Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41   Report Post  
Richard D Pierce
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

In article ,
S888Wheel wrote:
That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists
of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From
1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck,
Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special
relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.


Is that so, Mr. Wheel? Nobody took relativity seriously until
Maxwell jumped on board in 1908.

That's REAL interesting, considering that the the good Mr.
Maxwell died in November of 1879.

And, most assuredly, the popular press did not give relativity
much credibility. But, that makes sense, because real physics
and real science is not done in the popular press.

--
| Dick Pierce |
| Professional Audio Development |
| 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX |
| |

  #42   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science


Steven said


Similarly, cable technology was pretty much worked out by the end of the
60's.
Its 'findings' are now part of standard textbooks too.



I said


That's all nice and well but it doesn't prove anything until you take every
known threshold of human hearing and test it to every known distortion in
amplifiers and cables when being used in every possible playback
configuaration. (This is not to say that I think every possible system must
be
tested but every real world product that pushes the extremes of conditions
would need to be included in the scope of things.)



Tom said


This line of argument is common in the high-end scheme of things. Because any
given experiment hasn't included every possible condition in the world we
should feel free to ignore it when we don't like the result.



That is not what was being discussed. the question was about deriving global
conclusions of the audibility of amps in playback simply by using what we know
about human thresholds of hearing and measured distortion in amps. hence your
point is a straw man. There was no discussion of any given experiments.

Tom said


This tries to establish a hurdle that no one could EVER clear.


Not at all. It simply sets up a reasonable condition for drawing global
conclusions about the audibility of amplifiers and wires in any playback system
that is strictly deducted from the scientifically valid data on human hearing
thresholds and the data on amplifier and wire distortions.

Tom said

Therefore, in
spite of no confirming evidence, there will never be enough contradictory
evidence to put down whatever claim I make.



Why? Is it so hard to apply the known thresholds of human hearing to the
measured performance of the most extreme designs of amplifiers or cables when
using the most sensitive and revealing speakers of the commonly used designs?
If you want to make global claims of audibility simply by using the data on
human thresholds of hearing and the measured performance of components don't
you have to, at the very least, use the extremes of various designs of
amplifiers and wires with the most sensitive and revealing of speakers of each
commercially available genre? i was very clear in stating one does not have to
use every possible variation of every possible playback system. If one wants to
draw any global conclusions using this specific angle to the question one has
to consider the many extreme possibilities of amp/ wire / speaker combinations.
then one has to consider every measurable distortion and then apply it to the
known data of human thresholds of hearing. Maybe that is whay this isn't the
best way to attack the issue.

Tom said


Likewise even one positive result like that recently reported about cd players
means that EVERY player ever made sounds different from all other players. And
any evidence to the contrary must be disregarded even when the positive was
single blind and had not confirmed synch.



Straw man arguement. I never made any such claims about CD players.

Tom said


As Michaell Schermer says with myths the evidence never gets any better.


The evidence certainly gets better than the two dozen articles you cite as
conclusive scientifically valid proof about the audibility of amps and wires
when scientists are drawing conclusions and calling them factual.


Tom said

In
spite of decades of experimental attempts to uncover amp/cable sound outside
those causes well-known the evidence is always right around the corner or was
produced but not understood by even professionals in the field according to the
proponents but none of them (even the "professionals" have never been able to
deliver a smoking gun.)



And in all those decades no one ever bothered to put together a test for peer
reviewed publication. The decades of testing don't amount to much when you
look at it in through perspective of real scientific investigation.
  #43   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:05:10 GMT, (S888Wheel) wrote:


Leonard wrote:

Einstein was accused of quackery and ridiculed by a
certain element within his realm of work. Granted he
did bend some basics to put his theory forth in a
more logical manner. Conceptually though, he did open
the mind to greater horizons.


jjnunes said


Can you be specific and name this vague 'certain element' you speak of?
If it's so certain, that should be an easy job.


That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists of the day if
we are talking about special relativity. From 1905 when special relativity was
published to 1908 when Planck, Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein
on special relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.


Always discriminate between healthy skepticism and 'accusations of
quackery'. Scientists are always open to new ideas which deconstruct
old theories (after all, that's how you become famous!), but they
demand *proof*. That's not unreasonable, now is it?

As it happens, I am closely involved with a company which is
introducing ground-breaking new science to two very established
industries - electric motors and refrigeration. There is huge
resistance from 'the establishment', which thinks that these very
mature technologies cannot be improved, but the *proof* is
indisputable, so we are gradually making headway. This is how 'new
science' works.

Compare and contrast with Leonard's vague handwaving that there may be
some mystical mysterious forces in the Universe about which we know
nothing, so we should just ignore the available *evidence* that all
cables do in fact sound the same.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #44   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

wrote in message ...
Snip, see below:


But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the
verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In here we have
Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly
through the holes in his own arguments. It's the subjectivists that are citing
old tossed theories, (Raedecker's advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes
to mind) Most don't bother to even check out the important authors that have
been cited here. (Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been
informally cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest. Yet they argue that they
have some magical gift of listening which deternimes some products are 'better'
than others and this should just be accepted as 'authority'. (usually citing
magazine writers and editors better known for manipulating internal politics
rather than any real contribution of knowledge)

JJ quit contributing pretty much because it's like talking tp a brick wall.

No, it doesn't follow. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite.


Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time.
I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.
I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.

Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please
2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.
3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?
You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?
Ludovic Mirabel

  #45   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

I said

That certain element was most of the the theoretical physicists
of the day if we are talking about special relativity. From
1905 when special relativity was published to 1908 when Planck,
Maxwlell and Lorentz jump on board with Einstein on special
relativity, the theory wasn't given much credability by most
physicists.


Dick said



Is that so, Mr. Wheel? Nobody took relativity seriously until
Maxwell jumped on board in 1908.


Gosh did I say "nobody"? I don't think so.

Dick said


That's REAL interesting, considering that the the good Mr.
Maxwell died in November of 1879.


In that case i must be getting names mixed up. I was going from memory. Thank
you for the correction.

Dick said


And, most assuredly, the popular press did not give relativity
much credibility. But, that makes sense, because real physics
and real science is not done in the popular press.


That's true but i don't see how that relates to anything I said.



  #46   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

ludovic mirabel wrote:

I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.


People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)

I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.


I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.


Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.


Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please


See above.


2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.


When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.



3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?


If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.


You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?


Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.


  #47   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

I said



Agreed. In fact this was the jist of my post. Now if one were to point
to
half
of that truth and say that an absence of evidence that amps sound
different
is
evidence that they sound the same or visa versa with a total absence of
evidence one would be making a an

intelectually dishonest argument IMO.



Tom said


This argument is similar to one saying that the lack of peer reviewed
evidence
that paranormal activity exists or doesn't exist should carry the same
weight.


I said


No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but
insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different is not a
claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.



Tom said


It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias controlled
experiment.


It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias controled
tests.


Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.


There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either. Further more
no one is saying that differences between amps are inexpicable.


Tom said


So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.


Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps is a
claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable rhetorical claim
meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical claim based of
established facts.

Tom said

It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence.


No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are still
picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater wieght on that
anecdotal evidence than it is due.

Tom said

If it did then we wouldn't be arguing about it.


If we body of scientifically valid evidence that suggested there was no audible
differences between amps in any real world applications I wouldn't be arguing
about the scientific validity of your claim.


I said


Further more, many scientific
investigations into claims of the paranormal have been conducted and
published
so the analogy is entirely flawed.


Tom said


In peer-reviewed journals?


In some cases.



Tom said


The reason that there are no published tests showing that researchers
didn't
see an Alien Abduction is that it's not news. Who cares?


I said


Why would you assume that no such published papers investigating claims of
alien abductions? Are you sure that there are no published investigations on
such things?


Tom said


Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien Abductions to
report?


Yes.

J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.

I said


There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.


Tom said



Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?


I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien abductions.

Tom said

That's
what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me included) and
not found same.


No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ. Articles have
been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when comparing amps
and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely disinterested in the
results of such tests. Yes it would pobably be very uninteresting to go out
looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found nothing. When
one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds nothing.
They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either way,
there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio engineers. In all
those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is inaudible do
they not?

I said

By the way, one would
not do a "test" to see if there are people being abducted by aliens anymore
than one would do a "test" to find fossils or cosmic phenomenon or new
species
or many other things that amount to valid scientific evidence. It is
ridiculous
to mix the collection of evidence in the field, which involves going out and
finding evidence, with lab experiments which wrought data through an

entirely
different proccess.


Tom said


Why? Are extraordinary claims based outside the Lab free from scrutiny?


Straw man argument. I never said they were free from scrutiny.


Tom said

I think
any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING the claim.


You are wrong. the validation should come from propper scientific
investigation. Most people who stumble upon interesting new data in the field
are not qualified to make claims much less validate them.

Tom said


The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the Proponents.
Those
of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so. It's YOUR
turn now.


No, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming their position on the matter is
supported by science. I have made no such claims. You have. You have the burden
of proof.



Tom said




What the Abduction Proponents need to do is prove that extraordinary
claim and
the lack of opposing "proof' of non-existence is simply a smokescreen
for the
lackof evidence supporting the claim.


I said


There isn't a lack of opposing evidence in the case of claims of alien
abduction and I am pretty sure it has been investigated by scientists.
Further
more, your assertion that claims of amplifier sound are extraordinary is
nothing more than that as far as I can see.


Tom said


This "lack of evidence either way" (BTW there is plenty of contrary
evidence
but because it hasn't appeared in the JAES Scott rejects it as not of
interest)
argument is such.


I said


The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are misrepresented.
There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be considered
scientifically valid.


Tom said


'Sez you. How are you qualified to comment?



My qualifications have no bearing on the validity of my claims. This isn't
about me, it is about the scientific validity of your claims on amplifier
sound. Attacking the qualifications of your opponent is nothing more than a
debate trick and does nothing to advance the debate.

I said


And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
correctly
pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.


Tom said



IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
response,
overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
proponent to
have conducted a replicable and

reviewed experiment showing such to be
true.


I said


If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate and all
the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
themsleves


to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and publication
in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious interest.
Without it your claim lacks scientific support.


Tom said


So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller, manufacturer)
been able to do so?


Why haven't you been able to do so for your position? Maybe it is an unfair
question. Maybe choosing not to do so soesn't prove an inherent inability.

Tom said

It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case.


It is not the responsibility of any manufacturer to prove your case either. My
case is proven. My case, if you have forgotten, is that there is no
scientifically valid evidence upon which one can make claims one way or another
that are supported by science. Your case is the one in dire need of valid
scientific support. Support you claim already exists but support you fail to
demonstrate.

Tom said


Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS anecdotal
support by your own standards.


My position that there is a lack of scientifically valid evidence to make any
claims one way or another that are scientifically supported lacks scientific
support? Prove it. Show us the mountain of scientifically valid evidence that
proves your position. By the way, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to
support my anecdotal position.


Tom said


Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a
sound-of-its
own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent I'll
recruit
and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled conditions.
You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.


I am not going to ship my amp to you. Tell you what, publish your findings on
amplifier sound in the AESJ and I will concede that your position has valid
scientific support.

Tom said

Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment and supply
my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled test. In
the
latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier (assumig
it
meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled listening test
you
will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.


Why? All you have to do is declare my amp incompetent. Lets be specific. I went
from a Yamaha rack system reciever to an Audio Research SP 10/ Audio Research D
115 MkII system. You can decide for yourself whether or not those components
are competent at home. I can supply you with the specs.If you want to test the
Audio Research components against the Yamaha reciever using my playback system
then lets do it. And lets use scientifically accepted standards of probability
as a standard for a positive result. If you really want to do this we can make
arangments. You don't need to put up a bounty.


Tom said


We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and submitted
to
the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.


Agreed.
  #48   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

See previous text in full below

JJnunes had said: "In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth
that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in
his own arguments".
He amplified later:
People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human beings.
I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical

one.
A "metaphor" that pictures me as "proudly" and "brazenly holding
forth" that the "scientists here are quacks" could be mistaken for an
insinuation.
So I'd still welcome a name or two of the "scientists here" writing
for RAHE on the topic of component comparison by ABX- including their
basic research that validates their opinions. If you're putting
"metaphors" in my mouth let's see whom are you referring too as the
injured party.
I had said:
I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive

word about a test for comparing music reproduction characteristics
of audio
components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in the RAHE. And

that, presumably, those worthies support your point of view-
whatever it is.
Mr. JJnunes:
Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory

of the evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing
that.

Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.
Just a quote or two from your witnesses Fletcher, Yost and
Moore concerning audio component comparison by ABX/DBT.
Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that you talk about
"trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in Fletcher,
NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore.
And you know what else? NOTHING anywhere else. The reputable,
published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing audio
components does NOT EXIST.
"Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace it. You were
asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing called:
quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?
I had said :
2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already

what it is not..

JJnunes:
When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test

is the best known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound
alone. It is not needed in any way for determination of pleasure
or preference in
ANYTHING.
Most audiophiles don't care about them, there's absolutely

nothing wrong with that, except when they claim that they don't
work for the purpose
stated above.


Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying? What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" is not usable on this earth by human
beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether.
Actually audiophiles wanting to hear differences but NOT so as to
decide preferences are not of this earth either. And preferences for
the quality of musical SOUND are what rec.audio.high-end is all about.
Yes? No? Or what does your somewhat difficult text mean?
I said
3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least

give references customary in scientific debates Name, Title ,
Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said

something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't throw your pearls before swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?

JJnunes:
If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in

you, so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The
spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide

you.

Never mind naughty me. Just think of your readers, They are waiting.
Do you think they'd let me get away with "quoting out of context".
Just think :say, I wrote that I found in Copernicus, Galileo and
Newton that they scorned ABX
for audio and then refused to quote "for fear that you'll quote it
out of context" I can't begin to imagine what you'd have to say about
me. No ,I can't bring myself to even think about it. The moderators
are listening.
I said:
You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote

this.?
You answered:
Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out

of context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your
record.

