haha, i cant believe that this thread is still going on.
449 responses Add your response
Tgb: Like Tonnesen, I don't know what you intend by that quote (it almost sounds like you're saying "statistics can prove anything"). We're only saying that A) you can't roll dice once or twice and learn how "lucky" you are, and B) tests need certain controls, like isolating variables and accounting for possible biasing effects, if we're not to be misled. You teach research methodology, you've got to know this better than me. Anyway, I agree that you don't necessarily need an explanation if you perceive a positive difference; we just differ in our levels of satisfaction with not having a plausible explanation (or, having an implausible one), and in what we conclude from that about what's likely to be really going on. As I just posted on the other thread, most of the other tweaks you mention (filters, CD mats, even a plug-in clock) possibly have plausible methods of causation that could account for any perceived effects. It's the ones that don't (the CLC, the "Intelligent Chip") which demand the most skeptical scrutiny. You may not feel the same, but I'm curious to know how anything works, including in my system. I also agree with the criticisms (from more than one direction) that overall, what we're trying to do is listen to and enjoy music (and maybe gear as well), not run "scientific experiments". However, some of us feel it is quite possible -- and important -- to find both truth in beauty *and* beauty in truth. |
I teach research methods and find the question of whether a random sample's sampling error could have accounted for the variation noted to be trivial, especially as anything will be statistically significant if the sample size is large. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say, but to put it simply, if your sample size is too small, say 2 experiments with the CLC, you might guess by chance that there is an improvement with the CLC both times and conclude that it works. If you do the experiment a hundred times you will not consistently guess correctly that there is an improvement with the CLC (unless by some miracle the thing actually worked). You need to do the experiment many times, and consistently determine when the clock is in the house. If the effect is as profound as some people claim, you should be able to easily determine if it is in the house or not 100% of the time. I applaud Zaikesman's efforts to bring some sanity to this, but for me the damage is done. I simply cannot trust anything that people write here nor anything published in the audiophile mags. I've heard good music in my system so I know there is something worthwhile in high end audio equipment, but audiophiles appear to be a sorry lot and are not doing much to help the hobby with all of this silliness. |
By the way, for the record, at the NJAS meeting last week I took the clock out of the house and brought it back in on two occasions while people were listening to music on the system, not telling anyone I was doing it or even letting them know I was leaving the house. No reaction one way or another, no one saying "Hey, what did you do?", etc. While this might not qualify as a double blind test, I think it illustrates the type of test Zaikes comments on in the Clever Little Sharp thread. Maybe there are people of exceptional sensory powers who can hear this thing working, but I'm afraid that I'm not one of them, nor are most of our club members. |
Zaikesman, please do post the response to Dave Clark. I think the issue we are discussing is of huge importance to high end audio in general. I think if we keep on, we may end up somewhere and perhaps make progress. I am sure that influencing Dave Clark will eventually send ripples through the whole industry. |
I know from experience that neither one of us will have a change of heart as a result of these discussionsI couldn't agree more with that... so I see no point in risking alienation with continued debate...maybe not so much with this, but I concede the possibility. I'm not trying to change your mind, believe it or not. And as far as I'm concerned you don't risk alienating me, though I can't know about me alienating you. (Not, of course, that this discussion has just been between you and me.) But I can understand getting tired of it. And if you're happy with your CLC's, why risk lousing it up by doing the test I proposed? Or subject yourself to a lot of flack? Same as me not wanting to waste my time and money "auditioning" the Clock when I'm certain in advance I won't hear any difference. As much as any intellectual criticism though, I'd just feel unbearably *silly* actually "testing" something along these lines. As you know, the only reason I ever came on this thread was to poke fun. Not necessarily at you, but at the product you like, which is dangerously close to the same thing I admit. Then I went away. Then the humor kind of ceased to be funny any more, and serious points were raised (in theory, if maybe not in reality when it comes to something as frivolous as high end audio), so I got serious for a change of pace. There's only so far it can be taken without repeating oneself. I actually have about half of a lengthy response to Dave Clark composed and waiting, but I haven't had the heart to carry through with it. It's not that I'm at a loss for something relevent to say, it's just that I think, is it really necessary to continue blabbering on about this stuff? Maybe so, I'm still thinking about it. I take more seriously what I see as lazy work of published writers like the Clarks and irresponsible claims of manufacturers like Kait than the whims of the audiophiles whose money they take...and then again, I don't really care about anybody but myself in these trivial matters of caveat emptor and different strokes... |
Zaikesman, your last point, "I'd have to give a shit," is exactly the point of those suggesting that the CLC should be tried, especially given some reviews that suggest it works. We don't really give a shit that some demand an explanation, if we hear an improvement. I have tried several tweaks that did not have very good explanations, notably the Bybee filters and various cd mats, that proved of no benefit, but I have tried others that did, such as the IC, which I heard demonstrated at CES and the Muratas also demonstrated at CES, that proved excellent. None of these have been in experiments where statistical significance was assessed. It matters not to me if I hear a difference. I teach research methods and find the question of whether a random sample's sampling error could have accounted for the variation noted to be trivial, especially as anything will be statistically significant if the sample size is large. |
Anecdotal is anecdotal, good bad or indifferent. It's not necessarily a pejorative characterization, but neither is anecdotal testimony (especially when selectively presented) a substitute for plausible explanations, care and scrutiny in auditioning practices, and measurable performance. Likewise, words such as "paranormal", "supernatural", and "metaphysical" have dictionary meanings which are not pejorative, just literally descriptive and appropriately applicable to certain identifiable catagories of reported phenomena. As for "claims" that are "touted" vs. "facts" that are "stated", the latter are usually not in dispute -- isn't it up to the purporters of the "unorthodox" to show how they build upon the known facts, and add their evidence for any new ones, in order to convince us of the possibilities in their claims? Conversely, does it not matter if error or illogic can be demonstrated in the reasoning given for those claims? And should we not doubt fantastic claims if no evidence is given at all? I've learned not to put too much stock in what other audiophiles unknown to me say or their opinions, and ditto reviewers. Audiophiles these days, at least from the written evidence I see, too often suffer from what I call 'audio machismo': Confidently proclaiming to easily perceive differences of the sub-molehill variety -- regardless of how compromised and/or casual the audition circumstances -- while simultaneously exagerating them into mountains of importance. In this competitive and conspicuously-consuming pursuit, demanding any modicum of auditioning rigor, or of modesty in claims made or significance assigned, runs the danger of being taken as indicating self-doubt and tin ears, auto-disqualifiers from membership in the high-end club. It's an environment I fundamentally mistrust. Does this mean I don't accept that some people using the CLC believe they hear a positive difference? No. But it does mean I'd take any bet that neither Mr. Kait nor his satisfied customers would ever be able to reliably distinguish his "specially treated" Clocks from outwardly-identical ones fresh from Mall-Wart, even given sighted comparison auditioning in their own systems, unhurried and unobserved. (Only conditions: A number of trials rising to statistical significance, and some way to make sure there couldn't be any cheating. And oh yeah, I'd have to actually give a shit ;^) |
Wellfed is a biblical reference from Phillippians Ch. 4 v. 12 that refers to being content no matter the circumstance. Phillippians 4 |
<> Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated." Here's a gem from the Daniel Drasin piece Geoff Kait linked to above. I am surprised that he didn't mention the tactic of using an adjective such as "anecdotal" in front of the word testimony in order to trivialize the level of satisfaction or veracity expressed in those testimonies. Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky. |
| Post removed |
Selected tools of the determined huckster: 1) Claim you're misunderstood 2) Claim there's an agenda against you 3) Claim there's an agenda against "new knowledge" or "poorly understood phenomena" 4) Claim outside forces would "rip you off" if given the chance 5) Draw incorrect parallels between what you do and historical examples where the advancement of science was inhibited by entrenched interests 6) Claim that your skeptics "are not ready" for your brand of knowledge, but will one day "see the light" 7) Utilize diversionary tactics and vague language to try and disguise the faulty logic of your false sylogisms, false premises, nonsensical semantics, non-sequitors, and general resort to unproven, "faith-based" assertions 8) Utilize anecdotal testimony to try and disguise your lack of demonstrable evidence 9) Selectively ignore the weight of more rigorous, as well as anecdotal, evidence running counter to your claims 10) Play to your audience's ignorance, desires and fears 11) Hope they don't wise up by "following the money" 12) And when all else fails, resort to rendering your inferences non-disprovable by making your specific claims "secret" (citing #'s 1-6 as reasons why) |
Tvad, one of the things that has always struck me is the difference between Audiogon and AudioAsylum. On AudioAsylum most controversies swiftly get to the next page and out of view. Here as long as anyone posts controversies stay on and on. I also think trolling is more common on AudioAsylum as old topics swiftly go out of sight so you can start another. Many of the worst posters, but certainly not all, post exclusively on AA and not here, but also some of the most informed post exclusively there also. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
