Notice Of Sensory Science Journal Publication

concealer404

I'm afraid i don't understand why this all has to be so complicated?

madmax

Can we just insert a diode and give up on this alternating current topic...

heiney9

agfrost wrote: »

Are you arguing just to argue, or is there some underlying point to all of your complaints in this thread?

There never is.............it's a bunch of nonsensical words on a screen arranged to look like they mean something. There is no reference point to his ramblings as far as I can tell.

H9

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Peter (bikezappa) informed us that he has a degree in physics from Lowell Technological Institute (now University of Massachusetts-Lowell). I was startled that he did not, and still does not, understand the basics of alternating current.

The discussion he is referring to is here:



Again, when you plug in an AC appliance into an AC wall receptacle, the electric current, which is a SINUSOIDAL waveform, DOES NOT flow in one direction toward the appliance and then reverse direction and then flow back toward the wall receptacle. The POLARITY of the waveform reverses direction (rises and falls) between a positive and a negative maximum value. The net flow of current (net flow of energy) IS IN ONE DIRECTION. One more time: In alternating current, it is the POLARITY of the waveform that changes direction and not the flow of direction of the current. This contrasts with direct current in which the waveform is non-sinusoidal and maintains a constant value as it flows forward in time.

After my generous AC tutorial, Mr. Bikezappa replied with this:



If you click on the link in Mr. Bikezappa's post above, it shows a time domain plot of an alternating current waveform. The waveform plot clearly shows a forward, unidirectional orientation with time. The AC waveform plot from Mr. Bikezappa's link is shown below.

Time domain plot of alternating current waveform

Now, Mr. Bikezappa, who says he is a physicist, informs us that he gave up trying to discuss "science" with me when I would not accept his erroneous view that alternating current flows back and forth between a wall receptacle and the appliance connected to it. He simply cannot grasp the concept of unidirectional current flow with alternating polarity. These are the types of "scientists" that comprise the ABX audio testing "faithful". These are the types of minds that comprise the anti-audiophile naysayer cult.

These are also the types of minds that would behead you, hang you, burn you alive, or torture you to death if you would not accept the "scientifically correct" view that the world was flat.;)

This guy is a joke and he is playing the joke on all the people in the forum.
Alternating voltage, That is the voltage in your home reverses polarity and direction. Alternatinmg voltage is just like a DC votage that switches polarity.

Wake up forum.

reeltrouble1

honestly, lets get beyond freshman debate mistakes. come on, your implying your smarter than everyone on the forum.

RT1

Face

bikecrappa, how about discussing the topic at hand instead of derailing the thread?

DarqueKnight

The sky is falling.

DarqueKnight

Getting back to the thread subject, my proposed audio equipment evaluation protocol basically involves:

1. Careful listening, in the stereo sweet spot, for as long as the subject desires.
2. Mapping the position and characteristics of images within the sound stage.
3. Comparing the sound stage maps of two or more components and noting the differences, if any.

Why is this methodology inferior to listening to short snippets of music while seated in a "matrix" type seating arrangement while gear is rapidly changed and there is no detailed documentation of what is heard?

I have provided two (in)famous examples of ABX testing, one for power cords and the other for power amplifiers, where the results were similar to guesswork. In both cases, the facilitator concluded that there were no perceivable differences between test samples. With power cords, and depending on the associated gear, this may (or may not) have been true.

However, I have some difficulty accepting the fact that there actually was no audible difference between a consumer grade $200 transistor receiver chock full of cheap, noisy electrical components housed in a vibration prone thin steel case and a pair of premium grade $12,000 monoblock tube amplifiers.

Explanations?
Anyone?

cstmar01

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

honestly, lets get beyond freshman debate mistakes. come on, your implying your smarter than everyone on the forum.

