Hydrogenaudio Forums

Hydrogenaudio Forum => General Audio => Topic started by: krabapple on 2017-04-05 20:14:32

Title: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-05 20:14:32
I won't give away the answer  ;)

Nice thorough article  by Archimago.

https://archimago.blogspot.com/2017/04/musings-do-we-need-those-20khz.html
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-05 23:10:34
Well, to put it in perspective, if 70+ yr old Dunning-Kruger audiophiles (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18367-Introspection-and-hyperbole-control/page43) can "hear" improvements with an amp stand (http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/critical-mass-systems-maxxum-amplifier-stand/), anything is possible, like their 10Khz ears "hearing" 20+ Khz
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-06 08:52:43
Well, to put it in perspective

OK, so the perspective you want to promote, is some internet idiot said ...

I think I'll take it out of that perspective and return to the perspective the OP links to: what sense can we make out of scientific research?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-06 10:43:47
In the end, it comes down to the same thing: there are those that believe their imagination is real and those that don't.

Have "heard" those Tannoy supertweaters at a friend's house. His sources were vinyl and CD, not even high-sample-rate digital. I didn't bother to ask him where he thought the >20kHz was coming from. Or if he enjoyed the >20kHz noise that might have been coming from his LPs. Hey, it was a social visit, and I did very much enjoy the audible-range sounds coming from the other drivers in his Tannoy speakers :)

And... 64 and can't even hear my favourite kitchen timer any longer, which my phone app tells me is 4k. So am disqualified from comment on what is or isn't there in the top couple of octaves of normally-audible music. And baby-bird song. And stuff.

Always enjoy Archimago's writing. Probably nothing new and this one and, as ever, the people that need to read it won't.
 
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: KozmoNaut on 2017-04-06 10:49:34
And... 64 and can't even hear my favourite kitchen timer any longer, which my phone app tells me is 4k. So am disqualified from comment on what is or isn't there in the top couple of octaves of normally-audible music. And baby-bird song. And stuff.

You probably have some hearing left above 4kHz, it is very common to have a dip around that frequency. I'm 31 and I have it too, only in my left ear.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that hearing damage around ~2kHz tends to harm ~4kHz more for some reason.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-06 11:04:34
so the perspective you want to "promote"
Nope, just your imagination, like audiophile 20k hearing.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Palladium on 2017-04-06 12:30:34
"Speaker non-linearities result in intermodulation and subharmonic distortions that may be audible <20kHz. This is reason not to record too much ultrasonic content nor try to reproduce it."

But-but-but if we don't intentionally degrade the signal with stupid then how do we get audio transparency?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-06 18:24:13
And... 64 and can't even hear my favourite kitchen timer any longer, which my phone app tells me is 4k. So am disqualified from comment on what is or isn't there in the top couple of octaves of normally-audible music. And baby-bird song. And stuff.

You probably have some hearing left above 4kHz, it is very common to have a dip around that frequency. I'm 31 and I have it too, only in my left ear.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that hearing damage around ~2kHz tends to harm ~4kHz more for some reason.

I'll have to listen to some test tones again, but I find it rather depressing.

But I do not play the audiophile numbers game (which would be even more depressing) because I know there is still plenty of music in the frequencies that I can hear. But cymbal sheen and "air," alas, no.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-06 20:53:07
Well, to put it in perspective, if 70+ yr old Dunning-Kruger audiophiles (http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18367-Introspection-and-hyperbole-control/page43) can "hear" improvements with an amp stand (http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/critical-mass-systems-maxxum-amplifier-stand/), anything is possible, like their 10Khz ears "hearing" 20+ Khz


pseudoscience is even better when it's all in blue

http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18367-Introspection-and-hyperbole-control&p=444653&viewfull=1#post444653
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-10 13:13:36
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

There are at least four different topics to discuss:
1.) does music exist that contains some energy above 20kHz?

As Boyk´s already cited paper shows, the answer has to be yes

2.) do microphones exist that are able to work sufficiently in the range above 20kHz?

The answer has to be yes, although certainly not every microphone used for recording is able to

3.) what about intermodulation distortion?

A valid concern, but if the microphones are source of IM distortions then we have to do some acoustical filtering between source and microphone to avoid IMD. Otherwise we have to realize that IMDs are already and inseparable imbedded in the recorded material.

The discussion about IMD reminds to a quite similar discussion roughly 60 years ago, when Olson tried to figure out if listeners would prefer full range sound or a bandwidth limited version of the "real thing". /1/

Of course high frequency content means higher risk of IMD, but that would only mean to use better equipment that does not suffer from higher IMDs due to extended high frequency content. (if human listener really prefer content including high frequency sound)

4.) do human listeners prefer or at least notice if music does contains energy above 20kHz (during the original event or the reproduction)?

After all these years that is still hard to answer. Up to a certain degree that reflects the general unwillingness to replicate studies done earlier.
Oohashi et al. examined the socalled Hypersonic Brain Effect and tried to get some more objective data by inclusion of PET scans and EEGs, but did a psychoacoustic evaluation as well . /2/

As usual there were much (sometimes heated) discussions about their study, but afaik no one tried to replicate it.
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)

/1/ Harry F. Olson, Frequency Preference for Speech and Music,  The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 19, 549 (1947)
/2/ Oohashi et al., Inaudible High-Frequency Sounds Affect Brain Activity: Hypersonic Effect, Journal of Neurophysiology Published 1 June 2000 Vol. 83 no. 6, 3548-3558
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-10 14:08:42
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

Archimago's posting is sufficiently up-to-date to know research that has refuted your reference (Oohashi). So if you want to update yourself, that is likely a good place for you to start.
Have a look at Ashihara and Kiryu (Acta Acustica 89 (2003) no.3 pp. 540ff (http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/dav/aaua/2003/00000089/00000003/art00017) also known in an earlier AES convention paper version (http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=10005)): the Oohashi result is due to intermodulation distortion. It was not the > 20 kHz content, it is the < 20 kHz content. 
Now, Ashihara's team themselves do routinely take care of IM distortion in their own research.  Still they do indeed find that certain subjects can detect 24 to 28 kHz - at ear-splitting volumes, that is. The results from one of those papers (none in that particular study caught the 28 kHz tone) is reproduced in Archimago's blogpost.


There are at least four different topics to discuss:
Brief answers to those: 1: Sure, 2: S(h)ure, 3: depends on equipment, and 4: not shown in actual music, but yes, for certain subjects  > 20 kHz can be detected if played back at levels so loud that the signal would destroy their ability to hear those tones, if the subjects were to actually listen to (hypothetical) music with that content. Whew, too long sentence.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-10 14:22:58
4.) do human listeners prefer or at least notice if music does contains energy above 20kHz (during the original event or the reproduction)?

After all these years that is still hard to answer.
No Jakob2. Only yours and other 70yr old elite aural athlete audiophile fantasies.

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.
Links, not innuendo.

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)
Links, not innuendo.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-10 16:03:00
<snip>
Archimago's posting is sufficiently up-to-date to know research that has refuted your reference (Oohashi). So if you want to update yourself, that is likely a good place for you to start.

May i politely ask that you don´t just trust Archimago´s writing but read the papers by yourself?

Quote
Have a look at Ashihara and Kiryu .......... the Oohashi result is due to intermodulation distortion. It was not the > 20 kHz content, it is the < 20 kHz content. 

The latter is your own conclusion from the former but it is not justified. Mainly because Oohashi et al. did use a seperate "super tweeter" that reproduced the "high frequency content" which is perfectly in line with the results from Ashihara and Kiryu. Methodologically spoken it could otherwise only give rise to valid concerns, but to conclude that Oohashi et al. experimental results were due to would not be justified.

Quote
Now, Ashihara's team themselves do routinely take care of IM distortion in their own research.  Still they do indeed find that certain subjects can detect 24 to 28 kHz - at ear-splitting volumes, that is. The results from one of those papers (none in that particular study caught the 28 kHz tone) is reproduced in Archimago's blogpost. <snip>

I´ve mentioned for good reasons that afaik nobody tried to replicate the experiments done by Oohashi et al.
Other experimenters doing vastly different experiments (means using different stimuli, different test protocols, examing different hypothesis) could provide additional valuable informations but that does not help wrt the hypersonic brain effect.

Archimago is of course right in mentioning that you can´t conclude from those experiments which proportion among listeners could benefit while listening to other music.

That he think´s that Oohashi´s (and that of the follow up studies) is too complicated is at least surprising, it is of course more comprehensive - and that seems to be usually a good idea - and simply tries, as said before, to get more objective data beside the psychoacoustical evaluation.
That we know since Craig Bennett´s "dead salmon story" that false positives are a serious problem in medical imaging is true, but again one has to dig deeper into the various papers to evaluate if their results suffer from these problems.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-10 16:08:39
<snip>No Jakob2. Only yours and other 70yr old elite aural athlete audiophile fantasies.

That´s ajinfla´s tales of mistery and imagination.... :)

Quote
Links, not innuendo.

As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Are you interested in real information or just in bickering?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-10 16:16:28
That´s ajinfla´s tales of mistery and imagination.... :)

 i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Ok, so this is all your imagination again, zero evidence.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-10 16:40:03
<snip>
Archimago's posting is sufficiently up-to-date to know research that has refuted your reference (Oohashi). So if you want to update yourself, that is likely a good place for you to start.

May i politely ask that you don´t just trust Archimago´s writing but read the papers by yourself?

Of course I have, while you were not even aware of their existence.

"for you to start" meant precisely that, since your reference list was obsolete years ago.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-10 16:53:27
<snip>Of course I have, while you were not even aware of their existence.
That´s a funny remark......, but if you have, why did you (incorrectly) report that "Oohashi´s results were due to IMDs and that it would follow from Ashihira´s paper?

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: evgenetic on 2017-04-10 17:01:06
As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.

it would literally take less time to provide the references than write that very sentence. why the beating around the bush?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-10 17:07:28
but if you have, why did you (incorrectly) report that "Oohashi´s results were due to IMDs and that it would follow from Ashihira´s paper?

