Re: Too neat to waste...
- From: Theporkygeorge@xxxxxxx
- Date: 2 Sep 2006 03:11:05 -0700
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <1157089256.908638.161120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <1156953968.453462.220700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
However I diagree with what you say. If you want to test if the
*medium* has any "inherent colourations" <your initial phrase for
this> then the test requirements for the results to be reliable and
relevant as evidence are different to if you wanted to simply see if a
specific recorder and discs were producing "coloured" results.
Fair enough. Let me know when yuo have some peer reviewed scientific
studies on the issue.
Afraid I am not clear why you want someone else to have published
something relevant in a peer reviewed journal before you are willing
to tell anyone about the methods you used.
I haven't said that.
Are they secret for some
They are not secret.
I am afraid I still don't know what you are frightened of
I have explained my concerns several times now. I do not know how to
explain them any better but I willtry one omre time. I think you are
trying to stack the deck in favor of results you agree with. I think
you are doing so by trying to discredit tests that draw conclusions you
don't like while gving tests that draw conclusions you do like a free
pass without examination. the fact is all such tests are anecdotal in
nature. I think you are simply picking and chosing your anecdotes based
on which ones draw conclusions that conform to yuor prejudices. It's a
game I am not interested in playing. If you think I am wrong you can
easily show me by simply citing an example of you disecting any tests
of CD-R copies and original sources where the conculsion was no
difference heard. That would show evidence that I am wrong and you are
not stacking the deck by scrutinizing some anecdotes because they draw
conclusions you dont' like while giving others a free pass because they
draw conclusions you do like. I have explained this several times now.
honestly if you ignore it again and tell me again that you do not
undestand why I am not giving you the details of my comparisons i will
not be able to take you seriously anymore.
Perhaps you have misunderstood what I have been saying.
1) I have not been saying that CDs do *not* have any "inherent
2) I have not been saying that your assertion about them that they do so,
and show a "loss of information" *is* wrong.
What I have (repeatedly) been doing is ask you to define what you mean
*and* to give the details of a test you say you have done and which leads
you to conclude what you assert from having compared CDR copies with an LP
original. The reason I have asked is so that anyone else who wishes (not
just myself) can decide for themselves what basis your claims may have,
or what your phrases actually mean.
I have understood that.
Also the (repeatedly) point out that without the details of the test you
did, no one can really tell what your test actually showed.
Alas, a problem here is that you still have not either given the full
details of the tests you keep referring to, nor defined the term
"inherent colourations" in a way that would allow us to clearly define
a suitable test.
It isn't a problem. I don't claim my tests were worthy of peer review
You keep commenting on that. But I have not been asking you for evidence
that they *were* "worthy" of that.
But if they weren't then certainly you will find some fault.
I have simply been asking for the
details so that the rest of us can make our own decisions, rather than just
having your assertions to go on. Why should we not be able to do so?
I have explained why.
But this is a problem you face with all tests that have not
endured peer review in a scientific journal. So in the absense of such
studies you really have nothing either way.
...well we would, if you gave us the details of your test. :-)
Not really. You would just have a more detailed anecdote.
However as reported, the problem with your claim is that your
obbservation that a (some?) CDR copies could easily have come from an
imperfection in the specific system you used. Hence the results remain
useless as a basis for claiming they show "inherent colourations" -
particularly as other comparions show no sight of them.
My claim is that some objectivists have suggested I could prove for
myself that red book CD is audibly transparent by making CD-Rs of my Lps
and doing blind comparisons. I have done that and heard differences so
the suggested proof of transparency failed.
OK. Well, as I have pointed out, until you give the details it probably
isn't possible for others to decide one way or another what meaning your
test results may have.
I didn't do them so others could decide anything about them. I did them
in response to the claim that I would not hear a diffeence and it would
prove the medium transparent.
The problem here isn't that a scientific journal
might refuse to publish the details. It is that you have not published
them, here, when invited to do so. Thus the lack of knowledge we have is
caused by your not making the information available. Your choice, not a
refusal of some unstated "peer review journal".
By refusing, you put your claims into the category of an "assertion
of belief" on your part which others are expected to accept as
an article of faith, or not.
Your test results at present are unassessable. Hence they have no
determinable reliability at all, I'm afraid.
Pretty much like all the other non-peer reviewed tests of the subject.
Again, the problem isn't a lack of any formal peer review.
actually it is the problem. Without it all we have are anecdotes.
It is that you
have not yourself published the details. Thus the problem is of your own
I am not going to play the game of pick and chose the anecdotes that
suit your beliefs. Sorry.
Indeed. :-) But we could form a better view if we knew the details of
the test you report. We could then at least assess what reliability
and scope the results might have.As I have said previously, the
problem is not that what you say is "anecdote". It is that you have
still not given any of the details anyone else would need to be able
to decide what, if anything, your assertions might mean.
