[crapback]

I'm trying to be more open minded as to how a CD player of any value can produce 12% distortion. I'm also trying to understand what their actual measurement of amplitude values in the first three graphs are supposed to be. Please tell me it's not supposed to be in decibels.

 

[TwoTrack]

I think maybe what is best is to get a copy of the paper or even better the Powerpoint deck I saw at RMAF. It goes into more detail on the methodology but these are respected scientists and sound engineers doing the work. I don't think you can dismiss their study since it was paid for by a cable company.

After all, wouldn't the cable company have a significant interest in creating a truly scientific and unbiased study that shows real improvement?

I'm not against some healthy skepticism but I also don't think we can dismiss it either. Acuity is a third party observer here for the most part.

 

[crapback]

UK defense contractors have sound engineers? I'd love to see them record some explosions in their studio, from a distance.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think folks here need to be more open-minded; scaling is changed to make it easier to see. There is no fraud here. One of the graphs for instance charts the difference from the effect. It's not subtle.

My point is that they used the same graphs between studies of two DIFFERENT products. They only scaled the amplitude.

 

[colonelkernel8]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif After all, wouldn't the cable company have a significant interest in creating a truly scientific and unbiased study that shows real improvement?

No, they have significant interest in making money.

 

[Slash47]

Come on man...

If it turns out there is an explainable difference between cables and 'power cleaners' and stuff like that, it would be quite interesting to know, wouldn't it?

If this piece is just a preview that summarizes their findings so far that's fine with me. If this is 'it', it's rather shallow and a wee bit pointless.

 

[Hudson]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif It goes into more detail on the methodology but these are respected scientists and sound engineers doing the work.

Can you point me to some of their other scientific work? I've not been able to find any reference to their work anywhere.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TwoTrack /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't think you can dismiss their study since it was paid for by a cable company.

If it were a court it would be dismissed under conflict of interest. Let that sink in for a moment.

Quote:

After all, wouldn't the cable company have a significant interest in creating a truly scientific and unbiased study that shows real improvement?

Yes, but the thing is this isn't "unbiased" thanks to the conflict mentioned previously. Also, it doesn't show real improvement . . . at least not in a way that's forthcoming whatsoever.

What's really of interest to the company is money, and as such anything that even makes it look like there might be a difference could be considered a lucrative venture. This isn't to say that the particular company in question did this . . . but it's certainly something to consider.

 

[edstrelow]

I don't think the critics of this study have it right at all. I see what appear to be units on the graphs but I can't make them out because they are too small to read. Otherwise it looks interesting.

Obviously the debunking crowd have to try to belittle this type of result. It shows their closed-mindedness. Yammer on about the need for data and when they get some, reject it. Guess they are just going to have to find a new hobby-horse.

 

[nealric]

Quote:

If it were a court it would be dismissed under conflict of interest. Let that sink in for a moment.

Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, but judges have HUGE discretion on whether to admit evidence. There is no absolute rule prohibiting evidence presented by someone with an interest in presenting it in a certain light.

If you want some light reading, the Federal Rules of Evidence are free online:
LII: Federal Rules of Evidence

That's US specific, but I imagine most common law jurisdictions are similar.

 

[Shike]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow I don't thinnk the critics of this study have it right at all. I see what appear to be units on th graphs but I can't make them out because they are too small to read. Otherwise it looks interesting. Obviously the debunking crowd have to try to belittle this type of result. It shows their closed-mindedness. Yammer on about the need for data and whe they get some, reject it. Guess they are just going to have to find a new hobby-horse.

Zoom function, use it. All it says is "amplitude", which is great except . . . amplitude in what? Decibels, current, voltage . . . ?

Good luck figuring that one out, how are you supposed to hold it to scientific scrutiny if you don't even know what "it" is?


Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif Sorry to get all legal nerd on you, but judges have HUGE discretion on whether to admit evidence.

Except it's not the evidence I'm getting at -- it's the relationship between the companies.

Think of it this way; it would be like having a judge or jury that's both familiar with the defendant, and being paid by the defendant too.

 

[crapback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by edstrelow /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't thinnk the critics of this study have it right at all. I see what appear to be units on th graphs but I can't make them out because they are too small to read. Otherwise it looks interesting. Obviously the debunking crowd have to try to belittle this type of result. It shows their closed-mindedness. Yammer on about the need for data and whe they get some, reject it. Guess they are just going to have to find a new hobby-horse.

Acrobat reader does have a zoom function. When you zoom in there are still no units of measurement on the graphs. They just use some arbitrary amplitude numbers. I'm still not sure whether the x-axis is supposed to represent time in seconds or percentage of signal amplitude.

I would love to see some real data that proves cables make a difference. I wouldn't have built some 22awg silver teflon cables for my tf10's. And I definitely wouldn't have made 16awg cables for my HD650's. Both of which, IMO, make an audible improvement. If I were looking to end the debate about the effects of cables in audio I would do it so any person off the street could understand.

 

[MomijiTMO]

Yes us science people are slowly dying. I have nothing to say...

 

[edstrelow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it were a court it would be dismissed under conflict of interest. Let that sink in for a moment. Yes, but the thing is this isn't "unbiased" thanks to the conflict mentioned previously. Also, it doesn't show real improvement . . . at least not in a way that's forthcoming whatsoever. What's really of interest to the company is money, and as such anything that even makes it look like there might be a difference could be considered a lucrative venture. This isn't to say that the particular company in question did this . . . but it's certainly something to consider.

Nonsense.

Parties use their own experts in court all the time and mostly they pay them too.

Getting back to this type of dispute, everyone has some bias or another even things like too much ego invested in some arcanity like audio cable differences or lack thereof. The issue is the reliability and repeatablity of a result. The scientific way to challenge a result is to attempt to replicate it and fail.

 

[crapback]

Is it time to bring this to the attention of the Mythbusters?