I am writing about the case Pinkerton against my instinct
telling me that one gets soiled by association.
I would not want to or know how to reply on his level. It is
easy to dismiss his vile, personal attacks as harmless signs of
immaturity They range from "Utter rubbish" through "You're a crook
and a liar", or "Don't be an arsehole" (Message 1835, Aug 18 to a Mr.
Packer), to his ultimate argument "You're a sad sack of ****."
And all this in polemics about audio! Just imagine what
he'd have to say in a political or religious argument!! Providing, of
course, that HE held the whip.
Unfortunately I have to live with memories of verbal
violence turning into mass murder.
Stalins, Hitlers and Maos could not have done without
thousands of eager executioners to assist them- the Gestapo and GPU
murderers. And no doubt these humanoids shouted filth at their victims
because dehumanising them first makes the torture and killing easier.
No doubt many of the humanoids were, good neighbours, fond
of their dogs and their children. But from verbal violence it is not
far to violent deeds-just give some of these ordinary Serbs, Hutus ad
Sudanese the right circumstances.
And for an intermediate step in this descent into nether
regions see Pinkerton's Neo-Nazi musings on how to "improve"
Appalachia by "eugenics" of Dr. Mengele variety (message 1432, Aug 11)
Ludovic Mirabel
OPTIONAL ADDENDUM:
For those not yet terminally bored with the issue I'm
summarising the history of this debate
Nothing wrong with individuals using blinding as a
precaution against bias- as long as they do not think that THEIR
results thereby acquire a persuasive weight of *evidence* valid for
anyone but themselves. The attempt to give
it a rigid ABX protocol cast resulted so far (four decades) in a
failure to prove its usefulness for detection of component differences.
The sighted bias is avoided and the baby gets spilled with the
bath-water. As yet no one gave a proper reference (Journal,Author(s),
year, month, page) to one single peer-reviewed, statistically valid
report about COMPARING ANY audio components and getting a positive
outcome- ie. majority heard differences when ABXing. The reports so
far have all been negative ie "It all sounds the same".
But the fact that such a report does not exist does
not faze Pinkerton. He invents them. First gossip published by him on
the Usenet of what he and his three pals heard comparing amplifiers.
When it is pointed out to him that anecdotes are not evidence he
produces another anecdote about what the "industry" is supposed to be
doing. And finally he sends people down another blind alley: the
Eureka/Archimedes project.
That is what they had to say for themselves without
Pinkerton translation :
" Project E!105 Archimedes, which ran from 1987 until 1992,
was a partnership between Bang & Olufsen, the Department of Acoustic
Technology at the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and KEF Audio
Ltd in the UK. *** Its goal was to investigate how sound
quality in the home is affected by the surroundings and how to
compensate for factors that have a negative impact on it, according to
Soren Bech from Bang & Olufsen***"
Not a word about COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX. Not in this
summary, not in the wholw website.
But this does not stop him. He says: (message 1820, Aug
17):
"More typical lies and deception from Mirabel. Try this
from the same article, which you clearly tried to avoid: " An
acoustically transparent screen surrounded the listening chair, hiding
the exact loudspeaker positions and the rest of the chamber
environment from the listener"
This is his answer to a request for a report of COMPARING
AUDIO COMPONENTS by abx/dbt.
Like Goebbels in his time there is no limit to his
contempt for the brains of his audience. The bigger the lie the more it
is likely that the normals will say: "He couldn't just have invented it
all. There must be SOMETHING to
it"
For the record: I was involved in DBT
drug trials before Pinkerton ever heard the word. Being blinded to the
position of a speaker that B&O are trying to make spherical as an
"invisible' sound source is an obvious precaution. But what has all
that to do with COMPARING COMPONENTS BY ABX? Double blinding is an
excellent precaution against one source of bias. I play with it myself
when I listen to a new component.
But it would never occur to anyone who is not a
stranger to the richness of individual human experience to maintain
that his listening sighted, blinded, double-blinded and ABXing and/or
seated on a horse is scientific EVIDENCE that what he can not hear no
one else can.
And mark this: B&O reserch was about loudspeakers. This
is what he had to say when two weeks ago I mentioned comparing
loudspeakers;
"Utter rubbish. There are no DBTs of carts or speakers
because they would be pointless- 100% every time" ( message 636,July
31).
I'd have to ask him for help to provide a suitable
comment..
Pinkerton soldiers on:
"It's a matter of recorded fact that the Archimedes
experiments used DBT protocols - after all, they already knew back then
that sighted listening was useless"
Maybe they did use DBT as one research tool, may be
not. They say nothing about it. But he knows! "It is a matter of
recorded fact..," Records are recorded so that they can be referred to
and quoted. I reprinted what the Eureka partners said. Not a word
about "double blind tests".in their website. And certainly nothing
about ABX/DBT results as conclusive evidence in their research. The
"record" is Pinkerton's let's call it, fantasy. (He'd use different
wording)
This nonrecorded record, whispered confidentially into
Pinkerton's privileged ear, is on a par with his gossip about his home
amplifier "test", his gossip about what "industry" is doing and his
latest: dodge ; the silly wild goose chase after Archimedes/Eureka
Still not ONE GENUINE REFERENCE, not even a quote about
comparing and DISTINGUISHING audio components by ABX/DBT.
Instead lots of profanity. AS for his stupidly
transparent, gambit of creating a diversion asking for "MY evidence
about my claims." ". Which claims? He does not quote one because they
do not exist. I do not believe that an experimental method exists to
prove or disprove my personal experiences. He claims he has a foolproof
method for showing up differences between components. I have none. I
have my unscientific, untestable, unprovable preferences.
He is the one with claims and it is up to him to show that his method
works. Gossip interlarded with four-letter worda is not enough
To me "discussion" with such as he is not only frustrating
bu also repulsive. He may be a decent enough guy to meet in a pub. I
can't tell. I only know his internet Persona. And this inspires me with
revulsion. He can go on. I won't.
Ludovic Mirabel
*****************
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:59:24 +0200, "Ruud Broens"
wrote:
: snip, irrelevant
: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
: ...
: hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format,
: there were definite incentives to get the sample size
: and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration
: with the limitations of the technically & economically
: viable solution available in 1980.
: that's not an opinion, but a fact :-)
: Rudy
:
: nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit
: linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on,
: 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ???
:
: Vinyl, on the best day of its life, is around 12 bits
: equivalent. The widest dynamic range known on a music
: master tape is around 80dB, 14 bits will allow a properly
: dithered dynamic range of 81dB. What's the problem?
:: snip, irrelevant
:
Explain why your claimed dynamic range of mastertapes is relevant
to the establishment of a hifi standard of dynamic range.
It sets the limit to what the replay medium need encompass.
Actual music should set the dynamic range target, not some
-- this is technically possible in the 80's -- arbitrary range.
Actual live music never exceeds about 85-90dB, even under *very*
exceptional circumstances, and is more commonly 65-70dB dynamic range.
this century, they can attain higher master tape quality, Stewart:
http://www.strongestudios.com/folio.html
so your 80 dB sound like a gospel :-)
You don't know much about recording, do you Ruud? There's no way that
will exceed 65dB dynamic range.
no numbers, but interesting anyway :
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/2192/essays7.html
Rudy
heard a concert grand played up close
80 dB for real ? no Sttway, Jose
You are confusing dynamic range with maxiumum SPL, the *noise floor*
will hardly ever be less than 40dB SPL.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering