Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 128

Thread: Null Hypothesis

  1. #76
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    And you should hear both sides.

    Side one - there are no audible differences between cables that are suitable for audio which would be 16 guage and lower - NO 24 guage cable! The reason for this is that cable performance can be measured with test instruments and when they are, no differences that would be audible to humans are found. Bias and placebo effect account for what differences you do hear, i.e your mind is playing tricks on you. There is documented evidence of these phenomena.

    Side two - measurements don't tell us the whole story of cable sonics. It's important to listen for yourself to determine if you hear differences and if they are significant enough to warrant spending your hard earned money. Cables are very system dependant and if you try something that works for you, it may not work for your friends system. Many audio enthusiasts feel that cables do make a difference and their enjoyment of their systems is therefore enhanced.

    This is an oversimplification of the issue, of course. If you follow this board for awhile, you will see the debate flow in more detail. What I believe PCTower was telling you was that you simply need to try cables for yourself to see (hear) if they're worth it and don't follow the A/R status quo. To be fair, you could go to www.audioasylum.com and see a largely different status quo. PCtower was also telling you not to follow THAT agenda. He's telling you to think for yourself and, quite honestly, that's the best advice you can ever get on just about anything. Just make sure you are exposed to both sides of the issue before you decide.
    I think you presented a balanced description of the opposing points of view on audiophile cables. I'm not sure what Mikereyno wants. It seems like he seeks assurance he will hear an improvement in his HT system if he spends more on cables, but is unwilling to try a new cable to find out whether he hears an improvement, despite the fact many cable sellers offer money-back guarantees. I don't see anywhere to go from there.

  2. #77
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    1,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikereyno
    In fact, the only thing it does have the potential to do is drive me away from this board.
    Only if you let it.
    mtrycrafts

  3. #78
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    And you are what: a lawyer, and by your own admisson not technically competent to make such judgements, yet here you are with the cart before the horse.

    So when someone comes up with information that can show cables behave beyond their LCR parameters, and have DBTs which back up their claims of being able to improve the sound of your system, which would violate the laws of physics, I think you should go back to the sideline. Or go camp out with Jon Risch who also believes cables defy the laws of physics and has made claims of being able to hear the differences between various wire insulations without any evidence of such.

    -Bruce
    Talk about snobbery and elitism!

    One doesn't need your vaulted "expertise" to know that mtrycrafts made a claim (and does all the time with his unqualified advice to newcomers) and lacks support for that claim. It's one thing to say that it is unproven that cables make a difference. Quite another to say cables don't make a difference.

    Or did they skip the subject of thinking in your engineering school?

  4. #79
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by DMK
    And you should hear both sides.

    Side one - there are no audible differences between cables that are suitable for audio which would be 16 guage and lower - NO 24 guage cable! The reason for this is that cable performance can be measured with test instruments and when they are, no differences that would be audible to humans are found. Bias and placebo effect account for what differences you do hear, i.e your mind is playing tricks on you. There is documented evidence of these phenomena.

    Side two - measurements don't tell us the whole story of cable sonics. It's important to listen for yourself to determine if you hear differences and if they are significant enough to warrant spending your hard earned money. Cables are very system dependant and if you try something that works for you, it may not work for your friends system. Many audio enthusiasts feel that cables do make a difference and their enjoyment of their systems is therefore enhanced.

    This is an oversimplification of the issue, of course. If you follow this board for awhile, you will see the debate flow in more detail. What I believe PCTower was telling you was that you simply need to try cables for yourself to see (hear) if they're worth it and don't follow the A/R status quo. To be fair, you could go to www.audioasylum.com and see a largely different status quo. PCtower was also telling you not to follow THAT agenda. He's telling you to think for yourself and, quite honestly, that's the best advice you can ever get on just about anything. Just make sure you are exposed to both sides of the issue before you decide.
    Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

    If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

    I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

    And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

    Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.
    Friends help friends move,
    Good friends help friends move bodies....

