OK, I tried hydrogen audio. It didn't go too well.

[wgscott]

Plus there's all of the money you'll save...

 

... or spend on USB cables.

[wgscott]

women I've had

 

Perhaps this says more than you intended.

[wgscott]

And perhaps it doesn't. You certainly have no way to tell. Anything that you could say about me (or anyone else, here, actually) would be just pointless and baseless conjecture on your part.

 

Sorry. I just happen to find your sexism at least as revolting as your racism.

[wgscott]

I think its immature to be commenting on each other personally.

 

Who cares what you think?

[wgscott]

I care, for one. I suspect that anyone here who is not a complete jerk cares what beanbag thinks.

 

Oh, so you don't either? At least we agree on something.

[wgscott]

I am sorry. However, some of your previous postings from a few months ago aren't inspiring in that regard.

[wgscott]

Kal and I are both scientists. I've published numerous times in the top journals (like Science, Nature and Cell) and have served on numerous federal grant review panels. I am well aware of what scientific peer review is. It has absolutely nothing to do with, nor anything in common with, the posturing of self-annointed experts on the internet imposing imaginary standards. Thankfully.

[wgscott]

DSP, Room Correction, and Multi Channel Audio

[wgscott]

Biophysics. Your assumption that I believe any of the audiophool cable crap is similarly laughable, as is your inability to notice that there is an entire sub-forum (which I linked for you) devoted to the topic you think doesn't exist here.

[wgscott]

[wgscott]

Thanks, Dennis.

 

What I wrote 2.5 years ago is better than anything I can come up with now:

 

I think if I had said something like "I use Audirvana Plus, because it sounds much better than iTunes," that would have been a reasonable point to ask for some objective evidence. But notice that never happened, with me or with them. I never made any such assertion (knowing the probable outcome), and they never asked. Being a moderately successful scientist by any reasonable standard, I don't really feel I need to prove anything to some anonymous goof-balls on the internet who, having recently discovered what a hammer can do, look everywhere to find some nails.

 

They aren't scientists.

 

They are anonymous keyboard bullies who slavishly ape what they wrongly perceive to be the aims and methodology of the natural sciences. It actually reminds me more of how things are done in the so-called social sciences (behavioral psychology and so on).

 

My sin was simply that I did not allow them to bully me. The "moderator" guy (and it almost certainly was a guy) clearly interpreted this as a "lack of respect". It takes a twisted perspective to see it that way, but clearly their self-imposed idiot-logical confines and bizarre rules and rigidity prevent them from seeing it any other way. The behavior is much more reminiscent of a religious cult. I spend almost all my time with scientists. My wife is one. Most of my friends are. None behave this way. Not one.

 

As for double-blind tests, they are resorted to when nothing better is available. They are quite helpful in determining things like the efficacy of drugs. I think it would be wrong to dismiss the utility of such a thing out of hand. But in many fields of science, there is no need for such a primitive approach. All good experiments are designed to test hypotheses. Double-blind tests are useful for testing a null hypothesis. But they can't take you much further.

[wgscott]

Not sure what you mean, Jud. Is Dennis or Bill Krabapple?

 

No.

 

Post 201, top of this page, last line.

[wgscott]

Yes, that's what I thought. So I didn't mean anything negative about Dennis or Bill (don't know who they are).

 

I'm Bill (William, the w in wgscott). Dennis is esldude. We are part of the local right-wing objectivist lunatic tin-eared propeller-hat flat-earth fringe.

[wgscott]

wonder whether you got a taste of your own medicine at HA. At least I find it a bit ironic. Perhaps that is unjustified, if so I apologise, but just saying.

 

I do share the sense of irony (which was the main point of this 2.2 year old post), but in this particular case, the most amusing part is I wasn't actually claiming anything. I simply responded to a poll question about what playback software I use.

 

The knee-jerk response was to assume (ironically, as you just did) that I must be making some such claim. But I didn't. What I did do, which obviously was a much bigger sin, was to question the objectivity, authority and judgement of the so-called moderator.

 

the apparent swipe at the social sciences such as behavioural psychology

 

It was mainly a historical reference; Chomsky vs. B F Skinner.

 

Double blind randomised testing is the gold standard [in medicine].