RT1

ha! I never did topics like this for debate, it was always "resolve: the united states federal government should substantially ______________" if we did something like this, I think kids heads would explode.


and DK I look forward to the paper. I'm not really sure why we have to argue the merits of what someone has done and try to disprove it when no one has read the paper yet, nor show some respect that DK was able to publish the paper in a journal with peer reviews. Not sure what other people's creditably is related to the topic or related degrees, nor do I think most people really give a crap about it. I am just happy to see the man got the paper published and that he is a member on the forum offering up his view point.


If you disagree with it so much, wait for the paper to come out, write a paper to disprove him, and get it published, but please don't waste time here doing so because its not solving or disproving anything, it just look like 12 year olds fighting over who gets the pink barbie and who gets the purple.

Jetmaker737

DarqueKnight wrote: »

However, I have some difficulty accepting the fact that there actually was no audible difference between a consumer grade $200 transistor receiver chock full of cheap, noisy electrical components housed in a vibration prone thin steel case and a pair of premium grade $12,000 monoblock tube amplifiers.

Yep, it's ludicrous. As someone who has switched from AVR to brand A amp and now brand B I can say with certainty that there are audible differences. Also, I have an analog tuner that was recently upgraded and it now sounds different (better!).

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

UNC2701 I wish you luck trying to have a logical discussion on this site. Name calling will start along with the one liners. There are just to many of them. I gave up trying to discuss science with Dr Darquekinght when he stated that alternating current goes in one direction when he was discussing how 120 volt line cables affect noise.

What is illogical is trying have a discussion with close minded, "stats only matter," ABX is king minded, psuedo scientists who can't grasp the concept of AC doesn't go back and forth through circuitry.

The name calling & one liners mantra is getting old BZ, you sound like a second grader everytime you make this statement besides you've made some silly shots right here in your post! "Dr. Darqueknight" Bringing up past discussions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand and I quote, "I gave up trying to discuss science with Dr Darquekinght when he stated that alternating current goes in one direction when he was discussing how 120 volt line cables affect noise." You are wrong in your assertion and can't/won't admit it plus your veiled shot is not so veiled.

bikezappa wrote: »

If DK has a method that can detect different sounds than shouldn't we be able to use this method to demonstrate ABX testing?

You've come to this conclusion without reading the paper!?! Again ABX testing for aural, senses, and emotion is inherently flawed and biased to cause a subject to have no choice but fail most of the time. However, DK's method might be applied to ABX testing to make it work if given the proper thought and TIME during the test. Just the fact that DK's method allows the subject to map out what is being heard and what sounds better beats ABX testing for accuracy in that ABX testing results demand the subject to identify the pieces of gear being presented. This is not what a test should do especially when the subject is NOT familiar with said gear.

There is much, much more I can add to my rebuttal, but it is my experience that it will fall on deaf ears.

bikezappa wrote: »

Enjoy the music, that's what it's all about.

With your mindset, you are keeping one from enjoying the music by claiming that all gear i.e., amps, CDPs, preamp, cables etc all sound the same which is ludicrous and prevents one from hearing a more accurate presentation and emotionally involving experience listening to music in your cry that ABX testing proves it. Can one enjoy, feel, get emotionally involved with music with a stereo transistor radio? I think not. How about a boom box? How about a poorly designed, with inferior parts reciever, amplifier, preamp, etc.? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I could have taken your post seriously if you addressed the test DK put forth rather than crying about name calling, taking jabs at DK, making silly statements about his test working with ABX testing, bringing differen debates into the conversation, etc.

Who is being illogical here Peter!?! Who is taking jabs or as you so eloquently put it, "name calling & one liners?" Who has brought up an entirely different subject that has no relevance to this thread?

You post is the epitome of exactly what you are railing against and the pot calling the kettle black.

hearingimpared

unc2701 wrote: »

One of the criticisms of impact factor is that obscure fields can have inflated impact simply because there are a limited number of sources to cite, so the same ones are used heavily. So JOSS being grouped in a saturated category like Food Science would more likely be to its advantage since the food citations are spread over a larger number of journals.