  5. #80
    Music Junkie E-Stat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Do you have to try everything yourselves?
    No, I rely upon the analysis of trusted sources for many interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on?
    I'll answer your prejudicially biased question this way: if the topic involves one of my passions, has the potential of enhancing my enjoyment of said passion, and it is a practical exercise to experiment, I will.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?
    Most certainly. It all depends upon their expertise and focus. While some here will complain, I will use a car analogy since driving is another one of my passions. Consumers Union is a great source for compiling raw automotive data. Be it frequency of repair, depreciation history, cost of insurance, etc. On the other hand, I find them totally useless at providing any valuable information as to the driving characteristics of a vehicle. I do trust the likes of reviews found in Car&Driver, Automobile, and Road & Track. Here the testers regularly drive some of the best cars in the world on roads both real and on the track. Their point of reference is varied and not lacking in depth. They understand that the "measurements" can only tell you so much. Often, they use race car drivers whose perception goes even beyond their capability to give an even more thorough perspective. I get the kind of specific information as to the complex handling characteristics of my Honda S2000. I find the same to be true in audio. The standard rags like Stereo Review, Audioholics, etc. are like CU in that they are geared towards the mass market and provide only superficial information, none of which I find helpful. Instead, I prefer magazines such as The Absolute Sound. My view is definitely prejudiced since I have known the founder for over twenty five years. Another former reviewer who also lives in Atlanta helped shape my love for classical music with his huge musical collection and ties to the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra (he has been a baritone in the choir for twenty plus years). My exposure to hearing some of the very best equipment available has given me a completely different perspective to what is possible with audio had I not had that good fortune. Visiting Harry and hearing that system is like taking an intense ride in a Ferrari with Michael Schumacher at the wheel. Although I do not always agree with either John's or Harry's exact component preferences, I nevertheless value their judgement and perceptive ability to identify subtleties of music. That is the real trick. Since TAS reviewers state their biases (both musically and sonically), one can read through what they say to get a feel for a given component.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.
    Perhaps. I like experiencing life to the fullest and not vicariously through the experiences of others wherever possible. I have flown an airplane solo. Skydived. I actively ski, scuba dive, ride motorcycles, figure skate at an adult Bronze level, run 5 and 10Ks, target shoot (and reload my own ammunition) and.....listen to music. Music listening is a daily experience and touches me deeply. I cannot imagine a world without it. For most folks, it is simply Muzak.

    rw
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Null Hypothesis-sd30.jpg  

  6. #81
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

    If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

    I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

    And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

    Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.
    I try things myself that may enhance my enjoyment of music which would include new gear and new recordings. What unsupported ideas???? If you're looking for support for cable sonics, take a look at Cable Asylum. You just don't happen to agree with that support. Neither do I but it's because I tried it for myself. But are you saying I should trust YOU over them? That might be fine for someone with a background in science but mine is in business and music. LCR parameters vs listening - only one road to take on that one for someone like me. But you seem to be suggesting that I accept things I don't understand on faith. Are you sure you're not a closet subjectivist?

    Most of the people on this board have a pretty open mind about the (however improbable) possibility of cable sonics that don't square up with the current accepted scientific wisdom. If that ever happens, are you going to yell at the person who tested it? Shouldn't SOMEONE be testing these things? Isn't that how science advances?

    Sorry, but you'll never "know" unless you try it. That's a truth. You may think you know, you may believe you know, you may go to your death bed saying you know, but you don't know. You likely won't even "know" if you tried it and had the expected outcome! Perhaps we do have some philosophical differences. I'm saying that any person that wants to try cables should arm himself with the information that is available and then decide if he still wants to try it. What's wrong with that? I wouldn't have tried cables if I had known in advance what I know now. Sorry... what I "think" I know now!

  7. #82
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by Monstrous Mike
    Just a question for DMK and others. Do you have to try everything yourselves? Do you ever do an analysis to weed out ideas that simply are unsupported and move on? Don't you believe in any of the testing of your fellow man?

    If you apply the reasoning you gave about the two sides of this arguement to general life, you would be a professional experimenter with a hundred thousand things to try at home and no time to enjoy any of it.

    I don't know about you be the older I get the more precious each day is on this earth. So I'm going to sit back and enjoy a cold beer and all you guys who need to test everything because you don't believe anything without confirmation or anlysis, then you know where to reach me when you have some conclusions.

    And don't give me that "You'll never know unless you try it" crap. What that really means is you'll never know until a bunch of other people have tried it for you.

    Maybe we have basic philosophical differences about life in general. That would explain a lot.
    The two responses you already have pretty much say it all.

