|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? posted by jj on April 10, 2002 at 08:31:51:
Wow! I can't believe I read that! What an evasion!I first joined the AES in 1967. Not to say it never happened, but I can't recall *a single test* being conducted by the AES. All tests are conducted by "some of its members" and later published, or not. Jeez!
The "tests" in question were part of the official (and pre-approved) program, not something concocted on the fly. They were done in conjunction with a panel discussion on audibility of cable differences that included such noteworthies as a psychologist (a rather nasty man), a writer for Skeptical Inquirer and a rep. from the NY State Dept. of Consumer Fraud (or some such name). Talk about a stacked deck!
Anyone who wants to know more can just ask me; I was there.
BTW that line about the guy who asserted that "all digital playback makes your muscles weaker" is another hoot. The writer's description bears NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE TRUTH. If I were he, I'd condescendingly instruct him to do his research before he opened his mouth again. But I am me -- thank God -- so I'll offer a few facts.
The member in question was Dr. John Diamond.
His field is Applied Kinesiology.
There was no mere assertion, but a structured, verifiable and repeatable test.
"All digital playback" -- no, never. Only CD. He did not locate the effect with DAT.
"[All] your muscles" -- no, never. *One* muscle.
See how error so easily creeps in, even in the discourse of a writer who constantly harangues others to "get their facts straight"? Perhaps if scientists exhibited a little more humility and a little less certitude, I could accept their pronunciamentos. In the meantime, I'll listen for myself.
clark
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups Full ThreadTopic - Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 07:52:59 04/8/02 (216)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - xenon101 10:17:44 04/10/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Analog Scott 20:32:55 04/9/02 (20)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:39:10 04/9/02 (12)
- No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - jj 08:19:00 04/10/02 (8)
- "the guy who argued that digital playback made your muscles get weak?" - clarkjohnsen 14:15:15 04/10/02 (1)
- Try again, Clarke - jj 08:36:07 04/13/02 (0)
- Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 11:24:43 04/10/02 (1)
- You were there. Wow! An historic occasion... - clarkjohnsen 14:24:10 04/10/02 (0)
- Re: No, I know better than to believe what you say, John - john curl 10:49:12 04/10/02 (3)
- Enough of the crap, John - jj 19:05:25 04/12/02 (0)
- As an AES member from 1967... - clarkjohnsen 14:19:57 04/10/02 (1)
- Re: As an AES member from 1967... - john curl 15:20:42 04/10/02 (0)
- A point many are making. - jusbe 03:16:01 04/10/02 (2)
- Well said! - clarkjohnsen 14:11:23 04/10/02 (0)
- Exactly... And how "scientific" are the white papers we see all the time? - jj 08:20:43 04/10/02 (0)
- Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - jj 21:52:34 04/9/02 (6)
- did someone call me? :) <nt> - TOOL 18:05:15 04/10/02 (0)
- Re: Who are these "objectivists" that you rant about? - Analog Scott 08:25:38 04/10/02 (4)
- Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - jj 08:31:51 04/10/02 (3)
- Re: Really, now? I'm an AES member. Perhaps you confuse the AES with its members? - Analog Scott 15:33:06 04/12/02 (0)
- "The AES did not conduct that test, some of its members did." - clarkjohnsen 04/10/0214:08:09 04/10/02 (0)
- Not wanting to be pernickety, but - orejones 08:58:57 04/10/02 (0)
- Agreed: When experimental results cannot be explained... - justacoder 13:28:13 04/9/02 (0)
- Agree almost entirely. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:58:13 04/9/02 (2)
- You're not so clumsy - jusbe 03:06:16 04/10/02 (1)
- Retract your accusation immediately... - jj 08:33:27 04/10/02 (0)
- Are We Being Ungrateful? - PriyaW 10:51:03 04/9/02 (4)
- I don`t think so. - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:30:48 04/9/02 (3)
- Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - jj 12:58:51 04/9/02 (2)
- Re: Now that's a different bird altogether.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 15:14:30 04/9/02 (1)
- Did it ever occur to you that ... - jj 18:56:02 04/9/02 (0)
- in modern mathematics, proof is considered... - suits_me 09:58:12 04/9/02 (0)
- ...and no one will EVER know whether the test subjects are really telling the truth <nt> - TOOL 09:57:12 04/9/02 (1)
- Um, ever hear the word "controls" - jj 10:07:29 04/9/02 (0)
- I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies... - jusbe 07:19:24 04/9/02 (26)
- Re: I thought science was just another name for belief, another 'religion' with its own ceremonies.. - john curl 16:12:01 04/10/02 (1)
- Indeed, including new information about the need for DBT test structures, etc. - jj 08:38:16 04/13/02 (0)
- Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - jj 08:58:24 04/9/02 (20)
- Re: Bullshit. Science is testable, religions aren't. Admit the difference. - Anaog Scott 20:41:44 04/9/02 (3)
- errr. um ... - jj 21:45:41 04/9/02 (2)
- Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:53:06 04/12/02 (0)
- Re: errr. um ... - Analog Scott 15:42:59 04/12/02 (0)
- Aah, but religion is testable, you just cant publish the results. nt - PabloP 14:45:11 04/9/02 (1)
- Unh. Wanna rethink that in the terms it was originally phrased? - jj 19:28:12 04/9/02 (0)
- Very little in science can be PROVED. Data usually 'fits the model'. Have you ever SEEN a neutron? - jusbe 09:02:31 04/9/02 (13)
- Do you mean to imply that neutron's don't exist? - Ted Smith 15:58:08 04/10/02 (0)
- So, you don't know what science is. Big surprise, that. - jj 09:04:08 04/9/02 (11)
- Pray tell; what is science? nt - jusbe 09:05:38 04/9/02 (10)
- Since you don't know, why are you making claims about what it is. - jj 09:24:47 04/9/02 (5)
- Certitudinous! nt - clarkjohnsen 13:41:05 04/10/02 (0)
- Why does my asking indicate my ignorance? Think first before you shoot. nt - jusbe 10:50:30 04/9/02 (3)
- Because you ask AFTER you make strong, and incorrect assertions? - jj 12:31:31 04/9/02 (2)
- I ask because I was interested in YOUR definition. I cordially withdraw my interest. nt - jusbe 02:59:00 04/10/02 (1)
- Then why didn't you go below and read it? It's in this thread! - jj 08:25:29 04/10/02 (0)
- My answer: A good one: - clarkjohnsen 09:20:47 04/9/02 (3)
- As usual, Clark shoots and misses... - jj 09:26:23 04/9/02 (2)
- I would say, to judge by your tone -- - clarkjohnsen 13:39:42 04/10/02 (0)
- Nicely put (nt) - jsr 22:49:00 04/9/02 (0)
- Post modernist! ;-) - dado5 07:41:38 04/9/02 (2)
- S'pose so. My flo', mo' so, Po' Po'-Mo'. No? nt - jusbe 09:00:03 04/9/02 (1)
- Troll! (MT) - jj 09:05:03 04/9/02 (0)
- Re: the fog of war - Bruce from DC 07:01:10 04/9/02 (6)
- I think it's simpler than that, Bruce.... - jj 08:57:00 04/9/02 (2)