Regarding your hypothetical list, I wasn’t aware that ISI used the titles of the journals for grouping them… seems like they’d use something more reliable, such as the actual content, no? Speaking of content, let’s check out the last few issues of JOSS shall we? I’m just gonna throw the articles into some broad categories. Food, beverage, taste, and methodology to evaluate ‘em, I’m just going to call “Food”; anything else I’ll note.

Haddock BALLS??? Wow. I’ll put this under food, I guess.
Moving on:
Food, Food, Food, Food, Food…
AUDITORY CUES … RESPONSES TO.. FOOD AND DRINK. Technically, food, but we’ll call it “Audio” just for you.
Food, Food, Food.

Next issue:
Food, Food, Textiles, Food, Food, Food, Food, Food, Food.

Next Issue:
Food, BEER!, Food, Food, Food, Food,Statistics, Food

Next Issue:
Food, Food, Food,Fragrance, Food, Food

Not much time here, so that’ll do. That’s 29 food articles, and 3 about something else. But maybe it’s not the food articles that are really outstanding for them. Maybe their high profile articles have a different profile? Let’s check their top five… Food, Statistics, Food, Food, Food.

Hm.

Well, I suppose that if you want to make a hypothetical list of Sensory Studies Journals and put JOSS at the top, it’s your right to do so.

I’m making a hypothetical list of Dudes in Central North Carolina that Miranda Kerr should totally bang:
1)Me.

But this impact factor thing really is just a sidebar. Whatever. It’s the greatest journal in the history of publishing.

I’ve seen you make some claims that aren’t remote held up by the facts, such as saying that ABX tests were entirely absent from the Sensory Science literature based on the table of contents from the first two references you looked at (Sadly, no. They were in both references) and that blinding wasn’t an accepted practice-the FIRST page of one of your references gave blinding as one of the things that distinguishes Sensory Studies from market research.

Talk about laziness, you were posting claims before you’d even bothered to read the references.

As for the 388 trials thing, that’s circular logic or begging the question depending on how you look at it. You assume that which is to be proven.

…and my time is up. Crap. one minute over.

You still are evading the validity or acknoweldging that method put forth in the paper has any merit. You are simply side-stepping it by bringing in all sorts of irrelevant information.

You like to argue just for the sake of arguing by not sticking to the facts presented. You are famous here on this forum for that. BTW you attempts at being witty are far from it. Your sarcasm had no place in this discussion but hey. . . carry on and keep your rep going.

BTW the TEST, THE TEST, THE TEST, THE TEST, what about THE TEST? BZ & Unc you both have mastered the proverbial, "if you can dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!!!"

hearingimpared

I'm far from a scientist and have only an associates degree in Electronic Engineering but what is going on with these naysayers has nothing to do with science or electronics or THE TEST!. . . sad!

bikezappa

Alternating current from your 120v outlet in your home goes in both directions. The polarity changes. How can a PHD in electronics not know this?
All you people that have an electronics background know this.

Why are you silent?

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

Alternating current from your 120v outlet in your home goes in both directions. The polarity changes. How can a PHD in electronics not know this?
All you people that have an electronics background know this.

Why are you silent?

Because it's not true. Besides I would take the word of a Phd in EE over that of someone in a different field spouting mis-information.

DarqueKnight

Peter, I realize this is tormenting you, but it would be very appropriate for you to take your AC discussion to another thread, which I assure you I will not participate in. We have several EE's on our forum and I'm sure at least a couple of them would be happy to discuss this topic with you.