 

The main point of this comment is that if, for example, you can readily measure significant and unambiguous differences in the audible spectrum between two cables, you wouldn't need to resort to a double-blind test. (You might still want one to determine whether the measured differences are indeed audible.)

[wgscott]

My unironic comment is that I would love to see some work on how effective DBTs are at probing sensory limits. (Thinking along the lines of Oohashi's subjects not being able to hear ultrasonics consciously, but EEG results being different in the presence of ultrasonics.)

 

Would you find a DBT more compelling than EEG results?

[wgscott]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]15997[/ATTACH]

 

Pay up.

[wgscott]

Yes, yes I must attribute that reference to you. It was the picture I had in mind when I posted the phrase as it seemed most appropriate. I won't claim great minds think alike. Only that even a small mind can copy great ones effectively sometimes.

 

I had a gf who used to say "soft minds run together."

[wgscott]

You are exactly right.

 

It seems to be a ritual for HA trolls to come by here and necro-post.

 

Also, by trying to turn it into a discussion about DBT, it is an attempt at revisionism. My experience there had NOTHING to do with posting any claims (objective or subjective), which I did not do. It was entirely about their arbitrary and capricious "moderation" and their collective cargo-cult approach to what they wrongly believe to be scientific method.

[wgscott]

Maybe Jud now better understands my displeasure at seeing 'krabapple' over here...

 

With our new friend prot and his useless trolling posts on all threads he doesn't understand, things have gone downhill a bit.

 

Listening to Eric Serra's very Vangelis-Antarctica-inspired 'Le Grand Bleu' soundtrack in WAV, real-time upsampling to DSD2x with HQ Player Evaluation version.

 

Keep in mind the root problem at HA is intolerance of opinions at variance with the majority. If he stays around, he might learn a bit.

[wgscott]

Or you might ...

[wgscott]

Sounds like a definite change for the better.

 

Maybe it is time to try it again!

[wgscott]

On 4/19/2018 at 12:39 PM, sullis02 said:

 

You sure they don't simply go to the HA 'Recycle bin' subforum?

 

I see three of wgscott's posts there.  And four still visible in the Unix thread he posted to.   And 15 others still visible in other threads he posted to.   That makes 22, the amount of total posts listed for wgscott to HA.  

 

 

Apologies for missing the necropost.

 

There was one point they were deleting what I wrote so fast that I thought there was some sort of software error.

 

The comical part of all of this is that I am probably in the 1% right-wing extreme objectivist camp here, and am a reasonably successful scientist (not audio-related, as Alex enjoys pointing out), but as far as their BB management was concerned, I needed to be sent to re-education camp.  

 

I think I got the message and got out before I was banned, but it was very clear that is where I was headed.

 

[wgscott]

2 hours ago, Don Hills said:

On the evidence available, 

 

Thanks to their heavy-handed editing, they can create a false illusion, which is, as far as I am concerned, simply another form of dishonesty.

 

What they practice is essentially what Feynman called "cargo-cult science."  They slavishly ape what they wrongly believe to be the aims and methodology of the physical sciences.  What they have created instead more closely resembles religious orthodoxy.

 

Remember, I went into this being essentially in agreement with their hard-core "objectivist" viewpoint. My "off-topic" sin was simply to point out that some other guy had a valid point of view that could be reformulated as a testable hypothesis, in contradiction to the gang piling on this guy.

[wgscott]

9 hours ago, sullis02 said:

 

 

No, just rebutting 'fake news'. something I hope we have gotten used to doing now, it being our new duty as citizens.  Wgscott in fact got a fair hearing on HA, and  the vast  majority of his posts aren't even  'Recycle binned' (where they'd still remain visible too).  He just gave up when he was challenged by the HA TOS.

 

As I told you last time, my comments were edited out in real-time by the local Kelly-Ann Conway.  

 

For someone who pretends to be objective, you are remarkably impervious to reason.

 

One has to question the motive for your bizarre necroposts.  Slow daze at Faux News?

[wgscott]

1 hour ago, Barnaby said:

Glad to hear. It's been bothering me these last few months. I found HA to be an unpleasant site and I won't be back.

 

That's ok.  In my experience, they'll come to you.

 

The best was the audio7 guy a couple of years ago stalking and threatening to attack me.  These people really need to crawl out of mom's basement and get a life.