|
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|
|
Another lie exposed
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks?
The inescapable conclusion from Sean Olive's loudspeaker testing is
that human beings perform best when asked: "Which one do you like
better?" rather than "Is A different from B".
Based on my work, this conclusion is completely false since for
loudspeaker
tests, I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?"
In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more
interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?"
If listeners can demonstrate clear preferences between A and B in
double-blind tests, then by inference, they can clearly differentiate
audible differences between A and B.
The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests on
speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better quality
speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind
This is not true. In fact, quite the contrary,. Listeners both trained
and
untrained can discriminate between good and bad speakers in blind tests
so
long as they have normal hearing. Furthermore, there is remarkable
agreement in their loudspeaker preferences. The trained listeners are
simply more discriminating and reliable in their judgments.
My research is being misrepresented by this person to serve their own
biased
opinions. This would be readily apparent to anyone who has read our
research
papers.
We have done ABX tests where the results have been positive; for example,
I
have found positive results between different amplifiers where one had a
high output impedance that caused a measurable frequency response change
at
the loudspeaker terminals. Floyd Toole at the NRC used to frequently find
positive test results when the amplifiers were over-driven and had
different
clipping behavior, or more audible noise. Today these amplifier would be
considered poorly designed, so it is not very interesting to publish the
results, when there is an easy scientific explanation of the results.
By the same token, if the ABX results are negative there is not much
motivation to publish that either. Who wants to admit that their product
is
indistinguishable from a competitors', unless their product costs
significantly less money than the highly regarded competitor's product??
Cheers,
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation
R&D Group, Harman International
8500 Balboa Blvd.
Northridge, CA, 91329
Dear Mr. Olive,
Your remarks have been published with this heading:
"Guess what Sean Olive had to say about Ludovic's remarks"
"Ludovic" is yours truly Ludovic Mirabel
I didn't use your name when I sent him the quote of what you said.
I have been tempted to write to you before for your opinion on this old
controversy but felt that you had better things to do than to be drawn
into the parochial web forum disputes that must strike anyone looking
from the outside as juvenile- to say the least..
IOW, My mind is made up I don't want to be confused with facts.
I was very appreciative of your sending me your collected papers,
unasked , with an undeserved compliment about my "scientific
attitude".
He didn't, I did.
However these strange views were ascribed to me by NYOB :
The preson making the above statement also concludes that your tests
on speakers revealed that people were not able to distinguish better
quality speakers from lesser ones when doing so blind . You will
note that he does not quote. He fantasises about what "that person"
is supposed to have "said" and "concluded"
You think I misrepresented your ideas? I don't think so.
. The view he puts in my mouth is such a distortion of what I did say
about your pioneering paper on comparing loudspeakers that I feel not
only my good name is at stake but also the debt of gratitude I owe you
for this unique and excellent source. You may remember that I was the
first to summarize it 2 years ago in the RAHE forum and sent you a copy
of it about which I gather you had no complaints since you sent me your
papers soon after.
Probably went straight to the round file.
I do not know if NYOB had your authorization to quote your opinion of
what he put in my mouth.. If he did you are willy-nilly in the thick of
it and I hope that you will not leave me to deal with it alone.
This is one representative quote of what I really said (I referred to
your work more than once): "A couple of years ago I challenged Arny
Krueger to prove that ABX will work testing loudspeakers. He could not
contain his hilarity: ""No point in testing. They are so obviously
different that it would be a waste of time" (I'm paraphrasing from
memory but if challenged will find the exact quote)
And now Sean Olive did exactly that using DBT. Lo and behold- the
majority of panelists had problems with recognizing difference but when
not bothered with that knew what they liked.The chapel does not like
the result. No doubt they would do better using ABX- instead of the
simple unsophisticated DBT. Go to it fellows- improve on poor, lost
Sean Olive"
You may remember that one year ago I emailed you asking for your
comment about this divergence in your panel between the poor
"performance" in differentiating loudspeakers while plumping
unerringly for the better ones. Did I misunderstand your introductory
summary where you say? " Significant differences in performance
expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl
were found among the different categories of listeners..... Performance
differences aside, loudspeaker preferences were generally
consistent...." On p. 808 you further define "performance*:"This
metric accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings."
I should say at this point that I am delighted to hear that you ask
people for preference rather than for differentiating one speaker from
another. That is the way I make my choices I will indulge in
speculation (admittedly) that human grey matter copes more easily with
"I like, I don't like" than with "This is different from the
other" when coping with a complex musical signal. In my amateurish
ignorance I may be completely wrong- if so I'll appreciate your
straightening me out..
But the view propagated by ABXers on the internet is that you listen to
A, then to B, then to X and then you're asked if X was more like A or
B. To me it seems to be standing research on its head when it comes to
comparing the musical performance of the audio components. If I
understand you correctly this is your view as well. You did DBT but not
ABX.. To demonstrate that I'm not ascribing views please look up the
typical posting by A. Krueger in the "Life and soul at a party"
thread in the rec.audio.opinion where NYOB put his "Guess what Sean
Olive..." thread
In conclusion I appreciate that DBT listening tests in your wonderful
and expensive facility- completely out of the reach of an average
audiophile- are invaluable. From that to recommending ABX testing for
use by every Tom Dick and Harry is a vast gulf. I can't help but
remind you boastfully that sight unseen, I identified from internal
evidence in your paper the worst speaker you tested . All I did was
to listen to it
I apologise for wasting your time on this storm in a teacup but I feel
I have no choice.
Regards Ludovic Mirabel
Mostly, you have no defense.
|