02GF74
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 05:43 PM |
|
|
Remember the HiFi madness posts?
here
some interesting reading about speaker components - gist is that the difference in capacitors are immesurable yet the effect can be heard by people.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
Is that one of those obscure magazines, the type if which is used for cheap laughs on Have I Got News for You.
I read the first two lines and dozed off
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 13/1/09 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
Do you think the name ClarityCap has an R missing near the end?
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 09:56 AM |
|
|
"100 per cent of listeners could pick out the difference with only 20 minutes of training" said Paul Dodds, a researcher AT WREXHAM BASED
CAPACITOR MAKER CLARITY CAP.
As a scientist articles like this make me literally furious. Its not restricted to obscure mags like this either, BBC news is just as bad.
This is a pseudo scientific trial funded by people who are trying to prove the difference rather than by an actual scientist trying to find a result
with no predefined answer.
Can you spot the problem here?
"I have never seen a unicorn in Nottingham and neither has anybody I have ever met. There have also never been any pictures or reports of a
unicorn sighted here"
"Therefore there are no unicorns in Nottingham"
Craig
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:04 AM |
|
|
Whooooosh !
I love the sound of gobbledegook going over my head in the morning
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:08 AM |
|
|
There are two obvious possibilities
Either they are cheating/rigging the trial to sell their highly priced products
or they aren't actually measuring the thing that makes the difference and are thus incompetent.
The idea that they are 'training' the observers makes cheating sound (pun intended) rather likely. real trials by real scientists are
double blind and are actively designed not to require training as it brings in a whole lot of psychological problems into the results.
p.s. the unicorn thing is an example of not being able to directly prove a negative.
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:13 AM |
|
|
I knew there would be a selection of scientific minds here  .
I dread going round to see my parents when my mums read something written by somebody in "hello" about homeopathy.
More often than not I end up having to defend genetics against witchcraft! (I'm a geneticist )
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:43 AM |
|
|
This is all a bit geeky for so early in the morning…
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:50 AM |
|
|
you posted that at 11:43 Mr Whippy, I guess your basically saying that geekyness has no place at all in the mornings whether its early or not!
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:52 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
you posted that at 11:43 Mr Whippy, I guess your basically saying that geekyness has no place at all in the mornings whether its early or not!
save it for the Startrek forums btw its only 10:53...
[Edited on 14/1/09 by Mr Whippy]
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:55 AM |
|
|
Damn server timer!
and I'm on the late today.
and it took me hours to get to work this morning thanks to the car issues.
Can I not just work off the locostbuilders time just for today? 
Craig
|
|
|
Mr Whippy
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 11:03 AM |
|
|
there's usually a clock at the bottom right of the screen 
Fame is when your old car is plastered all over the internet
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 12:42 PM |
|
|
If some you are saying that you wouldnt be able to hear the difference between a cheap stereo out of Currys and something like my seperates system you
seriously need your ears checking.
Granted there is a lot of hype about expensive kit (they have to sell it somehow!), but not all of it is unjustified.
Theres more to it than what can be measured on an oscilloscope or multimeter. Especially when it comes to speaker design....
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 12:46 PM |
|
|
No, I'm not saying anything of the sort.
I'm saying that this test was unscientific. Its like when the original research into tobacco found no health risks (and was funded by the
tobacco companies themselves!)
I'm an audiophile myself and pay close attention to my rms's and impedances, but not the resistance of a capacitor when its surrounding
components have a much higher resistance
Craig
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:12 PM |
|
|
As a scientist, surely you don't believe all research involving or funded by commercial organisations is automatically dishonest/rigged/a
publicity stunt or whatever? In fact the majority of all scientific research and development is carried out, or otherwise funded by
corporations/industry! Besides - if you'd read to the end of the article you'd have noticed the work in question was part of a DTI funded
scheme anyway
Also, having to train participants of a study doesn't equal cheating. I for example could hardly participate in a study comparing... I dunno...
genome data, without being trained to know what I'm looking for. We don't know whether this was double blind or not.
Still, that said, the articly does read a little like an advert for capacitors
Liam
|
|
|
RK
|
| posted on 14/1/09 at 10:35 PM |
|
|
Well, when my mum told me and my cousin that she, my aunts and my grandmother, could hear Santa's bells coming, and we looked up in the sky and
could see stars, and we were sure that he was in there somewhere, he was obviously there, or there wouldn't have been presents under our trees
the next morning would there?
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 15/1/09 at 12:04 AM |
|
|
It's clearly a complete load of crap.
quote:
Conventional test gear is not detecting the phase changes Dodds has looked at. “It sounds like black magic, but it really isn’t,” he said. “It
is just that the ear is better than £5,000 or even £10,000 test gear.”
The ear is NOT better than test gear since it's connected to a brain which can be influenced by countless other inputs including suggestion.
Additionally no two ears are the same, and all ears degrade with age. What might sound unreasonably bright to a teenager might sound quite flat to a
50 year old.
Test instruments are impartial, you don't need to "train" them to get a result, and that result is repeatable.
The great thing about saying the ear is the best instrument (for the peddlers of overpriced, over hyped audio junk), is that no-one can prove or
disprove results.
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 15/1/09 at 08:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
As a scientist, surely you don't believe all research involving or funded by commercial organisations is automatically dishonest/rigged/a
publicity stunt or whatever? In fact the majority of all scientific research and development is carried out, or otherwise funded by
corporations/industry! Besides - if you'd read to the end of the article you'd have noticed the work in question was part of a DTI funded
scheme anyway
Also, having to train participants of a study doesn't equal cheating. I for example could hardly participate in a study comparing... I dunno...
genome data, without being trained to know what I'm looking for. We don't know whether this was double blind or not.
Still, that said, the articly does read a little like an advert for capacitors
Liam
Nope, I dont believe most of the research into the very high end of the audio stuff, and this article is no exception. It is a poorly devised
experiment. (when you are looking at spending £15k on an amp, thats getting excessive in anyones books)
What I do tend to disagree with is that the test gear is always right. Look at the results of speaker tests (on a website such as stereophile) and you
will understand. The actual quality of the sound you get doesnt always match the readings. A lot of it with hifi is personal preference, so at the end
of the day, believe your own ears, not anyone else or the lab equipment
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 15/1/09 at 05:43 PM |
|
|
Dont believe? Tut tut - that's not very scientific. Religious even.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the bo**ocks surrounding a great deal of high end 'audiophile' products. Just playing
a bit of devil's advocate! Truth is that article doesn't give enough information about that particular work to support some of the
claims of "definately bull**it" that are being made here. Holding back the cynicism, on the face of it, it's a government funded
initiative to find methods of reliably quantifying audiophile waffle. Could actually result in a reduction of audiophile nonsense and
expensive products verging on blatant fraud. So fair play to the study!
Liam
[Edited on 15/1/09 by Liam]
|
|
|
