Popular Post Puma Cat Posted March 10, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 10, 2020 Congrats to John and Alex for publishing this White Paper. I know that it was a lot of hard work and effort. Its very informative and reads well, so well done. 👍 Superdad and richard_crl032 1 1 Digital: Mac Mini/Roon Core/Optical Module->long run of fiber->EtherREGEN->SOtM UltraNeo->Schiit Gumby DAC. Shunyata Sigma Ethernet/Alpha USB Amplification: First Sound Presence Deluxe 4.0 preamp, LP70S amp Speakers: Harbeth 30.2/Power/Cables: Shunyata Everest 8000, Shunyata Sigma XC and NR, Alpha XC and NR, & Venom 14 Digital PCs, Alpha V2 ICs and SPs. Link to comment
Popular Post Puma Cat Posted March 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 13, 2020 There are some fundamental points here that I'd like raise, but just once, for folks to think about and consider, but I won't really get into deep discussions about these points, as things will stray off topic. But I'm putting them forward just to level set. The basic premise is that there are many things in this "universe" and in the experiences of our lives that we know to be TRUE and REAL that reductionist science cannot explain, either with "measurements" or even at a deeper fundamental level. And because reductionist science cannot explain them, they are...ignored. Gravity: Physicists have no explanation for Gravity. Yes, it can be characterized by Newton's famous equation, F=GMm/r2 that mathematically describes the force of gravity between two masses, but no physicist can explain WHY two masses are attracted to each to eather through a gravitational field. In fact, physicists cannot actually tell you what a field is and how it is mediated through "nothingness". This is an extension of another thing they can't explain, what is known in quantum physics as "the hard problem". Gravitational Constant: Furthermore, physicists can't explain why the gravitational constant, G, changes over time, and varies. Guess what? If the gravitational constant is a constant, why does it change over time? Speed of Light: the speed of light has changed over time as well. If you look at measurements in the historical record, it is documented that the measured speed of slight dropped between 1930 and 1945. If the speed of light is a constant, why does it change over time? Magnetism: nobody knows how a magnet can move a piece of metal without touching it. And for another thing is, nobody seems to care. When Richard Feynman was asked why by an interviewer: "If you hold two magnets with the same poles close, you'll feel a force pushing them away, and if they have opposite poles, they will snap together. "What I want to know is, what's going on between these two bits of metal?", he could not provide an answer. Because he didn't know more than anyone else does. Some physicicsts use "virtual photons" to explain magnetism, but "virtual photons" don't actually exist, they are simply mathematical fudge factors that theoretical physicists use to try to balance their equations. Dogs (and many cats) Wait for Their Owners to Come Home: Millions of dog and cat owners have experienced that their dogs, and to a lesser degree cats, are always waiting for them to come home. It turns out they are waiting for them before the owner actually arrives at home. This is independent of the mode of transport of the owner (on foot or with mechanized tranportation and independant of time of day, schedule, etc.) This phenomenon has been documented using professional video camera crews with time-synchronized cam-corders at the location of the dog and independently and simultaneously at the location of the owner, who is away from home, with statistical signficance. Science has NO answer for this well-known and well-characterized experience. The Sensation of Being Stared At: The sensation of being stared at is an experience that virtually all of us have had, or experienced from staring at someone who is not looking at them (a simple experiment: when you are driving down the freeway, turn and look at a driver in a car alongside you that is not looking at you, and measure how often, when you look at them, they will turn their head and look back at you). A simple experiment for this phenomenon has been conducted in studies world-wide and have been shown to be real with a p-value that provides statistical significance. As of 2005, there had already been 30,803 trials at multiple labs and locations of subjects being stared at with 16,849 correct observations, producing a p-value of 1X10^-20 (thus, the probability of obtaining these results by chance are significantly less than 1 in ten billion) Ref: J. Conciousness Studies 12: 10-31 (2005). The Collapse of the Wave Function in a Double-Slit Experiment. The collapse of the wave function (interference pattern) of light in a double-slit experiment when viewed by a Conscious Observer is a well-characterized phenomenon. This phenomenon is held even when the conscious observer is viewing remotely by video display; it does NOT occur when the observing is done by a computer. Dean Radin has conducted an outstanding set of experiments producing the same p-values that won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs Boson. Physicists and "Science" have no answer for this phenomenon. YouTube Video here: https://youtu.be/nRSBaq3vAeY The excellent white paper that John has written provides the foundation for understanding how a new class of noise factors e.g. the different jitter classes, the impact of leakage currents and clock phase noise and their interactions impact the reproduction of digital music. Impacts it in a way we hear and know to be true in an audible manner. I'm confident as we learn more about digital music reproduction, we will discover and characterize more of these factors. Regardless, though, there are many phenomena that I've described above that are known and documented to be true that quite simply, reductionist science cannot explain. Simple stuff, you know, like Gravity and Magnetism. But we DO know these phenomena to be true. The fact we can't explain or measure them does NOT make them any less true. The same applies to what we can hear, and the interaction of our audio equipment, our brains, minds, and what we know we can hear when listening to music. spotforscott, PYP, tapatrick and 10 others 3 8 2 Digital: Mac Mini/Roon Core/Optical Module->long run of fiber->EtherREGEN->SOtM UltraNeo->Schiit Gumby DAC. Shunyata Sigma Ethernet/Alpha USB Amplification: First Sound Presence Deluxe 4.0 preamp, LP70S amp Speakers: Harbeth 30.2/Power/Cables: Shunyata Everest 8000, Shunyata Sigma XC and NR, Alpha XC and NR, & Venom 14 Digital PCs, Alpha V2 ICs and SPs. Link to comment
Popular Post Puma Cat Posted March 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 17, 2020 4 hours ago, David A said: What is "evidence based science?" Back in the early 90's I was doing a University course for a post graduate diploma in occupational health and safety. We were required to design and conduct a research project of our own as one of the course requirements. One of the first steps in the design process was a review of the published research into the topic we were going to research for out project which meant doing a search for all of the research published in the peer reviewed journals plus any relevant book publications. I was doing a project on how often computer operators should have their eyesight tested. I had a literature search conducted by the university's professional librarians. It turned up nothing in the peer reviewed journals and nothing in any book publication. The only documentation available on the topic of frequency testing for computer operators that I could find was a paper commissioned by the Australian federal health and safety body. This paper was authored by a professor of ophthalmology and a professor of optometry at Australian universities, both well respected researchers in their fields. It contained a recommendation for the frequency to testing but while it cited a lot of references for other parts of the paper, there was no research cited for the actual recommendation itself and no mention of anyone having done any studies on that specific question. I did my study, a small sample of 75 people in the organisation I worked for who were following the recommendation in that paper. My findings supported the recommendation which was that computer operators under 40 years of age should be tested when they reported symptoms of eye problems, those over 40 years of age should be tested every 2 years or when they reported problems. My supervisor for the project, a lecturer and researcher in my university's optometry department, suggested that I present the study at an optometry science conference in Melbourne which I did. The conference was chaired by the professor of optometry who had co-authored the recommendation who had been running a long study into eyesight issues for computer operators which had resulted in several publications. He spoke to me afterwards about my study and said he'd been quite interested to see my results. I told him I'd read his paper with the recommendation which hadn't cited any research and asked him where he and the second author had found the data on which they had based the recommendation. He replied that they had none, that it was based on his and his co-author's clinical experience which was that problems in people under 40 always had symptoms but that after 40 years of age the dominant problem tended to be age related deterioration of sight which was gradual. People adapted to that by increasing their reading and/or screen distance and problems didn't show until their arms got too short or they couldn't push the screen far enough away but testing on a 2 yearly basis for those people could identify the deterioration and allow the prescription of spectacles which allowed them to continue reading or screen based work at normal distances and help avoid eyestrain. There was research available into how age affected eyesight problems but no one had done any research into how often computer operators should get their eyes tested. What the 2 authors of the recommendation had done was simply to apply the evidence related to eyesight problems in general to a specific group of people based on their own clinical experience but there was no evidence for a recommendation in relation to computer operators as a specific group of people who were looking at computer screens for the whole of each working day. Was the recommendation "evidence based science"? There was no evidence to specifically support the recommendation but I think it was evidence based science, even though it most definitely had never been peer reviewed. My study was published in a peer reviewed health and safety journal 15 months later. In general, if you want peer reviewed studies you have to wait at least 18 months after the research is done for the results to be published and add a year or two to that for book publication. Research can move fast and people in a field are often well aware of research results long before they're published in a peer reviewed publication. Absence of peer reviewed data doesn't necessarily mean that the data isn't there, it could simply still be in the pipeline for publication and will appear in a year or two's time but it may already be well known in the actual field concerned. You can wait for the peer reviewed studies to appear if you like but when I retired 10 years after I did my research and 8 or so years after it was published, I still hadn't heard of any other published paper on the topic but mine and I doubt there will be any. There were extremely sound reasons for the recommendation and it probably wasn't