|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.228.183.94
A number of days ago, Stephaen, this group's moderator, for reasons known only to him, did an indiscriminate wholesale wipeout of every single one of my posts from the last couple of weeks. Even the test data on the Freeze Effect project was not spared, for which numerous members spent hours of their time discussing and analyzing. I was set to post the results the day after they were eliminated (and after asking if everyone who wanted to get involved had). I delayed only because SF Tech said he might do a test during the weekend. Now it's not going to make much sense to post the file ID's, without the correlating data. Although it would have been nice to get more data in, I feel that there was enough there to possibly point to some interesting findings and open up discussions on the many implications suggested by the results, and maybe inspire some to pursue some of the issues a little further with their own tests. I thought that showing genuine interest in advancing our collective understanding (mine as well, here) was what AA & PHP was all about? But, I'll try to remain objective about it and simply ask:
Q. What do you all think of Stephaen deleting our test data on the Freeze Effect?
Do you want the 3 FE threads restored, so we can conclude the experiment?
On my end, I only managed to save the titles. Because one member asked, I am posting the file ID's anyway. So if anyone has saved any of the test data, please post it to this thread, to help members make sense of the file ID's:
The Freeze Effect id's
==============
http://savefile.com/projects/808479982
CD
===
UNFROZEN
ebo5 = unfrozen, original
dw5x = unfrozen, copy
li1a = unfrozen, original
tib9 = unfrozen, copy
eel8 = unfrozen, original
po8v = unfrozen, copy
FROZEN
ohm7 = frozen, original
li0o = frozen, original
th0j = frozen, original
MP4
====
UNFROZEN
bam9 = unfrozen, original
wap2 = unfrozen, copy
el9l = unfrozen, original
es7m = unfrozen, copy
FROZEN
ty7c = frozen, original
woo7 = frozen, original
Objective Audiophile 2007
Follow Ups:
> I thought that showing genuine interest in advancing our collective understanding (mine as well, here) was what AA & PHP was all about? <
That was your mistake. PHP is a gathering place for naysayers, pseudo-scientists and others too lazy to listen to bark about scientific method, DBT's, proof and to generally remain with their heads buried in the sand. Rational posters try to ignore them but they do continue to bark.
That said, I tried the freezer test with my own CD's and did not hear any differences.
> I thought that showing genuine interest in advancing our collective understanding (mine as well, here) was what AA & PHP was all about? <
> > That was your mistake. < <
Apparently. (sigh) I guess I shouldn't have taken the Audio Asylum mission statement to actually mean what it said, since the recent actions of AA staff have contradicted those words.
> > PHP is a gathering place for naysayers, pseudo-scientists and others too lazy to listen to bark about scientific method, DBT's, proof and to generally remain with their heads buried in the sand. < <
Sweet. I couldn't have said it better myself...
> > That said, I tried the freezer test with my own CD's and did not hear any differences. < <
The freezer test is something that most can usually discern. But its very possible to do a "bad test" somehow, and miss it entirely. For example, I don't know what process you used. A proper freeze test takes about 2 days (because it is repeated twice), and involves a very slow thawing process each time (where the item would be wrapped in thick blanket, for example, to slow warm-up). And in this case, an unfrozen control CD copy would be necessary to compare to the frozen. I am sure you can hear differences in alternative audio, if the right tests were done.
Objective Audiophile 2007
Don't give up. Despite the comments you may read to the contrary, you're the hero of the subjectivist around here. You listen before you decide. Granted, you may be "over the edge" of some of the subjectivists viewpoints but if they've heard cable differences, they're most of the way home. On the flip side, you're willing to test your subjective experiences. When you get right down to it, who can ask for more? Ok, don't answer that! :)
As for the pseudo-scientist side, do their opinions really matter? It's been shown that most of them can't determine differences that aren't painfully obvious, like speakers. Their listening threshold is low. I'd feel sorry for them if they'd at least make some attempts to listen but it reminds me of my children who'd essentially say at the dinner table "I don't like this. No, I've never tried it but I hate it anyway".
Just remember - no amount of logic can overcome foot-stomping emotion. Put 'em in the corner until they unclench! :) And hang onto that courage of your convictions.
> > As for the pseudo-scientist side, do their opinions really matter? It's been shown that most of them can't determine differences that aren't painfully obvious, like speakers. Their listening threshold is low. I'd feel sorry for them if they'd at least make some attempts to listen but it reminds me of my children who'd essentially say at the dinner table "I don't like this. No, I've never tried it but I hate it anyway". < <
Again, I have to admit, you are absolutely bang-on correct on every point. The pathological skeptics of PHP are quite like petulant teenagers, who've barely started growing pubic hair but insist to you that they know everything in the world now. And oblivious to the concept of irony, they will declare that -you're- the clueless one. Since it's no longer "PC" to smack them on the back of the head after they say something stupid like that, what can you do but grin and wait for them to figure out how wrong they are? Even though it may take 20 years before they start to get it?
