Skip to main content
Topic: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio? (Read 16152 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #125
Because Agilent etc. measurement hardware have nothing to do with Weasels Inc audible claims
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #126
<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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #127
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #128
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #129
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #130
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #131
Meanwhile, guerrilla tactics J waits a few more days to hit and run, all while still tugging for that list
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #132
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

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. ;)
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #133
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.
Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #134
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???
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #135
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #136
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.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #137
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #138
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 ...
Memento: this is Hydrogenaudio. Do not assume good faith.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #139
Ah, but some 3 million fewer customers voted for the "winner" in the hi-rez election.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #140
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....
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #141
@ 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).

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #142
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?

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #143
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #144
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?
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #145
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.
The most important audio cables are the ones in the brain

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #146
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
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #147
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.

Re: Do we "need" those >20kHz ultrasonic frequencies for high-fidelity audio?

Reply #148

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