worth any professional researcher designing and conducting a study to prove or disprove the validity of the recommendation which was based on well accepted professional experience. It made a great student project for me and I learnt a lot about how research is done and how to draw valid conclusions from your data, and it went some way to validating the published recommendation but I doubt any professionals doubted the validity of the published recommendation, even though no research was cited, and I doubt any professionals found my study provided essential evidence to support the recommendation. The test of whether something works or not is whether people using it find it works or not. Research showing how and why it works is very useful but its real value is not because it proves that something works, it's because that research provides the information that helps designers and manufacturers to build products that can work even better, and to build those products more quickly and more easily than they could without that research. Weeks after the Wright brothers made the first powered flight at Kittyhawk, a respected scientist used the peer accepted research at the time to write a paper which "conclusively proved" that powered flight was impossible and that the claims of the Wright brothers' flight was a hoax. Relying on peer reviewed science rather than actual observations of whether something works or not can lead to the wrong conclusions. Even today, research which goes through peer review and is initially accepted gets pulled from publication because of errors in the research that wasn't picked up in peer review. Peer review isn't an infallible guarantee that the research is correct. It's definitely a necessary part of the scientific process but just as research can get it wrong, peer review can also get it wrong. I would really like to see peer reviewed evidence for the ER's effectiveness but it could be a long time coming and, in the end, the real proof of whether or not the ER works is what it achieves in practice. So far the user reports are almost completely positive and that is evidence as well. Excelllent post. As someone who spent his entire career as a professional scientist, and am first-author of papers published in Science, The Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, American Journal of Human Genetics, Blood, etc., I agree with your points. Oh, and BTW, the Principia Mathematica was not peer-reviewed. Audiophile Neuroscience, Superdad, David A and 1 other 2 2 Digital: Mac Mini/Roon Core/Optical Module->long run of fiber->EtherREGEN->SOtM UltraNeo->Schiit Gumby DAC. Shunyata Sigma Ethernet/Alpha USB Amplification: First Sound Presence Deluxe 4.0 preamp, LP70S amp Speakers: Harbeth 30.2/Power/Cables: Shunyata Everest 8000, Shunyata Sigma XC and NR, Alpha XC and NR, & Venom 14 Digital PCs, Alpha V2 ICs and SPs. Link to comment
Popular Post Puma Cat Posted March 17, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted March 17, 2020 17 hours ago, Superdad said: Well David, given the length of your post and its long paragraphs I found I had to sit about 3 feet away to read it. Just another data point from 57 year old eyes. Indeed. I promise you all, @JohnSwenson did not just drop over $14K on an expensive phase-noise analysis system just to appease the skeptics out there. Certainly it will be useful (from a marketing perspective) to produce measurements proving the efficacy of the EtherREGEN--a product that was designed based on theories (based on decades of chip-level design experience) which so far have been validated mostly by 1,000+ sets of ears. The reason he bought the unit (and the reason I have funded other measurement gear projects of his) is so that he can get to the bottom of some of this and use what is learned on future projects (of which we have several on the drawing board). There are some other threads--here at AS and elsewhere--where they endless ridicule the very concept of upstream phase-noise causing ground-plane bounce and thus jitter at the clock pin of a DAC. Until we produce measurement proof there really is little point in engaging further with those folks, especially as the arguments (on both sides) have become repetitious. I am reminded a bit of Shunyata Research, as they--for the past 23 years--have quietly been developing, producing, and selling a series of highly unusual products based on the work of research scientist Caelin Gabriel. While the skeptics and naysayers used to ridicule Shunyata and lump them in with all manner of fuzzy/voodoo audio products, Caelin and his associates kept going and developed test techniques to validate and prove their work. Their clients always enjoyed the products and most don't care about the measurements. But for any firm to continue at the leading edge, there must be both knowledge and the tools to develop with. And now some Shunyata power products are used in the medical field, to reduce noise in electrophysiology surgery equipment. Great post. I'll just add some additional info for context here. In the medical imaging arena, where the products of Shunyata Research's sister company, Clear Image Scientific, have developed a range of products that have been a breakthrough in digital medical imaging, the doctors who use these products don't get into "arguments" about whether a power can make a difference, because....they use these products to save people's lives. Superdad, tapatrick, PYP and 1 other 1 3 Digital: Mac Mini/Roon Core/Optical Module->long run of fiber->EtherREGEN->SOtM UltraNeo->Schiit Gumby DAC. Shunyata Sigma Ethernet/Alpha USB Amplification: First Sound Presence Deluxe 4.0 preamp, LP70S amp Speakers: Harbeth 30.2/Power/Cables: Shunyata Everest 8000, Shunyata Sigma XC and NR, Alpha XC and NR, & Venom 14 Digital PCs, Alpha V2 ICs and SPs. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now