" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...
I havd to share this from RAHE.

wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is
not
an
uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to
screen out
the majority of potential testers because they cannot
discriminate
when he
starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known
differences
in sound.

Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential
testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of
hundred
listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel,
specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency
response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even
with
training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference
testing.

This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr.
Olive's
work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn
something about it.

In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one
listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to
become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly
'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation
between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it
turned
out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the
other listeners were audiometrically normal.


The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250),
university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording
industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman
(21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT
magazines
(6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12),
divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group
(each
group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each
group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way
speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by
retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students.


Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of
the
listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined
with
the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different
listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test
(retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine
reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that
is
, least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way
loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained
listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained
listeners performed best.


I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise
given
that they are all paid to audition and review products for various
audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are
about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below
the
performance of audio retailers and trained listeners."


That said, the other take-home message was that even with the
difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by
preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the
various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of
'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and
appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred)
loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency
responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic
measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three
years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred
loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the
worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three
years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the
year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?)


Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results
section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences
in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our
industry
are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing
to do with the product itself. These include differences in
listening
rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as
price,
brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s
judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has
only
reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker
preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the
judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening
conditions."

You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the
first
place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's
own
dumb mistake.

Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for
that.
That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that
ABX
is
one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many
including
you seem to try and ignore.

Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to
which
I
replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet
posts on the subject.


At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those
other
references don't count.

Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman
International
testing department.

More than a little crap going down here.

More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what
ABX
keeps demonstrating.

Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind.

Thanks for being so crushingly predictable.
Roll over.

Mikey, you have a weak mind.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...
I havd to share this from RAHE.

wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is
not
an
uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has
to
screen out
the majority of potential testers because they cannot
discriminate
when he
starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known
differences
in sound.

Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential
testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of
hundred
listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening
panel,
specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency
response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even
with
training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference
testing.

This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr.
Olive's
work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn
something about it.

In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one
listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to
become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly
'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation
between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it
turned
out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the
other listeners were audiometrically normal.


The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250),
university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording
industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman
(21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT
magazines
(6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12),
divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group
(each
group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in
each
group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way
speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by
retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students.


Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of
the
listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined
with
the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the
different
listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test
(retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine
reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that
is
, least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way
loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained
listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained
listeners performed best.


I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise
given
that they are all paid to audition and review products for various
audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are
about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below
the
performance of audio retailers and trained listeners."


That said, the other take-home message was that even with the
difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by
preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the
various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of
'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and
appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred)
loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended
frequency
responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic
measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for
three
years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred
loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the
worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three
years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the
year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?)


Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results
section: "It is the author's experience that most of the
differences
in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our
industry
are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have
nothing
to do with the product itself. These include differences in
listening
rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as
price,
brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s
judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has
only
reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker
preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the
judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening
conditions."

You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the
first
place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's
own
dumb mistake.

Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for
that.
That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that
ABX
is
one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many
including
you seem to try and ignore.

Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to
which
I
replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109
Usenet
posts on the subject.


At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those
other
references don't count.

Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman
International
testing department.

More than a little crap going down here.

More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what
ABX
keeps demonstrating.

Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind.

Thanks for being so crushingly predictable.
Roll over.

Mikey, you have a weak mind.

Good boy.

How big was that telesocpe?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...
I havd to share this from RAHE.

wrote:
Harry Lavo wrote:

In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it
is
not
an
uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly
has
to
screen out
the majority of potential testers because they cannot
discriminate
when he
starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for
known
differences
in sound.

Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out"
potential
testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of
hundred
listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening
panel,
specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency
response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even
with
training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or
preference
testing.

This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr.
Olive's
work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you
learn
something about it.

In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one
listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman
to
become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly
'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation
between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it
turned
out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All
the
other listeners were audiometrically normal.


The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers
(n=250),
university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording
industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for
Harman
(21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT
magazines
(6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners
(12),
divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group
(each
group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in
each
group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the
4-way
speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by
retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students.


Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure
of
the
listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers,
combined
with
the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the
different
listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker
test
(retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine
reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average
(that
is
, least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way
loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students,
trained
listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests
trained
listeners performed best.


I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise
given
that they are all paid to audition and review products for
various
audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they
are
about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well
below
the
performance of audio retailers and trained listeners."


That said, the other take-home message was that even with the
difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by
preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups --
the
various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas
of
'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and
appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred)
loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended
frequency
responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic
measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for
three
years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred
loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured
the
worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for
three
years running, and better still had been declared 'product of
the
year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?)


Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the
results
section: "It is the author's experience that most of the
differences
in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our
industry
are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have
nothing
to do with the product itself. These include differences in
listening
rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as
price,
brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s
judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has
only
reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker
preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because
the
judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening
conditions."

You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the
first
place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was
NYOB's
own
dumb mistake.

Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for
that.
That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error,
that
ABX
is
one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many
including
you seem to try and ignore.

Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to
which
I
replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109
Usenet
posts on the subject.


At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and
those
other
references don't count.

Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman
International
testing department.

More than a little crap going down here.

More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like
what
ABX
keeps demonstrating.

Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind.

Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you
feel
aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about
your
own
character flaws.

It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when
it
comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps.

Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind.

Good doggie.

Mikey, you have an inferior mind.

Sit!