    I do try things that I think will enhance my life if someone I trust and respect tells me that it enhanced theirs. There is enough anecdotal evidence about cable sonics to support such a test and as much as I respect science, it isn't infallible. And as one of the other posters mentioned, with no understanding of the science behind cables, we have to resort to (gasp!) listening to them! Not that there's anything to listen to but it was my own blind testing that proved that to me, not a bunch of internet posters telling me. Of course, without those internet posters, I might not have tried it at all. So... THANKS!

  8. #83
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    I get the gist of what you are saying, but I'm still not sure about your understanding of hypothesis testing. You said: "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." I disagree, and will try to show why with a hypothetical example.

    Suppose we are doing a controlled double-blind listening test on a $10 cable and a $100 cable with 20 subjects and 15 trials. The hypothesis and null hypothesis are stated as follows: hypothesis -- there is an audible difference in the two cables; null hypothesis -- there is no audible difference in the two cables. If one subject correctly identifies the cables enough times(e.g., 14 out of 15) to remove any doubt his score is a result of chance, the hypothesis is confirmed, even if the score of each of the remaining 19 subjects is no better than random. Because of the way the hypothesis was stated(i.e., existence of an audible difference), one listener is enough to prove it. If this isn't exactly what a researcher wants to find out, he can try to state the hypothesis in a different way.

    It also would seem reasonable to suspect most people would not notice an audible difference in the $10 cable and the $100 cable, and that for them spending 10 times as much for no difference makes no sense. On the other hand, if an individual hears a difference, the worth of the more expensive cable to him would be for him to determine. His right to decide how to spend his money, however, does not depend on whether the decision is based on sighted or blinded listening. Nor is he obligated to scientifically verify his hearing claim or justify the expense before telling others about the purchase.

    No, tests that use samples (i.e., satistical tests) deal with probabilities. When you say that scoring 14 out of 15 "removes all doubt" you are incorrect. It is simply unlikely, not a certain proof that the person can hear a difference. Statistical tests make decisions to accept or reject hypothesis based on a convention of unlikelyness not certainty. There is a known probably of effor (type 1 or 2) in all statistical tests.

    People are free to spend their money as they see fit--no matter how foolish the reasons

  9. #84
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    Talk about snobbery and elitism!

    One doesn't need your vaulted "expertise" to know that mtrycrafts made a claim (and does all the time with his unqualified advice to newcomers) and lacks support for that claim.

    Please point to one. Please proove your assertion of unqualified. What's yours?
    Last I checked, mtry has never failed to provide supporting citations when asked for them.

    -Bruce

  10. #85
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Please point to one. Please proove your assertion of unqualified. What's yours?
    Last I checked, mtry has never failed to provide supporting citations when asked for them.

    -Bruce
    His sources are reported tests using protocol that would never pass muster in even a high school science course, relating to a few wires avaialable 20 years ago. You apparently don't care about protocol, peer review and other well established procedures for ensuring reliable test results so long as the results suit your own dogma.

    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Unbiased people would be content with advising that cable differences are "unproven". Mtrycrafts goes way beyond that.

    My claim that he gives unqualified advice is easily verified if you want to do a search. He has done it over and over and over.

  11. #86
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    No, tests that use samples (i.e., satistical tests) deal with probabilities. When you say that scoring 14 out of 15 "removes all doubt" you are incorrect. It is simply unlikely, not a certain proof that the person can hear a difference. Statistical tests make decisions to accept or reject hypothesis based on a convention of unlikelyness not certainty. There is a known probably of effor (type 1 or 2) in all statistical tests.

    People are free to spend their money as they see fit--no matter how foolish the reasons
    My post was in response to your statement that "No scientific test, especially statistical samples, can be said to prove anything." If the example of 1 of 20 subjects scoring 14 out of 15 isn't convincing , make it all 20 subjects scoring a perfect 20 out of 20. And make the sample of 20 subjects scientifically drawn. And get the same results with many additional scientific samples. Wouldn't that show that a scientific test with statistical sampling proved something?
    Last edited by okiemax; 03-09-2004 at 12:13 PM.

  12. #87
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    1,188
    Not necessarily. Statistical analysis will give you a degree or interval of confidence which only tells you the probability that the results were or were not the effect of random chance. No statistical average is 100 percent certain. For instance, if you were to flip a coin 10,000 times, there is a very high probability that somewhere along the way, you would flip heads 15 out of 16 tries. If you were unlucky enought to randomly pick that sample to look at and draw the conclusion you did, it would be the wrong conclusion.