As I hve said previously, unless you scrutinize all such claims the same
exact way regardless of the results it is of no value because you are
just stacking the deck.
I agree. That is why I tend to ask for details for any such claims where
the report seems of interest.
Sorry but what *you* think is of interest is in fact a product of your
biases. You are simply stacking the deck when it comes to anecdotal
evidence. i am not interested in participating in that game.
Alas, people often react as you do, and
simply repeatedly assert their conclusion whilst not giving the
experimental basis of what they say. Lacking evidence others can assess,
this means, as you say, that any attempt to draw a meaningful conclusion
may have no value.
However it is open to you to give the details. :-)
It is still open to you to scrutinize all claims regardless of how they
fit your preconceptions. Certainly you have seen just how far it has
gotten the creationists by not doing so.
The problem is nothing to do with "funding".
No it has everything to do with it. Don't think so? Just fund a study.
Fund it and they will come (research scientists)
But what has "funding" to do with you telling us the details of tests which
you have already done? :-)
What does telling you the details of my test have to do with finding
the truth in the matter?
Nor about "peer review publishing" if you mean in an academic journal.
But it is about you providing the detail so that your "peers" (i.e.
the rest of us who you are talking to) can assess the basis you have
for your assertions for themselves.
No. There is scientifically valid evidence and there is anecdotal
evidence. there is no grey area between the two.
That may or may not be so.
I have asked a few actual research scientists what they think. They all
say in no uncertain terms it is so. Th word they all used for anecodtal
evidence was "junk." Pretty clear IMO.
But the problem here is that you have not given
us the details of your tests, so making it impossible for anyone to decide
what value or class would be appropriate for what you did. Thus we can't
even assess which side of the dichotomy you describe would be appropriate.
We have different opinions on what really is the problem here.
That is fine as it indicates that both formats can deliver good
results. But that isn't the same as making absolute assertions about
CD having "inherent colourations", etc.
I'm not so worried about it as you seem to be.
I am interested to see what, if anything, your claims might be based upon.
So far as I have had in response is that you have not given any useful
information upon which your assertions could be assessed.
The rest, I am afraid, provides me no good clue to where else
the "inherent colouration" of a CD may lie.
Fair enough but what does that really mean? It doesn't mean the
colorations I describe are imaginary.
But you still have not actually defined them.
I have desribed them which is all I can do as a layman with an
aesthetic experience. If that does not work for you all apologies
but that is all I or any other layperson can really offer.
No, it is not.
Yes it is.
Do you remember pantomime? :-)
I don't like mimes.
There is more you can do, both for us, and to help you to express your
own views. That is to give the details of the tests you did that lead
you to your views. We can then decide for ourselves.
I think you have already decided because you don't like the results.
That is your (incorrect) opinion. However you can deal with this quite
easily if you give the details.
You can deal with it just as easly by showing vidence that you deal
with all claims on the matter even handedly.
Then, even if I criticised them, others
could read them and decide to support you. There is no need for you,
or anyone else, to accept anything I might say about the details
should you give them.
Indeed there is no need for me to feed someone who picks and choses his
anecdotes based on their conclusions either.
The point here is that by giving them you
allow everyone to make up their own minds on the basis of being
able to assess the evidence for themselves. This means they can
then do this without having to agree with your opinions, or mine.
I really don't care what others think of them.
Until you can show me otherwise I will not aid you in the picking and
chosing of your prefered anecdotes.
Again, you seem to prefer to keep your own report as what you call an
"anecdote". As I have explained, you can do something about this if you so
choose... It you who keeps referring to your report as "anecdote", but it
is also you who is deciding not to provide what others would need to
decide for themselves. Your choice in both cases.
I chose not to play your game. Sorry
The sad thing for me about this is that if they focussed on trying
to uncover the real reasons for things then the situation might be
I think that is the job o the makers not the reviewers.
Who will understandably address what the *reviewers* say in their
magazine comments. They will focus their attention on trying to deal
with matters which come up repeatedly in the magazines. To do
otherwise may have a negative impact on their image and sales, I'm
Possibly but free markets and freedom of speech and all.
Indeed. But a shame if the results misinform or misguide people.
what is misinformation to one peson is truth to another. that is why
freedom of speech is so valuable.tyrany is usually based on a belief
that one has a monopoly on "the truth."
might be good as part of the same "freedom of speech" if we could bring a
more critical and analystic approach to bear, and make the results
available to people.
No one is stopping anyone else in this endevour
- Prev by Date: Re: Too neat to waste...
- Next by Date: Re: Where is Mr. Pinkerton?
- Previous by thread: Re: Too neat to waste...
- Next by thread: Re: Too neat to waste...