So why bother with the closed-minded pseudoscientist self-deluded lifelong skeptic who's idea of a hi fidelity system is a QSC amp, a DVD player from Wal-Mart, a parametric EQ, a Radio Shack db meter and 16 speakers? Because for one, so long as you are making correct claims about audio, they will almost always be taking up a contrary point of view. So in the pseudo-objectivist lughead, you have a guaranteed adversary. Without adversaries, these places get -mite-y- boring. (They can be boring enough as it is...). I could post a claim where I declare that speakers are the most important item in the hifi chain and that the best thing you could do to tweak your system is tack egg crates to your wall. But then I'd have 50 people all agreeing with me. And where does it go from there? More agreements? Borrring! Even the adversaries don't want that. Oh they might whine and complain about me, long and loud, but those same whiners are the ones who won't and/or can't leave me alone. Every time they see me coming, they put an extra bowl of popcorn and beer nuts on the table.
Also, I like a challenge, and I like to be challenged. You have to admit, attempting to convince 50 audio hobbyists who are NOT in the habit of ever doing serious listening comparisons in audio (since they have convinced themselves that everything sounds the same), who can't determine all but the most painful differences in audio -because- they are not in the habit of doing serious listening comparisons (since they have convinced themselves that everything sounds the same), and who are so backward in their knowledge of audio that after 30 years of evidence to the contrary, they still think that -cables- are pretty much all the same (good heavens!!), -that- is a challenge. It's a little like teaching Klu Klux Klansmen how to get down and boogie on Soul Train. You gotta love a challenge to even try. It's not for the faint of heart. I may not get far but, that's not really the goal. The goal is to always have fun trying.
Objective Audiophile 2007
I've considered ditching PHP to allow the whiners to boil in their own pudding. But I agree - they LIKE the action, the confrontation. They don't seem to realize how silly they look. Is there nothing in the world they can decide for themselves, without reading about it in some textbook first?
There's another audio website - audioreview.com - that decided to take the sub/ob argument out of their main fora and move it to a audio lab forum where only technical discussions are allowed. It died a quick death - DBT's and other nonsense doesn't stand on its own; it requires someone rational with which to pour it on.
Guess I'll hang, too! :)
s
nt
s
N/T
nt
Hi Posy
I am sorry your subject here was deemed to require “isolation”, I don’t get to check in to all the posts so I guess I missed where “something” happened making it contagious.
Anyway, thanks for the reply, I did not save any of my original posts but do have the files as they were left.
The eel8 and p08v were Ron Tutt’s, these two sounded the same to me.
The th0j was the other Ron Tutt that sounded different to me.
Also, this was the one that had the spurious information in its FFT of the drum hit when its impulse was analyzed.
From that very limited examination (of one drum hit on one recording) it would appear that Freezing can cause an audible difference but it is not “towards” being more accurate but away from it.
Best,
Tom Danley
> > I am sorry your subject here was deemed to require “isolation”, I don’t get to check in to all the posts so I guess I missed where “something” happened making it contagious. < <
You didn't miss anything. All that was written is in this thread. Why was the thread moved to Isolation Ward? Once again, PHP's moderator, Stephaen, like the Lord apparently, "works in strange and mysterious ways". I've tried finding out what those ways are, but to no avail. According to him I'm supposed to "know" why my posts are always getting moved or deleted but as you can see, like you, I haven't a clue. Not for lack of trying, mind you.
The best idea I could think of, was that he determined freezing objects for performance purposes was too "controversial" for PHP. But it's not too controversial for NASCAR, since they are known to freeze car parts for performance purposes. And a growing number of audio companies are freezing audio products for performance purposes. Is it "domestic" freezing that's too controversial for PHP, because its not NASCAR-approved? Well, that can't be it either, because Stephaen allowed the thread the first time around. It would seem that my test was probably the -most- appropriate thing on PHP at the time, since it covers the issue of -scientific- experimentation in audio; and was the only such group experiment in the history of PHP. And contrary to what one mod "suggested", there was no one not following rules in this thread (and no reason to dump it in Isolation even if that were so). You know, it occurs to me that even in Joe McCarthy's day, you at least got a hearing and an explanation before you were "blacklisted" for your words, actions or beliefs....
> > Anyway, thanks for the reply, I did not save any of my original posts but do have the files as they were left.
The eel8 and p08v were Ron Tutt’s, these two sounded the same to me.
The th0j was the other Ron Tutt that sounded different to me.
Also, this was the one that had the spurious information in its FFT of the drum hit when its impulse was analyzed.
From that very limited examination (of one drum hit on one recording) it would appear that Freezing can cause an audible difference but it is not “towards” being more accurate but away from it. < <
I am sorry you didn't save the other experimenter's test data, and that no one else seems to have, because I recall seeing a pattern developing where, like you, the majority of testers were isolating the frozen samples as being somehow "different". If that difference shows up in objective analysis, it's even -more- interesting as something to take a serious and close look at. Because why would the freezing process have any effect on an FFT analysis?
Others have noted differences in files that were simply copied (trolling scum like AJ falsely accused me of "doctoring the files" because he couldn't figure out either how a copy could change the data). So why would copying files change the data? Remember, conventional computer theory says it can't. How could programs work if that's the case?
These Freeze Effect tests have raised a LOT of questions, because so far, they have proven to contradict what people thought they knew about digital audio and computer data. More tests need to be done, but because the entire data from the project has been deleted, and the staff has refused my requests to restore it, and because the remainder of the project has been dumped here in the Isolation Ward, which nobody reads, no one is asking those questions or pursuing the meaning behind these findings.
It's a sad day for science, if you ask me.
Objective Audiophile 2007
...you only said, "different" in the text. What are we supposed to assume?
clark
Have you been able to come up with uncorrupted data? Because without it, the test is worthless for evaluating the alleged freeze effect. All it would show would be that people might hear the difference between the sounds resulting from corrupted and uncorrupted data.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
I don't know where you're getting this from; there was no "corrupted data". One member even did checksums on all the files to verify that. The only ones that differed was the one sample that I said I had cut to fit on the file host.
Objective Audiophile 2007
all is perserved in the form of morphogenetic fields, they can't that away from you!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
> > all is perserved in the form of morphogenetic fields, they can't that away from you! < <
You're not very convincing, bj. But what else is new. I find it ironic that you say they can't take that away from me, and yet they already took the word "take" from you. What else are they going to take, your mind? Whoops! Spoke too soon.
Anywayz, I know what you're saying despite the missing action word, and you're off track, as usual. Nothing was "taken" from me here. I did not do any analysis; I was only the facilitator of the test. Whatever was taken was taken from everyone who participated and put their time into a novel audio experiment.
Objective Audiophile 2007
> I thought that showing genuine interest in advancing our collective
> understanding (mine as well, here) was what AA & PHP was all about?
No. This is an audiophile forum to serve and promote the interests of audiophiles. As best I understand it, the forum was created as a dumping ground for the scientific discussions that were not welcome in other forums like the cable and tweaks forums. It also seems to have become the place audiophiles come who want to argue with "objectivists".
> Q. What do you all think of Stephaen deleting our test data on the Freeze
> Effect?
Without knowing why your posts were deleted it is hard to form a reasonable judgement.
> Do you want the 3 FE threads restored, so we can conclude the
> experiment?
Depends on why they were deleted.
> > No. This is an audiophile forum to serve and promote the interests of audiophiles. < <
So according to you, it isn't in the interest of audiophiles to further their understanding of audio?
> > As best I understand it, the forum was created as a dumping ground for the scientific discussions that were not welcome
in other forums like the cable and tweaks forums. It also seems to have become the place audiophiles come who want to
argue with "objectivists". < <
So the purpose of scientific discussion isn't to advance collective knowledge?
> Do you want the 3 FE threads restored, so we can conclude the
> experiment?
> > Depends on why they were deleted. < <
I don't know if you know what threads I'm referring to Andy, but we're talking about threads that contained data from analysis
of files of an audio experiment. In which case, what does why they were deleted have to do with them being restored in order to
conclude the experiment that a number of people got involved with? Some have been asking they be restored: can you give me any
good reason why should they be prevented from viewing the results of an experiment they took the time and trouble to partake in?
Objective Audiophile 2007
Howdy
Some inmates don't follow the rules and/or refuse to answer moderators' questions. Often it takes strong measures to get these inmates' attention. Sometimes inmates only seem to start taking the rules seriously when their posts are deleted or when they are banned for a period of time. Why give these inmates any more respect than they give the other inmates?
I'll not answer any questions about this post.
-Ted
That wasn't the case here.
Objective Audiophile 2007
PHP is also the place objectivists go to dump on subjectivist views.
z
"I thought that showing genuine interest in advancing our collective understanding (mine as well, here) was what AA & PHP was all about?"
PHP is in reality a filibuster intended to keep people as near to the lowest common denominator as is humanly possible. ;-)
It didn't quite fit, but, yes, alas.
And because the usual LCD suspects complained, and complained, and complained to the moderator that Posy with his pointed prose style was discomfiting and outwitting them, all useful data was excised, in the only known experiment (blind, at that) ever to be conducted on this forum.
So, back to the filibuster!
clark
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: