27 Feb
2006
27 Feb
'06
10:49 p.m.
unless you can detect them in a double blind test, they
do not exist.
this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with
those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all
kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories.
Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that
these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts.
That's your *opinion*, not an irrefutable fact.
If these 'scientific' theories, tests, and evidence are your religion and
scripture - fine.
I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, and in the final analysis,
that is all science is - another dogma, and another religion.
I left a scientific career in academia because I found the dogma too
restricting.
first, audio CD "copies" are not
"digital file copies" at all. audio CD
playback mechanisms have error correction built in, and it is certainly
true that making a copy of an audio CD may not result in a
"perfect" (ie. bit-level) copy.
I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing here.
I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to
burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds.
The equalization sounds different at different speeds.
But as you say, this is something altogether different than copies of the
same .wav files on a hard-disk or different hard-disks.
copying from one .wav to another .wav on a hard drive
will never, ever
produce any difference of any kind, and if you claim otherwise, you are
either completely ignorant of how digital audio works or being
deliberately ridiculous.
Your opinion - not fact.
I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free to interpret that in
any fashion you choose.
find me one person who can do this in a double blind
situation, and we can
take it seriously.
I submit that I can, but I don't think there will be an opportunity to test
that out.
I couldn't care less whether you 'take it seriously' or not - I am not
trying to convince you of anything whatsoever.
Believe what you wish.
(I don't believe for one minute that you would take it seriously in any
case.)
your complaints are not specific to open source digital
audio, but are
about about digital audio in general.
I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks as *complaining*.
My intention was to *discuss* the issue of digital fidelity and how it
might be improved.
although we have a few wizards of the DSP here,
you'd better off in a more
general forum
Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not.
(which i am sure will roast claims like
"i can hear the difference between two digital copies" as vigorously as
anyone here)
Roasting a claim does not constitute disproving it.
Without wanting to question your sincerity, please
note
that any claims of 'I can hear xxxxx' are completely
irrelevant in a scientific context until they have been
confirmed by double-blind experiments in controlled and
repeatable circumstances. And if you claim things that
go logically against results that have been retested
and verified time and time again, then the burden of
proof is on you. That's how things work in science.
I am well aware of how things work in science.
(I have a degree in physics and biology, and did graduate work in
mathematical and theoretical physics.)
I am also aware of the severe limitations of how things work in science and
the many flaws both in scientific theories and scientific experimentation.
These flaws becoming increasingly obvious when you enter into realms
involving consciousness (such as perception). Observer participancy is just
one example.
"We live on an island surrounded by a sea of ignorance. As our island of
knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." - John A. Wheeler
I Maluvia!
I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend you. It's just that *I* happen to be
heavily into *certain types* of hocus pocus, and I was hoping to
exchange a little bit of subtle humor with you, since you made the
impression you'd be at least halfway open to that type of thinking,
which is rare!
Carlo :),
I am *more* than open - that seems to be my problem on this list.
And I do have a sense of humor - your comments just sounded more like
mockery than humor.
Sorry that I misinterpreted them.
I find your exuberance and irreverant humor extremely refreshing, and much
needed on what otherwise feels like a generally stodgy list.
I assumed that most people on this list would be musicians rather than
programmers or engineers, and I find musicians a lot easier to communicate
with and relate to - not to mention much more open-minded.
(I guess that's why I married one.)
As for the subjectivity, the pages you quoted about the
digital myth are
based on three things, which are all scientific: 1. CD jitter errors, 2.
different types of A/D converters, and 3. recalculation loss.
None of these would explain properly why you can hear differences
between different copies of files on HARD DRIVES.
Now here's where it get's interesting (To me, at least :)
You claimed you can hear a difference between two files that are stored
on different hard drives. Now that's a completely different story. Hard
drives usually store software. There is no automatic error correction
with a subtle loss of quality for software. You change a single bit in
an executable program, and the thing crashes. It could break your
computer, physically, and ruin all your data which represents years of
work. In many cases, a faulty program can KILL PEOPLE. Software depends
on 1:1 numerical reproduction of data, at least for the lifetime of a
computer, and when that's not given, there is no longer a computer,
there is only a piece of scrap junk.
