AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:G680b.182959$uu5.34042@sccrnsc04...

You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.

I answered:
Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .

He commented:
Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.

So let's have no interpreting. Just poor Greenhill's own words, word
for word and literally and Marcus own words, word for word and
literally.

Marcus first:
Anyone tempted to take Mirabel's assertion here at face value should
consult the original article and read for himself that Greenhill said
no such thing.

bob

This is what Greenhill said reporting the outcome of his cable
comparison test: ("The Stereo Review, August 1982):
"Final significant conclusion one can draw is that at least one
genuine "golden ear" exists. Obviously certain listeners whether
through talent, training or experience can hear small differences
between components"

Further Mr. A.Guy reproaches me:
I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".

Here follows a collection of those exposures of my mistakes as
presented by Mr. A. Guy in his previous postings:
"Again, look who's talking..."
"Look who's talking, if the shoe fits..."

"...but you have shown you have little understanding of the topic."

"Again, he has shown a much greater understanding of those topics than
You"
"That phrase is your Frankenstein creation, not anyone else's."

"Yes, I do wonder why I bother restating myself to counter your overly
wordy verbiage that can't seem to get the the point. It is a chore."

Mr. A. Guy surely you did not expect little me to cope with the
arguments of such conclusive pertinence and brilliancy. You forgot to
say that I'm cross-eyed, hump-backed and a failure with ladies.
But you added a final touch of humour:

" Let's keep such personal comments out of the group, OK?"

Ludovic Mirabel

In article 7dX%a.173729$o%2.82204@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:92T%a.171246$o%2.76310@sccrnsc02...
In article fLP%a.137308$cF.38433@rwcrnsc53,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

For the last two years I have been repeating that 1) there are
differences between components 2) they are audible to some and not
audible to others 3) explicitly, in those words and within te last
two weeks I repeated (see the (Why DBTs in audio do not..." July 25
posting) that talented or supertrained listeners such as Pinkerton,
Krueger, Clark and Greenhill's "golden ear" will still hear them even
when ABxing.
4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX
untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO
hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a
perversion of "testing".

Pleas explain why this is a "perversion of "testing"". If there are
those who can hear differences using ABX and those who do not, why
jump to the conclusion that ABX is hampering those who do not? Why
wouldn't the logical explanation be that they just can't hear the
differences at all?

My prose makes you suffer- I won't inflict it on you. Just read the
postings over the last two weeks

I have, and I have yet to find any useful explanations or any shred of
understanding of the topic at all in any of them, while it is obvious
you have decided to avoid responding to quite few of mine which
explain quite well how and where you are mistaken in your often
excessive "prose".

Now Marcus should know all that. He's been arguing for the last two
years against myself and Harry Lavo that Greenhill was perfectly
right basing his conclusions on the
incapable majority and ignoring what Greenhill himself (rather
unusually- the ABXing proctors, who followed him, did not copy his
honesty)- called a true "golden ear".

You keep ignoring the statistical evidence, without a retest it is
impossible to know if if there was a true "golden ear" since the
results fit within the curve of possible random guesses.

Take it up with Greenhill who is well, alive and writing for the
"Stereophile. Match your knowledge of statistics against his. I'm only
quoting .

Bob has demonstrated quite well on his own how your "interpretations"
of Greenhill's comments are misinterpretations.