This is the second time you have me "quoting out of context" And
this time you tack on an allegation about my "record".
I've been long enough around the RAHE to think that it is all in a
day's work here. But I ask you for a quote or two to document yor
allegation. Asking for evidence for your statements seems to be a
repeat job. No and no again I don't quote things out of context and in
your particular case I remember no context with any substance that I
could drop. Quote the context I twisted out of or ... Forget it.
What's the use? You were just being metaphorical ,right?
The first sentence of my posting that you snipped was:
" Mr. JJnunes delivery time!"
It still is.
Ludovic Mirabel

:

I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.


People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)

I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.


I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.


Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.


Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please


See above.


2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.


When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.



3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?


If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.


You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?


Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.


  #49   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

ludovic mirabel wrote:


Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.


As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
hearing tests in anechoic chambers.

There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
the results.

An analogy may illustrate the point. There is a deliberate exageration
to help illustrate it:

Writing a boatload of peer reviewed papers and books to show that
the test validates itself is like doing the same for demonstrating
the effectiveness of scalpels in surgery.


In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
scalpels) But the point is made.

You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.

Bibliographies have been posted on RAHE in the past. You may have to wade
through a lot of stuff to find them in Google, but I remember seeing them.
(it was probably before you or I arrived, I think)

As for comparing components, blind methods are considered manditory in
validating codec quality, and a codec is a component as is an amplifier,
etc. The only difference is that a codec is software and an amplifier,
cable, CD player, etc.) is hardware. In other words, it isn't considered
a practical problem as I understand it.


(description of position snipped for brevity)

Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying?


It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong scientifically.


What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.


I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's tests. I recall some have said
they wern't as sensitive as they could be, but it wasn't really bad.
It's not true there are never no differences.

If you want to know for yourself, the best way is to do your own tests.
But, nobody HAS to do them. That's unreasonable. My position is really
more moderate than some.

If you would just stop listening to Glenn Gould, everything would be
alright. ;-)
  #50   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(S888Wheel) wrote:


No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but

insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different
is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.


Tom said


It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias

controlled
experiment.


It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias
controled
tests.


It is an extraordinary claim because it has ONLY been observed in
bias-controlled tests when a known audibility element was also either
verified or likely. Meyer measured the response and reported same. Banks and
Krajicek didn't verify the response element but it was most certainly present
with the equipment selected (high-output impedance amplifier with frequency
response errors.)


Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.


As before.


There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.


I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.

Further more no one is saying that differences between amps are

inexpicable.

That's right. They come to a few selected elements and can be
verified. If are you agreeing that an amplifier with flat response at the
speaker
terminals not driven into overload more than 1% of the time will be
transparent
then what's left to argue?


Tom said


So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.


Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
is a

claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical

claim based
of established facts.

The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.

It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even €˜difficult load conditions.

For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.

To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
to making claims of para-normality.

If we want to 'warp' the response of the loudspeaker an equalizer is a much
better method than using an incompetent amplifier which will normally
supply incompetence through a high-output impedance.

Now IF you're claiming that extra-normal amp 'sound' is a function of
non-amplification irregularities (frequency response or overload
errors) into a given load then we all "agree" on what "amp sound" is.

But you appear to be making a more global statement. That clipping and
frequency response errors are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound.
This is extraordinary.

If you are NOT making a statement like this then we have no
disagreement.


Tom said

It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence.


No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are
still
picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater
wieght on
that
anecdotal evidence than it is due.


So statements of 'amp sound' without bias controls carry the same
weight as experiments that have applied these experimental protocols?
I strongly disagree.

€¦.snip€¦.

Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien
Abductions to
report?


Yes.

J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.


But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that the
abductions
themselves have been investigated.

My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature. People who
are given the same sound presentations are very prone to report them as
different. e.g. report distorted versions of reality. I'm glad you brought
this up because appears to
illustrate my point quite well.


I said


There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.


Tom said



Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?


I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien
abductions.


But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you? You only found one examining
memory distortions of reporting on them.

Are we to accept that this is evidence that abductions (amp sound)
actually occur? Not in my house And do we have peer-reviewed papers on the
existence of abductions?

But I will agree that people have investigated paranormal activity and not
found evidence of it.
Likewise I and others have investigated amp/wire sound and found likewise.



Tom said

That's
what's happened with amp sound; people have searched for it (me
included)

and
not found same.


No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ.
Articles
have
been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when
comparing amps
and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely
disinterested in the
results of such tests. Yes it would pobably be very uninteresting to
go out
looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found
nothing.


When
one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds
nothing.
They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either
way,
there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio
engineers.



This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
dozen others followed. What more is needed?

In
all
those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is
inaudible
do
they not?



Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.


€¦.snip€¦..


Tom said

I think
any extraordinary claim needs to be validated by the people MAKING
the

claim.

You are wrong. the validation should come from propper scientific
investigation. Most people who stumble upon interesting new data in
the field
are not qualified to make claims much less validate them.


"Stumble" on interesting new data about audibility? Is that you or
Tara Labs?

Come on. The Absolute Sound, Stereophile, Tara Labs, Transparent Audio
Marketing, Pass, Bryston, etc and their sales/marketing channels have
been telling us for years of how much 'better" their products sound better than
my
meager Heathkit, Yamaha amd Parasound, junk box rcas and zip cord. These claims
have been
being made for decades.

You want me to accept that they (and you) have "stumbled" on exciting
new data that none of the rest of us is privy to? And that the work of
legitimate scientists
and engineers such as Floyd Toole, Dan Shanefield, Stanley Lip****z, John
Vanderkooy and Earl Geddes
who have investigated these claims and failed to validate the extraordinary
claims is to be
granted the same weight as high-end magazine reviews, salesmans claims and
newgroup
anecdotes?

Those claims are similar to the "miracle" gas and oil treatments we see
advertised. €¦€¦
unverified€¦. And you want them granted equal weight? I think that those
making the claims should
validate them if they want to be taken seriously.


Tom said


The burden of proof on amp/wire sound needs to come from the
Proponents.
Those
of us who have attempted to verfiy same haven't been able to do so.
It's

YOUR
turn now.


No, the burden of proof is on anyone claiming their position on the
matter is supported by science. I have made no such claims. You have. You have


the burden of proof.

Hogwash. I have put many of these claims to the test with personal
bias-controlled experiments and none of the proponents has ever been
able to verify ANY sound quality effects of their stuff even in their personal
reference systems WHEN bias controls were employed.

I don't make any claim except that THEY have never established that
those products have any sound, let alone better, sound than modestly priced
commercially available ware.

It isn't that NO evidence exists either way. There's plenty of it. You
could even duplicate some of it yourself if you were curious enough. That's
what I was doing as early as 1978.

The analogy is flawed as I pointed out above. The facts are
misrepresented.
There is no contrary evidence that has been cited that can be
considered scientifically valid.


Why not? You just don't like the results. And you have no reasonable
objection. Theres been no scientifically valid evidence that paranormal
activity
cant exist or that alien abductions DONT occur either.

It is true that no one has been able to demonstrate paranormal skills or show
true evidence of an abduction or a public examination of BigFoot; but using
your logic theres no scientific evidence either way.

€¦snip€¦€¦


I said


And you have misrepresented my position. I have never
claimed that the anecdotal evidence was of no interest. I simply and
correctly
pointed out the fact that it is anecdotal.


OK so what?

Tom said



IF amp/wire sound extant of known audibility effects (level, freq
response,
overload) does exist it should have been relatively easy for a
proponent to
have conducted a replicable and
reviewed experiment showing such to be
true.


I said


If amplifiers and cables have no sound of their own it should be
reletively
simple to prove and publish in the AESJ or another interested
scientific
journal. It seems this hasen't happened. In all the years of debate
and all
the
anecdotal tests done to promote this belief no one has taken it upon
themsleves

to not only do the tests but to put them up for peer review and
publication
in
a scientific journal such as the AESJ which would have an obvious
interest.


Again why hasnt a wire manufacturer done this? It should be easy, as you
say.

Why should I. It isn't my claim. I'm a 20 year member of the AES and
a past officer. I'd never recommend that the Journal publish a "We looked for
BigFoot and didn't find Him" article. It would be a waste of ink better devoted
to real issues.

Extraordinary claims, claims of any nature, need to be verified by the
claimant.

Ø Without it your claim lacks scientific support.

Even IF that were true; so what? Given that no proponent has ever
supplied a single example of non-verified amp/wire sound even exists I don't
understand why you are working so hard to support it. Rejecting even
overwhelming
contrary evidence; experiments designed so strongly to support the Mythology
claims that IF they held a grain of truth it would surely shine through.

Tom said


So why hasn't some interested party (designer, owner, seller,
manufacturer)
been able to do so?


Why haven't you been able to do so for your position? Maybe it is an
unfair
question. Maybe choosing not to do so soesn't prove an inherent
inability.



I've put those claims to the test in every reasonable fashion. I've traveled
half way across the country at my own expense on three occasions to offer
proponents an opportunity to prove their claims.

I take offense at the insinuation that I haven't done enough work on
this. I've personally done more controlled listening investigation of amp/wire
sound than the entire high-end publishing/manufacturing/marketing/distribution
industry.

That I or someone else has not submitted a "I didn't Find BigFoot"
article to the Journal and havent worked hard enough is a pretty big joke.

If a wire BigFoot is in existence its simply no longer my job to find him
Ive looked in all the reasonable places, Ive done all the reasonable
work; mostly
at my own personal expense (even to the end of purchasing high-end equipment
to validate the long-term issue and you suggest I havent done enough.

On the contrary I'm over-committed.



Tom said

It's simply NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR case.


It is not the responsibility of any manufacturer to prove your case
either.


That's the point. They need to "prove" amp/wire sound before amyone
should take them seriously. I've made no claims other than my 4 Bryston
amplifiers sound exactly like each
other with loudspeakers in a room and the other 8 amplifiers in my stable
to me and to a couple dozen other audio enthusiasts under bias controlled
conditions (assumimg the Brystons are
working; which has not always been a given.)

And that I've not found
that a pair of Pass Monoblocks sounded different to the Pass owner from a
10-year old Yamaha integrated amplifier in his reference system. Or A SUMO
Andromeda from a Parasound HCA-800. Or a Bryston 4B-NRB from a Adcom Car Audio
amplifier, etc.

Want me to start of wires?


My
case is proven. My case, if you have forgotten, is that there is no
scientifically valid evidence upon which one can make claims one way
or another that are supported by science.


Your case is not proven. There is plenty oif evidence. You have just
set an arbitrary standard that you believe allows you to make this 'claim.'

Your case is the one in dire need of valid
scientific support. Support you claim already exists but support you
fail to demonstrate.


Let's do it then.

Tom said


Your position not only lacks 'scientific support' it even LACKS
anecdotal
support by your own standards.


My position that there is a lack of scientifically valid evidence to
make any
claims one way or another that are scientifically supported lacks
scientific
support? Prove it. Show us the mountain of scientifically valid
evidence that
proves your position. By the way, there is plenty of anecdotal
evidence to
support my anecdotal position.


Nothing bias-controlled though, is there?

Tom said


Let me offer an opportunity to YOU. Supply an amplifier that has a
sound-of-its
own and I'll measure it and if its found to be nominally competent
I'll
recruit
and pay 10 subjects to verify your claim under bias controlled
conditions.
You'll only have to pay shipping both ways.


I am not going to ship my amp to you. Tell you what, publish your
findings on
amplifier sound in the AESJ and I will concede that your position has
valid
scientific support.


Why don't YOU publish that paper to confirm your position? Why hasn't Audio
Research published such as paper? Pass Labs? You seem
to hold it strongly in spite of your own admission that there is NO scientific
support for it. But thats what this argument is all about isnt it? To try
to keep the issue
on a debate level. When you cant support your case with evidence if you
talk long enough and hard enough maybe people will forget that you have no
evidence.



Tom said

Alternately I'll come to your place and conduct such an experiment
and

supply
my own amplifier and all equipment required for a bias controlled
test. In
the
latter case IF you are not able to reliably identify that amplifier
(assumig
it
meets the competency test) 9 times out of 10 in a controlled
listening test
you
will reimburse my flight costs. If you can I'll pay you $100.


Why? All you have to do is declare my amp incompetent. Lets be
specific. I
went
from a Yamaha rack system reciever to an Audio Research SP 10/ Audio
Research
D
115 MkII system. You can decide for yourself whether or not those
components
are competent at home. I can supply you with the specs.If you want to
test
the
Audio Research components against the Yamaha reciever using my
playback
system
then lets do it. And lets use scientifically accepted standards of
probability
as a standard for a positive result. If you really want to do this
we can
make
arangments. You don't need to put up a bounty.


I'm doing all the work and taking all the financial risk. What I want is a
good faith offer to compensate my travel if you are unable to confirm your
claims. Or we could agree to split the costs.

You can do most everything yourself in advance if you want. I'll send
you a test disc to confirm response and matching if you'd like.

Tom said


We will then agree that the results will be publicly available and
submitted
to
the JAES as a Convention paper and offered for publication.


Agreed.


Let's go.


  #52   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

In article juHab.521254$o%2.228267@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
In article UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.


Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
compared so far.

Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
create a strawman that is easy for you to burn?


The paragraph that you saw fit to amputate is as follows:
(((" Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences
between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" (ie ABX/DBT for comparing components
available for the last 30 years L.M.) is not usable on this earth by
human beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether" }}}
I'll answer any argument which genuinely addresses MY argument.
When I see a selected snippet cut out of my text I'll content myself
with a requote.


Well I didn't think the rest had anything to do with my question so I
snipped it, something you need to do much more often. People can refer
to the original post quite easily, so it is considered bad etiquette to
quote parts of a previous post when one doesn't consider it germane
to their own new post.

So I'll just repeat my statement and question since you seem to think
that is the way to have useful discussions and since you failed to
reply:

Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.


Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
compared so far.

Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
create a strawman that is easy for you to burn? This also applies to
the part you insist on repeating too by the way since you imply that
those who do use ABX/DBTs aren't "human beings".

  #54   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

(Mkuller) wrote in message news:IJHab.521362$o%2.228362@sccrnsc02...
wrote:
As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
hearing tests in anechoic chambers.

There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
the results.

While DBTs are effectively utilized in psychoacoustic research, there is little
or no evidence that they are appropriate or useful for audiophiles to utilize
in comparing audio components with music as a bias control method. In fact,
the few reported published studies show that when used in this way, DBTs do not
show subtle audible differences between components, but only gross frequency
response and loudness differences and then only when pink noise is used as a
source.

There are at least two important elements missing from these amateur DBTs:
1. Pretesting that the the actual subtle differences can be identified with
the program material utilized, i.e. is the music selected actually a sensitive
enough source to identify, say a difference in midrange dynamic contrasts in a
DBT. That a DBT is sensitive to the limits of audibility is meaningless if
that does not apply to THIS DBT.
2. Pre-training the subjects to listen for the specific differences
(midrange dynamic contrasts) prior to conducting the DBT.

I believe these two protocols are standard in psychoacoustic research, but have
not been applied to any amateur DBT I have seen. Certainly there are other
problems with amateur pseudo-scientific use of DBTs in audio as a method of
bias control. The bottom line is this - they have never been proven as
effective for use in comparing audio components with music in the way they are
blindly advocated on RAHE. Sighted listening, i.e. no bias controls, seems
more effective in identifying subtle differences.
Regards,
Mike


With due respect and at the cost of a breach in the ranks I
differ in some respects.
I would not make a bland statement that "no bias controls" make
listening somehow superior. It plays exactly into the hands of those
who claim that it must be either/or- see or use ABX. Denying that
sighted bias interferes with perceptions- at least in most hands- is
flying into the face of reality.
This "see or use ABX" is a false dichotomy. There is no reason
why single blind precautions should interfere with perceptions of
so-called "subtle" differences (see below re "subtle"). In fact they
help to concentrate the mind- and the ears- on the task at hand,
wonderfully . You can cover the brand names or the eyes- whichever is
convenient. Or if you want to get simultaneous comparisons you can use
left-right with random swapping technique.
The villain is the ABX protocol which, however satisfactory
in research, proved itself in real life to interfere with the
perceptions of most, (but not necessarily all) unselected
run-of-the-mill subjects ie. the average audio consumer. I'll
rererepeat documentation in my reply to Mr. JJnunes in the ...thread.
Ludovic Mirabel
I have no idea what people here mean by "subtle". What's "subtle' to
me may be "gross" to a violin player. Differences are differences
whoever hears them. If I don't I should try to educate myself further.
High-end is all about "subtle" or it is about nothing at all.

  #55   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

I said


No it is not. Analogies to highly inflamatory subjects is nothing but

insulting. claiming that different amplifiers may sound different
is not a claim of paranormal phenomenon per se.



Tom said


It's an extraordinary claim that has not been verified by any bias
controlled
experiment.


I said


It is not an extraordinary claim and it has been observed in bias
controled
tests.


Tom said


It is an extraordinary claim because it has ONLY been observed in
bias-controlled tests when a known audibility element was also either
verified or likely.


I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.


Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.


As before.


I said


There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.



Tom said


I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.


None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
replication.

I said


Further more no one is saying that differences between amps are

inexpicable.


Tom said


That's right. They come to a few selected elements and can be
verified. If are you agreeing that an amplifier with flat response at the
speaker
terminals not driven into overload more than 1% of the time will be
transparent
then what's left to argue?


I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
amplifiers to frequency response. If you are claiming that it has been proven
that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response then
i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?


Tom said


So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.


I said


Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
is a

claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical

claim based
of established facts.


Tom said

The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.


I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.

Tom said


It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even ‘difficult’ load conditions.


Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load.

Tom said


For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.


Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is a
gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Tom said


To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
to making claims of para-normality.


No one I know of is saying that amplifier sound is anything but distortion. So
who are you arguing with on this issue? Who is claiming that amp sound is
magical? I certainly am not. I agree that any sound that an amp may have is a
result of measurable distortion. That is not an extraordinary claim. Maybe our
argument will make progress if you avoid building false positions to argue
against.

Tom said


If we want to 'warp' the response of the loudspeaker an equalizer is a much
better method than using an incompetent amplifier which will normally
supply incompetence through a high-output impedance.


I fail to see the relevance of this point. My point was that without
scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or another about
the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported by
science.

Tom said


Now IF you're claiming that extra-normal amp 'sound' is a function of
non-amplification irregularities (frequency response or overload
errors) into a given load then we all "agree" on what "amp sound" is.


I think I have been more than clear about my claim on this thread. See above.

Tom said


But you appear to be making a more global statement. That clipping and
frequency response errors are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound.
This is extraordinary.


I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or another
about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported by
science.
How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response errors
are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond me.
I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are totally
unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.

Tom said


If you are NOT making a statement like this then we have no
disagreement.


I am not making any statements as to the cause of amplifier sound.


Tom said

It doesn't fit with present
experimental evidence.


I said


No. It doesn't fit with some anecdotal exerimental evidence. You are
still
picking and choosing your evidence hear and placing far greater
wieght on
that
anecdotal evidence than it is due.


Tom said


So statements of 'amp sound' without bias controls carry the same
weight as experiments that have applied these experimental protocols?
I strongly disagree.


I never said that. I simply said they failed to make the grade for scientific
validity. OTOH I see nothing to suggest the very tests Stewert did were in any
way inferior or less reliable than the ones you cite as valid scientific proof
about the amplifier sound.

Tom said


Do you have a reference to a peer-reviewed experiment on Alien
Abductions to
report?


I said


Yes.

J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.



Tom said


But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that
the
abductions
themselves have been investigated.


It was what you asked for. It was a peer reviewed experiment on Alien
abductions. More precisely it investigated the cause for the claim of alien
abductions.

Tom said


My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.


Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in?

Tom said

People who
are given the same sound presentations are very prone to report them as
different. e.g. report distorted versions of reality. I'm glad you brought
this up because appears to
illustrate my point quite well.


So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove that
all amps sound the same.


I said


There certainly are plenty of published investigations on claims
of paranormal activity. They found nothing paranormal.



Tom said



Isn't that surprising? Do you have some peer-reviewed references?


I said


I can find them if you like. Just as I found the one above on alien
abductions.


Tom said


But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you?


Yes I did. The investigation showed a likely cause of claims of alien
abductions without the need of aliens abducting people. So it did in effect
investigate the validity of such claims in light of the complete absense of
forensic evidence and third party eyewitness acounts.

Tom said

You only found one examining
memory distortions of reporting on them.


I found what you asked for and now you want to redifine what you asked for.
forget about the offer to find anything else on the subject. It is clearly a
waste of time. Now please feel free to get back to me when you can cite any
peer reviewed published data that support your position on amplifier sound that
you seem to claim is supported by science.

I said

No, what happened is no one has published any tests in the AESJ.
Articles
have
been published supporting the use of bias controled tests when
comparing amps
and the like so it is hard to say the AESJ is completely
disinterested in the
results of such tests. Yes it would

pobably be very uninteresting to
go out
looking for bigfoot, find nothing and then publish that you found
nothing.



Tom said

When
one does scientifically valid tests on amplifier sound one never finds
nothing.
They find the amps to be indistinguishable or distinguishable. Either
way,
there is data to report that can be seen as valuable to audio
engineers.


Tom said


This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
dozen others followed. What more is needed?


Published where?

I said


In
all
those tests on human thresholds of hearing they do reprot what is
inaudible
do
they not?


Tom said



Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.


Which supports my claim that in the absense of any peer reviewed tests on the
sound of amplifiers one cannot make global definitive claims one way or another
and rightly claim that science supports their claim.



  #56   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(S888Wheel) wrote:

...large snips.....

I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.


But you claim that practically every amplifier has its own set of sonic faults
that
allows it to have a sound of its own. I suggest that there are a few of these
and the source of their incompetence is not a mystery.

Further you suggest that open listening is the best way to discover the sound
of ampliifers. I say that any amplifier that applies a sound to any signal is
not an amplifief but an equakizer of some kind (usually load dependent.)

But most importantly, in a practical sense the competency of an amplifiewr can
be known with measurements in advance and as a class commerically available
products most generally have a level of competence which means they will
faithfully amplify and transport a signal from input to output in a perfectly
transparent manner.

And you have no peer- reviewed evidence that says otherwise. And you've never,
AFAIK, have tested your theory with even nominal bias controls implemented.


Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.


As before.


I said


There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.



Tom said


I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.


None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
replication.


Pure conjecture. Those experiments, and you have a fairly comprehensive list,
do represent replication the key element of which is limiting listener bias.



I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
amplifiers to frequency response.


Nor have I.

If you are claiming that it has been proven
that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response
then
i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?


I have said the source of true audible difference is a function of frequency
response or overload. But amplifiers that can deliver a transparent replication
of a sugnal appearing at its input terminals are common. Those that cannot a
few and have np place in my audio system.

The problem is that a few enthusiasts, you among them I think, suggest
otherwise and
that enthusiasts should worry about mystery amp sound when it hasn't ever been
shown to exist.



Tom said


So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.


I said


Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
is a
claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical

claim based
of established facts.


Tom said

The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the

signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.


I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.


I currently own and use 10 of them; not counting the two dozen or so in my
active loudspeaker cadre which are intentionally 'warped' to offset the
inherent problems with the electro-mechanical transdusers.


Tom said


It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even __difficult__ load conditions.


Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load.


You claim to have 'heard differently' but no one has ever shown under bias
controlled listening conditions that the 'sound' of an amplifier outside of
frequency reponse errors and overload exists let alone a commonly encountered
phenomenon.


Tom said


For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.


Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is
a
gross misrepresentation of the facts.


What facts? Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise?



Tom said


To say that amplifiers, as a class, are not capable of this other than
violating the stated conditions is a claim that is directly analagous
to making claims of para-normality.


No one I know of is saying that amplifier sound is anything but distortion.
So
who are you arguing with on this issue? Who is claiming that amp sound is
magical? I certainly am not. I agree that any sound that an amp may have is a
result of measurable distortion. That is not an extraordinary claim. Maybe
our
argument will make progress if you avoid building false positions to argue
against.


So what measureable distortions other than frequency reponse errors and
overload (operating outside power limits)
contribue to the sound of an amplifier?

Peer-reviewed journal references?


I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or
another
about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported
by
science.
How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response
errors
are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond
me.
I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are
totally
unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.


Let's clarify here. I belive that you claim that amplifier "sound" is common
enough that few or no amplifers are capable of transporting a signal from input
to output with sonic transparency. Yet you site no peer-reviewed evidence that
this is the case.

I maintain that such amplifiers are common and that many have used bench
measurements and bias controlled listening tests to verify transparency. I have
personally done so on many occasions. And no maufacturer, marketer or magazine
has ever shown that outside of frequency response errors (which occur
infrequently) and overload (gross incompetence) that ampliifers commerically
available to the general public are not, by and large, capable of a level of
transparency well below the threshold of human hearing.




J Abnorm Psychol. 2002 Aug;111(3):455-61.

Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens.

Clancy SA, McNally RJ, Schacter DL, Lenzenweger MF, Pitman RK.



Tom said


But that didn't investigate the abductions. It appears to be reporting
on people who have reported abductions. I see nothing here to suggest that
the
abductions
themselves have been investigated.


It was what you asked for. It was a peer reviewed experiment on Alien
abductions. More precisely it investigated the cause for the claim of alien
abductions.


Again it says nothing about the existance of true abductions.


Tom said


My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.


Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in?


It was give at an AES Convention. No it was not peer-reviewed. But it does
examine perceptual distortions of humans when reporting of sound and how people
will falsely report difference when given two identical sound presentations.



So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove
that
all amps sound the same.


No one said that either. But no one has delivered any reasonable peer-reviewed
evidence that they don't.

Your observation that they do not has no bias controlled evidence to support
it. So the claim that they do not has not only no basis but cannot be supported
by the people with the most to gain from that proposition.

And those people, you included, are reduced to argumentation. If your claim was
generally true it should be so easy to prove.


But you didn't find a peer reviewed article that investigated the
existance of abductions (amp sound) now did you?


Yes I did. The investigation showed a likely cause of claims of alien
abductions without the need of aliens abducting people. So it did in effect
investigate the validity of such claims in light of the complete absense of
forensic evidence and third party eyewitness acounts.


Yes; so it didn't PROVE that alien abductions CAN"T happen. But your assertions
are just that, as well, without forensic evidence of any kind.


I found what you asked for and now you want to redifine what you asked for.
forget about the offer to find anything else on the subject. It is clearly a
waste of time. Now please feel free to get back to me when you can cite any
peer reviewed published data that support your position on amplifier sound
that
you seem to claim is supported by science.


I'm waiting for your peer-reviewed evidence supporting amp sound.


This has been reported. Toole published the first one in 1976. Two
dozen others followed. What more is needed?


Published where?


Audio Scene of Canada. And no I'm not going to send you a copy. Find it
yourself.

Good point. But the current work is on data reduction. All the work is
supported by bias controlled listening tests published or otherwise.


Which supports my claim that in the absense of any peer reviewed tests on the
sound of amplifiers one cannot make global definitive claims one way or
another
and rightly claim that science supports their claim.


Then one should also stop making claims about amp sound shouldn't they?
  #57   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:


Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might take us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.


JjNunes answers:
As has been gone over many times, it is a body of evidence that supports
the fact that the test is sensitive down to the physical limits of the
hearing system. That limit is defined as the lowest instataneous loudness
that results in a detectable signal at the auditory nerve. That level is
well known and is used routinely as a reference in the more sophisticated
hearing tests in anechoic chambers.
There is really no disagreement among professionals in psychoacoustic
research that the test validates itself as described above and the body
of evidence (the books mentioned are just some of the references) supports
the results.

Where is the "ground research for COMPONENT CMPARISON BY ABX"?
Analogies and inferences from other areas will not do (see below)
Translated for clarity your evidence means just this much:
psychometricians find that selected, trained subjects with normal
hearing will still hear normally while ABXing. A great hearing test.
Bully for psychometrics' "professionals". A shame though they will not
do any component comparisons. These are for us ordinary audiophiles or
what are they for?
What has it all got to do with comparing components for their
MUSICAL reproduction differences? Something more complicated is
involved- a zillion different brains of a zillion "audiophiles".
Beethoven and Klemperer would have been disbarred from psychometric
research- what a shame!

An analogy may illustrate the point. There is a deliberate exageration
to help illustrate it:

Writing a boatload of peer reviewed papers and books to show that
the test validates itself is like doing the same for demonstrating
the effectiveness of scalpels in surgery.

You don't use a scalpel to cut bread. It works better in the
surgical theatre and you don't use psychometric tests to distinguish
between audio components.
Psychometricians keep out of it. Perhaps they know something. Or can
you give a references to the contrary?

In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
scalpels) But the point is made.

And the point is? (Sorry couldn't resist this generous opening)

You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.

Your thoughts on postmodern thinking are appreciated. But I'm not
looking in RAHE for new insights into the theory of knowledge but for
something very much simpler. I'll quote my text from one week ago that
also appears to have slipped your attention: ("The endless debate",
Sept 13
DBT2: Use in research including psychoacoustics; Subjects are
trained and the hopeless rejected- ie they are selected. A known
artefact (a certain amount of distortion, frequency bumps etc) is
introduced- subject either hears it or does not. Period.

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components; Randomly
collected test population. Diferent ages, gender, hearing ability,
training and aptitude for the test protocol, different musical
exposure and interest. *No objective target to aim at* so no one can
tell who is right and who is wrong. The few who hear or the most who
don't? Consequently the proctor verdict is by majority vote-the lowest
common denominator. The whole thing as subjectivist as could be and
certainly not replicable by another panel.

Bibliographies have been posted on RAHE in the past. You may have to wade
through a lot of stuff to find them in Google, but I remember seeing them.
(it was probably before you or I arrived, I think)

Well, I've done more than see them. I reviewed Rampelmann's and
Motry's bibliographies and culled ALL the published ABX component
comparisons by audiophile panels that had been published in the 80's.(
none appeared since- but talk-talk about how wonderful ABX is-
continued) This review was quoted and discussed here in the past 2
years ad nauseam. Sorry this too slpped your attention. Even more
sorry for myself having to repeat it all every few weeks for the
benefit of anyone newly appeared on the horizon. (For Quotes see P.S.)
( None were published since- lots of smoke but no fire-lots of theory
but no practical results). ALL gave: "They all sound the same"
results and so will any others -guaranteed. When you collect a bunch
of "audiophiles" most of them will perform in the middle and give you
random, coin throw results. Only in this strange kind of "research"
the few who heard MORE than the average were added to the overall
results.. Why? Because of the agenda: cables ,amps everything MUST
sound the same- it sounds the same to US "researchers" and
"measurements" (that we have as of year 2003) are the same. All those
engineers such as Palavicini, Meidtner, Strickland, Hafler are con-
men or deluded and only the Rahe experts know how to show them up.

As for comparing components, blind methods are considered

manditory in
validating codec quality, and a codec is a component as is an amplifier,
etc. The only difference is that a codec is software and an amplifier,
cable, CD player, etc.) is hardware. In other words, it isn't considered
a practical problem as I understand it.

Great: testing codex is just the same as testing musical
characteristics of a component. Then please, test some components .
Audiophiles are not in the market for codex. And Mr. JJnunes-
reasoning by inference does not wash.

(description of position snipped for brevity)

Pity. It contained your statement that ABX was "the best known way".
To which I said:
Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying?


It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong
scientifically.

This is a change from " the best known way" Is it just "not wrong
scientifically"-whatever that may mean- or is it "the best known way"?
You can define "science" for your convenience. I define a "test"
as something reproducible by the targeted population from individual
to individual. ABX is not that.
But if it is "the best known way" then you're intellectually duty-
bound to recommend it. I'll tell you in secret: it is not that and it
is not a "test". There ain't no "test" with general audiophile
validity. Neither "best" nor "worse" Nohow, nowhere. In science
bluster and opinions do not replace evidence.
To quote the paragraph you omitted: "2) the "best known way" (ie
ABX/DBT for comparing components available for the last 30 years L.M.)
is not usable on this earth by human beings. Writing paper and angelic
choir are another thing
altogether"
I said:
What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.


I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's tests.

Definitely not. Nousaine's tests are for a few individuals at the
most.. I'm referring to PUBLISHED panel tests results.

I recall some have said
they wern't as sensitive as they could be, but it wasn't really bad.
It's not true there are never no differences.

If you want to know for yourself, the best way is to do your own tests.
But, nobody HAS to do them. That's unreasonable. My position is really
more moderate than some.

Why on earth would I buy a $600:00 switch to find out that in my
hands ABX makes it all "sound the same".?
If you would just stop listening to Glenn Gould, everything would be
alright. ;-)


And if you and others just gave up the quaint idea that there
must be a "test" to measure subjective, individual perceptions of
complex signals like music (in no other sphere of sensory preferences-
just in audio- we're so blessed)... Rahe would become a useful forum
for exchange of personal experiences. And credible opinions of
credible witnesses would be interesting to others with similar
interests and so on. Just like the opinions of the mag. reviewers.
Ludovic Mirabel
Mr Jjnunes do me and your readers a favour and read the threads. The
following appeared in my reply to Mr. ABrams 3/52 ago. The thread is
still current
Representative conclusions of the ABX developers (Clark , Masters
etc)proctoring the ABX listening tests. :
Quoted on 3rd Sept '03 in the "Endless debate" thread
"Masters, Ian G. and Clark, D. L., "Do All CD
Players Sound
the Same?", Stereo Review, pp.50-57 (January 1986)
Conclusions signed by D.L. Clark:
"......it is difficult to imagine a real-life situation in which
audible differences could be reliably detected or in which one player
(CD player L.M.) would be consistently preferred "for its sound alone"

Greenhill, Laurence , "Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the
Difference?"
Stereo Review, ( Aug 1983)

Conclusions signed by Larry Greenhill:
"This project was unable to validate the sonic benefits claimed for
exotic speaker cables over common 16-gauge zipcord.We can only
concludet there is little advantage beside the pride of ownership in
using these thick expensive wires"

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?

  #58   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:GvIab.386910$Oz4.170898@rwcrnsc54...
In article juHab.521254$o%2.228267@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
In article UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.

Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
compared so far.

Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
create a strawman that is easy for you to burn?


The paragraph that you saw fit to amputate is as follows:
(((" Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences
between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" (ie ABX/DBT for comparing components
available for the last 30 years L.M.) is not usable on this earth by
human beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether" }}}
I'll answer any argument which genuinely addresses MY argument.
When I see a selected snippet cut out of my text I'll content myself
with a requote.


Well I didn't think the rest had anything to do with my question so I
snipped it, something you need to do much more often. People can refer
to the original post quite easily, so it is considered bad etiquette to
quote parts of a previous post when one doesn't consider it germane
to their own new post.

So I'll just repeat my statement and question since you seem to think
that is the way to have useful discussions and since you failed to
reply:

Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.


Or - There are no differences between the components that have been
compared so far.

Why do you insist on taking it to the extreme. Could it be so you can
create a strawman that is easy for you to burn? This also applies to
the part you insist on repeating too by the way since you imply that
those who do use ABX/DBTs aren't "human beings".


ABX has been around for the last 30 years. In the first 15 years
of its existence PANEL tests for comparing:cables, amps, preamps,
cdplayers and dacs appeared in the "Stereo Review" and "Audio" I
searched for them in the Public Library and reported in several
threads here. I'm tired of redoing it all every 2 weeks by request.
They were ALL negative- "they all sound the same" None were done
since 1990.
Your alternatives are to wait a while longer,or believe that ABX
proves that everything in Audio sounds the same, or get a large bag of
salt to apply to the sanctity of ABX.
Ludovic Mirabel

  #59   Report Post  
S888Wheel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

I said



I don't follow your logic. The claim of amplifier sound cannot possibly be so
extraoridnary if it has been conceded that it has happened. If it has been
observered in bias controled tests regardless if the reasons are known or
unknown it is ridiculous to say it is an extraordinary claim.


Tom said


But you claim that practically every amplifier has its own set of sonic faults
that
allows it to have a sound of its own

Nope. i haven't made any such claim. I don't know how to be any more clear
about my claim on this thread. Must i repeat it again?

Tom said

I suggest that there are a few of these
and the source of their incompetence is not a mystery.


It's nice to see yo suggesting it rather than asserting it as a scientific
fact. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Tom said


Further you suggest that open listening is the best way to discover the sound
of ampliifers.

No I don't. I don't know where you got that from. I guess I should remind you
of what I did suggest. I am suggesting that without scientifically valid
evidence one cannot make a global claim about amplifier sound either way and
rightly claim that there postion is scientifically supported. Please no more
straw man arguments. Please, no more misrepresentations of what I have said and
what I think. Please.

Tom said

I say that any amplifier that applies a sound to any signal is
not an amplifief but an equakizer of some kind (usually load dependent.)

You have said this before. I think you are wrong. I think you are playing
semantical games. I think if you go into any, any hifi retailer and ask for an
equilizer they will not show you any amplifiers that you think are incompetent
no matter how many such amplifiers they may have.

Tom said



But most importantly, in a practical sense the competency of an amplifiewr can
be known with measurements in advance and as a class commerically available
products most generally have a level of competence which means they will
faithfully amplify and transport a signal from input to output in a perfectly
transparent manner.


You are entitled to this opinion. I don't agree with you on the very meaning of
competence. I make no argument that amplifier performance is not measurable.

Tom said



And you have no peer- reviewed evidence that says otherwise.

Obviously, given the total lack of any peer reviewed evidence on amplifier
sound. So one can say that you have no peer reviewed evidence that suggests all
amplifiers are transparent either. With a total lack of such peer reviewed
evidence making any claims based on the lack of evidence doesn't carry any
value.

Tom said

AFAIK, have tested your theory with even nominal bias controls implemented.



What "theory" would that be? I don't recall offering any theories about
anything.


Tom said

There's been NO replication by any interested party that cannot be
fully explained by the exitsing evidence on human hearing perception.


As before.



I said


There has been no replication of the tests you have cited either.





Tom said


I beg your pardon. There have been a couple dozen replications.



I said


None that I have seen. Every test you cited was different in many significant
ways. That would not constitute replication. So, if any of the tests you have
cited have been truely replicated then you haven't cited the replication of
these tests. The articles inwhich they were published do not cite any such
replication.


Tom said



Pure conjecture. Those experiments, and you have a fairly comprehensive list,
do represent replication the key element of which is limiting listener bias.


There is more to "replication" than preserving a few key elements. Besides,
Stewert's tests limmited listener bias as well. But you continue to ignore
those tests. It looks like picking and choosing anecdotal evidence to me. It
looks far less than scientific to me.

I said



I am agreeing that if amplifiers sound different those differences are
measurable. I am not limmiting the source of all audible distortions in
amplifiers to frequency response.


Tom said


Nor have I.


OK but it looked that way to me from what you said.

I said


If you are claiming that it has been proven
that the only audible distortion from an amp is in the frequency response
then
i would like to know how you know this to be a fact?


Tom said


I have said the source of true audible difference is a function of frequency
response or overload.

Fine. I didn't see overload as an issue since no one disputes that overload
leads to audible distortion. I see you didn't answer the question though. How
do you know those are the only distortions that are audible?

Tom said

But amplifiers that can deliver a transparent replication
of a sugnal appearing at its input terminals are common. Those that cannot a
few and have np place in my audio system.

I am aware of your opinion on this. You are entitled to it. You are entitled to
claim it is supported by science when you show it is supported by science. The
evidence you have presented doesn't cut it IMO. The tests you choose as valid
do seem to support your position more or less, they are IMO junk on a
scientific level.

Tom said


The problem is that a few enthusiasts, you among them I think, suggest
otherwise and
that enthusiasts should worry about mystery amp sound when it hasn't ever been
shown to exist.

You see some things in audio as a problem I see other things in audio as a
problem. Live and let live.



Tom said


So, yes, it's like a claim of anti-gravity.



I said


Yes you are. You are saying that claims of audible distortion in amps
is a
claim of the paranormal. IMO it is a completely unreasonable
rhetorical claim meant as a campaign for an agenda rather than a logical

claim based
of established facts.


Tom said



The established facts are that humans hear loudness, pitch (as jj
would say
partial loudness differences) and timing (direction.)
When an amplification device provides a signal to the speaker
terminals that does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the

signal
applied
to its input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to a listener. ie
impart no
sound of its own.


I said


I would agree with that. Get back to me when such an amp exists.


Tom said



I currently own and use 10 of them; not counting the two dozen or so in my
active loudspeaker cadre which are intentionally 'warped' to offset the
inherent problems with the electro-mechanical transdusers.


Reaaaally? You own 10 amps with no measurable distortion? That is an
extraordinary claim IMO. can you prove your amps are distortionless? I bet they
have all kinds of measurable distortions. Your words were "When an
amplification device does nothing more than uniformly raise the level of the
signal applied to it's input terminals it will be perfectly transparent to the
listener" and I agree. I don't believe any such amplifier exists though. But
you say you have 10 of them. can you show they have no measurable distortion?
That is what your words describe.


Tom said


It is well known that modern amplifiers of competent design are
generally capable of doing this within their power limits into normally
encountered, and even â__difficultâ__ load conditions.


I said



Well I have heard differently. I have heard that amps distort the signal in
many different ways and each amp measures quite differently. The question is
what is the audible threshold of each and every distortion prosduced by any
given amp when driving any kind of real world speaker load.


Tom said


You claim to have 'heard differently' but no one has ever shown under bias
controlled listening conditions that the 'sound' of an amplifier outside of
frequency reponse errors and overload exists let alone a commonly encountered
phenomenon.



We have a misunderstanding. Maybe I should have said "read" differently even
though I have heard people say it as well. You still continue to deny the
existance of Stewert's tests. I find picking and choosing evidence and then
claiming all the evidence agrees with you is not reasonable much less
scientific.

Tom said


For an amplifier to impart its own sound it must find a way to
desecrate the signal ....damage it in some way by adding distortion or
changing the
partial loudness curve.


I said



Agreed. But I think your apparent claim that amps don't distort the signal is
a
gross misrepresentation of the facts.


Tom said

What facts?

The "facts" that amplifiers distort the signal they are fed in ways that are
easily measured.

Tom said

Where is the peer-reviewed evidence that says otherwise?


You suscribe to the AESJ yes? Nothing measuring distortion of amplifiers has
ever been published? Hmm I could have sworn Dick Pierce has made claims of
measuring all kinds of distortion in any and all amps he has tested. Maybe I am
mistaken. Do I really need to go on another Easter Egg hunt? Are you seriously
asserting that amps don't have measurable distortion?

I think we are just arguing in circles. I simply find many of your positions
unsupported. Please let me know if you ever plan to submit anything on the
subject to the AESJ for publication. I would be very curious to see if it is
accepted for publication.

I said


I don't know why you are having such trouble understanding my simple claim in
this thread so I will say it again at the risk of being painfully redundant.
Without scientifically valid evidence one cannot make claims one way or
another
about the sound of amplifiers and rightly claim their position is supported
by
science.
How you can deduct that out of this claim I am, as you say "But you appear to
be making a more global statement. That clipping and frequency response
errors
are NOT the basic fabric of 'amp' sound. This is extraordinary." is beyond
me.
I just don't see it. It looks like a lot a straw man arguments that are
totally
unrelated to my very simple straight forward point.


Tom said


Let's clarify here. I belive that you claim that amplifier "sound" is common
enough that few or no amplifers are capable of transporting a signal from input
to output with sonic transparency.

You believe incorrectly. I don't make such global claims based on my personal
experiences. That would be presumptuous on my part. I think if you read what I
say and only what I say my claims will be clear.


Tom said


My paper "Can You Trust Your Ears?" is of the same nature.


I said


Really? What peer reviewed scientific journal was it published in?


Tom said


It was give at an AES Convention. No it was not peer-reviewed. But it does
examine perceptual distortions of humans when reporting of sound and how people
will falsely report difference when given two identical sound presentations.


It was not peer reviewed. It hasn't been scrutinized to be scientifically
valid.

I said



So? I have not disputed the fact that biases affect perception. The same is
true when people listen to speakers. It doesn't lead to the conclusion that
speakers all sound the same does it? Just because some people are reporting
differences that may have been the result of sighted biases doesn't prove
that
all amps sound the same.


Tom said


No one said that either. But no one has delivered any reasonable peer-reviewed
evidence that they don't.

Or that they do. Again you point to the lack of evidence of either as proof of
support of your positive assertion. I believe that is both unscientific and
unreasonable.

Tom said


I'm waiting for your peer-reviewed evidence supporting amp sound.


And I am waiting for your peer reviewed evidence that supports no amp sound.
Lets not forget that you claim this position is supported scientifically. I
make no such claims of scientific support of my opinions.

  #60   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

Mkuller wrote:

While DBTs are effectively utilized in psychoacoustic research, there is little
or no evidence that they are appropriate or useful for audiophiles to utilize
in comparing audio components with music as a bias control method. In fact,
the few reported published studies show that when used in this way, DBTs do not
show subtle audible differences between components, but only gross frequency
response and loudness differences and then only when pink noise is used as a
source.


A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.


There are at least two important elements missing from these amateur DBTs:
1. Pretesting that the the actual subtle differences can be identified with
the program material utilized, i.e. is the music selected actually a sensitive
enough source to identify, say a difference in midrange dynamic contrasts in a
DBT. That a DBT is sensitive to the limits of audibility is meaningless if
that does not apply to THIS DBT.
2. Pre-training the subjects to listen for the specific differences
(midrange dynamic contrasts) prior to conducting the DBT.


I believe these two protocols are standard in psychoacoustic research, but have
not been applied to any amateur DBT I have seen. Certainly there are other
problems with amateur pseudo-scientific use of DBTs in audio as a method of
bias control. The bottom line is this - they have never been proven as
effective for use in comparing audio components with music in the way they are
blindly advocated on RAHE. Sighted listening, i.e. no bias controls, seems
more effective in identifying subtle differences.


I'm not going to hash over all the usual stuff. I'm weary of arguing about
it and nothing will likely change if I did. But you do make your point clearly
and succinctly, even if it no longer makes any sense to me. (I used to be a
subjectivist) Mr. Mirabel could hopefully learn something from your writing style.







  #61   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

ludovic mirabel wrote:

Where is the "ground research for COMPONENT CMPARISON BY ABX"?
Analogies and inferences from other areas will not do (see below)
Translated for clarity your evidence means just this much:
psychometricians find that selected, trained subjects with normal
hearing will still hear normally while ABXing. A great hearing test.
Bully for psychometrics' "professionals". A shame though they will not
do any component comparisons. These are for us ordinary audiophiles or
what are they for?


I would rather listen to music. What do you do? Endlessly compare
components for inaudible differences and call it music listening?


What has it all got to do with comparing components for their
MUSICAL reproduction differences? Something more complicated is
involved- a zillion different brains of a zillion "audiophiles".
Beethoven and Klemperer would have been disbarred from psychometric
research- what a shame!


I would prefer the irony. With your posts, I have to wonder if you might be
serious.


You don't use a scalpel to cut bread. It works better in the
surgical theatre and you don't use psychometric tests to distinguish
between audio components.
Psychometricians keep out of it. Perhaps they know something. Or can
you give a references to the contrary?


One's that were here have left for reasons you can have a victory
celebration about.


In such a situation, there is no need to write volumes. At least, that
is how I understand it to be viewed within the field. Somebody can correct
me if they are interested. (maybe there are very old references about
scalpels) But the point is made.

And the point is? (Sorry couldn't resist this generous opening)


Are you interested?


You have mentioned that you have a problem with no defined end point.
Most of the 'softer' (for lack of abetter word) sciences are like that.
I think it's unreasonable to dismiss them on that alone. But it seems
to be the thing in a 'postmodern' culture. I don't like postmodernism,
especially the thought of knowledge being a utility.



Your thoughts on postmodern thinking are appreciated. But I'm not
looking in RAHE for new insights into the theory of knowledge but for
something very much simpler.


Your posts on this subject indeed are typically postmodern in the emphasis
on the relativistic softening of known facts and attempted deconstruction.


I'll quote my text from one week ago that
also appears to have slipped your attention: ("The endless debate",
Sept 13
DBT2: Use in research including psychoacoustics; Subjects are
trained and the hopeless rejected- ie they are selected. A known
artefact (a certain amount of distortion, frequency bumps etc) is
introduced- subject either hears it or does not. Period.


Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components; Randomly
collected test population. Diferent ages, gender, hearing ability,
training and aptitude for the test protocol, different musical
exposure and interest. *No objective target to aim at* so no one can
tell who is right and who is wrong. The few who hear or the most who
don't? Consequently the proctor verdict is by majority vote-the lowest
common denominator. The whole thing as subjectivist as could be and
certainly not replicable by another panel.


Sorry, I can't figure out what you're talking about. Do work on
your writing style. I'm don't read every post just to satisfy you. I'm
not going to go overtime responding to someone who writes in such a turgid
style.


Well, I've done more than see them. I reviewed Rampelmann's and
Motry's bibliographies and culled ALL the published ABX component
comparisons by audiophile panels that had been published in the 80's.(
none appeared since- but talk-talk about how wonderful ABX is-
continued) This review was quoted and discussed here in the past 2
years ad nauseam. Sorry this too slpped your attention. Even more
sorry for myself having to repeat it all every few weeks for the
benefit of anyone newly appeared on the horizon. (For Quotes see P.S.)
( None were published since- lots of smoke but no fire-lots of theory
but no practical results). ALL gave: "They all sound the same"
results and so will any others -guaranteed. When you collect a bunch
of "audiophiles" most of them will perform in the middle and give you
random, coin throw results. Only in this strange kind of "research"
the few who heard MORE than the average were added to the overall
results.. Why? Because of the agenda: cables ,amps everything MUST
sound the same- it sounds the same to US "researchers" and
"measurements" (that we have as of year 2003) are the same. All those
engineers such as Palavicini, Meidtner, Strickland, Hafler are con-
men or deluded and only the Rahe experts know how to show them up.


again, I don't know how to respond to a paragraph that looks as if has been
in the blender.


Great: testing codex is just the same as testing musical
characteristics of a component. Then please, test some components .
Audiophiles are not in the market for codex. And Mr. JJnunes-
reasoning by inference does not wash.


Usually lots of differences with codecs. Do you think they all sound the
same? Or do you want to put those words in others mouths?


(description of position snipped for brevity)

Pity. It contained your statement that ABX was "the best known way".


It did indeed.


To which I said:
Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying?


It means that they can use any method they want to make them happy.
There is nothing strange about that. They don't HAVE to use blind testing,
obviously, many audiophiles are happy not to. By the same token, ust because
most choose not to use it, it doesn't mean that the test is wrong
scientifically.

This is a change from " the best known way" Is it just "not wrong
scientifically"-whatever that may mean- or is it "the best known way"?


There is no change.

It is the best known way to identify subtle differences by the sound
alone. Sighted testing includes information based on other than the sound.
There is no contradiction except in your mind.


You can define "science" for your convenience. I define a "test"
as something reproducible by the targeted population from individual
to individual. ABX is not that.
But if it is "the best known way" then you're intellectually duty-
bound to recommend it. I'll tell you in secret: it is not that and it
is not a "test". There ain't no "test" with general audiophile
validity. Neither "best" nor "worse" Nohow, nowhere. In science
bluster and opinions do not replace evidence.
To quote the paragraph you omitted: "2) the "best known way" (ie
ABX/DBT for comparing components available for the last 30 years L.M.)
is not usable on this earth by human beings. Writing paper and angelic
choir are another thing
altogether"


You just don't like the evidence and you don't understand my position.
So you paraphrase and jumble it up in your blender (that's always ready -
even for your own words) beyond recognition. That's pitiful.


And if you and others just gave up the quaint idea that there
must be a "test" to measure subjective, individual perceptions of
complex signals like music (in no other sphere of sensory preferences-
just in audio- we're so blessed)... Rahe would become a useful forum
for exchange of personal experiences. And credible opinions of
credible witnesses would be interesting to others with similar
interests and so on. Just like the opinions of the mag. reviewers.


Please stop misrepresenting my position.

I never jump in on discussions about equipment with references to blind
testing. I wouldn't even if it was permitted in moderation policy. You
are free to rhapsodize as you wish. What's your problem???
  #62   Report Post  
All Ears
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

big snip

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?


I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with the
"Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated to death
before I came here, or there is little interest in training the ear.

KE

  #63   Report Post  
Mkuller
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

wrote:
A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.


Now you want to bring in a correlation with measured differences. That would
be great IF you knew exactly what to measure. I don't think we're quite there
yet.

So DBTs err on the negative side making everything sound the same, and sighted
listening errs on the positive side making everything (even cables) sound
different, then reality is most likely somewhere in between. I'll take the
latter with experienced listeners over amateur pseudo-science DBTs any day.

jjnunes
(I used to be a subjectivist)

So what experience with what equipment changed your mind?
Regards,
Mike
  #64   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE

(Mkuller) wrote:

wrote:
A correlation between audible differences and measured differences when both
are under controlled conditions is very powerful evidence indeed. Such
correlations are lacking in the subjectivist evidence. That there is a
difference between the results of controlled tests and sighted tests is
something that is expected and in fact should be. It would be sad indeed if
people had no auditory imagination --- indeed it would be impossible to
produce music and build great instruments if that was the case.


Now you want to bring in a correlation with measured differences. That would
be great IF you knew exactly what to measure. I don't think we're quite there
yet.


So DBTs err on the negative side making everything sound the same, and
sighted
listening errs on the positive side making everything (even cables) sound
different, then reality is most likely somewhere in between.


DBTing makes no errors but does limit decision-making to sound alone.

I'll take the
latter with experienced listeners over amateur pseudo-science DBTs any day.


You don't have to make that distinction. Of the dozens of subjects I've used in
blind testing the overwhelming majority were experienced audio enthusiasts.
Most of the documented blimd tests have used the same.

jjnunes
(I used to be a subjectivist)

So what experience with what equipment changed your mind?
Regards,
Mike


For me the light came on when I was demonstrating the wonderful sound of my
special new film capacitors I was using and discovered I had accidentally
inserted the wrong component in the circuit and listeners still 'heard' the
improvement.

A short stint with someone else anonymously operating the switch showed me
quickly that the capacitors were sonically indistinguishable and that bias
controlling listening is a prerequisite for sonic improvement pathing.
  #66   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

"All Ears" wrote in message news:97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53...
big snip

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?


I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
you would expect.
Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
account advertisers sound just as good."
Ludovic Mirabel
This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with the
"Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated to death
before I came here, or there is little interest in training the ear.

KE


  #67   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

In article ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;


Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.


Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.


I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?

  #68   Report Post  
Nousaine
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(Audio Guy)
wrote:



In article ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message
news:P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.


Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.


I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?


That term is meant as a put-down but there are some very good high-fidelity
reasons that the vehicle can be a very good place to enjoy recorded music and
other programs which are often overlooked because of the inherent noise
problems.

To begin there are some very quiet vehicles and most are becoming quieter every
year. That notwithstanding; autosound gives one the ability to develop
realistic loudness levels with moderate amplifier and speaker displacement
which are often unattainable in many home systems. From a system design
standpoint the fixed listening position can be seen as a big improvement.
Seating may not be centerline but it will be known in advance.

And the big break is what I call "Free Bass." A single long stroke 10-inch
woofer in a 0.75 ft3 enclosure can generate 120 dB SPL at 10 Hz with reasonably
low distortion in a subcompact sized vehicle. This level of low frequency
output allows users to experience organ and other classical recordings with
full dynamics; something only a few home subwoofer systems are truly capable
of.

Further autosound gives us the ability to enjoy high-fi while held captive on
the 1-2 hours a day that many folks commit to commuting.

I've professionally evaluated over 400 OEM prototype and production autosound
systems in the past 5 years and the best ones are better than 95% of the home
audio systems I've heard over my 300 years as an enthusiast.
  #70   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:31:45 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

"All Ears" wrote in message news:97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53...
big snip

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?


I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
you would expect.


Indeed, as you would expect for an effect which is on the threshold of
audibility.

Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
account advertisers sound just as good."


You are once again making the classic mistake (or is it yet another
deliberate distortion?) of ignoring the basis of statistics. *You*
invariably 'cherry pick' the results that suit your preconceptions,
the researchers above very properly included *all* the responses. They
most certainly did *not* 'ignore' the 5/5 response, they *included* it
in the results. Incidentally, you once again alter the facts to suit
yourself. There is no indication in the above report that there were
'a few' listeners who scored 1/5 or 5/5, there may have been only one
of each - as a standard distribution curve would suggest.

Now, if the researchers had *repeated* the experiment, do you presume
that the same listeners would score the same results, i.e. that the
5/5 scorer(s) really do have 'Golden Ears'? That would suit *your*
preconceptions, but the results of the recently posted TAG McLaren
tests did not show this. Once again, you attempt to ignore the very
basis of statistical probability, in an attempt to shore up your
prejudices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering


  #72   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
In article ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.


Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.


I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.
I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?

Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen too and vice versa,
no doubt
Ludovic Mirabel

  #73   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:UCbab.492296$o%2.220969@sccrnsc02...
wrote in message ...
ludovic mirabel wrote:

See previous text in full below

This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references
Sept.15th.: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 16th: "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept. 19th. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:
Sept 23rd. "Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time"-:

It began thus. In a discussion about Einstein and Planck (Sept. 13)
Mr. Jj took a swipe at me.:
"But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is
on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster? In
here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here
are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments. It's
the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories, (Raedecker's
advocation of chochlear amplifiers comes to mind) Most don't bother to
even check out the important authors that have been cited here.
(Moore, Yost, Fletcher, etc) These seminal texts have been informally
cited many times, yet they complain that they haven't, which just
shows willful ignorance and/or lack of interest"

I said::
Mr. Jjnunes, delivery time- (Nr.1):. .
" Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and clammed up...
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?"

There still were no references, no quotes.

But we got Reason Nr1 for no references: "wilful ignorance"
Reason Nr1 ctd.:" There is a "body of evidence" and "no disagreement
among professionals in psychoacoustic research that the test validates
itself"

Reason Nr.2:. It is all in the books by Yoost, Moore, Fletcher

I pointed out that psychoacoustic research is not about COMPARING
COMPONENTS.
.I asked again for reference to the author, title and page. Or
pertinent quotes..
Mr. Jjnunes refused because I would "quote out of context". He did
not explain how I could quote his own selected quotes out of his own
selected context
Or why does he deprive our readers of his truth.

Reason Nr.3: Mr. Jjnunes does not like postmodern criticism and
deconstruction.
I pointed out that Derrida et al. had nil to say about COMPARING
COMPONENTS

Finally somewhat impatient I said:
( There is...) NOTHING in Fletcher, NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good
old Moore. And you know what else? NOTHING ANYWHERE ELSE. The
reputable, published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing
audio components does NOT EXIST. "Starting points" and "trajectories"
will not replace it. You were asked for nothing complicated. Just a
very simple thing called: quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?.
Remember quote?"
We got an answer:
Reason Nr.4 : Mr. Jjnunes does not like my writing style.
Ludovic Mirabel

As I'm always eager to learn and as English is not my first language
I'll now concentrate on Mr. Jjnunes writing using it as a model for
clear thinking and clear writing about clear ideas.

Sept15 requote : Mr. Jjnunes:
But to get back on topic, how does it follow that high end audio is on the verge of such a thing as was implied by the other poster.


It is not clear what verge of what "such a thing" was "implied" by
what other poster and there is no context to refer to, But let's not
quibble

In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in his own arguments.


Please help with the gorgeous imagery. How do I " proudly hold
forth... brazenly through the holes in his own argument"? Do you
recommend the "holding forth through the holes in argument" metaphor
for me to use in the future ?

It's the subjectivists that are citing old tossed theories,


Could you explain what a "tossed theory" is? Would you recommend I
use THIS image to get an A from you? Is a "tossed theory" a bad one?
Is it the kind of an imaginary theory in an imaginary book that one
tosses around "proudly and brazenly"as one's reference? Or is it
something like a tossed salad?

Raedecker's advocation:..


"Advocation" stumped me. I thought you must have confused it with the
normally used "advocacy'. But a peep in the Webster clarified it. 1) A
term in Scottish law 2) obsolete: advocacy.
You're using archaic English to enrich my vocabulary, right?

.... of chochlear ( did you mean "cochlear "?) amplifiers comes
to mind.


Just one more truly puzzling stylistic point:
On Sept 19th. you said: "I suppose you are referring to Noisaine's
tests. I recall some have said they wern't as sensitive as they could
be, but it wasn't really bad.
It's not true there are never no differences."

If you say : "It is true there are never no differences" you mean
that there are differences, right. One more added negative means
that there are NO differences- never. Is that what you wanted to say?
I'm doubly puzzled. Because of course there are differences between
components. Whom are you arguing with? And what are you saying?
Ludovic Mirabel

JJnunes had said: "In here we have Mirabel proudly holding forth
that the scientists here are the quacks brazenly through the holes in
his own arguments".
He amplified later:
People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human beings.
I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical

one.
A "metaphor" that pictures me as "proudly" and "brazenly holding
forth" that the "scientists here are quacks" could be mistaken for an
insinuation.
So I'd still welcome a name or two of the "scientists here" writing
for RAHE on the topic of component comparison by ABX- including their
basic research that validates their opinions. If you're putting
"metaphors" in my mouth let's see whom are you referring too as the
injured party.
I had said:
I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive

word about a test for comparing music reproduction characteristics
of audio
components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in the RAHE. And

that, presumably, those worthies support your point of view-
whatever it is.
Mr. JJnunes:
Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory

of the evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing
that.

Be kind. Be useful and instructive. Skip "starting points" and
"trajectories", It might takes us back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
Just let's have the ground-research for ABX in comparing components.
,. The readers such as Mr. Wheel have been waiting and asking for such
evidence for a long , long time.
Just a quote or two from your witnesses Fletcher, Yost and
Moore concerning audio component comparison by ABX/DBT.
Just to spur you on I will now state emphatically that you talk about
"trajectories" for lack of anything better. NOTHING in Fletcher,
NOTHING in Yost, NOTHING in good old Moore.
And you know what else? NOTHING anywhere else. The reputable,
published basic research for the use of DBTs in comparing audio
components does NOT EXIST.
"Starting points" and "trajectories" will not replace it. You were
asked for nothing complicated. Just a very simple thing called:
quotable evidence. Remember "evidence"?. Remember quote?
I had said :
2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already

what it is not..

JJnunes:
When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test

is the best known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound
alone. It is not needed in any way for determination of pleasure
or preference in
ANYTHING.
Most audiophiles don't care about them, there's absolutely

nothing wrong with that, except when they claim that they don't
work for the purpose
stated above.


Mr. Jjnunes, this is a strange statement. Are you saying that
audiophiles don't care about "the best known way" to discern
differences between components before buying? What's wrong with this
picture? Well, listen carefully this time-all of it's been said many
times before but seems to have slipped past you.
ALL, but ALL ABX component comparison tests with an average
audiophile panel as reported by their proctors failed to verify ANY
differences, "subtle" ("subtle" for you or for me or for Glenn Gould?)
or "gross" between cables, preamps, amps, cdplayers and Dacs
Which proves one of two things: 1) there ARE no differences between
anything and anything else in audio. None-neither subtle nor gross.
And don't tell me about speakers. Try first a panel ABX test..
2) the "best known way" is not usable on this earth by human
beings. Writing paper and angelic choir are another thing
altogether.
Actually audiophiles wanting to hear differences but NOT so as to
decide preferences are not of this earth either. And preferences for
the quality of musical SOUND are what rec.audio.high-end is all about.
Yes? No? Or what does your somewhat difficult text mean?
I said
3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least

give references customary in scientific debates Name, Title ,
Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said

something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't throw your pearls before swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?

JJnunes:
If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in

you, so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The
spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide

you.

Never mind naughty me. Just think of your readers, They are waiting.
Do you think they'd let me get away with "quoting out of context".
Just think :say, I wrote that I found in Copernicus, Galileo and
Newton that they scorned ABX
for audio and then refused to quote "for fear that you'll quote it
out of context" I can't begin to imagine what you'd have to say about
me. No ,I can't bring myself to even think about it. The moderators
are listening.
I said:
You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote

this.?
You answered:
Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out

of context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your
record.

This is the second time you have me "quoting out of context" And
this time you tack on an allegation about my "record".
I've been long enough around the RAHE to think that it is all in a
day's work here. But I ask you for a quote or two to document yor
allegation. Asking for evidence for your statements seems to be a
repeat job. No and no again I don't quote things out of context and in
your particular case I remember no context with any substance that I
could drop. Quote the context I twisted out of or ... Forget it.
What's the use? You were just being metaphorical ,right?
The first sentence of my posting that you snipped was:
" Mr. JJnunes delivery time!"
It still is.
Ludovic Mirabel

:

I hear that I "proudly" call the "scientists here" quacks.


People are a literalists, (and not) when it suits them. We both are human
beings. Of course you never do this do you? (cough)

I apologize for the literal interpretation, but not a metaphorical one.


I hear- not for the first time- that long-dead and/or otherwise
occupied
scientists: Moore, Yost, Fletcher etc. said decisive word about a test
for comparing music reproduction characteristics of audio components.
You even say that the relevant quotes appeared in RAHE. And that,
presumably,
those worthies support your point of view- whatever it is.


Which only shows that you haven't even considered the trajectory of the
evidence. Those are some of the starting points for seeing that.


Please be so kind and:
1)Name the "scientists here" that I called "quacks". Names of the
"scientists" and dates for my name-calling, please


See above.


2) state clearly what your point of view is. One knows already what it
is not.


When a subtle difference is in dispute, a well executed abx test is the best
known way to really verify if it's audible by the sound alone. It is not needed
in any way for determination of pleasure or preference in ANYTHING. Most audiophiles
don't care about them, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, except when they
claim that they don't work for the purpose stated above.



3) Quote just one or two of your scientists-models. Or at least give
references customary in scientific debates Name, Title , Year, Page.
You've been asked this before and either clammed up or said something
to the effect (Note- to whom it may concern- figure of speech
follows!) that you won't
throw your pearls bero swine.
It sort of wastes everyone else's time, doesn't it?


If you use them out of context, certainly. I have confidence in you,
so it only makes sense not to give you encouragement. The spector
of you doing that to said authors is not a pretty picture. Besides,
you've long ago dismissed those far more qualified than I to guide you.


You won't mind if on a future similar occasion I'll just requote
this.?


Why the question? You likely will anyway. Make sure you take it out of
context to be consistent. I would hate to be a blemish on your record.


  #74   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

In article zakcb.565277$Ho3.103338@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message . net...
In article ZG%bb.416971$Oz4.206670@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:P7Fbb.406164$Oz4.197010@rwcrnsc54...
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.

Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.


I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?

If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.


Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?

I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.


How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
arguments purely "scholastic arguments".

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?


Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen too and vice versa,
no doubt


So the type of music one listens to defines whether or not they are
an audiophile? Again, you keep creating your own definitions just to
allow you to prove your mistaken points. The ironic thing about this
is that you've admitted you use always surround processor when using
your audio system. Quite a few who consider themselves to be
audiophiles would consider that to disqualify you from being a
serious audiophile.

  #75   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

"normanstrong" wrote in message news:UBlcb.425745$cF.131919@rwcrnsc53...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:5s%bb.555712$Ho3.96892@sccrnsc03...
"All Ears" wrote in message

news:97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53...
big snip

See below:
I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage, never having read the article under
consideration. Nevertheless, it seems that we're talking about a test
in which 15 trained individuals each made 5 attempts to recognize a
2db distortion--for a total of 75 attempts. (I hope I got this
right.)

Some subjects aced the test, getting all 5 right. According to Mr.
Mirabel, this was because those listeners actually heard the
difference, while the ones that only got 1 right out of 5 tries were.
. . .were what? What can we say about these individuals in much the
same way that we credited the perfect scorers with more sensitive
hearing? After all, even writing down the answer without listening at
all will give a better score than 1 out of 5. Were these people just
unlucky? If so, couldn't we say that the perfect scorers were
similarly just lucky?

If I wanted to find out if the lucky individuals really were lucky,
I'd run the test again, with these individuals running a total of 75
trials. If they got 61% correct, then they're no better than the
average subject from the first trial. Finally, I'd pick the single
subject that did the very best, and have him run the test again, this
time all 75 trials. My guess would be that he would be right 61% of
the time, which would validate the original supposition.

Norm Strong


Norman, I agree with you. The interesting results are those of the
better performers. Either THEY heard it or not.
Everything possible should have been done to find out. Their results
should have been followed up till no doubt remained either way. You
can guess what you like. Guesses don't replace statistics.
My point is exactly that the Masters, Clarks etc. were not interested
enough.
Neither was their publisher.
As a result we get a homogenised, blended result proving that Mr.
Average rules.
This is in a supposedly well researched "test" where surely the only
thing that matters to high-end buyers is not that most people don't
but that some people possibly do.
Ludovic Mirabel

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility

of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested..

There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion

level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct

hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant

level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the

signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?


I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea

of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
you would expect.
Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
account advertisers sound just as good."
Ludovic Mirabel
This is also why I asked about if anybody had any experience with

the
"Golden Ear" CD set. However, either this issue has been debated

to death
before I came here, or there is little interest in training the

ear.




  #76   Report Post  
ludovic mirabel
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03...
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.

Audio Guy:


Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?


Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
Stereophile ,1983)
A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
Surprise!).
Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
with test
1 and test 4.
I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
nauseam here.
If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
good.

SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50

L.M.:
I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.


How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
arguments purely "scholastic arguments".

Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.

And why would you include "car boom-box enthusiasts" in your
definition of an audiophile? I certainly wouldn't include them
myself. Must you again stretch the meanings of commonly understood
terms just to be able to prove your point?


Because I knew quite a few who so considered themselves. I remember
some writing to RAHE that the car is the best listening environment.
Are young people who never heard the sound of unamplified instruments
also banned? I doubt if I'd like what you listen to and vice versa,
no doubt


So the type of music one listens to defines whether or not they are
an audiophile? Again, you keep creating your own definitions just to
allow you to prove your mistaken points. The ironic thing about this
is that you've admitted you use always surround processor when using
your audio system. Quite a few who consider themselves to be
audiophiles would consider that to disqualify you from being a
serious audiophile.


What on earth are you talking about? I said that if anyone wants to
call himself "audiophile"- owner of a car audio, or of Wilson Grand
Slam or of surround processor or Mr. Audio Guy - that is fine with
me. It had better be.
Ludovic Mirabel

Something else started being called "DBT" which out of courtesy
I will call "DBT" 3.- suggested for comparing components;

Please, if nothing else, the test under discussion is most definitely
a "double blind test". You may not agree with the results, but it is
most certainly a DBT under every definition I am aware of. Talk about
your strawmen.

Double Blind it is. "Test" it is not. A test by definition has to
be replicable by the test subjects who are its constituency: ie a
motley crew of "audiophiles" from the car boom- box enthusiasts to
middle aged chamber music lovers. Individual performances differ
widely as reflected in the reports of ALL of the existing "listening
tests". Providence arranged that our results, yours and mine, are not
transferable. That is the kind of test it is when you force it onto
inappropriate topics like COMPARING COMPONENTS.
Try again.

I think it is you that needs to try again. How is it not a "test"?
And how is it not replicable? Just because you say so? So one could
not take the same people who were in a specific DBT and get the same
results a second time? Is that not the definition of "replicable"?


  #77   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:08:01 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:


This is the 4th request to Mr. Jjnunes for references


I don't take you seriously, especially since these have posted before
and you argued against them with your usual absurd rhetorical games.
I'm not interested in continuing further. You apparently can't even
come to terms with audio components being reproducers of sound and
play rhetorical games about them being 'producers of music' to thus
provide yourself with an avenue to argue from the same pretext as to
how musical instruments are compared. That was why I made the mistake
of pointing you at the books I mentioned --- to provide a foundation
to look further into the subject.

You aren't interested in rational debate about this, but rather
rhetoric and rhetoric only. I should have learned this lesson sooner.

On of the signs of a healthy mind is the ability to cease when sated.
Can you do so?

Good bye.

The Great Debate: Subjective Evaluation 1170191 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Vanderkooy, John
Publication: Volume 29 Number 7/8 pp. 482·491; July 1981
Abstract: A polarization of people has occurred regarding subjective
evaluation, separating those who believe that audible differences are
related to measurable differences in controlled tests, from those who
believe that such differences have no direct relationship to
measurements. Tests are necessary to resolve such differences of
opinion, and to further the state of audio and open new areas of
understanding. We argue that highly controlled tests are necessary to
transform subjective evaluation to an objective plane so that
preferences and bias can be eliminated, in the quest for determining
the accuracy of an audio component. In order for subjective tests to
be meaningful to others, the following should be observed. (1) There
must be technical competence to prevent obvious and/or subtle effects
from affecting the test. (2) Linear differences must be thoroughly
excised before conclusions about nonlinear errors can be reached. (3)
The subjective judgment required in the test must be simple, such as
the ability to discriminate between two components, using an absolute
reference wherever possible. (4) The test must be blind or preferably
double-blind. To implement such tests we advocate the use of A/B
switchboxes. The box itself can be tested for audibly intrusive
effects, and several embellishments are described which allow
double-blind procedures to be used in listening tests. We believe
that the burden of proof must lie with those who make new hypotheses
regarding subjective tests. This alone would wipe out most criticisms
of the controlled tests reported in the literature. Speculation is
changed to fact only by careful experimentation. Recent references
are given which support out point of view. The significance of
differences in audio components is discussed, and in conclusion we
detail some of our tests, hypotheses and speculations.
Approximation Formulas for Error Risk and Sample Size in ABX Testing
442116 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 36 Number 11 pp. 879·883; November 1988
Abstract: When sampling from a dichotomous population with an assumed
proportion p of events having a defined characteristic, the binomial
distribution is the appropriate statistical model for accurately
determining: type 1 error risk (symbol); type 2 error risk (symbol);
sample size n based on specified (symbol) and (symbol) and
assumptions about p; and critical c (minimum number of events to
satisfy a specified [symbol]). Table 3 in [1] pre;sents such data for
a limited number of sample sizes and p values. To extend the scope of
Table 3 to most n and p, we present approximation formulas of
substantial accuracy, based on the normal distribution as an
approximation of the binomial.
High Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double Blind Comparator
1281885 bytes (CD aes10)
Author(s): Clark, David
Publication: Preprint 1771; Convention 69; May 1981
Abstract: A system for practical implementation of double-blind
audibility tests is described. The controller is a self contained
unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
for response matching other controls are suggested as well as
statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to data are
summarized.
Noise Reduction in Audio Employing Auditory Masking Approach 2543054
bytes (CD aes15)
Author(s): Czyzewski, Andrzej; Krolikowski, Rafal
Publication: Preprint 4930; Convention 106; May 1999
Abstract: A new method of noise reduction which exploits some
features of the auditory system is proposed. The noise suppression is
obtained twofold: by rising masking thresholds or by keeping noisy
components beneath these thresholds. The foundations of the method
and some engineered algorithms are described. The way of introduction
of the noise reduction features into an MPEG encoder is demonstrated.
Transformed Binomial Confidence Limits for Listening Tests 468821
bytes (CD aes5)
Author(s): Burstein, Herman
Publication: Volume 37 Number 5 pp. 363·367; May 1989
Abstract: A simple transformation of classical binomial confidence
limits provides exact confidence limits for the results of a
listening test, such as the popular ABX test. These limits are for
the proportion of known correct responses, as distinguished from
guessed correct responses. Similarly, a point estimate is obtained
for the proportion of known correct responses. The transformed
binomial limits differ, often markedly, from those obtained by the
Bayesian method.
Comments on "Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of
Listening Tests" and Author's Replies 674942 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Shanefield, Daniel; Clark, David; Nousaine, Tom;
Leventhal, Les
Publication: Volume 35 Number 7/8 pp. 567·572; July 1987
Abstract: Not available.
High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator
955218 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Clark, David
Publication: Volume 30 Number 5 pp. 330-338; May 1982
Abstract: A system for the practical implementation of double-blind
audibility tests is described. The controller is a self-contained
unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while
giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards
for response matching and other controls are suggested as well as
statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to date are
summarized.
Type 1 and Type 2 Errors in the Statistical Analysis of Listening
Tests 1828932 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Leventhal, Les
Publication: Volume 34 Number 6 pp. 437·453; June 1986
Abstract: When the conventional 0.05 significance level is used to
analyze listening test data, employing a small number of trials or
listeners can produce an unexpectedly high risk of concluding that
audible differences are inaudible (type 2 error). The risk can be
both large absolutely and large relative to the risk of concluding
that inaudible differences are audible (type 2 error). this
constitutes systematic bias against those who believe that
differences are audible between well-designed electronic components
that are spectrally equated and not overdriven. A statistical table
is introduced that enables readers to look up type 1 and type 2 error
risks without calculation. Ways to manipulate the risks are
discussed, a quantitative measure of a listening test's fairness is
introduced, and implications for reviewers of the listening test
literature are discussed.
On the Audibility of Midrange Phase Distortion in Audio Systems
1936662 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Lip****z, Stanley P.; Pocock, Mark; Vanderkooy, John
Publication: Volume 30 Number 9 pp. 580·595; September 1982
Abstract: The current state of our knowledge regarding the audible
consequences of phase nonlinearities in the audio chain is surveyed,
a series of experiments is described which the authors have conducted
using a flexible system of all-pass networks carefully constructed
for this purpose, and some conclusions are drawn regarding the
audible effects of midrange phase distortions. It is known that the
inner ear possesses nonlinearity (akin to an acoustic half-wave
rectifier) in its mechanical-to-electrical transduction, and this
would be expected to modify the signal on the acoustic nerve in a
manner which depends upon the acoustic signal waveform, and so upon
the relative phase relationships of the frequency components of this
signal. Some of these effects have been known for over 30 years, and
are quite audible on even very simple signals. Simple experiments are
outlined to enable the readers to demonstrate these effects for
themselves. Having satisfied ourselves that phase distortions can be
audible, the types of phase distortions contributed by the various
links in the audio chain are surveyed, and it is concluded that only
the loudspeaker contributes significant midrange phase
nonlinearities. Confining the investigation to the audibility of such
phase nonlinearities in the midrange, circuitry is described which
enables such effects to be assessed objectivbely fo their audible
consequences. The experiments conducted so far lead to a number of
conclusions. 1) Even quite small midrange phase nonlinearities can be
audible on suitably chosen signals. 2) Audibility is far greater on
headphones than on loudspeakers. 3) Simple acoustic signals generated
anechoically display clear phase audibility on headphones. 4) On
normal music or speech signals phase distortion appears not to be
generally audible, although it was heard with 99% confidence on some
recorded vocal material. It is clear that more work needs to be done
to ascertain acceptable limits for the phase linearity of audio
components·limits which might become more stringent as improved
recording/reproduction systems become available. It is stressed that
none of these experiments thus far has indicated a present
requirement for phase linearity in loudspeakers for the reproduction
of music and speech.

Subjective Evaluation of High-Quality Audio Coding Systems: Methods
and Results in the Two-Channel Case 2152388 bytes (CD aes13)
Author(s): Grusec, Theodore; Thibault, Louis; Soulodre, Gilbert
Publication: Preprint 4065; Convention 99; October 1995
Abstract: Experiments completed at the Communications Research Centre
in subjective assessment of 2-channel coding systems are described
along with the methodologies used in their execution. The discussion
centers on acoustic conditions, presentation technologies, choosing
audio materials, selecting and training listeners, grading
procedures, blind rating, data analysis, and decision-making from
experimental outcomes. Key ITU-R test results are presented to
characterize the quality of low bit-rate coding systems operating in
various configurations.
Sensitive Methodologies for the Subjecive Evaluation of High Quality
Audio Coding Systems 1881344 bytes (CD aes17)
Author(s): Grusec, Ted; Thibault, Louis; Beaton, Richard J.
Publication: Paper DSP-07; Conference: AES UK Conference: DSP;
September 1992
Abstract: Not available.
Formal Subjective Testing of the MPEG-2 NBC Multichannel Coding
Algorithm 1119369 bytes (CD aes14)
Author(s): Kirby, D.; Watanabe, K.
Publication: Preprint 4418; Convention 102; March 1997
Abstract: As part of its standardization process, the MPEG NBC
(non-backwards compatible) multichannel audio coding algorithm was
submitted for formal subjective testing in 1996 September. The tests
were carried out jointly at two test sites: the BBC and NHK. The
report was submitted to the Motion Picture Expert Group (MPEG) in
1996 November. This paper describes the design of these tests, the
preparations required, and the results obtained for each of the
codecs tested.
Verbal and Nonverbal Elicitation Techniques in the Subjective
Assessment of Spatial Sound Reproduction 2376898 bytes (CD aes18)
Author(s): MASON, RUSSELL; FORD, NATANYA; RUMSEY, FRANCIS; DE BRUYN,
BART
Publication: Volume 49 Number 5 pp. 366-384; May 2001
Abstract: Current research into spatial audio has shown an increasing
interest in the way subjective attributes of reproduced sound are
elicited from listeners. The emphasis at present is on verbal
semantics, however, studies suggest that nonverbal methods of
elicitation could be beneficial. Research into the relative merits of
these methods has found that nonverbal responses may result in
different elicited attributes compared to verbal techniques.
Nonverbal responses may be closer to the perception of the stimuli
than the verbal interpretation of this perception. There is evidence
that drawing is not as accurate as other nonverbal methods of
elicitation when it comes to reporting the localization of auditory
images. However, the advantage of drawing is its ability to describe
the whole auditory space rather than a single dimension.
Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listener
Performance 3114170 bytes (CD aes4)
Author(s): Toole, Floyd E.
Publication: Volume 33 Number 1/2 pp. 2·32; January 1985
Abstract: With adequate attention to the details of experiment design
and the selection of participants, listening tests on loudspeakers
yielded sound-quality ratings that were both reliable and repeatable.
Certain listeners differed in the consistency of their ratings and in
the ratings themselves. These differences correlated with both
hearing threshold levels and age. Listeners with near normal hearing
thresholds showed the smallest individual variations and the closest
agreement with each others. Sound-quality ratings changed as a
function of the hearing threshold level and age of the listener. The
amount and direction of the change depended upon the specific
products; some products were rated similarly by all listeners,
whereas others had properties that caused them to be rated
differently. Stereophonic and monophonic tests yielded similar
sound-quality ratings for highly rated products, but in stereo,
listeners tended to be less consistent and less critifal of products
with distinctive characteristics. Assessments of stereophonic spatial
and image qualities were closely related to sound-quality ratings.
The relationship between these results and objective performance data
is being pursued.
A Disk-Based System for the Subjective Assessment of High-Qualtity
Audio 1278922 bytes (CD aes12)
Author(s): Beaton, Richard J.; Wong, Peter
Publication: Preprint 3497; Convention 94; March 1993
Abstract: This paper describes the design of a digital system which
integrates automated tandem recording with a playback system
implementing an enhanced ABC triple stimulus with hidden reference
listening test methodology. This methodology was developed
specifically for CCIR evaluations of nearly transparent low bit-rate
audio coding algorithms. The system was used extensively in recent
CCIR TG 10/2 testing of low bit-rate audio coding algorithms for
digital audio broadcast. The use of a disk-based system was
instrumental in producing reliable assessments for the high-quality
systems under test. This paper outlines the technical challenges to
implementing the assessment methodology and discusses some of the
important new issues arising in evaluating the quality of nearly
transparent audio processes.
Audio Level Monitoring for Blind Sound Engineers/Recordists 760962
bytes (CD aes12)
Author(s): Angus, James A. S.; Malyon, Nicholas J.
Publication: Preprint 3219; Convention 91; October 1991
Abstract: Audio level monitoring relies heavily on visual displays
which are inappropriate for blind users. This paper will describe a
technique which allows a blind sound recordist to set her/ his own
levels via an audio cue. It will describe the design and
implementation of a unit which handles stereo recording in the studio
and on location and it will discuss extensions of the technique to
multitrack recording.
Comments on ·Subjective Appraisal of Loudspeaker Directivity for
Multichannel Reproduction· and
New Developments in MPEG-2 Audio: Extension to Multi-Channel Sound
and Improved Coding at Very Low Bit Rates 1023245 bytes (CD aes17)
Author(s): Stoll, Gerhard
Publication: Paper DAB-06; Conference: AES UK Conference: DAB, The
Future of Radio; May 1995
Abstract: The first objective of MPEG-2 Audio was the extension from
two to five channels, based on recommendations from ITU-R, SMPTE and
EBU. This was achieved in November 1994 with the approval of ISO/IEC
13818-3, known as MPEG-2 Audio. This standard provides high quality
coding of 5+1 audio channels together with backwards compatibility to
MPEG-1 · the key to ensure that existing 2-channel decoders will
still be able to decode the compatible stereo information from
multi-channel signals. For audio reproduction of surround sound the
loudspeaker positions left, center, right, left and right surround
are used · according to the 3/2-standard. The envisaged applications
are beside digital television systems such as dTTb, HDTVT, HD-SAT,
ADDT, digital storage media and the EU147 Digital Audio Broadcasting
system. The second objective was the extension of MPEG-1 Audio to
lower sampling rates to improve the audio quality at bit rates less
than 64 kbit/s per channel, in particular for speech applications.
This is of particular interest for the EU147 DAB system to provide
high quality news channels at the lowest bit rate.
Subjective Assessments on Low Bit-Rate Audio Codecs 1159838 bytes
(CD aes16)
Author(s): Grewin, Christer; Rydén, Thomas
Publication: Paper 10-013; Conference: The AES 10th International
Conference: Images of Audio; September 1991
Abstract: The Swedish Broadcasting Corporation (SR) has performed
subjective assessments on low bit-rate audio codecs for
ISO/MPEG/Audio. As it is likely that the same codec can be used for
DAB the evaluation is of great importance for broadcasters. This
paper presents the methodology, results and conclusions from the two
listening tests performed in July 1990 and April/May 1991.