And yet you claim you can hear the difference between different copies
of data on different hard drives. To someone who has been working on
computers for more than half of his lifetime, that statement in itself
sounds esoteric. So don't be surprised if the man who believes you uses
esoteric theories to explain it :)
Of course, the phenomenon of subjectivity and energy relations is
currently explained within contemporary science as simply a convenient
way of discribing trances and other subjective psychological states,
which are diverted and deluded and somehow diverted from a generally
accepted way of experiencing things.
To me, this is a very dogmatic, and also quite arrogant way of looking
at things. I don't deny that thinking scientifically is USEFUL, because
it enables us to create very sophisticated models of how the world
works, which in turn lets us create neat things such as digital audio
devices and airplanes and cars. I wouldn't want to make do without all
that. But in all its usefulness, that doesn't make the theory TRUE.
Newton's theory is useful. It helps explain things WITHIN CERTAIN
BOUNDARIES. But then Einstein came along and created a different theory,
which had the same results within Newton's range, but continued to be
effective when Newton's theory failed. Then Einstein's theory failed,
and quantum mechanics was introduced to better explain other and
different phenomena. Great efforts are on the way right now simply to
bring all those observations to common ground, and when they succeed, we
can be certain that YET MORE unexplainable phenomena will occur, and
that the theory will have to be placed in proper context yet again. The
theory is never true, it is only useful within certain contexts. It's
'true' because it's useful. But it can just as well be untrue where it
stops being useful. That's simply the way science works.
It is how *any* thought system works.
However, there is a tendency among the scientific
community to cling to
what already has been explained, simply because it makes things so
comfortably predictable. However, that comes at the price of gaining new
knowledge, at the price of the very way the current explanations have
been found. That's why it is so very important to keep an open mind
about things.
A thought system is merely a navigational mechanism - a vehicle if you
will.
It is meant to *move* you somewhere - to give you mobility, to be a
mechanism for growth and evolution of consciousness.
We all need a frame of reference - which is what a thought system is.
It consists of our current beliefs about the world and our relationship to
it, and provides us with a mechanism to interpret what we perceive and
experience.
And as those beliefs largely determine what we perceive, the experience
part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be
modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded.
In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found to be inconsistent
with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or
inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown.
When a belief-system/reference-frame no longer serves - i.e., experience
contradicts those beliefs, forcing them to be modified or discarded - then
at a certain ineffable point, a phase transition occurs (often entailing a
major life-crisis) - the belief system is disintegrated and a new one is
created in its place - one which incorporates all the experiential learning
from the former - the beliefs which have held up to experience, along with
new ideas, beliefs and theories by which one then attempts to continue to
navigate through this mysterious thing we call 'reality' and 'life'.
This process is cosmic mobility through consciousness, and I believe, will
one day be the basis of physical mobility through the cosmos as well.
"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea! "
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
I was ready to trash my theory that bits are always
bits
that has worked so well for me for over twelve years AT THE BLINK OF AN
EYE, simply because of your unconfirmed subjective observation that you
can hear a difference between the same files on different hard drives,
even if it might mean making the way I work in the studio infinetly more
complex, at least until I found a better theory.
It does make things more complicated - or simpler, depending on how you
look at it.
We no longer make intermediate copies of a piece of music in progress.
All the data about the ongoing state of editing/modification is kept as a
project file, while the original raw recorded data is left untouched.
In previous projects it was only at the very last stage that the changes
were incorporated into a mixed-down rendered stereo file, then used for
CD-Mastering.
(We don't even defrag the partitions with audio data, although this
introduces a different set of problems.)
In future projects we won't even export the project, we will simply output
it to another system and re-record at the desired final SR/bit-depth, so
dithering will be unnecessary.