Quote:
"When each ultrasonic component was not mixed with other components and presented through each of different loudspeakers in order to reduce intermodulation distortions, no subject could detect any ultrasounds in both experiments. It was concluded that addition of ultrasounds might affect sound impression by means of some non-linear interaction that might occur in the loudspeakers. It was also indicated that the ultrasounds would be extremely difficult to detect under an appropriate experimental condition."
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-10 17:52:43
it would literally take less time to provide the references than write that very sentence. why the beating around the bush?
"Good evening, ladies and cherms," says an intense young comic in a nearly empty club. "I chust flew in from Berlin and, boy, are my arms tired."
-Jakob2
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-10 18:23:45
Correction: pioneer´s invention was called "legato link conversion" (LLC)

@ evgenetic,

even not taken literally, that´s untrue... :)

@ porcus,
Quote:
"When each ultrasonic component was not mixed with other components and presented through each of different loudspeakers in order to reduce intermodulation distortions, no subject could detect any ultrasounds in both experiments. It was concluded that addition of ultrasounds might affect sound impression by means of some non-linear interaction that might occur in the loudspeakers. It was also indicated that the ultrasounds would be extremely difficult to detect under an appropriate experimental condition."

And now please compare that to the experimental setup used by Oohashi et al. and tell me where Oohashi did something comparable to the situation in which detection in Ashiara´s experiment was possible.
Compare the stimuli (duration, level of spectral components) number of loudspeaker used and effects measured.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-10 21:34:09
Flap, fap, fap
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-10 23:07:13
1.) does music exist that contains some energy above 20kHz?

Surely this question is easy to answer with measurement instruments that have a wider range than human hearing. An objective yes or no must be easy to come by. But permit me to be a little more philosophical.

Why wouldn't it? Or to put it another way, wouldn't it be rather strange if all the worlds instruments didn't produce sounds outside of the range of human hearing? The truly difficult thing would be to design and make all instruments so that they never exceeded that bracket of human hearing. Without the aforementioned instruments.

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

And... No, I have not read the paper(s) first hand, but isn't the problem with Oohashi that he looked for what he wanted to find? Isn't that the problem with quite a lot of people?


 
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-11 12:51:28
i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Crickets
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-11 14:52:58
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

There are at least four different topics to discuss:
1.) does music exist that contains some energy above 20kHz?

As Boyk´s already cited paper shows, the answer has to be yes

It also is an irrelevant question. The topic is "what is heard?" not "what exists".  I guess you haven't noticed that we live in a world where almost inconceivable amounts of just about anything can be measured, but the lower measured limits are irrelevant to human life.

So, the above question is a obfuscating distraction from the relevant question.  Shame!

Quote
2.) do microphones exist that are able to work sufficiently in the range above 20kHz?

The answer has to be yes, although certainly not every microphone used for recording is able to

Same problem as above, but the overstatement of the actual incidence of recordings with appreciable output > 16 KHz is noticeable if not telling.  The world is full of so-called professional recording microphones whose output is rolling off rapidly, starting as low as 12 KHz.  How many of which mics are used in any particular recording is not well-known, since it is no longer stylish to mention such things in publicity material or liner notes.  Furthermore, high frequency sound is absorbed by passage though air, and is far less likely to be reflected back into microphones by walls and floors.

Quote
3.) what about intermodulation distortion?

A valid concern, but if the microphones are source of IM distortions then we have to do some acoustical filtering between source and microphone to avoid IMD. Otherwise we have to realize that IMDs are already and inseparable imbedded in the recorded material.

Ignores the fact that the human ear produces large, audible amounts of nonlinear distortion all by itself.

Nonlinear disotrtion in the ear and brain (http://ethanwiner.com/ear_imd.htm)

Quote
The discussion about IMD reminds to a quite similar discussion roughly 60 years ago, when Olson tried to figure out if listeners would prefer full range sound or a bandwidth limited version of the "real thing". /1/

Of course high frequency content means higher risk of IMD, but that would only mean to use better equipment that does not suffer from higher IMDs due to extended high frequency content. (if human listener really prefer content including high frequency sound)


4.) do human listeners prefer or at least notice if music does contains energy above 20kHz (during the original event or the reproduction)?

They don't but for a reason that is very strong but infrequently mentioned: masking.  Sounds that are more easily heard are far more likely to mask sounds that are difficult or impossible to hear.   Just about every recording has a very significant roll-oof of high fequency energy starting as low as a few KHz.   Flether amd Munson proved that our ability to hear higher frequencies, particuarly above 10 KHz drops like a stone in water.

Quote
After all these years that is still hard to answer.

Maybe for the true believers who don't seem to understand that the concept of ultrasonic sound is a well-accepted concept, and that ultrasonic means above the audible range.

Quote
Up to a certain degree that reflects the general unwillingness to replicate studies done earlier.

The simplest possible study is, due to advances in modern technology, painfully easy to do. That you obviously haven't done so for yourself, but continue to pontificate on studies that in the end undermine your viewpoint, tells me exactly  how open-minded you really are, which is to say not at all. :-(

Besides the biggest study one can imagine was done about 10 years ago when the record industry released 100's and even 1000's of so-called hi-rez recordings on SACD and DVD-A that were based on low-rez masters. To this day there don't seem to be any golden eared reviewers who are able to man up and admit that they were fooled by their sighted evaluations, and heard no such problems at all either in the day, or until now.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-11 17:07:10
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

Yes.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-12 11:24:11
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.
What if instruments are what they are _because_ they produce some high frequency sound too? And the composers were composing the way they did _because_ it was more pleasant of the high frequency content?

Most of that development took place at a time were there was only the "real thing" but no recording/reproduction of a severely distorted version of the "real thing" (due to technical limitations).

Quote
And... No, I have not read the paper(s) first hand, but isn't the problem with Oohashi that he looked for what he wanted to find? Isn't that the problem with quite a lot of people?

If you see it that way...mustn´t you consider exactly the same problem if relying on second hand evaluation, because people reporting about could be biased too?

Every experiment has to start (or shall start) with a hypothesis that will be researched. Nearly every technical enhancement of audio gear (that i´m aware of) was up to a certain degree motivated by some finacial interest, but that does not invalidate the work per se.

A reader should keep in mind that some conflict might exist, but any evaluation has to be based on the things that are documented. That´s why it is so important to read the actual papers (not only abstracts or conclusions) to know what was really done.
And to evaluate it always in the same strict manner, no matter if you like the results or not.

There is always something to debate about, because perfect experiments are highly unlikely due to human erroneousness.


Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-12 12:45:23
First of all, if talking about pseudoscience or scientific reasoning/rigor at all, is archimago´s writing really on par?

Yes.


Agreed.

Interesting that an unfounded attack on a very accurate messenger is hidden under those  pretentious official-sounding words.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 13:12:33
motivated by some finacial interest
Like you. Hence your inability to present any evidence in support of Hi Rez and >20k hearing. None. Zero.

i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.

There is always something to debate about
Wrong. There is no debate that you have pecuniary interests and zero evidence. That freak Oohashi's industry funded nonsense has been debunked (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_effect). Except for those with $$ interest such as yourself.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 13:43:07
Btw, it appears this hyperbolic nonsense is worse up to 32KHz , the "Negative Hypersonic Effect (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464)"
Hmmm, so much for BS beryllium tweeters (https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/beryllium-dome-tweeters/seas-excel-t29b001-beryllium-dome-tweeter-e0058/) which are petering out in that range... ::)
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 13:53:08
We can expect Jakob2s evidence anytime now....right after he accepts challenge and identifies the "burned in" wires like he claims is possible here (http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823).
Flap, flap, fap, fap
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-12 14:18:21
<snip>
It also is an irrelevant question. The topic is "what is heard?" not "what exists". <snip>

Of course, the "can somebody hear it" part is what matters most, but, as we both knew from long forum years, the "can´t be because...." posts are inevitably occur; sometimes it can´t be because of microphones that are not capable , sometimes it´s the instruments that don´t have high frequency content, so it is imo an important point.

Quote
Ignores the fact that the human ear produces large, audible amounts of nonlinear distortion all by itself.

"Ignores the fact..." is a funny remark too, as it is simply another topic.

Quote
They don't but for a reason that is very strong but infrequently mentioned: masking.  Sounds that are more easily heard are far more likely to mask sounds that are difficult or impossible to hear.  Just about every recording has a very significant roll-oof of high fequency energy starting as low as a few KHz.  Flether amd Munson proved that our ability to hear higher frequencies, particuarly above 10 KHz drops like a stone in water.

"They don´t" is what you think/believe. Fletcher/Munson did not help much as it is related to something different (i.e. contours of equal loudness) and auditory masking is presumably not an appropriate mechanism in this context.
Just because there is no familiar sound masking another sound (i.e. what could in the case that isolated additional high frequency content is present) as the additional high frequency content is still related/connected to the various fundamental tones, so might only be sort of enhancement of something already present.

Quote
The simplest possible study is, due to advances in modern technology, painfully easy to do. That you obviously haven't done so for yourself, but continue to pontificate on studies that in the end undermine your viewpoint, tells me exactly  how open-minded you really are, which is to say not at all. :-( 

Or it is simply that you have forgotten what the meaning of scientific terms is. I was talking about "replication" which means _not_ doing something different (i.e. the simplest possible study) but replication of the original experiment. As i don´t have access to EEG or PET scanner there is no replication possible.

Of course replication is in this field of science more difficult as we deal with human detectors (means the listeners) that might be quite different in their detection ability and their immunity against enviremental factors, but leaving that point aside for the moment the remaining should be part of a replication approach.

As i´ve said right from the beginning afaik nobody tried has replicated Oohashi´s et al. experiment so the "debunking assertion" is very questionable itself. If you have actual citations that contradicts my impression i am all ears , but believes do not count.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 14:34:04
As i don´t have access to EEG or PET scanner there is no replication possible.
Completely unnecessary and that wouldn't make Jakob2 any $$ anyway.
Jakob2, all you need are audiophools already able (tons of subjects!) to hear Hi-Re$ using (tons of) widely available Hi-Re$ (>20KHz) music and a Hi-Re$ (>20KHz) playback system.
What are you waiting for???
Flap, flap, fap, fap...