  #78   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 23:18:09 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:31:45 GMT,
(ludovic
mirabel) wrote:

"All Ears" wrote in message news:97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53...
big snip

In '89 a rather elaborate listening test for audibility of
distortion
was performed .(Masters and Clark, St. Review, Jan. '89).
Various types of distortion with different signals were tested.. There
were 15 TRAINED listeners -? Gender?. At 2 db. distortion level
(2db), playing "natural music" the "average" level of correct hits
was 61% (barely above the minimum statistically significant level of
60%). The individual scores varied from perfect 5/5 to 1/5
Similar discrepancies were observed in phase shift recognition.:
Authors' conclusion: "Distortion has to be very gross and the signal
very simple for it to be noticed" ... by the "average"
Will it do for the time being?


I think this is good "food for thoughts" because it gives an idea of how
large a margin there is to really detect a difference.

Note that the performance varies from one listener to other-
inspite of training and retraining-. A few have 5 out of 5 correct
responses, a few 1 out of 5 and most fall in the average middle. As
you would expect.


Indeed, as you would expect for an effect which is on the threshold of
audibility.

Note that the "objectivist", objectively unbiased, proctors
showed no interest in the few who heard the DIFFERENCES accurately.
They just lumped them together with the most who DID NOT and got an
average for an average, fictitious Mr. Average Listener who hears no
differences-ever. This of course was in acordance with the "Stereo
Review" guiding principle- "the high end does not exist, our big
account advertisers sound just as good."


You are once again making the classic mistake (or is it yet another
deliberate distortion?) of ignoring the basis of statistics. *You*
invariably 'cherry pick' the results that suit your preconceptions,
the researchers above very properly included *all* the responses. They
most certainly did *not* 'ignore' the 5/5 response, they *included* it
in the results. Incidentally, you once again alter the facts to suit
yourself. There is no indication in the above report that there were
'a few' listeners who scored 1/5 or 5/5, there may have been only one
of each - as a standard distribution curve would suggest.

Now, if the researchers had *repeated* the experiment, do you presume
that the same listeners would score the same results, i.e. that the
5/5 scorer(s) really do have 'Golden Ears'? That would suit *your*
preconceptions, but the results of the recently posted TAG McLaren
tests did not show this. Once again, you attempt to ignore the very
basis of statistical probability, in an attempt to shore up your
prejudices.


For economy I'll refer to my today's answer to Mr. Strong.


Which is completely refuted by the TAG test, which found that the
better performers in one test, were average or worse performers in the
other test.

I'll add only that when Mr. Pinkerton posts his results of his tests
in the group that is not "cherry picking".


Indeed it's not, since I posted both positive *and* negative results.
You no doubt would have claimed that the negative results were in some
mysterious way flawed, and/or that you were simply 'bad at DBTs', and
that some unnamed other person would of course have obtained no
negative results.

He had himself and one or
two of his friends in his amplifier "test". If he added 10
"audiophiles" he would add up all their results- and let the dice
fall as they may- even if Krell turned out not distinguishable from
Panasonic integrated- right?


Right.

I wonder if he ever sat an exam.?


Far too many! :-)

I wonder if he'd like the collective
results averaged or would he want himself to be cherry-picked.


Different situation, as I have a personal interest in my own results.
Audiophile friends with an interest in their own results would no
doubt conduct further tests for themselves. The analogous situation is
where I perform lots of tests on myself, to verify my own abilities,
but only limited tests on others, to verify that I am just one of many
with similar perceptual abilities. You have shown absolutely *no*
evidence of the existence of 'Golden Ears', indeed all the available
evidence suggests nothing more than standard statistical distributions
according to random chance.

This does not seem to prevent you from *claiming* that such people
somehow must exist - somewhat like Bigfoot.

Absurdity in the service of winning a debate on paper could not go any
further


I entirely agree.............

The insinuating: " Or is it yet ANOTHER DELIBERATE DISTORTION" is par
for the gentleman. It tells more about the way he thinks than he'd
like to be known and is another one of his contributions to the
gentler , kinder RAHE debating manners.


It tells people *exactly* what I'd like to be known, which is that you
simply *refuse* to engage in honest debate, instead using every
possible trick to avoid the inevitable conclusion, that you simply do
not have a case to argue.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
  #79   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:Ilpcb.570671$o%2.255805@sccrnsc02...
"normanstrong" wrote in message news:UBlcb.425745$cF.131919@rwcrnsc53...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:5s%bb.555712$Ho3.96892@sccrnsc03...
"All Ears" wrote in message

news:97Fbb.406782$cF.126279@rwcrnsc53...
big snip

See below:
I'm at somewhat of a disadvantage, never having read the article under
consideration. Nevertheless, it seems that we're talking about a test
in which 15 trained individuals each made 5 attempts to recognize a
2db distortion--for a total of 75 attempts. (I hope I got this
right.)

Some subjects aced the test, getting all 5 right. According to Mr.
Mirabel, this was because those listeners actually heard the
difference, while the ones that only got 1 right out of 5 tries were.
. . .were what? What can we say about these individuals in much the
same way that we credited the perfect scorers with more sensitive
hearing? After all, even writing down the answer without listening at
all will give a better score than 1 out of 5. Were these people just
unlucky? If so, couldn't we say that the perfect scorers were
similarly just lucky?

If I wanted to find out if the lucky individuals really were lucky,
I'd run the test again, with these individuals running a total of 75
trials. If they got 61% correct, then they're no better than the
average subject from the first trial. Finally, I'd pick the single
subject that did the very best, and have him run the test again, this
time all 75 trials. My guess would be that he would be right 61% of
the time, which would validate the original supposition.

Norm Strong


Norman, I agree with you. The interesting results are those of the
better performers. Either THEY heard it or not.
Everything possible should have been done to find out. Their results
should have been followed up till no doubt remained either way. You
can guess what you like. Guesses don't replace statistics.
My point is exactly that the Masters, Clarks etc. were not interested
enough.
Neither was their publisher.
As a result we get a homogenised, blended result proving that Mr.
Average rules.


The limitations of our poor "Mr. Average" notwithstanding, even you
will have to admit that the ABX tests done by Masters, Clark, Green,
etc. have indicated that the differences people did manage to hear (by
your reckoning, at least) were small by the standards most listeners
would apply.

In other words, this debate basically involves hair-splitting
differences. Now, I am very aware that a typical high ender is often
obsessed with "hair-splitting differences" (I am that way myself,
particularly with the product reviews I have done, but this mainly
involves speaker, surround processor, and subwoofer performance) but
even such individuals will have to admit that said differences would
be very hard to hear during typical, "music for enjoyment" listening
sessions. If they were not hard to hear, the people taking ABX tests
with amps and wires would not have to struggle so much with (and
supposedly be all stressed out by) the test procedures. Serious
differences would be spotted immediately.

Anyway, in other parts of the thread you go on and on and on about
what Clark, Masters, Green, etc. have done and you debate endlessly
about what it all means. Why not just do an ABX test yourself (with a
real ABX device) and see what YOU come up with. Do the work and see
whether or not differences you hear sighted (between a known A and a
known B) show up when you switch to X. I simply cannot see what all
the big deal is when it comes to the ABX issue.

The interesting thing about all these DBT debates I have been
observing is that the only alternative for some people appears to be
sighted comparisons. For them, it is necessary to know what is playing
in order to know what to listen for, or something like that. And of
course, they claim that the stress caused by the ABX protocol (or any
other DBT protocol) or the supposed "rushed" listening involved causes
their ears to clog up.

However, I see this as poppycock. Basically, a sighted comparison
allows the participant to cheat. He may cheat to fool others or he may
cheat to fool himself. That is it, pure and simple. However, remember
that the ABX device (adjusted so that the levels are precisely
matched) allows them to compare known A and B components and cheat
during that part of the procedure all they want. It is only when they
switch to X that the pressure is on and they have to deliver the
goods.

Yeah, I can see how that would make some people sweat, because it
means a lot to some of them to have a preferred product come out the
winner (why this need for a preferred product to win continues to
amaze me, unless maybe we are talking about the guy who designed the
thing or sells it), and of course there is the issue of discovering
that those golden ears may not be so golden after all. The latter may
be the most stressful thing of all for those who do not have a
commercial stake in the results.

Howard Ferstler
  #80   Report Post  
Audio Guy
 
Posts: n/a
Default science vs. pseudo-science

In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
(Audio Guy) wrote in message news:zalcb.565817$Ho3.102946@sccrnsc03...
(ludovic mirabel) writes:

If you are happy with a "test" that gives as many different results
as there are people doing it, who am I to stop you? Use it. You'll get
yours.

Audio Guy:


Where is your evidence that audio DBTs "gives as many different
results as there are people doing it"? So far it is only your mistaken
interpretation of the test statistics. How about some real evidence?


Below find the results of of Greenhill's ABX cable test (The
Stereophile ,1983)
A "hit" is 12 correct answers out of 15.
Note different performers, performing differently. (Surprise,
Surprise!).
Note Nr. 6; 1.75db level difference but music is the signal. Compare
with test
1 and test 4.
I will not rediscuss the "statistics". This was thrashed out ad
nauseam here.
If it tells you something different from what it tells me, well and
good.

SUBJECTS: A B C D E F G H I J K
Test1: Monster vs. 24 g. wire,Pink noise 1.75db level difference
15 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
2. Same but levels matched
9 13 7 10 na. 8 9 6 14 12 12
3. Monster vs. 16 gauge zipcord, Pink noise
13 7 10 7 11 12 9 9 11 12 7
4.. 16 ga vs. 24 ga., Pink noise
15 15 na. 14 15 na 15 14 15 15 15
5. Monster vs. 16ga., choral music
4 6 11 8 9 5 5 7 6 10 10
6. Monster vs. 24ga, choral music 1.75db. level difference
14 7 15 10 8 10 6 10 11 12 10
______________________________________________
% of "hits" in the total of 6 tests, 90 tries.
67. 50 40 33 40 40 33 33 50 83 50

L.M.:


It tells me that people can easy tell level differences with pink
noise, not so easily with music. Where does it "gives as many
different results as there are people doing it"?

I will not stop you and I will not continue this pointless scholastic
argument.


How is it a "scholastic argument"? Are you using this label so you
can side-step the issue? Ironically many would consider all of your
arguments purely "scholastic arguments".

Yes you're correct: scholastic arguments, including mine, are about
something unproven. When you or someone like Mr. JJnunes comes up with
experimental evidence that ABX is the right tool for COMPARING
COMPONENTS and that for instance it does not interfere with perception
of their musical characteristics we'll be talking about realities.


I believe Mr. Junes has just done that.

excessive quoting snipped

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simple science question Schizoid Man Audio Opinions 0 February 5th 04 11:45 PM
rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science Basksh Abdullah Audio Opinions 0 October 10th 03 12:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"