From "Zen and the Art of Debunkery" by Daniel Drasin complete list of debunker's tools at: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html Selected Tools of the Determined Debunker: 1. Label any poorly-understood phenomenon "occult," "fringe," "paranormal," "metaphysical," "mystical," "supernatural," or "new-age." This will get most mainstream scientists off the case immediately on purely emotional grounds. If you're lucky, this may delay any responsible investigation of such phenomena by decades or even centuries! 2. Accuse investigators of unusual phenomena of believing in "invisible forces and extrasensory realities." If they should point out that the physical sciences have *always* dealt with invisible forces and extrasensory realities (gravity? electromagnetism? . . . ) respond with a condescending chuckle that this is "a naive interpretation of the facts." 3. When an unexplained phenomenon demonstrates evidence of intelligence (as in the case of the mysterious crop circles) focus exclusively on the mechanism that might have been wielded by the intelligence rather than the intelligence that might have wielded the mechanism. The more attention you devote to the mechanism, the more easily you can distract people from considering the possibility of non-ordinary intelligence. 4. Engage the services of a professional stage magician who can mimic the phenomenon in question; for example, ESP, psychokinesis or levitation. This will convince the public that the original claimants or witnesses to such phenomena must themselves have been (or been fooled by) talented stage magicians who hoaxed the original phenomenon in precisely the same way. |
| Post removed |
I tried something last night that was major major upgrade. I took some LSD. While the LSD does not act on the system directly, it has a profound affect on the listener. Man, things sounded pretty incredible. It was even better then my MDMA trip last month. I was also definitely traveling through time. Pink Floyd's The Wall lasted for what seemed like an eternity and yet I am certain that the recorded content on the CD is not much longer then an hour. |
Well golly gee.. Geeoff I'm Reich sorry for the fire of all them papers, books and destruction of all that personal and private property that was to be returned to its rightful owner once he buckled down to the straight and narrow,it was only meant to go to storage.Once we let him and them out of jail and he saw our "light" he could have gotten all his crazy crap back.Instead he went and died on us while we were keeping him safe from himself and away from others who may spend a miniute or an hour contemplating his thoughts. Afterall that could be dangerous to our upbringing. These days some forenign dude, well he wouldn't even have to be foreign just having a foreign sounding name like Zaikesman or Guidocorona or even a common name like my own DeVuono well lets bring on the wiretaps and hell with the law lets do whats Reich.Remember the Clever Little Clock....its a ticking,so you better run for cover. Tom |
I was reading Roger Wilcox's articles debunking "orgone energy" and "accumulators" (aka "orgone boxes", linked from the SkepDic entry I linked above), and musing about the similarities between Reich's crackpot theory and Belt's (child-like fixations on attributing magical properties to simple phenomena such as temperature gradients, and a penchant for imbuing the whole universe as well as living beings with extrascientific "fields" carrying beneficial metaphysical properties -- in addition to failing to constuct relevent experiments for testing their theories). Continuing to follow links however, I then arrived at the fun site for the American Stirling Company -- that model MM-7, now *there's* a gadget I'd put on top of my CD player! I'm sure it would defeat the "Intelligent Chip" plus an entire raft of Belt's Rainbow Foils in a fair fight (I recommend their FAQ too). |
Oh my God. . . 'tis too late. . . the cat--I meant the anchovy--is out of the bag. . . I meant of the slide. Darn it Zaikesman, I really don't have time to herd back my pet food stuff. . . got to run and alert all physicists and engineers and stuff. . . they MUST rework everything in the book PDQ, all them equations and things, now that we have discovered time is mere illusion for sure! May be I really need a more potent amulet. . . d'ya think the CLC will make me happier? |
It was posted somewhere where someone said that a clock tells us the time and i was suggesting that it really does not. A clock is a instrument that is designed to synchronize with a another movement, and movement in itself is not moving from the past to the future. Movement is happening 'NOW', everlasting 'NOW', and 'NOW' does not a have a past or a future. But the brain in it's movement, (movement of thought) is moving from the past to the future. It is just that the brain creates the illusion of time because of memory. The brains memory is always of the past, and are thinking is born of the past and can project a future and the past and the future does not exist. The only thing that exist is 'NOW' which is timeless. There is much more we can go into, but i am stopping here for now because some of my post disappear and i am a very slow typer and don't want to waste my time typing if they disappear. I'll see what happens with one. |
| Post removed |
Of course Geoffkait, and so is my Pecan, my now retired Fung Sui woodden forks, and let's not forget my pet anchovy--preserved for 46 years between two glass microscope slides--which reminds me of the ever-growing gap of time between this ever vanishing now and the long-vanished 'then' so long ago when the 6-year-old me plucked the little fish from under the left-most fish-monger stand in the main fish market of Santa margherita Ligure. Time is very mysterious indeed, and forms the basis of any personal mythology. Is perhaps the CLC a personal musical mythology generator of sorts? |
I didn't mean to suggest that the excerpt from the short story was any sort of hint as to the clock's operation. The intention in my last post was to suggest that the concept of Time is one we all tend to take for granted, but, in reality, Time is very mysterious and technically difficult to pin down. Kind of like the Clock. |