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-12 14:45:21
......he claims is possible here[/url].
<snip>

Maybe i should have written "might be possible" to make it a bit easier to understand, but i really think a less religious like motivated reader than you understands it nevertheless.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 15:05:35
......he claims is possible here
Maybe i should have written "might be possible"
Or just take the test, instead of flapping. What are you afraid of?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-12 15:48:46
number of loudspeaker used and effects measured.

Funny you should mention the number of loudspeaker(s) (but not the fact that the Oohashi team uses own-designed tweeters without documenting their distortion characteristics). In fact, adding more speakers is one of the measures the Ashihara team routinely employed (even before the Oohashi 2000 publication) in order to isolate the IM effects.  Ashihara et al. conclude that they cannot find any effects once they do a proper setup.  This you would have known had you read the slightest bit more than what you had as of April 10th when you were ignorant about the mere existence of these studies.

And if you had updated yourself over the last fifteen years - rather than just knocking those who have! - you would have noticed that even the Oohashi team now claims the "hypersonic effect" to be at most zero up to past 30 kHz.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-12 19:59:41
@ Porcus,

as we now seem to agree that it does not follow from your cited statement that Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects, please consider that i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.

Afaik nobody else replicated their experiment, and Ashihara´s and several others were vastly different approaches. So it is simply incorrect to state that Oohashi et al. were debunked by .......´s study.

That´s the reason why i still cite it as a valuable reference.

P.S. wrt the subtopic (i.e. did Jakob1863 knew already about the other experiments or not :) ) if you need it,  i´ll cite some post from other forums from the past couple of years, but is it really important?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-12 21:27:20
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.

... ... ...


No, it is based on the premise that some slight hiss, higher than the highest hiss you ever heard, imagined, and then some, could not possibly be pleasant to hear, or have any useful effect on anything that we can here.

You can rebut that by saying that I don't know that, and you are right.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-12 21:37:49
Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects
Quite possible Jakob2, but that is speculation on your part. Where is the data for the IM tests and other system tests performed by Oohashi or any other believer such as yourself? You are hanging your hat on results of a system of unknown provenance?
Oh well, believers gonna believe. ;)

i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Your believer reading comprehension fails you yet again.

Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.
Yet Audiophools still can't tell the difference with their usual listening to Hi-Re$ music, even in their own systems.

i´ll cite some post from other forums from the past couple of years, but is it really important?
Sure, since you have nothing else. Zero evidence. Except Oohashis unverified nonsense. When we now know there might be a negative hyperbolic effect. Strange how you forgot to mention this.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-12 21:44:34

as we now seem to agree that it does not follow from your cited statement that Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects, please consider that i wrote for good reasons about the unwillingness to replicate studies/experiments.
Oohashi et al. did quite a bit more beside the usual listening test to get more objective data about what is happening during the listening.

Be my guest.

Show us that you can "Walk The Walk" by duplicating Ooashi's results and documenting them?

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-12 22:07:20
Tsutomu Oohashi -- visionary or crackpot

I research, you decide.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877437.html#msg877437

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877440.html#msg877440

And here's the genius at work:

http://www.sidianersatzvanes.com/supplemental/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/120403_SEV_OOHASHI_07_025_RGB_WEB.jpg

And that stuff is from >two years ago,  Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: judd on 2017-04-13 12:07:19
Tsutomu Oohashi -- visionary or crackpot

I research, you decide.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877437.html#msg877437

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php/topic,102670.msg877440.html#msg877440

And here's the genius at work:

http://www.sidianersatzvanes.com/supplemental/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/120403_SEV_OOHASHI_07_025_RGB_WEB.jpg

And that stuff is from >two years ago,  Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.

Krabapple  - Those threads with the numerous citations are an awesome resource. Thanks for that :) Much appreciated !
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-13 13:42:54
Jakob.  Time for you to catch up.
He's going to post that "more comprehensive reference list" any time now, along with his listening test results of the burned cables and the provenance test data for those Pioneer supertweeters+ system used by his crackpot hero Oohashi.
Boy are his arms tired!
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-13 17:19:35
I don't really give a flying f about replicating Oohashi's result.  MRIs?  please.  Meta-analysis to dig out possible positive nuggets?  please.  Can you say *stretch*?

Show me, instead, an audiophile who can identify CD rate vs hi-rez,  like *that* (snaps fingers), every time...under DBT conditions.  

Because that's what audiophiles, claim they (and sometimes 'even their wives') can do, sighted.  

They've been claiming it over and over and over, for decades now.

Find me *one* who can really do it.  
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-15 09:59:38
<snip>

The question is not is it there, it is is it useful. Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful? Would it even be pleasant? Higher than the highest hiss? I doubt it very much.

I beg your pardon, but that is sort of circular logic (at least it appears to me as if). The question is "does it make a (perceptable) difference" and your sentence above is based on the premise that it doesn´t , but you don´t know if that premise is true.

... ... ...


No, it is based on the premise that some slight hiss, higher than the highest hiss you ever heard, imagined, and then some, could not possibly be pleasant to hear, or have any useful effect on anything that we can here.

You can rebut that by saying that I don't know that, and you are right.


You started with the assertion "Is the sound that the composer couldn't conceive, the instrument makers and musicians can't hear, useful?" which is the part my argument was mainly directed too. Because it´s just the question if composer, instrument makers and musicians couldn´t / can´t hear it. The opposite hypothesis would be that the sound of instruments contains high frequency spectra _because_ composers, instrument makers etc. could/can perceive it.

Wrt pleasantness, of course you could nevetheless be right, but maybe a suitable analogy could be a driver only reproducing the spectrum <80 Hz. Not a pleasant sound as well, but we already know that adding this "unpleasant" sound to reproduction chain lacking the part below 80 Hz will indeed (quite often) be perceived as better (or more pleasant overall).
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-15 10:08:26
I don't really give a flying f about replicating Oohashi's result.  MRIs?  please.  Meta-analysis to dig out possible positive nuggets?  please.  Can you say *stretch*?

That you aren´t interested in that is of course a valid approach, but surely you are able to accept that it is nevertheless an interesting part of perception studies and therefore it is a valid approach to do such work.

Quote
Show me, instead, an audiophile who can identify CD rate vs hi-rez,  like *that* (snaps fingers), every time...under DBT conditions.
Exaggerations are common to all camps (unfortunately), be it the believers, the non-believers or the sometime believers. 

Quote
Because that's what audiophiles, claim they (and sometimes 'even their wives') can do, sighted. 

I´m sure that some audiophiles claim that, but i´m also sure that not all audiphiles claim that (and the wives can do it usually even unsighted ;) )

Quote
They've been claiming it over and over and over, for decades now.

Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;
did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen?
(Perhapy because it was so obvious?)

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: pelmazo on 2017-04-15 10:59:03
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;
did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen?
(Perhapy because it was so obvious?)
Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you? ;-)

Here's what they wrote in the AES journal in 2007; I include their entire chapter 4 so that context is preserved:
Quote
Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better. Had we not “degraded” the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them.

Plausible reasons for the remarkable sound quality of these recordings emerged in discussions with some of the engineers currently working on such projects. This portion of the business is a niche market in which the end users are preselected, both for their aural acuity and for their willingness to buy expensive equipment, set it up correctly, and listen carefully in a low-noise environment.

Partly because these recordings have not captured a large portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them, without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label. High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do.

Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference. They would not, however, find such a reliable conduit to the homes of those with the systems and listening habits to appreciate them. The secret, for two-channel recordings at least, seems to lie not in the high-bit recording but in the high-bit market.

So yes they found the hi-res recordings did sound better than the CD recordings, and yes it seems to have been obvious enough. But even if it hadn't been that obvious, there wouldn't have been reason to check it with a controlled listening test, because their research topic wasn't the comparison between hi-res recordings and CD-recordings, but between hi-res recording formats and the CD format. They didn't want to show that CD releases sound the same as hi-res releases, they wanted to show that the CD release could sound the same as the hi-res release, if treated with the same care in production. In other words, that the format isn't to blame for the sound differences.

Their chapter 4 was an attempt at explaining where those differences originate, given that they were demonstrated to not be due to the CD format. And their explanation, while not the result of scientific investigation, is entirely plausible. It is offered as a note, which makes it clear that no scientific rigor is to be assumed or demanded regarding this explanation.

I really have no tolerance for the often malicious ways in which their paper is being criticised, and you are no exception here.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-15 12:29:11
surely you are able to accept that it is nevertheless an interesting part of perception studies and therefore it is a valid approach to do such work.
No, unverified and contradicted industry sponsored crackpot nonsense is only of interest to believers with Hi Re$ pecuniary interests, like yourself.

Exaggerations are common to all believers
Not to mention evasion, obfuscation, etc. as you confirm.

I´m sure that some audiophiles claim that
Yes, along with wire "burn in", etc, etc, being "possibly" audible, while evading any test that would expose them as deluded fools, as you are keenly aware of.  ;)

Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions
Yet another delusion of yours, projected as reality.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-17 01:55:30

Exaggerations are common to all camps (unfortunately), be it the believers, the non-believers or the sometime believers. 

Ah, the ever-popular 'buh buh both sides do it' argument.   How old are you, Jakob?  How many years of audiophile rhetoric have you experienced?  Someone my age (mid 50s) who's been following along know very well where the balance of 'exaggerations' rests on this matter.  Do you?

Quote
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;  did i miss the controlled listening test that confirms their assertion or did it simply not happen? (Perhapy because it was so obvious?)

It's not like their perception isn't in accord with what one would predict though.  "hi rez"  = better, right? (though in fact, hi rez masterings *can* be just as dynamic-range limited as CD releases; M&M assumed the masterings were more high-fidelity). 
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-17 02:38:04
Meyer/Moran for example also wrote that every "hirez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions;

Ou of context paraphrase. The correct statement is that Meyer/Moran  wrote that every "Hi Rez record" they did use, delivered much better sound quality than the CD-versions. even when its resolution was reduced to CD quality.

IOW the attribute of the so-called Hi Rez recordings that they liked  was independent of their resolution. How can this be? The answer is that the Hi Rez recordings were also remastered and it was the remastering, not the higher resolution that they preferred.