  13. #88
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Not necessarily. Statistical analysis will give you a degree or interval of confidence which only tells you the probability that the results were or were not the effect of random chance. No statistical average is 100 percent certain. For instance, if you were to flip a coin 10,000 times, there is a very high probability that somewhere along the way, you would flip heads 15 out of 16 tries. If you were unlucky enought to randomly pick that sample to look at and draw the conclusion you did, it would be the wrong conclusion.
    What are you taking issue with? I was talking about perfect scores not just with one sample, but with multiple samples. Anyway, this is getting away from my original point which was a person can in a controlled listening test proove two cables are audibly different to him if he can correctly identify the cables a sufficient number of times to remove any possibility that his performance is a result of chance. Thus, if one person has demonstrated beyond a doubt that he can hear a difference, an audible difference in the cables exists.
    Last edited by okiemax; 03-10-2004 at 01:30 AM.

  14. #89
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162

    The point

    What we disagree with is the notion that you can remove "remove ANY possibility of performance due to chance". That is precisely what cannot be done, and is one reason that no study can "proove" a hypothesis.

    Obviously, we humans can accept that very unlikely events offer some evidence that a hypothesis is true or false. That is the whole basis of statistical testing. We accept evidence that is not 100% proven for every instance all the time. We would be likely to say the a person correctly identifying 18 of 20 tests is evidence that that person can hear a difference, and it is.

    Why do you not accept that repeated failure of people to do this is evidence that they cannot hear a difference?

  15. #90
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    What we disagree with is the notion that you can remove "remove ANY possibility of performance due to chance". That is precisely what cannot be done, and is one reason that no study can "proove" a hypothesis.

    Obviously, we humans can accept that very unlikely events offer some evidence that a hypothesis is true or false. That is the whole basis of statistical testing. We accept evidence that is not 100% proven for every instance all the time. We would be likely to say the a person correctly identifying 18 of 20 tests is evidence that that person can hear a difference, and it is.

    Why do you not accept that repeated failure of people to do this is evidence that they cannot hear a difference?
    Why do you believe you can't "remove Any possibility of performance due to chance?" If a person in a controlled listening test for an audible difference in two cables scored correctly, say 100 times in a row, wouldn't that remove any possibility his performance is due to chance? If the hypothesis is he can hear a difference in the two cables, wouldn't that prove the hypothesis? If he can hear a difference, it means a difference exists.

    What does repeated failure to hear a difference mean? A person's repeated failure to hear a difference between two cables or two of anything else means he has not heard a difference so far. It may mean he will NEVER hear a difference, although someone else might, or it may mean the conditions weren't right or he hasn't listened enough.

    If you read my post of 1-24-2004 titled "Jerry Lee DBT," you will see why a negative result in a listening test doesn't necessarily mean there is no difference. This was a double-blind test of my ability to detect a difference in two recordings(sessions) of the same song by the same perfomers. In the first test I correctly identified the recording 7 out of 16 times. Did this mean I couldn't hear a difference? Yes. Did this mean there was no difference in the recordings? No. In the second test I correctly identified the recording 16 out of 16 times. Details are in the post.
    Last edited by okiemax; 03-11-2004 at 10:17 AM.

  16. #91
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884
    Quote Originally Posted by E-Stat
    Boy, responding to you sure is a lot of work. Can't you remember what you say from day to day? Look at post # 29 wherein I point out that none of your references is for anything better than a mid-fi receiver and bookshelf speakers. Here is your response followed with the usual unnecessary defensive jabs :

    Hey, I don't have to have a single citation. You still have the burden of demonstration for differences. Rather simple science. But then, you don't understand that stuff.

    Then in the very next post, you pontificate with these comments:

    Subtle or huge, you are still claiming a difference that you just cannot demonstrate under bais controlled listeing, regardless of component quality.

    So, let's look at the pieces.

    I say you have no references beyond the mediocre. You reply that is true. Then in the very next breath you make your tired old claim that proof exists "regardless of component quality"

    So which one of your two conflicting comments is true? If you assert that your latter comments are correct, then cite the source!

    sheesh!

    rw
    You supply no proof whatever. Complaining about mtry's references and comments (I don't see what your point is there, anyway) doesn't prove your case, whatever it is. What's so hard to understand about that?
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  17. #92
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    You apparently don't care about protocol, peer review and other well established procedures for ensuring reliable test results so long as the results suit your own dogma.
    Phil, stop trying to put words in my mouth.

    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. Unbiased people would be content with advising that cable differences are "unproven".
    No kidding, I believe that is what he does. Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence. As would I, but he has seen none, and I certainly haven't. Being in the business of chasing electrons around, I have never witnessed anything that would change my "bias."

    Mtrycrafts goes way beyond that.
    Really, what qualifies you to know?

    My claim that he gives unqualified advice is easily verified if you want to do a search. He has done it over and over and over.
    Search for what? Verified by what standard? Yours? Unqualified by what standard? You can't even qualify your claim. You so much like to ***** about protocols being flawed, do you have any evidence to the contrary? You know there isn't, so how can you call his advice unqualified, no one has "unqualified" any of the knowledge we have to date, have they; Including (and especially) Jon Risch and John Curl. As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

    -Bruce

  18. #93
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by FLZapped
    Phil, stop trying to put words in my mouth.



    No kidding, I believe that is what he does. Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence. As would I, but he has seen none, and I certainly haven't. Being in the business of chasing electrons around, I have never witnessed anything that would change my "bias."



    Really, what qualifies you to know?



    Search for what? Verified by what standard? Yours? Unqualified by what standard? You can't even qualify your claim. You so much like to ***** about protocols being flawed, do you have any evidence to the contrary? You know there isn't, so how can you call his advice unqualified, no one has "unqualified" any of the knowledge we have to date, have they; Including (and especially) Jon Risch and John Curl. As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance.

    -Bruce
    Bruce: "Furthermore, Mtry has more than once said his opinion would be swayed with evidence."

    I never said anything to the contrary. Perhaps you can track down the post where that allegation was made and respond to the person who made the allegation.

    Mtrycrafts: " Brand name is not important, unless it falls apart in your hand."
    See: question for mrtrycraft and others

    That's a claim made without any qualifying language, ergo "an unqualified claim". There - you need not search.

    BTW, I cited numerous other examples of his unqualified claims over on the old board.

    Bruce: "As Steve Eddy has said(and I paraphrase): No one has been able to show that cable design and characterization comes down to anything more than their basic electrical parameters: resistance, inductance, and capacitance."

    I have no argument with that statement AND it has nothing to do with the fact that I'm pointing out that mtrycrafts makes unqualified claims.

    I'm also pointing out, while I'm at it, that your bias blinds you to the breach of proper scientific protocol and reasoning in the type of "unqualified" claims that mtrycrafts makes.

    It never ceases to amaze me that 99.9999% of the people who discuss cables on the web insist on 100.00000% loyalty to their "side", and will never budge a 0.0000001 inch to criticize something one of their fellow-travelers might say or claim. Very interesting reflection of human nature.

  19. #94
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by okiemax
    Why do you believe you can't "remove Any possibility of performance due to chance?" If a person in a controlled listening test for an audible difference in two cables scored correctly, say 100 times in a row, wouldn't that remove any possibility his performance is due to chance? If the hypothesis is he can hear a difference in the two cables, wouldn't that prove the hypothesis? If he can hear a difference, it means a difference exists.

    What does repeated failure to hear a difference mean? A person's repeated failure to hear a difference between two cables or two of anything else means he has not heard a difference so far. It may mean he will NEVER hear a difference, although someone else might, or it may mean the conditions weren't right or he hasn't listened enough.

    If you read my post of 1-24-2004 titled "Jerry Lee DBT," you will see why a negative result in a listening test doesn't necessarily mean there is no difference. This was a double-blind test of my ability to detect a difference in two recordings(sessions) of the same song by the same perfomers. .

    You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method. You are simply not understanding the difference between certainty and very very likely. This difference AND your explanation as to why negative results are not sufficient to establish certainty is why we say "science can't prove negatives". You are also confused as to the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis, which is what I tried to explain in the base note.

    The bottom line is that good scientific tests test a postitive assertion, like "I (or people) can hear difference in cables." When tested, nobody tested (and therefore people in general) has been able to demonstrate that they can consistently distinguish cables. A reasonable view at this point is that nobody can (and it will stay reasonable until somebody does).

    Needless to say, a logical analysis of what people can hear vs. what cables can do, leads one to logically conclude that people can't hear differences in typical cables, independent of a direct test.

  20. #95
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotCzar
    You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method. You are simply not understanding the difference between certainty and very very likely. This difference AND your explanation as to why negative results are not sufficient to establish certainty is why we say "science can't prove negatives". You are also confused as to the meaning and purpose of the null hypothesis, which is what I tried to explain in the base note.

