Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
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. ;-) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
THE ENDLESS DBT DEBATE
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
Michael Siemon wrote:
In article , (Nousaine) wrote: ... 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. Now, Tom -- I'm sure it only _seems_ that long. :-) You're right. That extra errant zero added 2.7 centuries. I aplogize to everyone for my lack of touch typing skills. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
science vs. pseudo-science
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Simple science question | Audio Opinions | |||
rec.audio.opinion, isn't exactly rocket science | Audio Opinions |