In retrospect, we now know that about half of the Hi Rez recordings weren't actually Hi Rez because they were made from low-Rez masters. This confirms the evidence that their improved sound quality did not come from being Hi Rez. The improved sound quality came from being remastered.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Palladium on 2017-04-17 06:01:56
surely you are able to accept that it is nevertheless an interesting part of perception studies and therefore it is a valid approach to do such work.
No, unverified and contradicted industry sponsored crackpot nonsense is only of interest to believers with Hi Re$ pecuniary interests, like yourself.

Ah yes, the classic tactic of:
-Equating an possibility as actual evidence.
-Shifting the burden of proof to the non-believers.
-When all else fails, play the victim card.

The denialism and sunk cost fallacy must be taking their toll. Now excuse me while I enjoy music on a $20 IEM with an iPhone,
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-18 12:24:00
<snip>
Ah, the ever-popular 'buh buh both sides do it' argument.   How old are you, Jakob?  How many years of audiophile rhetoric have you experienced?  Someone my age (mid 50s) who's been following along know very well where the balance of 'exaggerations' rests on this matter.  Do you?

First, i was simply stating a fact; i´m sure as a grown up, you´re able to accept a fact.
Second, in my book is stating the impossibility of perception (of a certain effect) and doing simply sloppy tests to examing equally doing harm as it is the audiophile generalization routine.

Quote
<snip>It's not like their perception isn't in accord with what one would predict though.  "hi rez"  = better, right? (though in fact, hi rez masterings *can* be just as dynamic-range limited as CD releases; M&M assumed the masterings were more high-fidelity). 

No, they were adamant about the higher quality (means they stated it as a fact), and only assumed about the reasons ......
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-18 12:31:37
Oohashi´s results were due to intermodulation effects
Quite possible Jakob2, but that is speculation on your part. Where is the data for the IM tests and other system tests performed by Oohashi or any other believer such as yourself? You are hanging your hat on results of a system of unknown provenance?
Oh well, believers gonna believe. ;) <snip>

That is the second time in this thread that you distorted my posts into the opposite of what i´ve written (and or meant). I´m sure you are able to refrain form that sort of childish behaviour.

Oohashi et al. provided already a lot of detailed information in their published article. Inclusion of IMD measurement would have been better indeed although wrt to the spectral content and level of the high frequency content the assumption of "harmlessness" is justified.
But anyway it is a valid concern and should be evaluated too in further experiments.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-18 12:49:55
<snip>
Always eager to place a cheap shot, aren´t you? ;-)

Although i usually enjoy a good "reposte joke" , why was it a "cheap shot"?
I´ve stated a fact (if it was "cd - version" or "most cds" can´t make the difference, can it? ) and your longer excerpt confirms the statement and the remainder of the publication confirms that no controlled listening tests were done to examine their subjective impression.

Quote
Their chapter 4 was an attempt at explaining where those differences originate, given that they were demonstrated to not be due to the CD format. And their explanation, while not the result of scientific investigation, is entirely plausible. It is offered as a note, which makes it clear that no scientific rigor is to be assumed or demanded regarding this explanation.

They delivered a speculation about the reasons for an unconfirmed assertion. While it is not unusual to find speculations about the reasons for a confirmed result in a published paper, what they did was imo quite unusual.

But it is be more reasonable to blame the peer reviewers for letting that slip through too, but i did not blame Mayer/Moran, just stated the fact. Why that should be considered as a "cheap shot" remains dubious, but maybe you could explain.

Quote
I really have no tolerance for the often malicious ways in which their paper is being criticised, and you are no exception here.

You failed again in explaining were i criticized their paper in a malicious way, but you´ve revealed again that you like to apply double standards.
See your request for IMD measurements from Oohashi et al. and compare it to your very forgiving assessment of Meyer/Moran´s policy of providing no measurements at all.

You even insisted that i (by stating that Meyer/Moran didn´t supply the most basic measurements and obviously didn´t do the measurements) would try to raise the requirements to an unfullfillable level. (as if keeping a labor notebook weren´t a normal routine in the scientific world)

 
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-18 13:00:46
anyway it is a valid concern and should be evaluated too in further experiments.
Right, so let's strike Oohashi of your "list" and let's see the rest. Don't bother with the 2014 (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095464) one I linked either, purported to show "Negative Hyperbolic Effect" using what appears to be the same setup.

Once again, your purported list.

Or is that petulant childish evasion and arms we hear flapping again...???
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: pelmazo on 2017-04-20 11:23:24
Although i usually enjoy a good "reposte joke" , why was it a "cheap shot"?
Because you made it look like Meyer/Moran had blundered in a similar way as Oohashi by not doing a controlled test to confirm what they offered as a plausible explanation for their experimental result. This is foul play.

Quote
I´ve stated a fact (if it was "cd - version" or "most cds" can´t make the difference, can it? ) and your longer excerpt confirms the statement and the remainder of the publication confirms that no controlled listening tests were done to examine their subjective impression.
Yes, and I confirmed that, as you may have noticed.

Quote
They delivered a speculation about the reasons for an unconfirmed assertion. While it is not unusual to find speculations about the reasons for a confirmed result in a published paper, what they did was imo quite unusual.
You may call it speculation, but their explanation was and still is quite plausible. I fail to see why that would be unusual when you confirm that such occurences are quite common in published papers. I don't think anybody seriously disputes that different releases of the same material often sound quite different. So why would it be necessary to do a controlled listening test on something so self-evident? It wouldn't have changed anything of relevance in Meyer/Moran's main point.

It is particularly telling to compare this to Oohashi's case. Their result is rendered invalid when its cause was IMD.

Quote
But it is be more reasonable to blame the peer reviewers for letting that slip through too, but i did not blame Mayer/Moran, just stated the fact. Why that should be considered as a "cheap shot" remains dubious, but maybe you could explain.
Nobody is to blame here. No mistake was made. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Quote
You failed again in explaining were i criticized their paper in a malicious way, but you´ve revealed again that you like to apply double standards.
See your request for IMD measurements from Oohashi et al. and compare it to your very forgiving assessment of Meyer/Moran´s policy of providing no measurements at all.
Again, the question of whether there was IMD is one that makes or breaks Oohashi's main result. This is not the case in Meyer/Moran's experiment. One doesn't measure for measurement's sake, it has to be relevant to what the experiment wants to achieve.

Quote
You even insisted that i (by stating that Meyer/Moran didn´t supply the most basic measurements and obviously didn´t do the measurements) would try to raise the requirements to an unfullfillable level. (as if keeping a labor notebook weren´t a normal routine in the scientific world)
No, it's not about your request being unfullfillable, it is about it being unreasonable and malicious, i.e. expressly designed to discredit a largely well-executed and convincing experiment.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-20 14:52:42
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39256 (http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39256)
it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_XQVKe6So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yl_XQVKe6So)
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-20 20:39:01
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39256 (http://a/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39256)
it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"


Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while  not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.

Note: the owner of the audiosciencereview.com web site is given by WHOIS as: AMIR MAJIDIMEHR. The relevant business at the given address is: Madrona Digital, 14210 NE 20th St, Suite B Bellevue, WA 9800.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-20 22:05:31
... ... ...
Note: the owner of the audiosciencereview.com web site is given by WHOIS as: AMIR MAJIDIMEHR. The relevant business at the given address is: Madrona Digital, 14210 NE 20th St, Suite B Bellevue, WA 9800.



:)) Oh my god.

(As an expression of horror, lest anyone should think that I mean it as recognition of a deity)

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-21 11:45:09
@ ajinfla,

spending more time for looking at the data of well documented controlled listening tests instead of joking around would raise you understanding. ;)

@ Arnold B. Krueger,

<snip>
Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while  not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.<snip>

Although you were starting with "absolutely false" you did in fact confirm my assertion. Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

@ Thad E. Ginathom,

and why are you in horror due to Amirm´s profession?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-21 13:30:33
if somebody is interested i´ll provide some citation for those too
Flap, flap, fap, fap

As said before, if there´s interest, i´ll provide a more comprehensive reference list.
Flap, flap, fap, fap

@ ajinfla,
looking at the data of well documented controlled listening tests
Flap, flap, fap, fap

Still waiting Jakob2...
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: splice on 2017-04-21 13:35:23
Still waiting Jakob2...

You'll have a long wait. Trolls gonna troll.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-04-21 17:15:10
... ... ...

@ Thad E. Ginathom,

and why are you in horror due to Amirm´s profession?
I am in horror at the possibility that mentioning his name might invoke his presence. I wouldn't enjoy that.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-21 17:37:25


Absolutely false. It is almost impossible to obtain correct results involving small differences (IOW, interesting tests as opposed to trivial tests) via sighted listening due to natural human biases. While it can take a lot of care and work, it is at least possible to obtain correct results via DBTs because while  not totally eliminated, human biases are at least recognized and under some kind of control.<snip>

Although you were starting with "absolutely false" you did in fact confirm my assertion.

I don't recall you admitting that sighted evaluations are generally invalid.  So, I have not confirmed your position at all.

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
Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Again that's the audiophile self-deception - that any kind of usable listening test takes less care, effort, and knowledge.

They're actually trying to take that old saw "Ignorance is Bliss" to the bank, but the banker isn't buying any.

Quote
and why are you in horror due to Amirm´s profession?

What do you think Amir's profession is?  

BTW, I see that you don't even seem to know what his first name is. It is not Amirm. He told me so.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Wombat on 2017-04-21 17:39:08
To be honest i see from my limited reading at audiosciencereview that Amir himself does very rational posts. He does nice measurements and does not loose himself in outer space nonsense.
Unfortunately his place offers several abductees with obviously still pretty tight sitting anal probes a new platform.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-22 00:57:32
To be honest i see from my limited reading at audiosciencereview that Amir himself does very rational posts. He does nice measurements and does not loose himself in outer space nonsense.
Unfortunately his place offers several abductees with obviously still pretty tight sitting anal probes a new platform.
Amir is in his way the same kind of threat to reason as John Atkinson with some twists. Measurements are not necessarily any kind of solution for Golden Earism. Just add leading zeroes to your performance goals. It is possible to sound reasonable but still be wrong when there are some very loudly crazy people running around.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Palladium on 2017-04-22 14:20:16
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?