Actually, I find this approach to be a simpler way of doing things - (but
then it has already been established that I am incredibly ignorant or quite
possibly insane). :)
I have heard of people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS
simply by
thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the
'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five
hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not
even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise
margin. We need to stay open about things.
Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people
could do this.
So in my book, no, I do not believe that you are
deluding yourself. Bob
Moog is said to have had EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS with his synthesizers,
and as far as I am concerned, they sure sound genuine. Maybe that's just
the geek me, but I've seen people have really healthy relationships with
technology and other 'inanimates'. And maybe that's just the nerd me,
but I've seen some really unhealthy ways of people interacting with each
other. So I like to joke a lot about technology and people being
interchangable relationship-wise. It's a way of getting over a lot of
pain.
The remark about your respected partner in the end, on the other hand,
was deliberately formulated to be a little edgy, if not theoretically
unsound. Please forgive me, I can write impressive essays very well, but
I have a very cruel sense of humour that is constantly tempting me.
It's OK Carlo.
Whenever I mention my partner, it seems to evoke negative responses.
I prefer not to do so, but since it is his music that we are working to
produce, I cannot help mentioning him on occasion.
He prefers to speak through his guitar and his music, so the verbal
jousting is left to me.
I do not believe you are deluding yourself. I believe
you are using your
yet unexplained physical properties to influence your environment that
could be observed by other people in the same situation also, but maybe
not by someone using the same brand but different device as you, or a
different person. But that's just a theory. It could be wrong.
I know what I hear, and that is enough for me.
I act in accordance with that perception and it has served me well.
It was never my intention to convert anyone to my perspective, or accept my
perceptions as theirs.
. . . . . .
Now that doesn't mean I'm getting all hoozy shmoozy on you. If people
come to me and tell me all I have to do is think about the pink flame in
me and all is well, I tend to mentally put them right where they belong
in my opinion, next to cult followers, opiate addicts and battered
housewives. What do these three have in common? Unhealthy addictions.
But, if new knowledge comes along that has the potential to genuinely
improve my life (and that of others), and that knowledge happens to
sound different, well. Let us investigate.
Indeed.
�Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than
these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy
matters.�
~ John Wheeler, Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Namaste,
Maluvia
28 Feb
28 Feb
5:05 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 19:52 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
Science is *not* a religion. Religion is belief based on faith (not
that I'm knocking faith). Science requires proof. You've offered no
proof of your perceived differences in sound between two digital copies
of the same audio files on two different hard drives. You've sent links
to a couple of articles by a guy who thinks that moving a CPU changes
the sound of a digital file. Double blind tests are a valid method of
proving that you *do* hear differences in sound and that your perception
of those differences is repeatable. Neither you nor the author of that
article performed any tests that show that this is anything other than
your and his biased opinions that the sound is different.
Sorry, this is a fact, not an opinion. It can be easily proved.
There's that ugly word again - proof.
If you can get an unbiased third party to administer the tests then
we would take it seriously.
Neither he nor anyone else on this forum is "disproving" your claim.
For us to disprove it you must first prove it using accepted methods.
That would be those double-blind tests again.
You apparently believe that most of the people on this list aren't
musicians but merely programmers. This is the Linux Audio User list.
Most of the people on this list are musicians. If you want to talk to
the programmers you need to post on Linux Audio Dev. There are a number
of people on this list who are both musicians and programmers. I've
been a musician for 44 years and a programmer for 30. I've been playing
professionally for about 30 years. So, no, we're not a bunch of
soulless geeks. But no one here is going to take you seriously unless
you can offer up proof of what you're saying. I've offered a web link
by an engineer showing the frequency response of various tape recorders
versus a low end digital card and you've offered up a web link from a
mastering house doing a lot of hand waving. It's their business to
convince you that they have "golden ears" and that you need to use their
service to get the magical sound that you so desperately need. This all
comes down to one word - proof.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
unless you can
detect them in a double blind test, they do not exist.
this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with
those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all
kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories.
Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that
these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts.
That's your *opinion*, not an irrefutable fact.
If these 'scientific' theories, tests, and evidence are your religion and
scripture - fine.
I'm a strong believer in freedom of religion, and in the final analysis,
that is all science is - another dogma, and another religion.
I left a scientific career in academia because I found the dogma too
restricting.
first, audio CD
"copies" are not "digital file copies" at all. audio CD
playback mechanisms have error correction built in, and it is certainly
true that making a copy of an audio CD may not result in a
"perfect" (ie. bit-level) copy.
I don't know if we are even talking about the same thing here.
I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to
burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds.
The equalization sounds different at different speeds.
But as you say, this is something altogether different than copies of the
same .wav files on a hard-disk or different hard-disks.
copying from one .wav to another .wav on a hard
drive will never, ever
produce any difference of any kind, and if you claim otherwise, you are
either completely ignorant of how digital audio works or being
deliberately ridiculous.
Your opinion - not fact.
I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free to interpret that in
any fashion you choose.
find me one
person who can do this in a double blind situation, and we can
take it seriously.
I submit that I can, but I don't think there will be an opportunity to test
that out.
I couldn't care less whether you 'take it seriously' or not - I am not
trying to convince you of anything whatsoever.
Believe what you wish.
(I don't believe for one minute that you would take it seriously in any
case.)
your complaints
are not specific to open source digital audio, but are
about about digital audio in general.
I'm sorry if you interpreted my remarks as *complaining*.
My intention was to *discuss* the issue of digital fidelity and how it
might be improved.
although we have a few wizards of the DSP here,
you'd better off in a more
general forum
Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not.
(which i am sure will roast claims like
"i can hear the difference between two digital copies" as vigorously as
anyone here)
Roasting a claim does not constitute disproving it.
6:14 a.m.
Carlo :)
Yes, dear :)
I am *more* than open - that seems to be my problem on
this list.
And I do have a sense of humor - your comments just sounded more like
mockery than humor.
Ah, the case of mockery. I think mockery is so important. It keeps me
from thinking *I* am important. And that's important.
Sorry that I misinterpreted them.
Actually, you
didn't. I actually was mocking you to the worst and I
really gave it my best shot. It's simply what I call *humour*. I think
it's important that we can all mock each other. Mockery is the best cure
for Dogma. Let's all mock Paul a little.
By the way, I recently recorded a bunch of my farts with ardour and the
fidelity of the production was amazing. I couldn't tell the difference
between the real thing. I'm happy ardour doesn't reproduce smell as well
as it does audio.
I find your exuberance and irreverant humor extremely
refreshing, and much
needed on what otherwise feels like a generally stodgy list.
Oh why thank you. Does this mean I have permission to mock you? Please,
say yes. I'd like to consider you on online friend and to be that I need
to be allowed to mock you.
I assumed that most people on this list would be
musicians rather than
programmers or engineers, and I find musicians a lot easier to communicate
with and relate to - not to mention much more open-minded.
(I guess that's why I married one.)
I hope you have deep pockets.
It is how *any* thought system works.
Really???? So you mean I can actually THINK and not be scientific? I'm
so happy! I always found plain intellectual stupidity a distingushing
mark of a lot of people who consider themselves 'spiritual'.
A thought system is merely a navigational mechanism -
a vehicle if you
will.
YES!
It is meant to *move* you somewhere - to give you
mobility, to be a
mechanism for growth and evolution of consciousness.
And all this without stuffy labs and wannabe smart-ass thesis advisors?
I love this.
We all need a frame of reference - which is what a
thought system is.
It consists of our current beliefs about the world and our relationship to
it, and provides us with a mechanism to interpret what we perceive and
experience.
Aaaaaaaah...
And as those beliefs largely determine what we
perceive, the experience
part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be
modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded.
In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found to be inconsistent
with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or
inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown.
When a belief-system/reference-frame no longer serves
- i.e., experience
contradicts those beliefs, forcing them to be modified or discarded - then
at a certain ineffable point, a phase transition occurs (often entailing a
major life-crisis) - the belief system is disintegrated and a new one is
created in its place - one which incorporates all the experiential learning
from the former - the beliefs which have held up to experience, along with
new ideas, beliefs and theories by which one then attempts to continue to
navigate through this mysterious thing we call 'reality' and 'life'.
This process is cosmic mobility through consciousness,
and I believe, will
one day be the basis of physical mobility through the cosmos as well.
"Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul,
As the swift seasons roll!
Leave thy low-vaulted past!
Let each new temple, nobler than the last,
Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast,
Till thou at length art free,
Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea! "
~ Oliver Wendell Holmes
>I was ready to trash my theory that bits are always
bits
>that has worked so well for me for over twelve years AT THE BLINK OF AN
>EYE, simply because of your unconfirmed subjective observation that you
>can hear a difference between the same files on different hard drives,
>even if it might mean making the way I work in the studio infinetly more
>complex, at least until I found a better theory.
It does make things more complicated - or simpler,
depending on how you
look at it.
We no longer make intermediate copies of a piece of music in progress.
All the data about the ongoing state of editing/modification is kept as a
project file, while the original raw recorded data is left untouched.
In previous projects it was only at the very last stage that the changes
were incorporated into a mixed-down rendered stereo file, then used for
CD-Mastering.
That's really interesting. You see, I have been a long-time believer,
and a strong believer, in the 'bits are bit's' theory. And as far as
things go that are measurable by bits, it probably still holds true. But
we're talking perception here.
Oddly enough, I have NEVER made intermediate copies of my work. Not even
of software. When I write a piece of software I can't stand writing from
a backup copy. I have always explained this through the 'danger of
getting a subtly wrong version' or something of the like. I have also
explained my desire to not make unnecessary intermediate copies of music
with the principle of simplicity, all that copying going on, all that
data moving for nothing simply didn't feel right for me. I have been
convinced that making backup copies is simply a bad working habit that
will make my sound crappy by invoking my own flaws. Now you come along
and tell me that it is all that AND that it physically sounds different!
Amazing.
(We don't even defrag the partitions with audio
data, although this
I have heard of
people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS simply by
thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the
'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five
hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not
even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise
margin. We need to stay open about things.
Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people
could do this. It's OK Carlo.
Boy I sure went out on a ledge for that one... Ouch... Thanks.
Whenever I mention my partner, it seems to evoke
negative responses.
You're charming the hell out all of us and we're probably all secretly
(or not so secretly) fantasizing about you. Forgive me for being so
candid, but sometimes I can get pretty turned on just reading your
posts. All the more the irony that you're only here because of your
husband's music... jealosy just tends to slap you in your face when
you're in a fantastic ASCIICOM wonderland and you get a stiff breeze of
monogamous culture shoved in your face.
I prefer not to do so, but since it is his music that
we are working to
produce, I cannot help mentioning him on occasion.
He prefers to speak through his guitar and his music, so the verbal
jousting is left to me.
Personally, I prefer mockery. If I'm going to reserve my freedom to mock
Paul I have to mock you (and myself) too. Mockery is breaking
taboo. It's important. It needs to be padded with a little gentleness
sometimes too. But in itself, I think it's vital.
By the way, I just inspected myself and realized I'm growing love
handles. Isn't there any PHYSICAL way to program computers?
I know what I hear, and that is enough for me.
I act in accordance with that perception and it has served me well.
It was never my intention to convert anyone to my perspective, or accept my
perceptions as theirs.
Heh... My perception of your perception of what's real is prompting me
to expand my bounderies and improve my thinking. Thanks.
Namaste
Gesundheit.
Carlo
6:39 a.m.
Science is *not* a religion. Religion is belief
based on faith (not
that I'm knocking faith). Science requires proof.
Proof is an interesting subject. May we discuss this a little? My theory
is that proof is simply 'an observation that you and I agree on'.
Proof assumes there exists absolute truth. This is a dangerous
position-- it tends to starts squabbles which can escalate into wars.
If you can get an unbiased third party to
administer the tests then
we would take it seriously.
The word 'unbiased' is problematic. If you take somone with a scientific
background, that person is biased by science. If you take someone with a
spiritual background, that person is biased by metaphysics. If you take
someone with both backgrounds, that person is biased by the synthesis of
science and metaphysics. My case is that it is impossible not to be
biased, and my evidence is that scientific theories change so
drastically over time. What do YOU think?
Neither he nor anyone else on this forum is
"disproving" your claim.
For us to disprove it you must first prove it using accepted methods.
That would be those double-blind tests again.
"Accepted". There it is again. Anything you derive from what is accepted
is scientific and differs from religion. However, the assertion of
something as 'accepted' is accepting it as faith. Maybe science is to
religion as capitalism is to absolutism. A little more leeway but very
similar.
Double blind tests can be very useful for a great number of things.
However, they have a bias: They neglect 'placebo'. However, we are
talking about listening experience here. And as far as consciousness
goes, placebo is pretty much all that exists. When you make music, the
science is simply good for getting the devices to reproduce it, and
perhaps make tools to make physical sounds. But when you make your
music, would you agree double blind tests are a way of creating some
kind of absolute measure on what good music is? Who would your focus
group be? How would you measure 'good'? Which QUESTION would you ask
your test? We have reached the limits of science... or haven't we? What
do *you* think?
But no one here is going to take you seriously unless
you can offer up proof of what you're saying.
I do!
I'll take anyone seriously who is saying something I haven't heard a
thousand times before. It's how innovation works.
Case: Scientists tend to be conformists.
Evidence: Not conforming to 'accepted' theories and procedures is
grounds for firing scientists in most labs.
Case: Conformism is bad for wealth.
Evidence: ALL entrepreneurs drive to differentiate themselves or they
will sell no products. Novelties often sell well BECAUSE they are new
and only later are scrutinized for other uses.
Case: Knowledge is a form of wealth.
Evidence: Make a sequencer or synthesizer without knowledge. Well used
synthesizers can reach out and touch people. That is a form of wealth.
Where am I going with this? I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps the
bottom line of this is we should use all accepted theory for what it is
good for and be prepared to discard it at the blink of an eye when
something new turns up.
I've offered a web link
by an engineer showing the frequency response of various tape recorders
versus a low end digital card and you've offered up a web link from a
mastering house doing a lot of hand waving. It's their business to
convince you that they have "golden ears" and that you need to use their
service to get the magical sound that you so desperately need. This all
comes down to one word - proof.
How do you know he didn't just make those up? It's likely he didn't, but
not certain. Science is useful, not truth.
But... That frequency scheme? It was great. Insightful. Thanks for
putting it up.
Carlo
7 a.m.
Maluvia wrote:
Carlo said:
>I have heard of people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS simply by
>thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the
>'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five
>hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not
>even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise
>margin. We need to stay open about things.
>
>
I have found that I can start cars by chanting to the Hindu god Ram as I
turn the start key. Start off slowly and quickly increase the pace of
the chanting. Never fails.
Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people
could do this.
I disagree, people repairing cars by telekinesis is potentially very bad
for the environment.
>So in my book, no, I do not believe that you are
deluding yourself. Bob
>Moog is said to have had EMOTIONAL CONNECTIONS with his synthesizers,
>and as far as I am concerned, they sure sound genuine. Maybe that's just
>the geek me, but I've seen people have really healthy relationships with
>technology and other 'inanimates'. And maybe that's just the nerd me,
>but I've seen some really unhealthy ways of people interacting with each
>other. So I like to joke a lot about technology and people being
>interchangable relationship-wise. It's a way of getting over a lot of pain
>
>
>I do not believe you are deluding yourself. I believe you are using your
>yet unexplained physical properties to influence your environment that
>could be observed by other people in the same situation also, but maybe
>not by someone using the same brand but different device as you, or a
>different person. But that's just a theory. It could be wrong.
