@cleeds No, this is how science works:
Many scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications, the withdrawal of many reported positive replications, the discovery of flaws and sources of experimental error in the original experiment, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts.[5] By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead,[6][7] and cold fusion subsequently gained a reputation as pathological science.[8][9] In 1989 the United States Department of Energy (DOE) concluded that the reported results of excess heat did not present convincing evidence of a useful source of energy and decided against allocating funding specifically for cold fusion. A second DOE review in 2004, which looked at new research, reached similar conclusions and did not result in DOE funding of cold fusion.[10]
Your friend and humble scribe
|
By the way, this thread is not ugly. The truth is sometimes ugly.
|
geoffkait@cleeds No, this is how science works:
Many
scientists tried to replicate the experiment with the few details
available. Hopes faded due to the large number of negative replications,
the withdrawal of many reported positive replications ... We are not really in disagreement here. The results obtained through scientific research are not always as hoped, and not every experimenter finds himself able to duplicate the results reported by another. The point I was trying to make is that from the beginning of a supposedly scientific test, the methodology must be something others can duplicate in an effort to confirm the result. That a result cannot be confirmed - as was clearly the case with Pons & Fleischmann - isn't "anti-science," but science at work. And to make trying to replicate a result worthwhile, the experimenter should be assured that the test itself was scientific.
|
All the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible. That’s because there are too many things that can go wrong with ANY test protocol, at least for audio related tests. The difference with the Cold Fusion Test was that results were POSITIVE. What Uber Skeptics are saying is that a blind test will prove some audiophile claim to be false, I.e., test results will be NEGATIVE. Which means nothing, as I’ve said. |
By the way, this thread is not ugly. The truth is sometimes ugly.
What proof is truth against all lies? |
@gdhal, is it true that when you lie your pants really are on fire? 🔥
|
It’s unfortunate that this thread - which is about the science of double blind audio testing - has become one of the ugliest ever on Audiogon. @cleeds Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Disbelievers have the right to place a burden of proof on any individual(s) who state the *impossible*. Those who state the impossible are under no obligation to prove anything. The right to state whatever one happens to believe is granted to everyone. I may not agree with what you have to say/write, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone who can audible detect a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed from speaker to amp and vice versa while maintaining polarity has an opportunity to <undefined term> benefit. All are invited as I do not discriminate but like any other professional require privacy. Inquire within. |
When preacher from tribune shouted to the crowd "The Liar's Pants Are On Fire", the liar immediately started checking pants. |
gdhal
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Disbelievers have the right to place a burden of proof on any individual(s) who state the *impossible*. Those who state the impossible are under no obligation to prove anything. The right to state whatever one happens to believe is granted to everyone. I may not agree with what you have to say/write, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Anyone who can audible detect a difference when ordinary speaker wire is reversed from speaker to amp and vice versa while maintaining polarity has an opportunity to <undefined term> benefit. All are invited as I do not discriminate but like any other professional require privacy. Inquire within.
I dub thee The Amazing Hal. 🤑 |
“People would generally be much better off if they believed in too much rather than too little.”
- P. T. Barnum
|
It will have to be brief fragments because of limited audio memory.
|
One assumes you’re speaking for yourself. I remember very clearly what I heard yesterday. And the day before. And last week. And last year. I always considered limited audio memory to be an old wives tale.
|
geoffkaitAll the more reason not to accept blind tests, uh, blindly. There is no reason why ANY blind test protocol should be considered above all others as being infallible. Of course. That’s part of why I think blind testing has very little value to most audiophiles. What’s interesting about this thread about blind testing is that its noisiest advocates aren’t scientists, cite special exemption from blind testing for their claims, and don’t even understand proper testing protocols. One of them is staying one step ahead of the moderators and is still trying to hustle his $25,000 scam "challenge." |
Yes, what’s also fascinating is the blind test advocates or dogmatists whatever have obviously made their minds up already, without even waiting for the test. I mean, come on people! Hel-loo!
If it doesn’t make sense it’s not true. - Judge Judy
|
Now for something completely different. A Global Tweak. Let’s see if we have any players. I’m going to do something, a tweak, I’m not saying what, so it will be blind, this afternoon AFTER 4 PM sometime, but not after 5. So you won have to wait too long. This will give anyone a chance to get familiar with the sound of his system BEFORE I do it, so he can compare BEFORE and AFTER the Global Tweak.
I will post on this thread to give a heads up 😳 right after I do whatever it is I’m going to do. The only thing I will say about it is it should be audible on any system anywhere. It’s a Global Tweak so you should be able to hear it anywhere in the world.
|
|
Proof positive the post immediately prior to 03-19-2018 2:03pm is fake news is that it’s author deleted it.
"Um is not an answer" - Judge Judy |
It's bad enough that "fake news" is used in politics to avoid the truth and the debate that should ensue but here, on an audio forum, it's a bit much.
Ditto heads and cult followers scream "fake news" but I trust that no one here is that dense.
All the best,
Nonoise |
I didn’t delete it. Why would I? You cannot delete or edit your own post once it’s been there for 30 minutes.
They don’t keep me here because I’m gorgeous. They keep me here because I’m smart. - Judge Judy |
I didn’t delete it. Why would I? You cannot delete or edit your own post once it’s been there for 30 minutes.
They don’t keep me here because I’m gorgeous. They keep me here because I’m smart. - Judge Judy That isn’t true. You may not *edit* after 30 min, but you *can* delete. "Either you are playing dumb, or its not an act" - Judge Judy |
Is there something the matter with you? ~ Judge Judy
|
Is there something the matter with you? ~ Judge Judy "If you tell the truth, then you don’t have to have a good memory" - Judge Judy |
Oh, there’s something wrong with you!
|
I ain't often right, but I've never been wrong. |
|
Do you have children? 26 y/o son. 29 y/o daughter. |
Looking at speaker cable from an electronics point of view which will affect sound. 1. The current capability of the wire. 2. The inductive and
capacitive reactance with frequencies. Conductor spacing will affect this and the resistance of the wire too. Given both speaker cables can carry more constant and peak current your amplifier can produce that leaves how it reacts. I personal have only heard difference in the Gauge size and current capability affecting the low end.
It would be interesting to see the spectrum analysis between a cheap 10 GA Speaker cable and some of the speaker cables from $200.00 and up to 15ft. Can the $5,000 cable prove it has a spectrum advantage? If so to what extent? |