At least the outright fraudulent quacks willingly dared to pit their powers against Randi. We all know how placebophiles react towards DBTs. "Cowards" would be a better description.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-22 15:03:32
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?

At least the outright fraudulent quacks willingly dared to pit their powers against Randi. We all know how placebophiles react towards DBTs. "Cowards" would be a better description.

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-23 18:26:03
<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, but the assertion, that ajinfla cited, was backed up by your post. 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. 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.

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

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.
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?

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.

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. 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.
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.

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.

Quote
Quote
Because it "can take a lot of care and work" and, as in addition a lot of knowledge about the different sensory mechanism, to obtain correct results.

Again that's the audiophile self-deception - that any kind of usable listening test takes less care, effort, and knowledge.

Maybe that self-deception exists partly, the direct pseudoobjectivistic counterpart would be "doing blind" is already better/sufficient.

Quote
What do you think Amir's profession is?

In our context.....running Madrona Digital.  

Quote
BTW, I see that you don't even seem to know what his first name is. <snip>

Either that, or it is simply that i tend to use the forum nicks instead of real names......
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-23 18:39:05

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.

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

Btw, the last statement i´ve read about the "Challenge" was this:
http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status

so, it seems that the Challenge isn´t in force since that, or exists a newer declaration?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-23 21:01:00
it is obviously quite as easy to get incorrect results via "DBTs" as it is with "sighted listening"

Beside that it is known to nearly everybody doing sensory (perceptual) tests.
Just another delusion of your ilk. The very reason for controlled testing is due to the unreliability of uncontrolled testing. There is zero equivalence, except for those peddlers with pecuniary interests such as your ilk.

The reason is quite simple; "blinding" removes just one cognitive bias, all others are still at work.
More delusional nonsense.

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. Nonusage of positive and negative controls makes incorrect results even more likely.
So list your positive controls for your sighted listening that you equate with controlled listening.
Also list Oohashis positive control. What was it?
Btw, if blinding is as useless as a delusional peddler such as yourself claims, why are you continuously citing controlled (blind) tests like Oohashi to begin with? You scammers can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: StephenPG on 2017-04-23 21:15:45
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 any links to additional information about this?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-23 21:22:53
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"
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-24 15:52:36

In the end how many of the well-known quacks actually went hand-to-hand with Randi? I saw much more smoke than actual listening.

That's what quacks do.

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

That's not the story that we get from independent sources like:
gizmodo.com looks at the Randii challenge (http://gizmodo.com/315250/pear-cable-chickens-out-of-1000000-challenge-we-search-for-answers)

Quote
Btw, the last statement i´ve read about the "Challenge" was this:
http://web.randi.org/home/jref-status

so, it seems that the Challenge isn´t in force since that, or exists a newer declaration?

Doesn't matter.  The golden ears bailed, per independent sources.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-24 16:19:13

What do you think Amir's profession is?

In our context.....running Madrona Digital. 

Wrong again.  Go here:  madrona digital org chart (http://www.madronadigital.com/team-operations)

According to this source, we have "Amir Majidimehr: President & Founder". If you know anything about organizations, those titles are often ceremonial. 

Let's test this hypothesis out.  There are 4 clickable types of positions on the page: Operations, Implementation, Engineering, Network. Click any of them and several of the little portraits change from black-and-white to color. Color means that the person so designated is assigned to that area.

In this context, "running Madrona Digital" would equate to Operations. Click Operations and 5 portraits change to color, but none of the color portraits are Amir.  Try any of the other three clickable phrases and various portraits change to color, but never Amir's. This would be consistent with the individual job titles, as previously mentioned.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-24 16:42:51
<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 (http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/wishful_thinking.htm).

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. ;-)

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-24 17:46:02
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?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: judd on 2017-04-25 08:02:57
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-25 13:06:23
Do you have a source for this ?
Like the fabled list.
His hintere
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-25 16:04:00
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


Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-25 16:09:31
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-25 16:14:56
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?

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-25 17:11:11
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?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-25 17:12:24
<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.


Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-25 17:18:14
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-25 17:39:06
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-25 19:30:22
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 (http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97)
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)
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
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: judd on 2017-04-26 01:42:18
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 (http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97)
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)

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 !
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Palladium on 2017-04-26 03:24:34
Yup. Dunning-Kruger + a financial self-interest in peddling woo-woo products = hilarity.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-26 11:04:31
<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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-26 11:20:32
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-26 13:14:50
<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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-26 14:06:10
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-26 14:09:30
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?
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)
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 (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".


Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-27 11:57:35
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: pelmazo on 2017-04-27 12:10:58
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-27 12:26:45
<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
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)
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.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-04-27 13:14:42
<snip>
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-14#post-39226 (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......
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: bennetng on 2017-04-27 13:35:00
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.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-27 14:49:05
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?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-27 15:06:50
Apparently he wasn´t referring to any "cable burn in test"
Wrong. He's challenging you to take the test so that he finally has data, since your fellow weasels wouldn't bite.
The reason being, is that you said prior a positive result was possible:
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823 (http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823)
Quote
Jakob2
We assume you´ve send out the two randomly labeled cable sets and that you got after some time the response and after unblinding you realize that the listener´s anwer was correct. What are you doing next?
So, he saw a weasel who thought it was possible to get correct answers for "burned" cables. He then directly challenge that weasel to take the test and provide data.
Do you know what a weasel does in such a situation Jakob? Of course you do. ;)

i never claimed to hear a burn in effect in cables there was no test to weasel out.
Of course not. Weasel speak is to say claim "is possible". Then weasel out of any test.
As you know.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-27 15:15:18
Btw, my nick overthere is the same as it is in this forum "Jakob1863" .
I know what you are, Jakob2 (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/members/jakob2.html)
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-04-27 15:35:18
<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. :)

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
Quote
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)
So blind as well as deaf trolling.

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

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
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

Please define "gamebox".  I've read the thread and the linked articles and other sources, and for the life of my I can't tell what Fremer used or exactly what AJ is referring to.

Quote
2.) Fremer got scared and moved the goal post....... blatantly wrong, see the cited messages between Fremer and Randi

Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

Quote
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.

Jakob, given all of the imprecise language and dissembling in that response, please clarify.

Here's my take. 

Conventional science clearly shows that there is no magic in speaker cables or interconnects, just LCR and small amounts of secondary parameters such as those related to dielectric loss and temperature coefficients of the vaious elements, none of which have any relevant reliably audilble  properties.  People like Fremer and you are just out there, misleading and dissembling as you will, trying to invent some credibility for the incredible.

Therefore, when given an opportunity such as Randii provided, its up to the magic cable advocates to provide convincing, reliable evidence.   Seeing none, there's no reason to believe that people like Fremer are anything but foolish, poorly-informed  placebophiles or stealth salesmen who live in and by means of the deep pockets of audio snake oil vendors. 

So Jakob, instead of all this haggling over he-said, they-said, nobody said, everybody-said, why not actually say something believable, relevant and meaningful?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-27 15:39:29
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 (http://www.stereophile.com/cables/1206tara/#GFmwtBPAdOGGZle0.97)
(http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1206tara.jpg)

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 !
Well, Jakob2 likes his choice, as it allowed an escape from a reality smackdown.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-04-29 03:19:02
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.

The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.  He naively thought that 'cables' means cables  (insulated wires + terminals).  He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes'  that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-29 12:21:01
Randi weasel
Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.

That's the smaller picture. The larger picture, is Randi had been exposing fraudsters, shysters, con men and scammers for decades.
From Geller et al on thru the cable peddlers.
That's not good for shyster conman business. Ditto for Meyer and Moran, exposing how fraudulent "Hi Re$" is being peddled to cripple minded consumers (most willing, starving for scams audiophiles). Randi and M&M et at are not good for shyster con busine$$. That's going to put them on opposite sides of coin.
Right Jakob2?  ;)
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: pelmazo on 2017-04-29 14:07:38
The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.  He naively thought that 'cables' means cables  (insulated wires + terminals).  He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes'  that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.
I think he's technically knowledgeable enough to know that such 'magic boxes' may contain circuitry that does alter the sound appreciably, and hence is detectable by an ordinary listening test. That's part of the game of goalpost shifting that one has to expect in these cases. Perhaps he had to ask somebody about the technical details, but he certainly had the right instincts.

If you include such "extreme" constructions in the general term "cable", then one has to admit that cables can alter the sound. Which is probably their whole point of existence of such contraptions. The better question, then, is why cables are supposed to alter the sound in the first place. If people were reasonable, they would work from the grounds that cables have no business altering the sound, hence any cable product offer promising better sound would automatically be viewed with suspicion. Once you see it this way, the basis for boutique cables all but disappears.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: judd on 2017-04-29 15:22:05
Additional boxes should be outside any reasonable definition of what a cable is generally understood to be.

Randi would have been justified in rejecting a proposal to use a cable that required a black box as part of its operation.
An additional black box could easily accommodate passive reactive components, which could plausibly change the frequency response significantly enough to produce a reliable tell.

All the challenger really needed to do was demonstrate that they could hear the difference between a cheap $10 Radio Shack cable vs a "modest" (by audiophile standards) high-end cable of a mere few thousand dollars in value.

Should have been child's play, right ? (even the audiophile's wives would notice the difference - as audiophiles are so fond of telling us  :)) )

An easy 1 million dollars, you would think. What a terrible missed opportunity.    

 

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-04-30 10:44:44
Huh ... more than one thread on this?

<rant>
I have had a pretty decent speaker set with a crossover consisting of simply a first-order highpass for the tweeter (the woofer rolling off by itself). I am pretty sure that if I "rebuilt" these speakers for my $3000 biamping cable set, which really heavy just a bit thicker than a capacitor, then the treble difference would be night and day. Literally. Like turning on and off. At least after a burn-in period.
</rant>
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: board on 2017-04-30 14:26:54
I only read through page 5 of this discussion here, so my apologies if I'm repeating anything, but as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
I do believe that some speaker cables, whether they have an extra box or not, perform a sort of EQ on the signal, and I believe The Audio Critic already showed this by measurements in the early 90s (he showed measurements of a speaker cable that had a spike in the treble). There's also a thread here on HA of someone succesfully ABX'ing two different speaker cables, and measurements also showed different frequency responses for them.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-30 15:09:20
as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables (http://www.taralabs.com/news) with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end
(http://www.taralabs.com/images/Omega_SP.JPG)
Once again, the burden would not be on Randi to do on site measurements on that "cable" nonsense to check for sleigh of hand
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: board on 2017-04-30 19:21:29
as far as I recall the Randi/Fremer challenge was between speaker cables and not interconnects. The link to Stereophile is for interconnects.
I just looked up Fremer's latest review, and his speaker cables are also listed as Tara Labs: TARA Labs Omega EvolutionSP. So, I assume those were the ones he would pit against the Monster cables. Whether these speaker cables have a "magic box" I can't say.
My faulty recollection was ICs, but it appears it was these Tara speaker cables (http://www.taralabs.com/news) with 1"+ round removable "slugs" at end
(http://www.taralabs.com/images/Omega_SP.JPG)
Once again, the burden would not be on Randi to do on site measurements on that "cable" nonsense to check for sleigh of hand

If those speaker cables changed the frequency response, and this went unnoticed by Randi, then Fremer might have been able to hear a difference, and he would win a million dollars.
The link you provided went to their news site. Here's a link to the ones I mentioned, which I think are the same ones you were thinking of:
http://www.taralabs.com/speaker-cables/item/92-pr-the-omega-evolution
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-30 22:48:12
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-04-30 23:06:53
And no guerrilla tactics by Meyer and Moran either??

But our champion of science-ish sounding method sez....
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: greynol on 2017-04-30 23:15:59
"guerrilla tactics" the irony, it burns.

Is concern trolling a guerrilla tactic?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: board on 2017-05-01 19:55:48
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
??
Do you mean that it never happened? I am aware of that (as we probably all are). I'm also aware that it was originally a case between Randi and Pear cables, and then Fremer hopped on board.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-01 20:22:37
I see someone has been drinking revisionist past-flavored coolaid.

THERE WAS NO "Randi/Fremer Challege" !!!
??
Do you mean that it never happened? I am aware of that (as we probably all are). I'm also aware that it was originally a case between Randi and Pear cables, and then Fremer hopped on board.

Depends on what you thinks constitutes "Something happening".

Was there ever an actual reliable listening test with adequate controls?  AFAIK, no.

One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-01 20:45:21
<sniP>

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

The "cables" that you mentioned above are a bit different because there is active circuitry involved which works due to the power delivered for example by the usb interface.
Today even wireless power delivery would be possible, but back in 2008 it wasn´t that easy anyway.

But nevertheless, your conclusion is spot-on; judging by appearence isn´t the correct approach, measurements and detailed examination - including splitting apart the cable - could (and should) have been part of the negotiation, for the reasons outlined in an earlier post.
Otoh, if there is no way to scientific way to avoid fraud and even the advice and supervision from a magician/illusionist would not help, then you have to face the fact that cable challenges are impossible to do......

@ ajinfla,
<snip>
No, a weasel will find any way out of a cable test, by introducing a magic gamebox into a "cable" test. <snip>

If you still haven´t got why _any_competent experiment wrt "cable sound" (being called a "Randi challenge" or just a listening test) must include sound measurements of the systems overall and an agreement about the tolerable differences in comparison to the known thresholds of hearing, then ......


Quote
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.

The questions were :
1.) is that Fremer´s loudspeaker cable, which he wanted to use, shown in the pic?
2.) is a "gamebox" (copyright ajinfla) attached to Fremer´s loudspeaker cable?

Does the link, provided with the pic, answer these questions or are you just acting as the "master weasel in chief" ?

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

As Jinjuku didn´t challenge me (as you know, Jinjuku wants to test listener´s claims about their ability to hear an effect) repetition of imaginery challenges will not help your case......
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-01 21:26:40
Apparently he wasn´t referring to any "cable burn in test"
Wrong. He's challenging you to take the test so that he finally has data, since your fellow weasels wouldn't bite.
The reason being, is that you said prior a positive result was possible:
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823 (http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-10#post-38823)
Quote
Jakob2
We assume you´ve send out the two randomly labeled cable sets and that you got after some time the response and after unblinding you realize that the listener´s anwer was correct. What are you doing next?
So, he saw a weasel who thought it was possible to get correct answers for "burned" cables. He then directly challenge that weasel to take the test and provide data.
Do you know what a weasel does in such a situation Jakob? Of course you do. ;)

Wow ......
First of all, let´s assume :) that you know the meaning of the word "assume", but that you like to pretend you don´t.
Second, even, if Jinjuku would have dreamt that i, by that sentence, did not assume but confirmed that another listener would have been able to perceive "EUT" , even in that highly unlikely case, it would be still the claim of _that_ listener not my claim to be able to hear.....
Third, Jinjuku´s proposal was to send two sets of cables to a listener (who claimed to be able to .....) and the listener should answer which set was "burned in" and which was not.
So, that is only one trial and the chance to get the answer right or wrong is "a coin flip" ; do you know what the probability is?  Not sure? Well, let me help you, it is 0.5 .

Therefore i was asking, what Jinjuku would do next . And i really hope that this time even you are able to grasp why a single trial does not really help.......

<snip>
Jakob, since you are obviously a friend of Fremer, why don't you obtain a clarification from him, and share it with us?

I know your imagination is strong. ;)
But, as you know, it´s the claimant´s burden of proof, so you should ask ajinfla for the answer.

Quote
Please define "gamebox".  I've read the thread and the linked articles and other sources, and for the life of my I can't tell what Fremer used or exactly what AJ is referring to.

So, you have to ask ajinfla what the meaning is, as he introduced it. Obviously he fears the "magic" of those " gameboxes" .....

Quote
<snip>Here's my take. <snip>

Please remember, the topic isn´t what _you_ think about "cable sound" or what you believe about Fremer, but my assertion that Randi did not play a fair game and weaseled out .

Quote
So Jakob, instead of all this haggling over he-said, they-said, nobody said, everybody-said, why not actually say something believable, relevant and meaningful?

Well that was right from the beginning:
Quote
Michael Fremer was prepared to take the challenge, but Randi wasn´t really playing a fair game and weaseled finally out.....

Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-01 23:19:40
measurements and detailed examination - including splitting apart the cable - could (and should) have been part of the negotiation, for the reasons outlined in an earlier post.
Wrong. There is zero burden on Randi and 100% burden on your weasel ilk. The Pear cables were the challenge and your weasel ilk weaseled out with his removable "slug" cable demands.
There only one way to see the dichotomy between Randi the debunker of fraudsters...and your fraud peddlers.

As Jinjuku didn´t challenge me
He did and you weaseled out. Still no data from your ilk. They know what happens when they test their beliefs vs reality.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-01 23:31:06
Jinjuku´s proposal was to send two sets of cables to a listener (who claimed to be able to .....) and the listener should answer which set was "burned in" and which was not.
So, that is only one trial and the chance to get the answer right or wrong is "a coin flip" ; do you know what the probability is?  Not sure? Well, let me help you, it is 0.5 .
Right, which then makes the audiophool believer who claimed to be able to "hear" burned cables, look the fool.
That is exactly why weasels avoid blind tests! As you know.

Please remember, the topic isn´t what _you_ think about "cable sound" or what you believe about Fremer, but my assertion that Randi did not play a fair game and weaseled out .
Right, that is what a weasel would assert. Just like a weasel would assert "Guerrilla Tactics" by M&M, Oohashi isn't nonsense, the "understand" Kunchur, Jinjuku didn't challenge them, they have a "list" forthcoming, etc, etc.
As you would know.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: board on 2017-05-02 15:32:48
One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Although I find this debate has turned very ugly, then on a general level I side with Randi in most cases and also out of principle, whereas I find Fremer to be a pain in the arse.
However, when I read about the cable challenge a while ago, the documents I came across, from both camps, seemed to me to show that Randi hadn't played entirely fairly. But it should of course be said that we only have access to a limited amount of information, and we don't know what went on in Randi's mind when he closed the challenge, so we have to make some conlcusions of our own. In any case, I find that this debate has spurred a lot of speculations of who did what based on who they were, and that doesn't resolve or prove anything. Moreover, what does it matter now? This is just turning into a war and a smear campaing. So challenge Fremer again, perhaps with a cash price, measure his cables to see if they actually do perform EQ, and see if he complies, and then do the test. Yes, I am very aware that he might talk his way out of it, but as he's the most arrogant of all the snake-oil people, he might also be the most likely to accept (or will he?).
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-02 16:31:17
No need, this has all been done before: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html (http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-test.html)
which apparently sprung from this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97675 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97675)

Still Reality 1 Believers 0

Now of course, shysters inc, will say these tests no good, no "postive controls" used, etc., statistically insignificant only one person blah, blah, blah
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: drewfx on 2017-05-02 17:39:55
One view might be that the challenge part may have commenced, but it ended up with no resolution, and there was no actual execution of it.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

Although I find this debate has turned very ugly, then on a general level I side with Randi in most cases and also out of principle, whereas I find Fremer to be a pain in the arse.
However, when I read about the cable challenge a while ago, the documents I came across, from both camps, seemed to me to show that Randi hadn't played entirely fairly. But it should of course be said that we only have access to a limited amount of information, and we don't know what went on in Randi's mind when he closed the challenge, so we have to make some conlcusions of our own. In any case, I find that this debate has spurred a lot of speculations of who did what based on who they were, and that doesn't resolve or prove anything. Moreover, what does it matter now? This is just turning into a war and a smear campaing. So challenge Fremer again, perhaps with a cash price, measure his cables to see if they actually do perform EQ, and see if he complies, and then do the test. Yes, I am very aware that he might talk his way out of it, but as he's the most arrogant of all the snake-oil people, he might also be the most likely to accept (or will he?).

One doesn't need a million dollar prize to do objective testing. The characterization from believers of Randi as "backing out" is simply a trick to confuse people into thinking this somehow shows evidence of something when there is no objective evidence of anything at all, at least not in favor of magic cables.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Palladium on 2017-05-02 21:04:46
Randi isn't rich at all in the overall context. $1 million is pocket change to the likes of Agilent etc. So if magic cables can demonstrated then why are these mega electronic corps not even one bit interested?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-02 22:20:23
Because Agilent etc. measurement hardware have nothing to do with Weasels Inc audible claims
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-03 11:11:07
<snip>
Wrong. There is zero burden on Randi and 100% burden on your weasel ilk.

I know you have to learn a lot about the DOE even just for the moment, i assume that you can understand, why thoroughfull measurements are a mandatory part of these experiments. Expecially if Randi wanted to be taken serious on his assertions about possible fraud.....
Also i know about your fear of the magic in "gameboxes" you have to realize that no "magic boxes" are needed to get audible differences between two sets of loudspeaker cables in a given system.

All you need is a suitable combination of amplifier and loudspeaker. As stated before in an answer to Arnold B. Krueger, Randi surely neither didn´t want to pay the prize for detection of an amplifier oscillating with one cable but not with the other, nor did he wanted to pay the prize for the detection of differences above the known thresholds of hearing.

Quote
The Pear cables were the challenge.....

which is simply incorrect as the cited email correspondence between Randi and Fremer from the beginning confirmed.

Quote
..... and your weasel ilk weaseled out with his removable "slug" cable demands.

which is again simply incorrect. Btw, you forgot to answer the question:
Were there any "gameboxes" (copyright ajinfla) attached to Fremer´s own loudspeaker cables??

Quote
There only one way to see the dichotomy between Randi the debunker of fraudsters...and your fraud peddlers.
In your cult section....sure.

Quote
As Jinjuku didn´t challenge me
He did and you weaseled out. Still no data from your ilk. They know what happens when they test their beliefs vs reality.

Now you started to believe in your own faked citation box content.
Let me fresh up your memory; you faked Jinjuku´s comment by adding "Take the test" and argued later that Jinjuku must have ment that, because i had confirmed the audibility of "cable burn in" by assuming that a listener could have get the correct answer in a test with a coin flip probability. Coin flip probability means 50% probability to get the correct answer by chance (and of course 50% probability to get the answer wrong by chance).
Silliness at work.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-03 11:17:13
Randi isn't rich at all in the overall context. $1 million is pocket change to the likes of Agilent etc. So if magic cables can demonstrated then why are these mega electronic corps not even one bit interested?

Mainly because these companies already know, that you need different cables for different purposes (thats the reason why different cable designs exist since 60-100 years before) and that of course differences can be measured.
But Fremer and Randi were talking about a test of the _audibility_ of differences between two sets of loudspeaker cables.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-03 13:47:32
Randi isn't rich at all in the overall context. $1 million is pocket change to the likes of Agilent etc. So if magic cables can demonstrated then why are these mega electronic corps not even one bit interested?

Mainly because these companies already know, that you need different cables for different purposes (thats the reason why different cable designs exist since 60-100 years before) and that of course differences can be measured.

Interesting change   of strategy - a new truth, that  the near infinitude of high is cables is "needed" because there are so many different purposes.  Then we have the Trump-like false history that different high end cables have existed for 60-100 years.

Wrong and wrong. 

In reverse order, high end cables were first marketed as  a main stream high end product about the same time as ABX was devised - in the late 1970s.  Do the arithmetic, that's far from 60-100 years ago. They were named "Polk Cobra" They were well known for frying  amps,, either by loading them with a high capacitance or by means of inter-conductor shorting. It appers that you can still buy them as new stock.

The reason that there are so many different cables is that the market for high end cables is tremendously fragmented. The cost of entry is very low - anybody with a soldering iron, wire cutters, and a few common electronic parts can set them up in business. The web has only made this easier.

Quote
But Fremer and Randi were talking about a test of the _audibility_ of differences between two sets of loudspeaker cables.

True, fabricating  measurable differences among cable is easy even trivial. Where are m y 28 gauge speaker cables? ;-)  But, that's not a creidble design.  The combination of a credible design and audible effects is far, far more difficult.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-03 14:54:01
no "magic boxes" are needed to get audible differences between two sets of loudspeaker cables in a given system.

Right, just imagination and weaseling out of any test of such claims. As you know.

i had confirmed the audibility of "cable burn in" by assuming that a listener could have get the correct answer in a test with a coin flip probability.
Yet you still weaseled of taking the test to provide data...and your false assumption that enough trials wouldn't be performed. Just another way of the weasel to escape any tests. As you know.

All you need is a suitable combination of amplifier and loudspeaker.
Wrong. What's needed is believer weasels to take tests and not weasel out. Be it cables, or "hearing" Hi Rez. But they won't. As you know,

The Pear cables were the challenge as the cited email correspondence between Randi and Fremer from the beginning confirmed.
Correct. Then Fremer got scared and changed to his slug cables. Anything to weasel out and escape the test...i,e, provide the data. As you know.

Now reach behind, tug even harder and see if your "list" emerges
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: krabapple on 2017-05-04 17:35:47
The actual story is, in my opinion and from what I recall going on back then, more like this: Randi was simply unaware of the full range of nonsense that infests high end audio hardware.  He naively thought that 'cables' means cables  (insulated wires + terminals).  He was unaware , for example, that some high end cables -- speaker cables AND interconnect cables -- come with in-line 'magic boxes'  that might or might not act as crude equalizers. When he was apprised of the existence of such shenanigans (by people having much more experience with the idiocy of audiophiles), he more or less decided to wash his hands of such tiresome crapola rather than give pompous little jerks like Fremer a chance to 'win' on such a weasely technicality.
I think he's technically knowledgeable enough to know that such 'magic boxes' may contain circuitry that does alter the sound appreciably, and hence is detectable by an ordinary listening test. That's part of the game of goalpost shifting that one has to expect in these cases. Perhaps he had to ask somebody about the technical details, but he certainly had the right instincts.

I'm not sure what you think I meant.  I wasn't saying he had the wrong instincts.  I'm saying  Randi really did not know how silly audiophile hardware could get; he was not deeply informed about the field. There were loopholes in his initial challenge that someone who *did* know, like Fremer or Atkinson, could have jumped through.  Randi definitely had to get some advice from more knowledgeable folks on this.

A stipulation at the get-go such as, there must be measurement of the devices first, to learn if there was any disqualifying designed-in 'EQ', would have gone a long way to filter out 'high end' shenanigans.  Randi was simply not sophisticated enough in this area to know that that would be an absolute necessity, when he launched the Pear Challenge.   That's not a damning critique; he can't be expected to be an expert in every field of nonsense.  His bailiwick was always more 'psychic phenomena' --  which depend on human trickery -- than technical bamboozlery.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-05 01:42:12
Meanwhile, guerrilla tactics J waits a few more days to hit and run, all while still tugging for that list
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-09 13:20:09
Jakob2, reach behind tugging time is over. The list??

Oh, btw http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/page-9#post-40845 (http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/close-in-jitter.1621/page-9#post-40845)

Quote
And i´d have a hard time too (means facing similar difficulties as grimm or Mivera) to measure phase noise and wander effects in that region. My spectral analyzers aren´t sufficient for this task, so imo i´d have to do more .........

So, you have spectral analyzers like industry types....but you are just the casual hobbyist who considers charlatan and fraudster debunker Randi a "Weasel" and Hi Re$ fraud exposers M&M, "Guerrillas"?
You are not an "Hi end" industry peddler eh?
Hmmm, interesting. ;)
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Wombat on 2017-05-10 02:31:20
It becomes pretty obvious there is a bunch of people with monitary interests post in a similar strategic way together with other fellows spread over different forums.
If they really have gone through the complete abduction phenomenon or if they try to keep up shady business is hard to tell sometimes.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-10 02:37:26
It becomes pretty obvious there is a bunch of people with monitary interests post in a similar strategic way together with other fellows spread over different forums.
If they really have gone through the complete abduction phenomenon or if they try to keep up shady business is hard to tell sometimes.
Exactly.  It's called guerilla marketing.

My opponent is as corrupt as they come.  I will throw her in jail.  Please pay no attention to all my administration's ties to Russia; these are not the droids you're looking for.  Sound familiar???
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-10 07:13:57
It becomes pretty obvious there is a bunch of people with monitary interests post in a similar strategic way together with other fellows spread over different forums.
If they really have gone through the complete abduction phenomenon or if they try to keep up shady business is hard to tell sometimes.
Exactly.  It's called guerilla marketing.

My opponent is as corrupt as they come.  I will throw her in jail.  Please pay no attention to all my administration's ties to Russia; these are not the droids you're looking for.  Sound familiar???

Umm, yes. BTW I have asked two of my appointees to help me gang up on the head of the FBI and fire him for some other cause to stop his investigation of my Russia thing and put it behind me.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-10 13:07:39
Blind tests are good, I respect them, but they are not perfect, they have problems. Especially the ones that point where I don't like. These have far more problems than the ones that point to what I want. I'm going to beat the drums of uncertainty on as many forums as possible, throwing in a lot of scienceish sounding stuff and papers that have the magic "AES" or other organization stamp on them, regardless of actual validity.
Meanwhile, I have these Hi End widgets/music that is called Hi Re$, that I'd like to sell you. Because you know, there is all this uncertainty about whether 70 yr old elite aural athletes can't hear what they claim.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-10 17:01:06
Blind tests are good, I respect them, but they are not perfect, they have problems.

Seems like a hollow criticism, given that nothing known in this life is perfect, and everything seems to have a downside.

Quote
Especially the ones that point where I don't like.

At this point AJ we take your scientist card away from you, because to be in our science club, you are in it whether you like the results or not.

For at least 20 years I didn't understand, and therefore didn't like  how the extant scientific knowledge that was commonly known then about hearing lined up with the apparent insensitivity of our ABX tests.  In the 90s, particularly with the dissemination of newer knowledge about masking, many things started lining up.

So now we know that the Placebophiles don't  like the findings of Fletcher and Munson about the sensitivity of the human ear, and then we found out that Fletcher and Munson 's results were almost ludicrously optimistic about what we can possibly hear. If we hadn't started betting the farm on the fact that they were so optimistic, perceptual coding would have gone no where because its gains would have been too small to be worth the trouble.  That's one reason why Placebophiles have so much malease about perceptual coding - it obviously works to a degree, and to work at all their ideas about the sensitivity of the human ear must be utter hogwash. Easier to knee-jerk hate lossy compression than to change your life's view.

Quote
These have far more problems than the ones that point to what I want.

It's painfully easy AJ. We know for sure why sighted evaluations for subtle differences are utter hogwash, so if we actually internalize that knowledge and try to act rationally on it, where are we? Answer: DBTs. What else is there?

Quote
I'm going to beat the drums of uncertainty on as many forums as possible, throwing in a lot of scienceish sounding stuff and papers that have the magic "AES" or other organization stamp on them, regardless of actual validity.

Looking at anything including the AES critically is always a fine idea in my book. Unforutnately, the AES is getting way to easy to criticize - its almost like its been taken over by a high rez media marketing team.  That all said, the basic science of DBTs remains lacking in effective criticism, including yours.  My mother never told me that life was always going to be a rose garden, even though she was a pretty fair rose gardener.

Quote
Meanwhile, I have these Hi End widgets/music that is called Hi Re$, that I'd like to sell you. Because you know, there is all this uncertainty about whether 70 yr old elite aural athletes can't hear what they claim.

Actually, those aged athletes show us that they have no faith in their claims by refusing to play the games when the stopwatches at running. Then they underscore it with weird science criticisms of blind testing.  Yup, sometimes its hard, and occasionally it is totally impractical. OTOH doing a DBT related to hi rez is one of the easiest ABX tests in the world.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Porcus on 2017-05-10 21:48:56
Arnold, I suspect that aajinfla actually intended irony on this one.

My opponent is as corrupt as they come.  I will throw her in jail.  Please pay no attention to all my administration's ties to Russia; these are not the droids you're looking for.  Sound familiar???

Hil(l)arious as it may sound, we cannot rule out that half of the consumers will "vote" for hi-rez ...
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: greynol on 2017-05-10 22:17:15
Ah, but some 3 million fewer customers voted for the "winner" in the hi-rez election.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-11 01:22:55
Arnold, I suspect that aajinfla actually intended irony on this one.
Arnie's responses tend to ice the intended humor cake.
Can't really make the parodies and sarcasm more obvious....
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-11 08:56:31
@ Arnold B. Krueger,

<snip>
Interesting change  of strategy - a new truth, that  the near infinitude of high is cables is "needed" because there are so many different purposes.  Then we have the Trump-like false history that different high end cables have existed for 60-100 years.

Wrong and wrong. 

In reverse order, high end cables were first marketed as  a main stream high end product about the same time as ABX was devised - in the late 1970s.  Do the arithmetic, that's far from 60-100 years ago. They were named "Polk Cobra" They were well known for frying  amps,, either by loading them with a high capacitance or by means of inter-conductor shorting. It appers that you can still buy them as new stock.

The reason that there are so many different cables is that the market for high end cables is tremendously fragmented. The cost of entry is very low - anybody with a soldering iron, wire cutters, and a few common electronic parts can set them up in business. The web has only made this easier.

Nice rant! Nice but strange, as you quoted my post but decided immediately not to comment it but instead an imaginery version of it.
I didn´t wrote about "high end cables" but the existing different constructions that exists for good reasons.

Quote
True, fabricating  measurable differences among cable is easy even trivial. Where are m y 28 gauge speaker cables? ;-)  But, that's not a creidble design.  The combination of a credible design and audible effects is far, far more difficult.

Now you finally understand why i stated that negotiations about maximum measured differences and sound measurements were mandatory in such a test (krabapple called it a "necessity" ) and that babbling about "game boxes" and "burden of proof" is totally misguided.

@ ajinfla,

<snip>
Yet you still weaseled of taking the test to provide data...and your false assumption that enough trials wouldn't be performed. Just another way of the weasel to escape any tests. As you know.

Which is simply incorrect.
Let me again fresh up your memory.
Jinjuku posted over at audiosciencereview his test proposal in short form:
"...... I offered to send out two sets of cables, randomly labeled. one set burned in. The offer was 30 days of fully sighted, self administered, 100% control of listening length and how quickly to swap out....... "
(quoted from: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/limitations-of-blind-testing-procedures.1254/page-9#post-38656)

What he described is exactly one trial and therefore the reason to ask what he would do next under the assumption that he got for this single trial a correct answer.


Quote
The Pear cables were the challenge as the cited email correspondence between Randi and Fremer from the beginning confirmed.
Correct. Then Fremer got scared and changed to his slug cables. Anything to weasel out and escape the test...i,e, provide the data. As you know.

In your imagination ...sure, but not in reality as the quoted conversation between Randi and Fremer confirms (and the additional information from "gizmodo" as well).
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Jakob1863 on 2017-05-11 09:00:18
It becomes pretty obvious there is a bunch of people with monitary interests post in a similar strategic way together with other fellows spread over different forums.
If they really have gone through the complete abduction phenomenon or if they try to keep up shady business is hard to tell sometimes.
Exactly.  It's called guerilla marketing.

My opponent is as corrupt as they come.  I will throw her in jail.  Please pay no attention to all my administration's ties to Russia; these are not the droids you're looking for.  Sound familiar???

As you are a moderator of this forum, i have to ask if you really consider it as appropriate behavior if a member constantly fakes the content of citation boxes to distort or even invert the original meaning without any identification of his action?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Arnold B. Krueger on 2017-05-11 10:54:47
It becomes pretty obvious there is a bunch of people with monitary interests post in a similar strategic way together with other fellows spread over different forums.
If they really have gone through the complete abduction phenomenon or if they try to keep up shady business is hard to tell sometimes.
Exactly.  It's called guerilla marketing.

My opponent is as corrupt as they come.  I will throw her in jail.  Please pay no attention to all my administration's ties to Russia; these are not the droids you're looking for.  Sound familiar???

As you are a moderator of this forum, i have to ask if you really consider it as appropriate behavior if a member constantly fakes the content of citation boxes to distort or even invert the original meaning without any identification of his action?

If you see it, point it out. Don't expect us to read your mind!

For example, you  complained about my misreading your post. saying it was not about high end cables. But you didn't say what you really meant. leaving me as mystified as ever. Looked like weaseling to me!

Furthermore you said you had an opponent when it seems obvious that you have many and were addressing several of them. You thus contradict yourself, making yourself look disconnected.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-11 14:02:24
Flushed Guerilla J out of hiding as expected. ;-).

@ ajinfla,

<snip>
Yet you still weaseled of taking the test to provide data...and your false assumption that enough trials wouldn't be performed. Just another way of the weasel to escape any tests. As you know.

Which is simply incorrect.
Only in your imagination. You "if'd and but" about your wishful positive results scenario...but that is irrelevant when no one will take test. So Jijuku directly challenged you to provide data, i.e. take test, to test your wishful thinking possible positive, then what scenario.
Of course, you weaseled out of actually taking test and providing data, as expected. That way, there can always be that cloud of uncertainty with magic cables and all the scams you defend for your industry ;-).
This isn't very difficult to figure out Jakob2. Kunchur, Ooashi, Fremer et al are your heroes, Fraud busters Randi, M&M, et al are the enemies of your "biz".

Now Guerilla J, that list you claimed to have that resides behind you, where is it?
And what do you need an analyzer for?
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Thad E Ginathom on 2017-05-13 16:30:20
This is mystifying: what is Jacob's business? Seems to be one of those things that everybody else knows about. I don't remember Jacob himself mentioning it: is he being coy about it.

I don't remember... but my memory is infamous.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: ajinfla on 2017-05-13 19:28:43
Revealing that would let the cat out of the bag for why he uses guerrilla tactics to defend believer nonsense like Oohashi and Kunchur et al. while simultaneously attacking fraud exposers Randi, M&M, etc.
Maybe claiming to have an analyzer increases his scienceish guise
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: CiTay on 2017-07-11 12:10:02
It has come to my attention that the style of conversation in this thread isn't really up to par with the standards we strive for on this forum. Please refrain from any name-calling, personal digs, and other such tactics, and stick to more factual discussions. We want to have a positive discussion culture on here, no matter how much you disagree with something. I hope this is understood and future posts will be on a less personal level. Thank you.
Title: Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?
Post by: Atmasphere on 2017-07-19 19:36:35

Interesting change  of strategy - a new truth, that  the near infinitude of high is cables is "needed" because there are so many different purposes.  Then we have the Trump-like false history that different high end cables have existed for 60-100 years.

Wrong and wrong. 

In reverse order, high end cables were first marketed as  a main stream high end product about the same time as ABX was devised - in the late 1970s.  Do the arithmetic, that's far from 60-100 years ago. They were named "Polk Cobra" They were well known for frying  amps,, either by loading them with a high capacitance or by means of inter-conductor shorting. It appers that you can still buy them as new stock.

Just as a point of fact, it was probably Robert Fulton that founded the high end cable industry. He was selling his Fulton Brown and Fulton Gold cables at least two years prior to Polk (and they didn't blow up amps). He sold interconnects too.

Ampex was making some pretty high end cables for the heads on their 351 transports; the cable for the playback head is a good example. Its a single-ended design, with a single conductor in Teflon, then the shield being for the other connection on the head, then more insulation and then another braided shield, terminated by a a 3-pin keyed and threaded connector with gold pins. Some may not call it 'high end' due to its age, but that's a pretty fancy cable by any standards. I'd call it 'high end' out of the intention of the design, as intention seems the more crucial aspect rather than cost.

So if deemed a 'high end' cable that puts things back to 60 years ago... I'm pretty sure we could find other examples of hookups used in audio and other disciplines that would qualify as 'high end' out of intention (for example the first balanced line cables), but that may not be the best definition (although its been the best I've come up with so far... conflating pro audio with high end is certainly problematic, although it seems like in the 1950s the two were pretty similar)
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019