Additional information will bias one to believe claims made

[mav52]

Interesting thread that really went nowhere

[Julf]

Interesting thread that really went nowhere

 

Well, it went somewhere - it pretty much demonstrated *every* logical fallacy listed here: Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

Too bad it didn't accomplish anything except getting someone banned - not a very good result.

[sjoc2000]

"I wonder if I posted, this morning, for the first time, I was able to take flight......yep.....flapped my arms and took off just like a bird. Would or should such a claim draw controversy and skepticism?......or should the tolerance of the forum format allow me to make such a claim?"

 

Mayhem13

 

1.) Well, objectively - factually, in a large group, a very small number are sincerely going to ask what you had for breakfast, and exactly how did you flap your arms? :0)

 

2.) Most will dismiss your claim as absurd, the voyeurs will hang around hoping for some entertainment.

 

3.) A very small number will demand that you be arrested or worse.

 

Then 1 & 3 will begin to engage in a battle, while the 2's look on in astonishment. In a forum, should any of these groups be discouraged or banished? That would a contradiction to what a forum is. There are generally always enough 2's around to keep things on an even keel.

 

By the way, my grandson wants to know how high you went...

 

Enjoy the music - Jim

 

 

30 day suspension, not banished. Justice prevails. Thank God for the 2"s

 

Jim

[Julf]

Mayhem - Your 30 day suspension from CA starts now.

 

I think it would be good for all of us to hear precisely why Mayhem13 was suspended. Are the rules for acceptable CA behaviour written down somewhere?

[Julf]

"TIM distortion in early solid state designs and jitter in digital playback would never have been discovered were it not for subjectivist engineers trusting their ears to find out what was wrong with quipment that measured perfectly yet sounded poor."

I think that is a patently false statement. Matti Otala's work on TIM was based not only on subjective listening, but above all on scientific research, and testing and measuring to verify his theories. Jitter as a phenomena has been very well known by transmission and telecommunication engineers since at least the 1950's, so applying the vast body of existing engineering knowledge about jitter to digital sound reproduction systems can't really be called a "discovery".

 

[Julf]

Why is open to plenty of question, but the fact of there being real, and easily discerned audible differences between equipment, including cables, DACs and even power cables, is a -->FACT<--.

 

I assume you have references to substantiate that claim, as it seems that you are not stating a subjective personal opinion but a making an objectively verifiable, factual claim.

[jhwalker]

Agreed. I have typically enjoyed mayhem's posts, and didn't see anything in this thread that would support a ban, unless disagreeing with sandyk is grounds for such...

[Julf]

unless disagreeing with sandyk is grounds for such...

 

That could be it - clearly mayhem13 was engaging in an ad hominem attack, but he was definitely not the only one in this thread, and he did use language that might make Bevis and Butthead chuckle and giggle...

[orgel]

I don't speak for anyone other than myself, of course, but it seems that when one participant suggests that another shove something up his arse, albeit in a somewhat clever way, that could be seen as crossing a line.

 

I, too, have enjoyed many of mayhem's posts, so I hope he'll return after his period of exile has elapsed.

 

If I could just venture a thought: I realize people are passionate about their views, but in the context of online discourse, it's so simple not to engage when things are headed down the toilet. If someone's pushing your buttons, just don't respond. It's that easy.

 

--David

[Paul R]

Yes Julf- an unspecified but very large number of people absolutely hear a difference, including yourself. If you do not hear a difference, why do you spend so much money on amps? Because you are trying to keep up with the Jones?

 

That they do hear a difference is an unassailable fact. What they (we) are hearing, why, or even if it is a physical or psychological phenomena are all valid, and unanswered questions. A lot of stuff I absolutely disagree with- bit rot, identical files spunding different because of some inherent property, and so on.

 

I did not ask for Mayhem to get a timeout, nor did I complain about him. He is, in my opinion, a perfect argument for not allowing anonymous posting though.

 

Personally, I don't care all that much for people who want to be bullies, shut down every conversation they disagree with, express never endong frustration that other peopledon't agree with the because they are so obvipusly right, demand they be acknowledged as an authority without credentials, and in general try carve out a position where they can 'rule the roost' so to speak.

 

Other people like that, but that is their balliwick.

[Julf]

Yes Julf- an unspecified but very large number of people absolutely hear a difference, including yourself. If you do not hear a difference, why do you spend so much money on amps? Because you are trying to keep up with the Jones?

 

Your logical fallacy is: Bandwagon. And I think it is a bit of a leap for you to tell me what I can hear...

 

That they do hear a difference is an unassailable fact.

 

Unassailable because they say so?

 

He is, in my opinion, a perfect argument for not allowing anonymous posting though.

 

That, along with James Randi, seems to be a pet peeve of yours. Why?

[Paul R]

Your logical fallacy is: Bandwagon. And I think it is a bit of a leap for you to tell me what I can hear...

 

Well, it is not a difficult conclusion that you are not stupid. Why else would you spend money on high end gear if you don't hear a difference? That's a fair question given your reaction.

 

Unassailable because they say so?

[/Quote]

 

Unassailable because it is just that. They say they hear something, they make choices based upon what they hear. You want to make some case for there being another reason than what people claim in this case? What would be more likely, or make more sense? And what possible operator could drive all the people who buy high end gear based upon what they hear to lie? You are far too smart to buy into conspiracy theories.

 

Unassailable means that there is no way to falsify it.

 

You claim to be totally on the side of science - what does your training tell you about trying to falsify something that is inherently not subject to being falsified? Mine tells me it is a waste of time to try, especially so since the subject is not particularly controversial. Knowing that, should one choose to pursue such an activity, what other purpose could there be than to "stir up the witch's brew?"

 

As I said before, and you choose to ignore, the why and what of what people hear as a difference is wide open to question, falsification, testing, and more - but not the actual fact of people hearing differences.

 

 

That, along with James Randi, seems to be a pet peeve of yours. Why?[/Quote]

 

I might as well ask if you are still beating your wife as to try to answer that. (shrug)

[mav52]

this hearing thing and why people continue to attempt to tell someone what he or she can hear is beyond me. You either hear something different or you don't, its not a big deal, that's why god ( or some little green men) made us different but people get this internal brain attack that tells them "you must get the last word in so keep posting, someone I know somewhere is wrong". I say I'm pleased that people can hear those small audio difference that most dogs can't hear so good for them not to mention it keeps inventors and manufacturers in business, not to mention websites, magazines and audio shows. Well I got to go, I think I hear the wife calling but I could be wrong it could be the TV or the neighbors.

[esldude]

this hearing thing and why people continue to attempt to tell someone what he or she can hear is beyond me. You either hear something different or you don't, its not a big deal, that's why god ( or some little green men) made us different but people get this internal brain attack that tells them "you must get the last word in so keep posting, someone I know somewhere is wrong". I say I'm pleased that people can hear those small audio difference that most dogs can't hear so good for them not to mention it keeps inventors and manufacturers in business, not to mention websites, magazines and audio shows. Well I got to go, I think I hear the wife calling but I could be wrong it could be the TV or the neighbors.

 

Is it really beyond you? People either hear something or they don't or they think they do when maybe there isn't anything to hear. That last little bit is the issue. All claims to hearing don't pass muster nor are they true. Many are, but not all. People base decisions on fallacies all the time. I guess on the flip side, why do people so much fight learning about those fallacies?

[esldude]

Sorry about about the ban. I think mayhem pushed the line a bit myself though I am not so sure he crossed it. Not my forum though. Again, I would have hoped the discussion remain about ideas and not people. Mayhem wasn't the only one mostly talking about someone rather than ideas. I hope he returns at the end of 30 days.

[esldude]

Unassailable because it is just that. They say they hear something, they make choices based upon what they hear. You want to make some case for there being another reason than what people claim in this case? What would be more likely, or make more sense? And what possible operator could drive all the people who buy high end gear based upon what they hear to lie? You are far too smart to buy into conspiracy theories.

 

Unassailable means that there is no way to falsify it.

 

Wow Paul. Then you clearly misspoke. You meant easily assailable. You are really far out on a illogical tangent on this one. Should I really go through pointing out the reasons why when I am pretty sure you know them? I won't bore anyone with the details. Just a comparison which hopefully doesn't cross the line of forum etiquette.

 

I would venture more money is spent on non-prescription male enhancement products than high end audio. If not sales are least in the many many millions of dollars. I would think it dubious that they work except in one well known manner such things sometimes work. When the person using them thinks they will work. In other words like a placebo. The more interesting thing about such stuff is why up to 40% of the time placebo works when it is nothing other than what is someone's head.

[sandyk]

I guess on the flip side, why do people so much fight learning about those fallacies?

Hi Dennis

Do they ? Or are they simply pissed off about being constantly told that this is the reason for every difference that

they report hearing ? Personally, I would like to see some kind of investigation, perhaps even properly implemented DBTs, into the many reports of improvements when using the various SOtM products. SOtM has already provided data about the electrical improvements when their products are fitted, but why are people hearing these improvements ? Why is Chris C. advocating their use in his Caps Servers ?

Is the reason for using using these products REALLY that different to improvements some members report when using some upmarket USB cables etc. ? Mark Powell, although a sceptic, reported SQ improvements when he spliced in batteries to supply external USB devices. What is really so different between what Mark did, and SOtM is doing with their new PCI-USB 3.0 card, which can also disable the +5V supply to the USB cable if required, or enable use of an external Linear PSU or perhaps LiPo batteries which are reportedly very stable voltage wise, and have very low noise, instead of simply using their already low noise regulated supply.

Surely you aren't suggesting that SOtM products must be "snake oil" products sold to gullible people ?

Although, I am heavily into DIY, mainly because these days I can't afford many of these commercial products, I have no doubt that they do result in substantial improvements as many people have reported.

Kind Regards

Alex

[esldude]

Alex,

 

I don't recall having any comments on SOtm's. They in fact do something objectively an improvement. Whether that improvement is audible I don't have an opinion about. Whether that improvement changes the signal out the other end I don't know.

 

Have been doing some investigating of software and such. Some measurable differing results even with bit perfect output. Haven't nailed down exactly where that comes from, and the effects seem far too low to be audible. Still they shouldn't differ at all. Some differ in timing over time, others differ in gain over time. Why? Darn good question. A side effect if you will of nulling tests. I still believe if you can hear a difference (which isn't illusion) then the signal must differ.

[sandyk]

Hi Dennis

I brought up the subject of the SOtM products , not because you said anything about them, but because quite a few C.A. members are now using them,and that once we can objectively prove that they do in fact work as claimed by many, that it may provide further information that would help close the gap between both camps. As regards your other interesting results, remember that Peter St. can manipulate the sound of bit identical files with his various XXHE "engines". There are also reports of differences being possibly due to Software "Jitter." The cPlay website also discusses this, along with various ways to improve audio playback from a Windoze computer.

Kind Regards

Alex

P.S.

Sometime back, Paul R. proved to a sceptical European member that he could "manipulate" files and reliably identify the differences.

[venkey]

What they (we) are hearing, why, or even if it is a physical or psychological phenomena are all valid, and unanswered questions.

 

Actually, the answer is well known outside the memes of high end audio. Psychology plays a very big part in how people perceive sound. In many ways the so called “objectivists” are the ultimate subjectivists. They understand that people hear differences that support their viewpoints regardless of the fact there is no difference in the actual signal. What surprises me is that people who are willing to spend 4 figures on a speaker cable aren’t willing to spend a few dollars to purchase and then read one of the standard texts on the subject of hearing perception before they make a purchase with pretty close to zero value added relative to significantly less expensive alternatives.

 

Here's one book to start. It, in fact, discusses this very topic in the last chapter.

 

Amazon.com: An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing, 5th Edition (9780125056281): Brian Moore: Books

[esldude]

Alex,

 

My preliminary results are that software either lets gain change or timing change over time. Usually one or the other. A few simple test signals can differentiate which is happening. Neither should be. Worse still, the same software on different OS's will act differently.

 

Subjective listening is important. Just equally important is realizing when subjective listening leads one astray. Both will helps us figure this out. Lots still to be learned in digitally based, digitally sourced computer audio. It will happen faster if we don't get confused with known issues.

[sandyk]

Does the book also mention that other relatively recent research has also found that it isn't just the maximum sine wave response that a person's ears can hear, but that the slew rate of the signal, which is potentially greater with high resolution material, may explain why older people are still able to hear differences between different resolution files that is not normally considered possible ?

[venkey]

Does the book also mention that other relatively recent research has also found that it isn't just the maximum sine wave response that a person's ears can hear, but that the slew rate of the signal, which is potentially greater with high resolution material, may explain why older people are still able to hear differences between different resolution files that is not normally considered possible ?

 

Mentioning recent research that's different from established and accepted science is meaningless without a citation.

[Paul R]

Unassailable because it is just that. They say they hear something, they make choices based upon what they hear. You want to make some case for there being another reason than what people claim in this case? What would be more likely, or make more sense? And what possible operator could drive all the people who buy high end gear based upon what they hear to lie? You are far too smart to buy into conspiracy theories.

 

Unassailable means that there is no way to falsify it.

 

Wow Paul. Then you clearly misspoke. You meant easily assailable. You are really far out on a illogical tangent on this one. Should I really go through pointing out the reasons why when I am pretty sure you know them? I won't bore anyone with the details. Just a comparison which hopefully doesn't cross the line of forum etiquette.

 

I would venture more money is spent on non-prescription male enhancement products than high end audio. If not sales are least in the many many millions of dollars. I would think it dubious that they work except in one well known manner such things sometimes work. When the person using them thinks they will work. In other words like a placebo. The more interesting thing about such stuff is why up to 40% of the time placebo works when it is nothing other than what is someone's head.

 

Wow Dennis - read it again and this time try to put your opinions and predjudice aside for long enough to read it for what it says.

 

I am not at all sure how you took what I wrote and got off on tirade about herbal viagra placebos, but I would suggest the comparison is totally inept - I don't spend a dime on viagra. But I do spend plenty of time modeling signals in a speaker cable. I have had to go consult with some people who actually think in math way beyond me. They think modeling a speaker cable accurately is an "interesting" amusement. Of course, they tend to spend much of their time and effort modeling the early universe.

 

I may not know much about it compared to you, but I know measuring what is going on in a speaker cable is a bear of a task, and modeling the behavior without accurate measurements to judge the success or failure of any model is - difficult. At least for me. It is ar easier for me to bring in a $22million dollar project under budget and 3 weeks early than to get a model of that durn cable to give me perfect results.

 

It certainly makes me aware of how much is not known or is improperly applied in these discussions.

 

Paul

[esldude]

I highly recommend Moore's book. I own it myself. Much corroborates what people hear. More importantly is where it doesn't.

 

Even better is Yost.

 

Fundamentals of Hearing,Fourth Edition: An Introduction: William A. Yost: 9780127756950: Amazon.com: Books