    The bottom line is that good scientific tests test a postitive assertion, like "I (or people) can hear difference in cables." When tested, nobody tested (and therefore people in general) has been able to demonstrate that they can consistently distinguish cables. A reasonable view at this point is that nobody can (and it will stay reasonable until somebody does).

    Needless to say, a logical analysis of what people can hear vs. what cables can do, leads one to logically conclude that people can't hear differences in typical cables, independent of a direct test.
    The degree to which you can distort truth and logic is truly awesome.

    You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run.

    You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables.

    "You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method."

    If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back.

  21. #96
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    884

    Will the sun rise tomorrow?

    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    The degree to which you can distort truth and logic is truly awesome.

    You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run.

    You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables.

    "You need a course (or book) in logic and scientific method."

    If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back.
    Come on, PC! What's a sensible answer? But do you absolutely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow? Isn't a positive answer an unjustified extrapolation based on incomplete data?

    You are distorting a probable view subject to revision into an absolute. You simply seem unable to understand Robot's view, much less state it accurately.
    "Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
    ------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.

  22. #97
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat D
    Come on, PC! What's a sensible answer? But do you absolutely know whether the sun will rise tomorrow? Isn't a positive answer an unjustified extrapolation based on incomplete data?

    You are distorting a probable view subject to revision into an absolute. You simply seem unable to understand Robot's view, much less state it accurately.
    I understand his view fine and I understand the null hypothesis. But the null hypothesis can be mis-applied just like anything else. He is mis-applying it for the reasons I gave, which were very specific in nature.

    But then again, you don't like to deal in specifics. Sweeping generalizations couched in scientific terms designed to make you feel "important" are what you are all about - at least as you exhibit yourself on this board.

  23. #98
    Color me gone... Resident Loser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nueva Jork
    Posts
    2,148

    Maybe I' missin' something...

    ...I've been visiting a branch office of the asylum...

    "...You assume without any foundation or demonstration that valid cable DBTs have been run..."

    Where was that? I'm not being argumentative...I didn't see any thing like that...plus, if one is to pose a hypothetical situation aren't certain assumptions required to provide a base on which to build upon...

    "...You further assume that even if every single reported DBT had been run in accordance with proper protocol and subjected to valid statistical analysis and had still produced null results that one could extrapolate from the few trials that have been reported on a miniscule portion of the different audio cables in use to a generalized conclusion about all cables..."

    I take it then you feel any generalization of a class is invalid...even if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and...

    "...If you have in fact took such a course or read such a book, in the infamous words of Skeptic, I highly recommend that you demand your money back..."

    Coupled with some of your other responses, I have a question:

    On your trip to Vegas, did you happen to pick up Don Rickles' luggage by mistake?

    jimHJJ(...grumpy, grumpy...)

  24. #99
    Forum Regular Monstrous Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    335
    In our cable debate, the null hypothesis can never be accepted since there is no logic, scientific study, nor statistical analysis that will ever be done that can conclusively accept the null hypothesis that audio cables do not sound different. On the other hand, there are certainly methods available that can lead to rejecting the null hypothesis.

    This is exactly the same as arguing about alien life. It simply cannot be proven that the null hypothesis (i.e. alien life does not exist elsewhere in the universe) is true. It is simply beyond human means. However, one concrete example of extraterrestrial life can cause the null hypothesis to be rejected.

    UFOs are a subset of this alien hypothesis and many have been explained while many have not been, although none of this proves anything.

    For those interested, here is a story about a sighting yesterday in Mexico: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNew...455568-ap.html

    And another link here showing an explanation of a UFO by NASA (I wonder how long it took them to figure this one out?): http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/tra...ce/no_ufo.html

    More on Bigfoot and Nessie next week...
    Friends help friends move,
    Good friends help friends move bodies....

  25. #100
    Forum Regular FLZapped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    740
    Quote Originally Posted by pctower
    It never ceases to amaze me that 99.9999% of the people who discuss cables on the web insist on 100.00000% loyalty to their "side", and will never budge a 0.0000001 inch to criticize something one of their fellow-travelers might say or claim. Very interesting reflection of human nature.
    Did it ever occur to you that I do not read everything he writes? -Bruce

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Proof of placebo effect ?
    By okiemax in forum Cables
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 01-15-2004, 06:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •