|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.227.198.154
In Reply to: RE: The trouble with AES and ASA posted by Inmate51 on August 07, 2013 at 10:41:27
I did not respond to the article, actually. What could I possibly say? That's kind of the whole point.
Follow Ups:
"I did not respond to the article, actually. What could I possibly say?"You could have refuted untrue statements, and clarified the rationale of your science. It was a perfect opportunity to speak to the professional community and earn credibility.
Geoff, really, if you don't have a leg to stand on, scientifically, just say so. But don't go around bad-mouthing other people who clearly know what they're doing - it makes you look silly and petty.
Edits: 08/07/13
I think you probably need to read the article before you go accusing me of anything. Your attitude is well just as silly as AES, if you don't mind my saying so too much. You do realize dismissive attitudes are not very scientific, don't you?
Edits: 08/07/13
No, I haven't read the article. What article? Can you point to it? I'm not going to sit here are try to find "an article" from "about six years ago" when you've not even cited a title or an author. When you do, I'll look into it.
For now, I'll reply to this:
"Your attitude is well just as silly as AES, if you don't mind my saying so too much. You do realize dismissive attitudes are not very scientific, don't you? "
Silly as AES? Dismissive attitudes? Who's being dismissive and not very scientific here, Geoff? I'm aware that you've been laughed off at least one other audio forum. Here's your chance to step up and set the scientific record straight with regard to yourself and professional associations. Simply scoffing at others isn't doing you any good.
:)
As it turns out the letter that appeared in the Journal of Acoustical Society of America can only be viewed by logging into the ASA archive. Will you take my word for it? Being snide and dismissive is not being scientific, even though you apparently think so.
give me some data such as author, title, volume no., issue no.
Klaus
"A short history of bad acoustics"
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 120, 1807 (2006); http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2336746 (9 pages)
For access to fully linked references, you need to log in.
Here's the part of that article where Machina Dynamica is mentioned:
#########################################################################
B. Snake oil for the ears
The fact that the human auditory system is connected to the human brain makes it a marvelous subject for study, but it also means that we are capable of being fooled about what we are listening to. This, among other factors, has made objective assessment of subjective listening experiences very difficult, and easily swayed by suggestion, a fact that is exploited by many purveyors of devices that purport to improve sound.
Architectural acoustics was prey to a form of this delusion as recorded by Sabine (stretched wires in churches, court rooms, theatres).
Many readers will know of the long debate over the importance of Stradivari’s varnish to the sound of his violins. Consider, then, the claims made by luthier Dieter Ennemoser for his C37 varnish.
Once the sound has left the loudspeaker it still needs to survive transmission through the room.
"Brilliant Pebbles is a unique room & system tuning device for audio systems and satellite TV. Original Large Brilliant Pebbles is a 3-inch clear glass bottle containing various minerals/stones. A number of highly-specialized, proprietary techniques are used for preparation/assembly. Brilliant Pebbles acts as both a vibration “node damper” and EMI/RFI absorber via various atomic mechanisms in the crystal structures. On the floor in room corners, Large Brilliant Pebbles reduces comb filter effects caused by very high sound pressure levels that occur in the corners when music is playing. Large Brilliant Pebbles is also effective on tube and solid state amps, on speaker cabinets, on armboards of turntables and on tube traps and Room Lenses."
The doyen of this field is Peter Belt, whose products have a small but devoted band of followers who seem to be convinced beyond doubt that their listening experience has been enhanced by the use of his products. And how could they not, after all. If the actual effects of these foil strips, jars of stones and varnish might seem negligible the prices charged for them are certainly not; readers are invited to guess what they might be before investigating for themselves. Of course, the actual value of any such device can be separated from the psychological effect of its presence and price on the listener by careful double-blind testing. Sadly this is strongly resisted by a significant proportion of the audiophile community. Until it becomes commonplace it will be hard for those who seek to improve Hi-Fi systems by legitimate means to distinguish themselves from those who just sell false hope. As a last psychosociological note it is worth pointing out that such devices are given short shrift in the world of professional audio systems, where the audience neither knows nor cares what has been done to the equipment, and is therefore immunized to the power of suggestion.
#########################################################################
What could you possibly have said in a letter to the editor? Maybe you could have provided some solid evidence that the devices work as claimed? Maybe you could have provided some solid scientific/technical explanation about how they work?
Klaus
"Of course, the actual value of any such device can be separated from the psychological effect of its presence and price on the listener by careful double-blind testing."
