement tainted by marketing doesn’t make the technique or measurement invalid.
Best,
Tom
"The appearance of science is an effective marketing tool, heck, look to the largest in audio or any area and you usually see companies with the image of technology with much less real substance behind it."
No kidding! I was working (in a non-audio consumer outfit) with a marketeer one time and he was trying to figure out a way to convey the essence of a new product to the customer (without using my lovely technical explaination). Suddenly he asked "Could I say it uses 'MPD technology'?" So I said "of course you could but what does it mean". And he said roughly that "it means that we will sell a lot of them".
It was an eye-opener for me and perhaps that's why I'm fairly cynical about arm-waving, mystical cable and power conditioner outfits with their PDQ processes (but no actual specifications).
On the other hand that doesn't necessarily mean that their product isn't a good one, ours was (IMHO) and the main thrust of the advertising was just to get prospective customers off their duffs and try one for themselves. What the customer wants to know is if it will do the job and why is yours better than the others so I suppose that forcefully asserting that "it's as good as you can do because it's got PDQ" covers the ground...
Rick
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: