Skip to main content

Topic: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio? (Read 12244 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #75
<snip>
I don't recall you admitting that sighted evaluations are generally invalid.  So, I have not confirmed your position at all.

You don´t need to confirm my position at all,

I don't need to, but it would be good for you if you had a confirmable position, particularly one other than "Yet another poorly educated, inexperienced, delusional Golden Ear with an obvious self-serving agenda"

Quote
Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests. The reason is quite simple; "blinding" removes just one cognitive bias, all others are still at work.

False. While removing cognitive bias is called blinding, many other experimental controls including some others that you mentioned can be called blinding.   IOW, some cats are called Tabby, but other cats are called by other names and they are still cats.

Quote
And the list of remaining bias effects is quite long, starting with Rosenthal and Hawthourne, covering presentation order and/or time order errors, habituation effect (strongly related to the internal criterion problem) and does not end with bias effects due to knowledge about the EUT.

Why are you wasting my time telling me things that you should know that am highly aware of and an experienced practitioner of the art of effectively managing those things and many other?

Quote
Nonusage of positive and negative controls makes incorrect results even more likely.

Ditto.

Quote
PS. Tom Nousaine noted the high error rate in same/different tests already back in 1990 and in other well documented (even with large samples) that fact is confirmed by error rates up to 80% in trials.

Yup, and he said it here:  DBT comments in Boston Audio Society journal.

He also said: "Note that the much attacked ABX technique, where a forced choice is made, is free of this problem." which one can easily interpret to mean that most of the audio DBTs that are done these days are free of this problem that somehow you feel compelled to be wasting our time with.


Experiments within Signal Detection Theory have shown that for example cash prizes directly influenced decision strategies of the participants.
 
Quote
That's the lie that audiophiles seem to like to gratify themselves with. They like to pretend that there is some kind of reasonable choice between their uncontrolled audiophile listening and DBTs, I am very irritated by that absence of a viable alternative to DBTs, but I can't find any. .No such thing seems to actually exist.  Do you know of one?

Quote
Have a look at fields of science where "blinding" is not possible or maybe even ethically forbidden. They do controlled tests without "blinding" and it seems they nevertheless can achieve some valid work.

As you say, "some valid work". If you can put 2 and 2 together and get 4, you might realize that blinding is a recognized method for increasing the probability of obtaining valid work.  If you have any familiarity at all with the problem at hand you know that blinding is generally possible if not easy, and that there are no ethical problems at all.  Why are you wasting our time with this irrelevant drivel?

Quote
But, as we are able to incorporate the "blind" property we should do it, but your assertion that "sighted listening is invalid" isn´t correct, as impossibility to show validness isn´t the same as invalid.

Now you are splitting hairs. This isn't a theoretical math problem where bantering absolutes is relevant. This is practical, experimental work.  Impossibilitty to show validity might not be identically same as invalid, but in the circumstances it presents the rather significant relevant question of "why not?".  The answer to that question is frequently related to the fact that blind tests don't give the desired complementary and confirming answers to evaluations of snake oil.  And you may ask, how do we know that its snake oil, to which the answer is: "Study of the relevant technology".  That cuts most know-nothing audiophile eggspurts out of the action.

Quote
The problem with sighted listning tests (that could otherwise be controlled in the same manner as a controlled tests including "blindness") simply exists because one is not able to show the internal validity.

Doooh!

Quote
As said many times before, most people use controlled blind tests to confirm something they discovered during sighted listening; wouldn´t make much sense if sighted listening isn´t of merit.

Wrong again.

It is well known that sighted listening has very little merit, particularly if it involves smaller, harder to hear differences. It is well known that by improving the controls on the evaluation, which is sometimes generically called "Blind testing", the quality of the results may be improved.  Sighted testing for small differences has very little merit, which is why blind testing is used so often when people are serious about their work and have to submit it for approval by others, such as academic paper review boards.

Quote
Subjective evaluation deals a lot with bias effects, if participants aren´t not able to control (up to a certain degree) their bias, correct results were simply only due to chance.

Seeing the double negative, please get back to me when you have a coherent question for me to comment on. ;-)


  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #76
No they (E. Brad Meyer, David R. Moran) didn´t issue a press release; instead they used sort of guerilla marketing in forums promoting their publication.

Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

You don´t need to confirm my position at all
Indeed, because you have.
What sort of financial impact would M&M, Randi, etc. have on your belief based field?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • judd
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #77
Quote
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Do you have a source for this ? - I would very much like to read it.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #78
Do you have a source for this ?
Like the fabled list.
His hintere
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #79
Quote
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Do you have a source for this ? - I would very much like to read it.

The link to the gizmodo article, that Arnold B. Krueger gave in post #73 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113893.msg938547.html#msg938547

was imo quite correct overall, but was a bit unprecise in some details and time line info.
The start with Fremer accepting the challenge wasn´t the anouncement by Pearl Audio, but an email from Fremer to Randi, from which Randi quoted on a SWIFT webpage in Oktober 2007:
Quote
I will take the annoying Randi’s cable challenge once we agree to the protocol and I find it intended to be truly scientific and not designed to produce confusion.
.....
But never, mind. If we can agree on a high resolution audio system set up in a good room and agree on the test protocol (including my choice of expensive cable and the annoying Randi’s choice of cheap cable) I hereby accept the annoying Randi’s challenge. Now please stop the bullshit on your site about how no audiophiles are willing to accept the annoying Randi’s challenges. I’m doing it right here and now (10/3/07)

And Randi quoted from his answer to Fremer:
Quote
In accordance with Fremer’s suggestion, I’m sure that we can agree on a “high resolution audio system set up in a good room,” and we can agree on the test protocol. Also, the choice of cables will be both his and mine, as he suggests.

Source: SWIFT October 12, 2007
Swift
Written by James Randi
Thursday, 11 October 2007 10:07



  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #80
Michael Fremer weaseled out.....
Yep, just like you and the "burned" cable challenge. When it comes time to expose oneself as total deluded audiophools...

Oh yes...and that fabricated, imaginary "list"


Let´s see what you´ve done; you faked a citation box´s content and added a blatant lie (non existence of weasel out by me), that is a new low, even if considering your usual forum behavior.

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #81
According to this source, we have "Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder". If you know anything about organizations, those titles are often ceremonial. 

As you´ve said "quite often ceremonial" and quite often it is not. ;)
Btw, who is splitting hairs now? Did it matter at this point?


  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #82
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....a blatant lie
Exactly!

Let´s see what you´ve done
I've pointed out your blatant lies about Oohashi BS as unsubstantiated and now contradicted BS.
Your blatant lie about Meyer and Moran.
I also called out your blatant lie about your "list".

So, got any evidence for Hi Re$, other than profits?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #83
<snip>
False. While removing cognitive bias is called blinding, many other experimental controls including some others that you mentioned can be called blinding.  IOW, some cats are called Tabby, but other cats are called by other names and they are still cats.

As in the case of "replication" you simply have to remember that "blind test" and "double blind test" as well have a special meaning and that deals with the removal of a certain cognitive bias (i.e. to know about ....) any other detail of a test isn´t subsumed.

Quote
Why are you wasting my time telling me things that you should know that am highly aware of and an experienced practitioner of the art of effectively managing those things and many other?

First reason, you seemto forget about those things.
Second, given the amount of bickering and ridicule in your posts, you have a hard time to convince me on the "wasting my time" part; you imo like to waste time. :)

But anyway, now you´re saying that "seasoned practitioner ...." , which makes sense, but unfortunately a lot of people doing "controlled listening tests" aren´t anything but "seasoned practitioners", or as Bech/Zacharov wrote so aptly:

Quote
Almost everyone listens to soundmost of the time, so there is often
an opinion that the evaluation of audio quality must be a trivial matter.
This frequently leads to a serious underestimation of the magnitude of
the task associated with formal evaluations of audio quality, which can
lead to compromised evaluations and consequently the poor quality
of results.
Such a lack of good scientific practise is further emphasised
when results are reported in journals or at international conferences
and leads to a spread of scientific darkness instead of light.
(Bech/Zacharov: Perceptual Audio Evaluation–Theory, Method and Application. John Wiley & Sons, 2006, page XII.)

Quote
<snip>
He also said: "Note that the much attacked ABX technique, where a forced choice is made, is free of this problem." which one can easily interpret to mean that most of the audio DBTs that are done these days are free of this problem that somehow you feel compelled to be wasting our time with.

"Is free of this problem" which one can easily interpret to mean "but not from others" and that is a correct interpretation. As researchers noticed already in the ~1960s, results can be different when comparing A/B and ABX results and they concluded that the reason were the different mental processes involved.

But anyway, does the argument that "seasoned practitioners" ,taking great care in planning and performing of a controlled listening test are able to get correct results, really invalidates my assertion? (i.e. its as easy to get incorrect results ....)

Quote
As you say, "some valid work". If you can put 2 and 2 together and get 4, you might realize that blinding is a recognized method for increasing the probability of obtaining valid work.  If you have any familiarity at all with the problem at hand you know that blinding is generally possible if not easy, and that there are no ethical problems at all.  Why are you wasting our time with this irrelevant drivel?

Wrt "increasing the probability of obtaining valid work", did i say something different? :)
As mentioned before, you obviously like to waste a lot of time with making things up.

Quote
Now you are splitting hairs. This isn't a theoretical math problem where bantering absolutes is relevant. This is practical, experimental work.

In the case of controlled testing, it´s worth to be precise......

Quote
The answer to that question is frequently related to the fact that blind tests don't give the desired complementary and confirming answers to evaluations of snake oil. 

To be precise is of utmost importance if people are using "blind tests" as knockout argument, while accepting even the sloppiest methodology if it confirms their believes.


Quote
Wrong again.

It is well known that sighted listening has very little merit, particularly if it involves smaller, harder to hear differences.

Now you are sidestepping.



  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #84
There were several follow up studies, the most recent one published in 2017, done by various experimenters and in every case some confirmation for those hypersonic effects was found. (if somebody is interested i´ll provide some citation for those too)

I do remember that pioneer introduced their socalled music-link digital filter in CD players during the 90s because listeners would prefer the reproduction if some content above 20kHz is included.  (afair according to pioneer based on listening tests)

As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Blatant lies. A new low, even for you.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #85
There were several follow up studies, the most recent one published in 2017, done by various experimenters and in every case some confirmation for those hypersonic effects was found. (if somebody is interested i´ll provide some citation for those too)

I do remember that pioneer introduced their socalled music-link digital filter in CD players during the 90s because listeners would prefer the reproduction if some content above 20kHz is included.  (afair according to pioneer based on listening tests)

As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Blatant lies. A new low, even for you.

Agreed. In his last alleged response to one of my posts, after I removed the dissembling,  lies and distortions, there was nothing left to respond to, so I didn't.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #86
The link to the gizmodo article, that Arnold B. Krueger gave in post #73 https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,113893.msg938547.html#msg938547

was imo quite correct overall, but was a bit unprecise in some details and time line info.
You're a blatant liar. Pear cable weaseled out, then your fellow ilk Fremer. He refuse to use the magic pears (original challenge) and insisted on using this "cable" replete with gamebox.
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97

Needless to say Randi dismissed this cowardice by your ilk.
So lies about M&M, lies about Oohashi, lies about Fremer and lies about a "list".
Jakob2, you've been exposed as another fraud. Nothing but another believer cloaking themselves with "science ish" sounding BS
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • judd
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #87
He refuse to use the magic pears (original challenge) and insisted on using this "cable" replete with gamebox.
http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97


from that link:
"And now let's gently touch ground: A 1m pair of Zero interconnects will set you back $14,900. I am sorry.

Here's the good news: A 2m pair of Zeros also costs $14,900. So does a 3m pair. The length required to go from my preamp to my amps costs a not-so-cool $17,000"


 :o  :o  :o

That would be hilarious if it wasn't so obscene !

  • Palladium
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #88
Yup. Dunning-Kruger + a financial self-interest in peddling woo-woo products = hilarity.


  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #89
<snip>
You're a blatant liar. Pear cable weaseled out, then your fellow ilk Fremer. He refuse to use the magic pears (original challenge) and insisted on using this "cable" replete with gamebox. <snip>

I´m sure, in your world that might have had happen, but in _reality_ Fremer and Randi were negotiating about a test of _speaker_ _cables_ ....

The pearl guys could weasel out all night long, it is completely irrelevant to the Fremer/Randi challenge case. You need a person to do the test, and that was Michael Fremer and you need some ridiculously priced loudspeaker cables to test against the mentioned good monster cables.

Direct insults will not help your case.
  • Last Edit: 26 April, 2017, 06:21:18 AM by Jakob1863

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #90
I´m sure, in your world that might have had happen, but in _reality_ Fremer and Randi were negotiating about a test of _speaker_ _cables_ ....
Right and in your believer busine$$m, a "gamebox" is needed for million $ "cable" games, to ensure probable outcome. $7k magic cables (no gamebox attached) just won't do for those believer elite aural athlete "ears".

The pearl guys could weasel out all night long
Did, not "could", just like your hero Fremer...and you, with "burn" in cable challenge. Your believer hearing doesn't fare well in physical reality.

You need a person to do the test, and that was Michael Fremer and you need some ridiculous priced loudspeaker cables to test against the mentioned good monster cables.
Right, so why do you believers need a gamebox for a cable test?
Yep, reality is a bitch. Weasel cowards need not apply.
  • Last Edit: 26 April, 2017, 06:23:31 AM by ajinfla
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #91
<snip>
Right and in your believer busine$$m, a "gamebox" is needed for million $ "cable" games, to ensure probable outcome. $7k magic cables (no gamebox attached) just won't do for those believer elite aural athlete "ears".

What is a "gamebox" ? Was a "gamebox" attached to Fremer´s own loudspeaker cables?

Quote
<snip>
Did, not "could",......

Beside semantics, it is still irrelevant to the Fremer/Randi challenge, because, as said before, the challenge is about a test of a ridiculously priced loudspeaker cable against a cheap monster loudspeaker cable.

Quote
....
...and you, with "burn" in cable challenge.

So you repeated a blatant lie. We both know that there was no "burn in cable challenge" from that i´ve weaseled out.
Repetetion will not help your case. Provide evidence or simply shut up.

Quote
<snip>
Right, so why do you believers need a gamebox for a cable test?<snip>

Naive people might be afraid of "boxes" attached to cables, but physical reality means that one is able to examine the "box impact" by measurements.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #92
Naive people might be afraid of "boxes" attached to cables, but physical reality means that one is able to examine the "box impact" by measurements.

Depending on the box, the observed impact ranges from nothing, where the box was a dummy, to should be obviously audible, where the box eliminated the cable as a reasonab le high fidelity component. I suspect that Randii's consultants had a good estimate of Fremer's technical knowledge and personal  integrity (both are well known in the audio industry), and therefore advised that he stick to the original agreement.

So Jakob which high end publication or vendor do you represent if not all of them?  Every time you've been presented with an opportunity to criticize science and engineering you do so, and every time you've been presented  with a opportunity to criticize he high end audio establishment, you've deferred.
  • Last Edit: 26 April, 2017, 10:00:08 AM by Arnold B. Krueger

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #93
What is a "gamebox" ?
It's what a weasel needs as a variable to game a "cable" test, as you know.

Was a "gamebox" attached to Fremer´s own loudspeaker cables?

So blind as well as deaf trolling.

Beside semantics, it is still irrelevant to the Fremer/Randi challenge, because, as said before, the challenge is about a test of a ridiculously priced loudspeaker cable against a cheap monster loudspeaker cable.
Which is exactly what the Pear cable was. But your weasel hero got scared, so he was forced to move the goal post to his gamebox cables, knowing fully well that added variable box would be his weasel way out, as it adds a non-cable variable that would force testing etc on Randi...which is not Randis burden, especially with his $million on line.
What weasels your ilk are!

So you repeated a blatant lie. We both know that there was no "burn in cable challenge" from that i´ve weaseled out.
Repetetion will not help your case. Provide evidence or simply shut up.

http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39226

Quote
Jakob2
Now we are back at the beginning. You´ve send a set of cables to a listener and got his correct response.

Jinjuku
I've gotten no response because no one will participate (in the burned cable test challenge)

Jakob2
The McGurk effect isn´t an appropriate example in our context and not all humans experience it and a newer study draw the conclusion that it depends on training too.

Jinjuku
You (Jakob2) are free to substitute opinion with, you know, actual data.(ie TAKE THE TEST)
You know why weasels wont take that test, don't you Jakob2

Naive people might be afraid of "boxes" attached to cables, but physical reality means that one is able to examine the "box impact" by measurements.
Cowardly weasels might be afraid of cables for a cable test, but there is zero onus on rational people to allow any "box", or need to test anything, including gameboxes, for the sake of weasel cowards shift goalposts, to weasel out of cable tests, not cable + gamebox+ insert other variable here "tests".


  • Last Edit: 26 April, 2017, 09:11:49 AM by ajinfla
Loudspeaker manufacturer

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #94
Naive people might be afraid of "boxes" attached to cables, but physical reality means that one is able to examine the "box impact" by measurements.

Depending on the box, the observed impact ranges from nothing, where the box was a dummy, to should be obviously audible, where the box eliminated the cable as a reasonab le high fidelity component. I suspect that Randii's consultants had a good estimate of Fremer's technical knowledge and personal  integrity (both are well known in the audio industry), and therefore advised that he stick to the original agreement.

So Jakob which high end publication or vendor do you represent if not all of them?  Every time you've been presented with an opportunity to criticize science and engineering you do so, and every time you've been presented  with a opportunity to criticize he high end audio establishment, you've deferred.


It is surprising, that you based your critique on the cited statement, as it is obviousliy the opposite of your assertion. In it i _do_ _encourage_ people to use scientific and engineering principles to get an informed assessment instead of a naive rejection of "evil boxes doing magical things".

Wrt your (later added) first paragraph, there was no original agreement on cables; the original confirmation from Randi that the choice of cables would be done by both (means by Fremer and Randi) i have cited a couple of posts above.
In addition, Fremer´s own loudspeaker cable seem to be "boxless" and Randi, according to the gizmodo article you´ve cited, did not object against a test with Fremer´s cable overall, but suddenly didn´t  want to use it at that point (for magical reasons...).
They were clearly in the middle of the negotiation process and Randi suggested a test between Pearl Anjou and Monster or a test between Transparent Orpheus/Opus and Monster; Fremer responded to Randi´s suggestions with:

Quote
Since I have not heard either the Pear Anjou or the Transparent Opus, and since I don't necessarily think that "expensive equals better," there are three options:

1) I request a set of Pear Anjou cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

2) request a pair of Transparent Orpheus cables to hear what they sound like and then decide whether i can hear the difference between them and whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

3) have you sign off on okaying me to use my reference TARA Labs Omega cables ($16,000 pr.) versus whichever set of Monster cables you identify as "good."

Once this is clarified we will take it the next step and I will state clearly what abilities I intend to demonstrate.

-Michael Fremer

Note, while Fremer´s cable did not have a "magic box" the Orpheus/Opus cable that Randi suggested...did have those "evil boxes".

Randi answered to this proposal with:

Quote
From: "James Randi"
Date: October 15, 2007 7:53:58 PM EDT
To: "'Michael Fremer'"
Subject: RE: BTW

I think I'd go with option 3, for simplicity, but I'll have to consult with my advisors, first.