- Re: questions and more questions - Bruce from DC 10:04:33 04/9/02 (1)
- I don't quite agree... I think it's some basic suppositions that stick out... - jj 10:19:14 04/9/02 (0)
- "nobody, but nobody, puts ketchup on a hot dog." - dado5 07:50:57 04/9/02 (1)
- Re: I agree. - Bruce from DC 09:27:33 04/9/02 (0)
- informative post! <nt> - TOOL 07:44:16 04/9/02 (0)
- Re: i know of a person willing to bet thousands you are wrong. - zuki 00:59:30 04/9/02 (9)
- Would this be the Amazing Randi by any chance? - dado5 05:36:12 04/9/02 (8)
- Re: no , it is not someone named randi. - zuki 10:02:34 04/9/02 (7)
- Sounded like Randi's MO... - dado5 10:25:56 04/9/02 (5)
- Geller lost his lawsuit... - jj 10:35:01 04/9/02 (4)
- Re: Geller lost his lawsuit... - Analog Scott 09:50:27 04/13/02 (0)
- Thanks...I was not aware of that Popoff was still up and running... - dado5 10:48:16 04/9/02 (2)
- Found the answer on Randi's site....thanks much. - dado5 11:09:24 04/9/02 (1)
- Re: this is the guy and his site. - zuki 11:15:45 04/9/02 (0)
- Another satisfied Bose owner! (nt) - E-Stat 10:19:05 04/9/02 (0)
- Science has a dirty little secret ... - Oakroot 00:20:41 04/9/02 (18)
- You describe stupidity, not science... - jj 08:49:55 04/9/02 (8)
- Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Don T 14:07:41 04/10/02 (0)
- Re: You describe stupidity, not science... - Oakroot 12:00:06 04/9/02 (5)
- Oakroot makes personal attacks again, news at 11. - jj 12:33:51 04/9/02 (4)
- Would you like some cheese with your whine????? - Oakroot 16:09:47 04/9/02 (3)
- Oh, I caught you red-handed, but what else is new? - jj 19:24:31 04/9/02 (2)
- Your hypocracy and deceit are certainly not new. nt - Oakroot 13:48:13 04/10/02 (1)
- Nor are your libels. - jj 19:09:48 04/12/02 (0)
- Reality - Jon Risch 10:23:38 04/9/02 (0)
- You cannot blame Science - PriyaW 08:27:26 04/9/02 (7)
- Grants are a pain to write as they are all written to a specific ... - Oakroot 11:41:22 04/9/02 (4)
- While I have enough reasons - PriyaW 14:12:57 04/9/02 (3)
- Apples and Oranges ... - Oakroot 17:32:59 04/9/02 (2)
- Finally, you deserves a thank you! - PriyaW 18:01:48 04/9/02 (1)
- Re: Finally, you deserves a thank you! - Oakroot 13:40:52 04/10/02 (0)
- Re: You cannot blame Science - john curl 11:38:57 04/9/02 (1)
- I agree with you. - PriyaW 11:55:47 04/9/02 (0)
- darn! I thought no one knew the trooof about my 'perfect' lab reports :) <nt> - TOOL 00:23:08 04/9/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 22:31:15 04/8/02 (3)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - jarthel 06:48:12 04/9/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - ggraff 06:01:22 04/9/02 (0)
- Feelings... - Estes 05:29:21 04/9/02 (0)
- (yawn...) - jazztrumpet 21:27:49 04/8/02 (0)
- whole bunch of show-offs... - TOOL 20:21:31 04/8/02 (5)
- Re: whole bunch of show-offs... - Ted Smith 21:30:35 04/8/02 (1)
- power cords... - TOOL 21:56:51 04/8/02 (0)
- Errr. um, I have. (run, proctored, taken, designed, analyzed, etc DBT's) - jj 20:32:04 04/8/02 (2)
- "I would have to say "my experiences" might rather be a largish article" - TOOL 21:57:33 04/8/02 (1)
- Um, from what point of view? Designer? Test admin, subject? ...??? - jj 08:27:31 04/9/02 (0)
- How about some REAL math? - chickenlogic 17:42:09 04/8/02 (6)
- Re: How about some REAL math? - ggraff 06:09:00 04/9/02 (2)
- Re: How about some REAL math? - Analog Scott 10:08:00 04/13/02 (0)
- Again, you use the offensive word "pseudoscience" - jj 08:44:55 04/9/02 (0)
- Yes, let's do some math, shall we? - jj 18:00:44 04/8/02 (2)
- Why certainly, my good chum...... - chickenlogic 00:53:57 04/9/02 (1)
- Um, you're missing my point entirely.... - jj 08:39:25 04/9/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - scrooie looie 17:24:52 04/8/02 (0)
- Why would I care what you think? - Mwalsdor@cscc.edu 16:10:59 04/8/02 (0)
- My rant - response. - David Aiken 15:26:27 04/8/02 (3)
- How wonderfully refreshing - darkstar 05:00:31 04/9/02 (0)
- Thanks, well said <nt> - Ted Smith 16:45:22 04/8/02 (0)
- Hear! Hear! - jj 15:37:23 04/8/02 (0)
- A fine post, friend! - clarkjohnsen 15:13:44 04/8/02 (1)
- Really, Clark? (MT) - jj 15:17:01 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - suretyguy 14:06:01 04/8/02 (0)
- PERHAPS I SHOULD MAKE THIS CLEAR - jj 13:54:49 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - fourprof 13:52:41 04/8/02 (0)
- Criteria other than sound - sam9 13:42:48 04/8/02 (7)
- Placebo Effect? <nt> - TOOL 20:02:28 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Criteria other than sound - Steve Eddy 13:55:23 04/8/02 (4)
- Actually, Steve.... - jj 15:15:41 04/8/02 (3)
- Re: Actually, Steve.... - Steve Eddy 16:02:02 04/8/02 (2)
- Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - jj 20:05:18 04/8/02 (1)
- Re: Awww. Would a utility ever do that???? - Steve Eddy 20:42:00 04/8/02 (0)
- Agreed. This has nothing to do with the assualt on the scientific method (MT) - jj 13:46:27 04/8/02 (0)
- Important distinction - Cetaele 12:20:28 04/8/02 (7)
- Re: Important distinction - ggraff 06:16:10 04/9/02 (1)
- Here we agree, entirely... - jj 08:29:59 04/9/02 (0)
- While I agree with what you said.... - jj 13:24:22 04/8/02 (4)
- I agree, and - Cetaele 16:21:27 04/8/02 (3)
- Good question also hard question :-) - jj 17:47:11 04/8/02 (2)
- Re: Good question also hard question :-) - Cetaele 17:56:59 04/8/02 (1)
- Oh. AMEN to that! - jj 18:01:41 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - dado5 12:16:05 04/8/02 (0)
- Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 11:27:14 04/8/02 (10)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 11:37:32 04/8/02 (9)
- 999,998... - Todd Krieger 19:51:31 04/8/02 (1)
- Re: 999,998... - Steve Eddy 20:40:59 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 12:15:32 04/8/02 (6)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 13:01:04 04/8/02 (5)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 14:08:53 04/8/02 (4)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 14:20:22 04/8/02 (3)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Todd Krieger 20:01:14 04/8/02 (2)
- Re: Too Generalized... - Steve Eddy 20:38:12 04/8/02 (1)
- You Win - Todd Krieger 21:01:41 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - john curl 10:36:21 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Bob Bales 10:06:35 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - sam9 09:59:27 04/8/02 (2)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - Steve Eddy 11:28:54 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: Scientific Method Versus High End- Long (Rant?) - kentaja@yahoo.com 11:24:41 04/8/02 (0)
- Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - jj 09:14:23 04/8/02 (4)
- Re: Something else to think about - Is this a troll? - ggraff 06:28:41 04/9/02 (1)
- Well, I'm glad you say it wasn't. - jj 09:20:09 04/9/02 (0)
- I think you might missunderstand what ggraff is trying to say... - Ted Smith 14:18:30 04/8/02 (1)
- Yeah, that's over the top, and somewhat deep into something else... - jj 15:05:55 04/8/02 (0)
- You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - jj 09:02:28 04/8/02 (31)
- nope..... - chickenlogic 18:14:38 04/8/02 (1)
- Err, it's hard to tell. You're agreeing with me, I think? - jj 19:59:07 04/8/02 (0)
- tests need updating - highendman 10:19:34 04/8/02 (13)
- And the 80's, 90's and present. - jj 12:56:42 04/8/02 (12)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - highendman 16:33:15 04/8/02 (3)
- I said - jj 17:50:07 04/8/02 (2)
- Re: I said - highendman 18:40:19 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 13:33:18 04/8/02 (7)
- Re: And the 80's, 90's and present. - john curl 17:20:46 04/8/02 (1)
- Your point is? - jj 17:51:18 04/8/02 (0)
- Hey John, where`s my CD? - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 14:41:18 04/8/02 (3)
- OOPS! Wrong John - post intended for one and only John Marks. [nt] - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 10:05:13 04/9/02 (2)
- s'ok, you saw my name.... - jj 10:21:06 04/9/02 (1)
- Re: s'ok, you saw my name.... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:37:25 04/9/02 (0)
- That's utterly out of context here, John, and YOU KNOW THAT. - jj 13:50:16 04/8/02 (0)
- Re: You're as close to 100% wrong as someone has been in a while! - Don T 09:44:38 04/8/02 (12)
- Don T is confused, I see. - jj 13:42:03 04/8/02 (6)
- Please ....... - Don T 14:05:39 04/8/02 (5)
- Re: Please ....... - jj 14:59:49 04/8/02 (4)
- Re: Please ....... - Don T 18:28:28 04/8/02 (3)
- Squirm all you want... Then admit you're wrong. - jj 19:38:45 04/8/02 (2)
- HA! You're speechless! - Don T 20:01:46 04/8/02 (1)
- No, just appalled at your attempt at character assassination... - jj 20:15:15 04/8/02 (0)
- his post is far more accurate than yours - chiggy 10:28:30 04/8/02 (4)
- Re: his post is far more accurate than yours - Don T 11:55:50 04/8/02 (3)
- Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - jj 13:01:42 04/8/02 (2)
- Re: Sorry, dude, but Chiggy caught you out cold... - Don T 13:45:09 04/8/02 (1)
- It would appear you read someone else's post then... - jj 13:47:49 04/8/02 (0)
- (note to self) don't get ino it re: science and math w/JJ - salinas212 09:21:42 04/8/02 (1)
- Hunh??? - jj 12:58:30 04/8/02 (0)
- Simple Fact - Rodney Gold 08:23:57 04/8/02 (17)
- Re: Simple Fact - Steve Eddy 10:51:46 04/8/02 (0)
- Only if (and if only) - bdiament 08:53:25 04/8/02 (15)
- You're dodging. - jj 09:04:49 04/8/02 (14)
- No, I just disagree - bdiament 10:21:56 04/8/02 (8)
- If no other way.... - jj 13:06:50 04/8/02 (0)
- sort of, - chiggy 10:37:55 04/8/02 (6)
- You misread my words - bdiament 11:21:42 04/8/02 (5)
- Re: You misread my words - chiggy 13:13:29 04/8/02 (4)
- A difference in perception - bdiament 15:39:41 04/8/02 (3)
- Re: A difference in perception - chiggy 09:12:37 04/9/02 (2)
- We must agree to disagree - bdiament 14:12:30 04/9/02 (0)
- Minor Quibble - jj 09:30:31 04/9/02 (0)
- What measurements do you find correlate to... - E-Stat 10:18:49 04/8/02 (4)
- You ask a complicated question... - jj 13:03:41 04/8/02 (1)
- Re: You ask a complicated question... - E-Stat 13:53:29 04/8/02 (0)
- Which one had the large sense of space? (nt) - Monte 10:39:31 04/8/02 (1)
- Burmester 969/970 (nt) - E-Stat 13:56:34 04/8/02 (0)
- Agree....and disagree! - Don T 08:02:08 04/8/02 (1)
- Re: I gotta disagree with both of you. - jlee 21:19:45 04/8/02 (0)
Follow Ups
- "The AES did not conduct that test, some of its members did." - clarkjohnsen 04/10/0214:08:09 04/10/02 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