>
>
Well, if Dr Emoto can change the structure of water crystals by simply
sticking emotive words onto the container, it makes it entirely possible
that one could change a sound simply by listening to it with a certain
intent. What is known is that we can certainly change our perceptions
with such mental intent. The effects of observation on subtle processes
is also a known factor. Being open-minded is a fine thing, but it has to
be tempered with sceptical discrimination. If you insist on engaging in
ungrounded speculation, expect to be shot down in flames by hard-headed
logicians.
cheers,
tim hall
/|\
8:17 a.m.
On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Carlo Capocasa wrote:
Double blind tests can be very useful for a great
number of things.
However, they have a bias: They neglect 'placebo'. However, we are
this is completely wrong. the purpose of a double blind test is to
destroy any possibility of a placebo effect. placebo effects can be seen
whenever the test subject can sustain a belief in a particular outcome
(e.g. the tablet they have given me will make me feel better, the
smaller loudspeakers have worse bass reproduction that those monster
units, the fostex converters can never sound as good as the apogees).
in unblind and single blind tests, nothing exists to prevent these pre-
existing beliefs from influencing the outcome (though single blind
removes the beliefs held by the test subject, it does not remove the
influence of the beliefs held by the tester). a double blind test
removes the placebo effect because:
* the test subject is exposed to several different conditions
(this is not medical testing)
* the test subject has no idea what equipment or signals
are used for each condition
the same holds true for the experimenter. they are both "blind" about
what is being tested at any point in time. no placebo effect.
8:37 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 19:52 -0800, Maluvia wrote:
i do not.
i said that unless you can demonstrate that you can detect them in a
double blind test, i do not believe that they exist. neither you nor
anybody else has ever (AFAIK) demonstrated that they can do this.
since double blind testing has utterly demolished several other commonly
held perceptual assumptions, it seems reasonable to dispute your claims
until they can be shown to survive this test.
good grief, i never suggested that you *leave*. stop being so absurdly
personal and read what i did suggest. if you want to discuss audio
fidelity and how to improve it, you would **be better off** in a forum
focused on such matters.
unless you can
detect them in a double blind test, they do not exist.
this has been hashed to death in audiophile journals for ten years, with
those claiming that double blind tests are not needed resorting to all
kinds of completely bizarre and utterly dubious statistical theories.
Come on Paul - just admit it: you simply don't agree with the concept that
these differences exist, and think anyone who does is nuts. I don't know if we are even talking about the same
thing here.
I am talking about taking a .wav file on a hard-drive, and proceeding to
burn that exact same file onto audio CDs at different burn speeds.
i'm willing to concede that there might be a difference in any
situation, but unless you can show that it is detectable in a situation
where your and my pre-existing beliefs about the truth cannot influence
your detection, then your claims are just hand waving.
even the advertising industry uses double blind testing for everything -
toothpaste, shampoo, food taste .. do you think that the sense of
hearing is somehow immune the very effects that they want to avoid as
well?
I am describing exactly what I hear, and you are free
to interpret that in
what you hear is subject to many influences beyond the variations in air
pressure arriving at your ears. i believe that apogee converters sound
better than anything else, and therefore i hear better sound from data
sent through them than the stuff sent through a fostex or behringer
unit. but i also acknowledge that this opinion has never been double
blind tested, and is merely based on a bunch of biases and suppositions.
yet i *do* hear a difference. so is that "exactly what i hear", or is
that just another instance of the very well established feature of our
perceptual processes that they can be influenced by our belief systems?
and if i used aversion therapy to convince your mind that 8 bit audio
sounded sweeter than 24 bit, and you could describe exactly what you
heard to confirm that it was indeed sweeter, would that make it any
different than the claims you are making now?
I submit that I can, but I don't think there will
be an opportunity to test
that out.
why is that *nobody* who makes these kinds of audiophile-esque claims is
ever willing to do the leg work? when the rest of the measurement
industry switched to double blind testing 40-50 years ago for everything
else, why is it that hearing is somehow exempt? and why do they put so
much effort into avoiding this simple test (which could be done in your
home with perhaps 30 minutes of set up time) ?
although we
have a few wizards of the DSP here, you'd better off in a more
general forum
Doubtless you would prefer that I leave - perhaps I will, perhaps not. And as those beliefs largely determine what we
perceive, the experience
part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be
modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded.
thanks for confirming my suggestions above. the claim that "maluvia's
belief system leads to an experience in which certain digital data
appears to differ from other digital data" is very different than the
more absolutist claim "certain operations on digital data result in a
different variation in air pressure arriving at maluvia's ear".
In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found
to be inconsistent
with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or
inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown.
why not try the experience of a double blind test? you haven't suggested
any test, any experience that any of us can try that would test your
claims. several of us have suggested to you that a double blind test
would test them and would provide you with a new experience that in your
words might be inconsistent with your current belief system.
9:33 a.m.
Hi Paul!
Thank you for blatantly ignoring my irrevent comments! I appreciate a
man with a sense of humor.
Aaahhh... that was a good one! :)
Well, as for neglection... I probably phrased it extremely poorly. As
you have so adequately phrased, it appears that double blind tests are
simply an excellent method for removing placebo effect from tests. I
didn't know that was the intent, and now I do. Great!
So... my whole point is, that this whole double blind thing is getting
out have hand. It's being treated like a holy grail, completely losing
track of the original intent. I can already see the old sea-dog on is
ship screaming "George! Throw a few double-blinds in to... Uh... Do
something!" and George waddles off and hoists the sail simply because he
knows this will calm the ship because he knows the old man simply wants
to sleep.
What I'm getting at here is, a double blind test is like a good
screwdriver bought in a quality hardware store. My question is: Are we
trying to screw a screw, or pound a nail? We are talking about listening
to MUSIC, for chrissake. Music's romantic. Music's emotional. And I'm
going to dedicate a friggin' SONG to Maluvia on why she has to be
represented to me by a bunch of ASCII characters. People get married
because they heard the same song together. Teenagers weep and wail and
spend all their pocket money on a guy goin so ooh ooh smoothey-moo in
his Mike. And is it a Behringer or an APG? Which brand of ship's engine
did the Titanic have? Did you see the typical reed-nautical mast right
behind Leonardo sinking in the icy water? Too bad it's covered up by
Kate Winslet's hand waving Bye Bye.
What I'm actually getting at here is: Double blind tests eliminate
placebo from research. Fine. But it also eliminates all the placebo that
is part of our everyday lives. Listen in to your average Teen Idol. He
wouldn't be all that much, but he's LEONARDO. LEONARDO!!! ALL MY FRIENDS
like Leonardo. How's that for placebo?
So much depends on placebo and we're ELIMINATING it? Have we gone stick
staring MAD?
Carlo
10:14 a.m.
(I might add, as one of your great admirers, that I feel deeply honored
by having a scientific discussion with you)
Carlo
11:09 a.m.
Now announcing a new mailing list! rosicrucian-audio-users!
subscription options available here:
http://towndowner.com/mailman/listinfo/rosicrucian-audio-users_towndowner.c…
All posts must include a quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, as (no
offense, but...) that was really the only part of this thread I've
appreciated (one man's trash...)
Back in my teenage years I used to read Tarot cards a lot. To this
day I have no doubt that I was truly and accurately predicting and
better understanding my own future. However, I have stopped the
practice, as in the passing years, I have lost the need to predict or
understand my future. I do, however, need to wash my dishes, clean my
room, and record more music.
All this would be more on-topic in the new rosicrucian-audio-users list!
Thanks again to Paul Davis, who I will not mock, but who clearly can
take it like a scholar.
Yours in plonk,
Dan
--
dan(a)towndowner.com dan(a)burntpossum.com daneasley(a)gmail.com
http://towndowner.com http://burntpossum.com
6665
days inactive
6666
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Carlo Capocasa -
Dan Easley -
Jan Depner -
Maluvia -
Paul Davis -
tim hall