(Source for both citations is a Randi.org webpage from 10/23/2007, "Current comments on cable challenge" )

But anyway, please think about it for a moment; along the negotiation an agreement about the system (including amp and loudspeaker) would have been reached and of course a set of measurements as well. Randi would not have liked (for good reason) to pay a million for detecting an amp, that is simply oscillating with the "high end cable" but not with the "monster" or the other way round, and he would have not liked (for good reason) to pay a million for detecting differences above the usual hearing thresholds. So the agreement of system and specs was mandatory but at that point it wasn´t done.
  • Last Edit: 27 April, 2017, 07:00:17 AM by Jakob1863

  • pelmazo
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #95
The pearl guys could weasel out all night long, it is completely irrelevant to the Fremer/Randi challenge case. You need a person to do the test, and that was Michael Fremer and you need some ridiculously priced loudspeaker cables to test against the mentioned good monster cables.
I don't think it is irrelevant at all. By pulling out, the pear guys changed the situation for everyone else.

It is to be expected that in such a challenge, which is not just about a significant amount of money, but also about the corresponding publicity, that people will play games. So if people don't weasel out at some point, realizing that their chances of winning are slim, they will want to put the blame for a fail on the other side. No surprise here.

Pear played that game right from the start, by accusing Randi of not playing fair. You can always assert that, regardless of any evidence. You just have to live with the fact that for some spectators, it will look like you are chickening out. The odds are that your believers will still believe you, maybe a bit more staunchly than before, and your sceptics will still be sceptical, maybe a bit more complacently than before. A quack who is happy with his current flock of believers will therefore tend not to engage with Randi.

I'm sure Randi is completely aware of the mechanics of this situation. It is his obvious goal to make quacks look bad. The way to do that is to tickle their self-importance and self-delusion. This will not work with a quack who knows that he's a quack, and conducts his business with full awareness of its fraudulent nature. I'm led to assume that Pear belong to this group.

I see Fremer differently; he seems to me of the self-delusional kind, which makes him a more likely Randi prey. The problem there is that such people have a distorted view of reality, and suspect foul play where there isn't. Coming up with a modus operandi for a test that is accepted by both sides is a major challenge, because those people will make it as complicated as possible for you. This is partly a result of their insecurity, and partly a method of seeking a good exit path that leaves the blame on the other side. I had my share of experiences with such people, and it went as far as being accused of changing the conditions after the fact, despite obvious and clear written documentation to the contrary.

In the case of Fremer, it would have been his own task of coming up with a test design that finds Randi's acceptance. He is the one who claims to hear the difference, so he is the one who should know what the right circumstances are for a test. Randi is absolutely entitled to reject a test that he thinks may not be free of biases or tricks. And he is entitled to call it a day when he thinks that his opponents just complicate matters in order to be able to put the blame on someone else.

Now, your sympathy may lie with whoever you choose, but I think the Pear people look a lot worse than Randi in this. Fremer didn't have to prove his sophomoric claims, but I think it is pretty clear that he'd lose any well-executed cable test. He just doesn't believe it.

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #96
<snip>
It's what a weasel needs as a variable to game a "cable" test, as you know.

So, you really believe in the magic of those "gameboxes" because no scientific or engineering assessment of the "box effect" is known to man. :)

Quote

So blind as well as deaf trolling.

In that pic Fremer´s loudspeaker cable still isn´t shown, or is it?

Quote
Which is exactly what the Pear cable was. But your weasel hero got scared, so he was forced to move the goal post to his gamebox cables, knowing fully well that added variable box would be his weasel way out, as it adds a non-cable variable that would force testing etc on Randi...which is not Randis burden, especially with his $million on line.
What weasels your ilk are! <snip>

Let´s see what the state of your premises is:
1.) Fremer´s loudspeaker cables were equipped with "gameboxes" ...... blatantly wrong
2.) Fremer got scared and moved the goal post....... blatantly wrong, see the cited messages between Fremer and Randi
3.) an implicit one; i.e. testing wouldn´t have been needed without "game boxes"......wrong, see the short explanation in my answer to Arnold B. Krueger.

  • Last Edit: 27 April, 2017, 07:41:23 AM by Jakob1863

  • Jakob1863
  • [*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #97
<snip>
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39226

Quote
Jakob2
Now we are back at the beginning. You´ve send a set of cables to a listener and got his correct response.

Jinjuku
I've gotten no response because no one will participate (in the burned cable test challenge)

Jakob2
The McGurk effect isn´t an appropriate example in our context and not all humans experience it and a newer study draw the conclusion that it depends on training too.

Jinjuku
You (Jakob2) are free to substitute opinion with, you know, actual data.(ie TAKE THE TEST)
You know why weasels wont take that test, don't you Jakob2

Oops, he did it again.....

Somehow you´ve forgotten to mention that you´ve altered the content of the citation boxes again.
The bold additions weren´t written by the member Jinjuku but by yourself. Btw, my nick overthere is the same as it is in this forum "Jakob1863" .

And you carefully included the "(ie TAKE THE TEST)", which is a sad case of purposely falsefying the real content.

At that point Jinjuku and i were discussing the flaws of "sighted listening"; junjuku argued that it "sighted listening is inherently and completely flawed" and supplied a video about the McGurk effect as confirmation.
I responded with "The McGurk effect isn´t an appropriate example in our context and not all humans experience it and a newer study draw the conclusion that it depends on training too."

Jinjuku answered with:
"You are free to substitute opinion with, you know, actual data."

Apparently he wasn´t referring to any "cable burn in test", but actual data for my assertion about the McGurk effect.

(source:  http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39226)

Additionally he, earlier in that thread, pointed out, that he wants to test listener´s claims about audibility of a cable burn in effect. As i never claimed to hear a burn in effect in cables there was no test to weasel out.

(Source for Jinjukus "test a listener´s claim" :http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38837

It´s a shame what you´re doing......
  • Last Edit: 27 April, 2017, 08:16:41 AM by Jakob1863

  • bennetng
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #98
I don't know the details of the whole dispute but about the "box" thing...

Does it look like a "cable"?
http://www.creative.com/emu/products/product.aspx?pid=19089

In fact it is a MIDI to USB interface. Some manufacturer made it into this shape:
https://www.amazon.com/SANOXY-Cable-Converter-Keyboard-Window/dp/B0017H4EBG

So it has a "box" like thing attached, but this one and the E-MU one are basically the same thing.

Also, think about those tiny receiver/dongle/flash memory...
https://www.sandisk.com/home/usb-flash/ultra-fit-usb
The whole circuit/chip/controller... whatever you called can be fitted into the socket itself, totally stealth.

Things cannot be judged by apperaneces without disassembling them, and whether the "box" is used or not doesn't seem so important to me.

  • ajinfla
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Reply #99
So, you really believe in the magic of those "gameboxes" because no scientific or engineering assessment of the "box effect" is known to man. :)
No, a weasel will find any way out of a cable test, by introducing a magic gamebox into a "cable" test. Weasels will defend other weasels for doing so, as you know. Plus, as you could never grasp, the burden is not on non-weasels to test extraneous magic boxes for a Pear cable expensive cable test.  So a non-weasel would simply dismiss this cowardly weasel attempt to subvert a cable test, which of course, a weasel will then claim is the fault of the non-weasel. As you know.

In that pic Fremer´s loudspeaker cable still isn´t shown, or is it?
So weasels will pretend not to see the link provided with the pic and where it came from. Shocking.

1.) Fremer´s loudspeaker cables were equipped with "gameboxes" ...... blatantly wrong
2.) Fremer got scared and moved the goal post....... blatantly wrong, see the cited messages between Fremer and Randi
3.) an implicit one; i.e. testing wouldn´t have been needed without "game boxes"......wrong, see the short explanation in my answer to Arnold B. Krueger.
Believer pecuniary interests and weaselness causes delusions, yes. True.

So when will you accept Jinjukus cable challenge to you and provide some data? How is weasel hearing?
Loudspeaker manufacturer