If you have some thoughts on the subject of this thread, which is audio equipment evaluation methodology, you are welcome to share them. Thank you for your cooperation. Good luck.

analog97

Kudos to DK on the acceptance of his manuscript! I very much look forward to trying this method. My interest is is in finding a method that works, period. Heretofore, my major limitation in evaluating any change in my 2-channel system is that imposed by what I will call "auditory memory". By that I mean that the passage of time, per se between comparisons has always led me astray. Certainly, the major improvements are clear, despite a time lag, but the subtle changes are more problematic. The best, and most reliable test for me, so far, has been discerning the differences in cartridge loading during playback. In my pre-pre-amp, this can be done "on the fly" and is very helpful and easily discernible. More subtle differences may require a methodology such as that proposed by DK and I will certainly read the paper. Thanks for the hard work!!

PS: My limited physics background taught me that energy flows from a higher to lower potential. Tough to imagine why a refrigerator would have a higher potential than a 120 V, 20A outlet.

Jetmaker737

analog97 wrote: »

PS: My limited physics background taught me that energy flows from a higher to lower potential. Tough to imagine why a refrigerator would have a higher potential than a 120 V, 20A outlet.

Could we please take all AC current discussions off-site? Here's one of many many sites people can use to satisfy their curiosity:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_1/1.html

bikezappa

DarqueKnight wrote: »

Peter, I realize this is tormenting you, but it would be very appropriate for you to take your AC discussion to another thread, which I assure you I will not participate in. We have several EE's on our forum and I'm sure at least a couple of them would be happy to discuss this topic with you.

If you have some thoughts on the subject of this thread, which is audio equipment evaluation methodology, you are welcome to share them. Thank you for your cooperation. Good luck.

The fact that you, as a PHD in EE, believe that 120V line output in people homes in the US goes in one direction means you have no understanding of electronics.

i questions your motives.

I also ask all forum members that are experienced in electronics, that would include F1Nut,to tell DK that AC votage changes polarity. How can experienced electronics people be part of this forum and not explain this to DK? What are you afraid of?

If you are not experienced in electronics just google alternating voltage or current and see for yourself.

Nature bats last.

DarqueKnight

Jetmaker737 wrote: »

Could we please take all AC current discussions off-site? Here's one of many many sites people can use to satisfy their curiosity:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_1/1.html

That is a great suggestion.

I would add that most of these sites add to confusion because they only provide a very simple explanation of one aspect of the AC waveform's "reversal". They seldom explain how energy is transferred from one point to another in AC circuits and the effects that different types of loads have on such energy transference.

bikezappa

Jetmaker737 wrote: »

Could we please take all AC current discussions off-site? Here's one of many many sites people can use to satisfy their curiosity:

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_1/1.html

Thanks Jetmaker for adding the site explaining AC.

It has a very simple explaination of AC showing how the current changes direction.

Face

How about the topic at hand, or you can't grasp that concept?

bikezappa

[QUOTE.I would add that most of these sites add to confusion because they only provide a very simple explanation of one aspect of the AC waveform's "reversal". They seldom explain how energy is transferred from one point to another in AC circuits and the effects that different types of loads have on such energy transference.[/QUOTE]

That's because the explaination of AC IS very simple.
These sites are very good and don't add to confusion.
AC Energy is tranferred by a sine wave at 60 cycle per second. .

heiney9

Face wrote: »

How about the topic at hand, or you can't grasp that concept?

Nope.............most children can't, all children want to do is argue about subjects off topic or argue about a concept or paper they haven't even read yet.

I have several friends who have kids in the 4-6 age group and they act exactly like the few in this thread who are trying to derail. They now have zero credibility in my eyes. They were even asked very politely by the OP to take the off topic discussion to another thread.

H9

DarqueKnight

I realize that some of you may want to do further research in appropriate methods of audio equipment evaluation. I just wanted you to know that the Journal of Sensory Studies is interested in receiving papers on this topic if such papers concern the application of sensory analysis techniques. For example, JOSS's editor-in-chief ended his notice of acceptance with this comment:

"Thank you for your fine contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Journal of Sensory Studies, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal."

When I received a notice that my manuscript files had been sent to production, the editor-in-chief ended his production progress notice letter with this comment:

"We look forward to receiving further articles from you, especially if they contain sound sensory data that will push the sound research field to greater use of appropriate sensory methods."

If you have something controversial you want to send in, don't hesitate. Unlike some journals, JOSS does not shy away from controversial topics. As the "Aims and Scope section of the JOSS Overview Page states:

"Papers address both theoretical and practical problems on applications of sensory science and their possible approaches to problem resolution, external and internal validity of research guidance panel, descriptive analysis, word meaning/semantic differential technique as applied to sensory science, product category appraisal, philosophies, and controversies in sensory science. The journal also encourages submissions on medical and health care research."

---

A couple of weeks ago, after it became evident that the paper was going to be accepted for publication, an engineering colleague asked me what I was going to name the evaluation methodology. I could not give an answer because I had not thought about it. Until I think of something better, I'll just call it the "SDA" (for "Smith's Descriptive Analysis") methodology for audio evaluation.:D

Such Good Nomenclature.

DarqueKnight

xcapri79 wrote: »

Bikezappa, it is your understanding that needs correction.

xcapri79 wrote: »

Power flows from source to load and does indeed have direction in an AC circuit. I explained this previously in the referenced thread.

Thanks. You, me...and at least one other person to my recollection have tried to explain this concept to Bikezappa. The problem, besides his basic lack of understanding, is that he thinks everything in electronics can simply be explained with Ohm's law.

With this, I hope we can get back to our regularly scheduled thread topic. I have asked moderator Ken Swauger to take appropriate action if the derail attempts continue.

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

UNC2701 I wish you luck trying to have a logical discussion on this site. Name calling will start along with the one liners.

If it is impossible to have a logical discussion on this site, why stay?

bikezappa wrote: »

This guy is a joke and he is playing the joke on all the people in the forum.
Alternating voltage, That is the voltage in your home reverses polarity and direction. Alternatinmg voltage is just like a DC votage that switches polarity.

Wake up forum.

If DK is so ignorant of science, why post in his threads? . . . and once again you've not even made the lest little bit of effort to discuss the topic at hand, instead you find another way to try to discredit DK by bringing up a totally irrelevant topic from another thread. Which BTW YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT! You are big on ohms law well IIRC current travels from negative to positive, source to load. The way you describe AC is like using a plunger on a stopped up sink! Um it doesn't work that way.

The decent thing to have done would be to congratulate DK on the publication of a possible ground breaking method to test audio gear, comment on his summary and then read his paper instead of going into irrelevant tirades. Me thinks I detect a green eyed monster!

. . . OR is it your plan to go on and on rabble rousing in an effort to get the thread locked down? We have another here who is well versed in that practice.

hearingimpared

hearingimpared wrote: »

You still are evading the validity or acknoweldging that method put forth in the paper has any merit. You are simply side-stepping it by bringing in all sorts of irrelevant information.

You like to argue just for the sake of arguing by not sticking to the facts presented. You are famous here on this forum for that. BTW you attempts at being witty are far from it. Your sarcasm had no place in this discussion but hey. . . carry on and keep your rep going.

BTW the TEST, THE TEST, THE TEST, THE TEST, what about THE TEST? BZ & Unc you both have mastered the proverbial, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!!!"

Typo fixed.:o

hearingimpared

bikezappa wrote: »

i questions your motives.

ROTFLMAO!!!! Good Lord, how ironic it is that you state this in this thread!!!:eek:

DarqueKnight

Now that everyone has gotten their "licks" in, perhaps we can return to discussing audio evaluation methodology? If some of you want to start a separate "barroom brawl" thread and refer to and link back to this one...fine. I'm sure it would be very entertaining and get way more views than this one.

---

ABX Proponent and Audio Skeptic Ethan Winer

Audiophiles and Skeptics,

I…am more prone to be inquisitive…and to promote discussion.
I want to find out…what your thinking was.
I want to find out…what your feelings are…and…
Did you learn anything?