You are falsely conflating "value" with "physical effect". Value is an economic concept, not a physical one. As such, a product has value according to the subjective judgement of a purchaser. There is no objective standard of value, as the value of an object varies as a function of time, place and person.
If someone is happy with their purchase of an audiophile doodad, that product has value to them. (You may think they are a fool and they may think you are a nerd. Such opinions are of no value or physical effect.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Good question. Most likely, considering the audience, the less I say the better. The mainstream audio industry was not ready for the intelligent chip or crystals 8 years ago. I hate to judge things too quickly but I suspect it still isn't. As you know I did provide solid scientific explanations for how they worked - eight years ago!
“As you know I did provide solid scientific explanations for how they worked - eight years ago!”
As you know I had contacted Altewischer himself, and he and his colleagues were laughing back then and must still be laughing.
Altewischer, Nature, 2002: “Experimental realization of quantum entanglement is relatively easy for photons; a starting photon can spontaneously split into a pair of entangled photons inside a nonlinear crystal.”
This using a 240 mW krypton-ion laser beam of 406.7 nm wavelength, which isn’t exactly the wavelength of a CD laser! And a photon being split in two isn't exactly the same as two photons encountering each other on a random basis!
A solid scientific explanation? In your book maybe, not in mine. Get your explanation published in a peer-reviewed physics journal, or in Nature, or in Science, then, and only then you may call it solid.
So I'd say, no, mainstream audio industry professionals are no more ready today for such gadgets than they were 10 years ago, and for good reasons.
Klaus
Nice to see nothing has changed. No surprise here.Of course the important thing is if milk squirted out of Altewischer's nose when he laughed.
Mainstream professionals? Now there's a group in need of a serious makeover. :-)
"Just what makes that little old ant / Think he'll move that rubber tree plant / Anyone knows an ant, can't / Move a rubber tree plant / But he's got high hopes..."
Edits: 09/13/13
"Mainstream professionals? Now there's a group in need of a serious makeover. :-)"With or without the smiley, you've dismissed the scientific community in several of your posts. Yet, you have completely failed to offer even a single shred of evidence to justify doing so.
What exactly is it that disqualifies people like Hilliard, Lansing, Heyser, Toole, Small, Thiele, Linkwitz, Curl, Beranek, Otala, and many others from earning your respect for their work?
For some inexplicable reason, you cling to some notion that the scientific community is misguided, yet you offer no coherent explanation as to why, nor do you offer any evidence that your so-called "solutions" do anything other than to affect the psychological disposition of the buyer and to line your wallet with money from unsuspecting and gullible customers. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Edits: 09/13/13 09/13/13
You forgot the pseudo skeptics' favorite admonition::"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The inmates are restless.
Smiley face
Edits: 09/13/13
"You forgot the pseudo skeptics' favorite admonition::"
Actually, I didn't forget anything, Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica.com, except to mention Geoff Kait and Machina Dynamica.com.
I wrote exactly what I intended to write.
And of all the opportunities you've had to state your case for your machina dynamica "products", Mr. Geoff Kait, and dismissing the audio & acoustical professions, you still fail to offer even one coherent thought which backs up any of your assertions.
I'd be happy to reply to anything you say of substance. Until then, Geoff Kait of Machina Dynamica, you have no, none, zero, credibility, and, as I wrote in a previous post, you should be ashamed.
I couldn't possibly respond with less substance than that. Mainstream professionals everywhere must be getting a little nervous.Have you considered taking a nice cold shower?
Edits: 09/13/13
I guess you figure that would make you equals.
Your oh-so snarky comeback is now awaited. 1, 2, 3, ...
How could I possibly out snark the old snarkmeister?
You're doing it again - no facts, nothing substantive, no meaningful reply. Have you got an "article" (now a "letter") title, author, issue number, or ANYTHING to go on? (If I were a betting man, I'd bet that you have the entire text practically at your fingertips.)And, no, I'm not going to take your word for it. You've already called the AES "silly", you've changed your characterization of the ASA piece from "article" to "letter", you've called me "dismissive" when you've done the same to two of the top audio and acoustical professional associations without anything to back up your assertion, you've called me "snide" when all I've done is ask for something - anything - that means anything. But you continue to spout nothing but vapid platitudes and meaningless assertions.
Why on Earth would anyone take your word for it?!
Edits: 08/14/13
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: