|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.88.135.146
In Reply to: Re: SImple question, requiring only a simple "yes" or "no" answer: posted by May Belt on April 14, 2007 at 10:26:36:
the fact that I asked the question has nothing to do with "not fully understanding the issue" at all. On the contrary, as a fence-sitter in the subjective/objective squabbles, I understand far more than either side is willing to acknowledge. Sometimes one has to ask rather simple, "dumb" questions to get to the heart of a matter. I ask because Posy Rorer is quite adamant in his denial that cryogenics and domestic deep freezing are the same. If they aren't, then using cryogenic test results to support claims concerning domestic deep freezing is specious. If they are the same, then Posy is incorrect. I'm not claiming one or the other, just following some very simple rules of logic.I have to say that I think the analogy with antiseptics is off the mark. Your final sentence equates, in the analogy, ANY antiseptic treatment with ANY freezing method due to acknowledged efficacy. Well, that isn't actually true. Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different.
If a cancer patient takes a placebo and his cancer goes into remission, it is NOT the pacebo itself that cured the cancer, but the patient, under the "placebo effect." Cryogenics actually changes things: placebos don't. The placebo effect from domestic deep freezing may involve "freezing," as cryogenics does, but at this point it becomes coincidental. Thus I would posit that you have "been struggling to make people aware: of the placebo efect.
Follow Ups:
portray them. Example: a CD will sound better after it has been frozen and thawed. However (and this is all very hush-hush), a CD that has NOT been frozen will sound better after a different CD has been frozen/thawed and simply placed anywhere in the room. Furthermore, the more CDs in one's collection that are frozen, the better the *unfrozen* CD will sound.As you can clearly see, ALL theories regarding cause and effect fly out the window. To further complicate and confuse things - this is also very hush-hush and strictly confidential - freezing/thawing a book in the room will also improve the sound of a CD, regardless of whether the CD has gone thru the freeze/thaw process.
"Example: a CD will sound better after it has been frozen and thawed. However (and this is all very hush-hush), a CD that has NOT been frozen will sound better after a different CD has been frozen/thawed and simply placed anywhere in the room. Furthermore, the more CDs in one's collection that are frozen, the better the *unfrozen* CD will sound.
As you can clearly see, ALL theories regarding cause and effect fly out the window."I can say, "I don't believe you," because you have offered nothing but conjecture. "ALL theories" don't "fly out the window" because someone makes a seemingly absurd claim.
Not surprised. You say, conjecture, I say experience. Of which you have none, and I have a lot.Thanks for your opinion, anyway.
Prove that your experience is real. Just claiming so isn't good enough.For all anyone knows, your claims could be marketing hype.
nt
At least you showed that you don't HAVE to be dismissive when someone disagrees with you...The fact that you chose to delete it and replaced it with a "Huh/" is quite telling, though.
Telling? You've got some nerve. I chose to post a more tactful response knowing you're simply acting out your naysayer fantasies here and have no real experience in these areas, that you are simply spouting off at the mouth. A poser as it were, who's in way over his head.Does that help clarify what I really think? Is that telling enough for you?
Why did you assume that my use of "telling" meant anything bad? I was actually thinking how surprising it was to have read a reply from you that wasn't laced with anger and bile.So I'm a nay-sayer. I'm looking for proof for any of your claims, and you can't seem to give one, other than relying on an appeal to an "authority" you yourself have made up.
So I "have no real experience in these areas?" Guess what Geoff? I don't think anyone, even you, can have "real" experience in these areas, whatever the areas may be, because I can't find any proof that "these areas" are "real" at all. You made the claim, you supply the proof.
More grumbling from the peanut gallery. And so demanding. Sorry to disappoint you, but the proof must be yours.My stating that I have experience in this area is not an "appeal to authority," by the way. Suggest you catch up on all the latest buzz words in the Skeptics Handbook.
Gee, Geoff, I didn't realize that's how it works. YOU make the claim, I doubt your claim, so therefore the burden of proof lies with me. Glad you cleared all that up for me.Maybe YOU ought to do a little research on what "appeal to authority" means, because you clearly don't really get it. Anyway, thanks for clarifying the responsibility of proof issue.
At least learn the Naysayer basics so I can get a little entertainment value out of this.
!
Bite me.Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL
Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA
"Your claiming to be an architect and then claiming to know something worth more than 2 cents about audio - now, that's an Appeal to Authority! LOL"You continue to embarass yourself. Yes I am an architect (you can even check it out if you'd like by going to www.polshek.com. I'm sure you'll have lots to say later about that too). Yes, I know more than "two cents" about audio. However, having never related my professional skills with my "two cent" knowledge means there has been no "Appeal to Authority." What it does mean, however, is that you are bothered enough to look at my Asylum profile. Now that's funny! Given how knowledgeable you are about a concept such as the "burden of proof," I'm surprised you would make such an egregious error on such a simple concept as the Appeal to Authority.
"Just when you think you know it all, you can still learn something; well, theoretically, probably not in your particular case. HA HA HA"And just when I thought you'd only blow the "Appeal to Authority" bit, you go ahead and construct an ad hominem. Nice going.
Keep taking all the shots you want, Geoff. By attacking me with such rancor you do a disservice only to yourself.
More loud snoring. So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions. You are, as you so kindly pointed out, just another Naysayer... yet one who apparently hasn't memorized the Skeptics Handbook, thus cannot argue effectively for your side. What is left for me to do to entertain myself?
"So you're an architect. Big deal. That's my point - that you do consider it a big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions."Geoff: Please point out to me where I have made being an architect a "big deal and somehow relevant to PH discussions?" YOU brought up the fact that I'm an architect, not me. YOU looked up my profile and made it part of the "dialogue." I don't think it's relevant at all, and so I've not written about it. You, however, did. What is it about this that is so hard to understand?
You can go "entertain yourself" however you'd like, but this part of your amusement constitutes a record of embarrassing "dialogue" that any number of your prospective clients may read.
Can I suggest you take a logic course or read a textbook on the subject? After all is said and done, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is. Back to the drawing boards HA HA HA
Oh good joke. "Back to the drawing boards HA HA HA" Brilliant.
changing sides, as I am rather fond of easy victories. By the way, you still don't know what an Appeal to Authority is.
Here's an annotated description of how the fallacy of the Appeal to Authority works:1) Person A (that's you, Geoff) claims to be an authority on subject S. Here's your claim of authority: "You say, conjecture, I say experience. Of which you have none, and I have a lot." Here's your subject S: the effects of freeze/thaw processes on objects not being frozen/thawed.
2) Person A makes a claim C about subject S. Here's that claim of yours, Geoff: "freezing/thawing a book in the room will also improve the sound of a CD, regardless of whether the CD has gone thru the freeze/thaw process."
3) Therefore, C is true because person A is an authority on S.
This is fallacious when person A is not an authority on the subject at hand. I posit that you cannot claim "authority" because the subject itself is bogus. What you may consider justification for considering yourself to be an "expert" I see as self-deluded nonsense. You were given the opportunity to provide both the research and the results to back your claims, to demonstrate both the concept's validity as well as to contradict my accusation, but you have been unable to do so, claiming that it is my responsibility to prove you're wrong, not your responsibility to back up your claims. You have gone for a little barefoot romp on the logic lawn, where you have inadvertently stepped in a big pile.
Sorry I can't continue this educational banter with you Geoff, but I've got to go find out what I can get for the 2-cents worth of audio knowledge I have.
nt
d
nt
< < Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different. > >Why do you say this?
If your assertion were true, there must be some "threshold" temperature that "changes material properties" beyond just a "temporary expansion and contraction". So what would you propose as this threshold temperature?
And a few more questions:
- Would the threshold temperature be the same for all materials?
- Would the duration of exposure below the threshold temperature matter?
- Would the rate of re-heating to room temperature matter?I would assert that things are perhaps not so black-and-white as "cryogenics" versus "domestic deep freezing"...
...of circumstance from room temp all the way down to liquid N. There's one known articulation point, way, way down -- but little is known of the sonic effects at any other point. Moreover, time must become a double variable: Time immersed, and time effectual.We can't say the two methods are the same, or different, until more points are entered on the curves.
So are you actually engaged in testing different temperatures to see where the cryoed effect kicks in?
< < Cryogenics substantively changes material properties, and domestic deep freezing involves temporary expansion and contraction. They are significantly different. > >< Why do you say this?
I suspect he said it becuase it is established scientific fact.
> If your assertion were true, there must be some "threshold" temperature that "changes material properties" beyond just a "temporary expansion and contraction". So what would you propose as this threshold temperature?Yes there are threshold tempuratures. If you want to know what they are I suggest you consult a genuine metallurgist or some literature on the subject.
> And a few more questions:
- Would the threshold temperature be the same for all materials?
I don't need to consult any metallurgist for this one. No.
> - Would the duration of exposure below the threshold temperature matter?That would be a question for an expert.
> - Would the rate of re-heating to room temperature matter?I can answer this one. Soemtimes yes sometimes no.
> I would assert that things are perhaps not so black-and-white as "cryogenics" versus "domestic deep freezing"...I would assert that this stuff has already been investigated by people who actually know how to inverstigate these things.
Thanks for the funniest line of the week.
Interesting point. Not being a materials guy I turned to that source of all knowledge, Google. Although what I found was not very satisfying, in no case did I find reference to a threshold temperature. It sounds like lower and longer is better but that at any temperature some of the whatever they are will do whatever it is that they do. And as you soak it, more of the one's that will do it, have.It's just amazing what you can learn from the internet...
True cryo involves taking the material below a temperaure whiere its properties "flip" rapidly to a different state.This applies to metals undergoing treatment for physical properties - hardness etc.
There are lots of ambiguities w.r.t other materials, many not exhibiting a cryo flip.
I doubt whether anyone can scientificly predict the effect of sticking the whole of your CDP in the cooler. Hence the sujective "it sounds better" in the absence of anything else.
From what little I've found black and white, as in the transfer function of B&W film seems similar to this process. A flip would imply a positive feedback mechanism. Any chance you could point me to an on-line reference?
The implications is that a certain temperature needs to be reached before the effect is noticable, and that the change is permanent (ie not reversible).But this is an advert for their products!
At least it had pictures of copper. Most sites have about the same information but mostly focused on steel. Very likely the plot of temperature vs effect is an S curve and I wish I could find some data showing what it looks like. Oh well...
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: