Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these
conclusions: 1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components, even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to find. 2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components. 3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests. 4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are so many components and so many new components that testing and cross comparison would be a monumental task. I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components. This is a very fine topic for whetting the debating skills of the participants, but it almost seems to have reached it peak in its ability to effect that end, as I think I detect the beginning of repititiousness in the responses. Wylie Williams |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
In article ,
Wylie Williams wrote: Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, and so far I've come to these conclusions: Unfortunately, you missed the big one: that for selection of components by individuals for their own use and enjoyment, ANY method that suits THAT individual is 100% suited for THAT individual. The reason I bring this up is twofold: 1. Because there are some who insist that rigid blind testing is REQUIRED for selection and, more insidiously, 2. because there are some who repeatedly insists that OTHERS claim that selection of components for personal use requires the use of rigid blind testing. The latter we too often see raised as an invalid strawman against the entire concept of rigid testing. Note that this is but one common misrepresentation, untruth and myth that many of those who are often both anti-science and scitentifically illiterate use in their irrational and misdirected campaigns. -- | Dick Pierce | | Professional Audio Development | | 1-781/826-4953 Voice and FAX | | | |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
Wow! I've tried to follow the discussion, What a masochist! :-) and so far I've come to these conclusions: 1. Competent testing (DBT, ABX, etc.) would be wonderful for the world of high end. Even though I believe that there are better and worse components, even better and worse cables/wires, I also know that there is so much puffery in advertising and personal bias toward the most exotic and expensive components that unbaised reviews and comparisions are difficult to find. 2. This competent testing is almost never performed on audio components. 3. If it were there would be endless arguments about test protocols, so faith in the results would be centered in the persons conducting the tests. 4. Even if somehow there were a universally accpted testing system there are so many components and so many new components that testing and cross comparison would be a monumental task. I conclude that there is no hope for this topic to have any effect whatsoever on anybody's choice of high end components. Don't be so sure. I started reading RAHE years ago because I wanted to know what I should be listening for when comparing amplifiers. I couldn't hear any real differences between them, and I wondered what I was missing. I figured the folks here could shed some light on that. Boy, did they! There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. Nobody's going to get tenure anywhere based on controlled comparisons of Krell and Bryston amps. Second, it's not in anyone's financial interest. Most audiophiles appear perfectly happy to ignore the science and go on believing that "everything makes a difference." And the industry is perfectly happy to feed that belief. Many of those who doubt this credo, on the other hand, eventually reach the point where we just assume the sonic similarity of many components, and concentrate on the things that we know really make a difference. bob |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Nousaine) wrote in message .net...
(Audio Guy) wrote: I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many times. In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes ..snip remainder.... It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required. But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment. IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits. The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as to the validity of the statement? "Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components. Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages). " |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ye4.86843@sccrnsc01... In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04, Mr. Pierce goes on: Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not deliver?" Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others, irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs. I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to *any* kind of sighted 'test'. Except that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors. Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or anyone else. Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............ Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any* evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and suggested a logical remedy. Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples. I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded treatment or an answer to the problem. You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will continue to be exposed as such. Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th) This is not the subject at issue here. The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue to appear in RAHE. Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert to type. Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown in? Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email. For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and gladly would not say another word on the subject. But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do. And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr. Pinkerton Ludovic Mirabel |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific point of view. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 07:54:04 GMT, (randyb)
wrote: (Nousaine) wrote in message .net... (Audio Guy) wrote: I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many times. In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes ..snip remainder.... It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required. But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment. IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits. The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as to the validity of the statement? "Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components. Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages). " I believe that this quote can be filed under 'bull****'. Firstly, the AES does not conduct double-blind tests with any such predetermined desire. Secondly, please specify *exactly* where such experimental data is to be had. Finally, please note that it's a fundamental property of statistics that you *can* flip a coin twenty times and have it come up heads 16 times out of that twenty - it just doesn't happen very often. If such a result occurs, then the correct thing to do is to gather those 'golden ears' together and run the test series again. You'll find that the second set of results will be very different. Statistics 101....... Note that the above applies to those common conditions where the UUTs actually are sonically indistinguishable. Where there are *real* sonic differences, such as for SETs, then results are pretty close to 100% accurate for most listeners. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
Bob said
There are two basic reasons why the testing you propose doesn't happen. First, from a scientific point of view, it's old news. I said Really? Then there must be some old peer reviewed published tests on the subject yes? From a scientific point of view it is unimortant. Too unimportant to warrent valid scientific research. it isn't news at all from a scientific point of view. Bob said It's old news in the sense that the limitations of human hearing have been extensively documented, and comparing the sound of two amplifiers would not advance that knowledge in any way. Any comparison would, we expect, merely confirm what we already know about humans' ability to distinguish sounds. Interesting. Did these tests that looked at human thresholds of hearing consider all the current differences in measured performance of amplifiers? Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the established thresholds of human hearing? If so, do we have any published peer reviewed papers documenting such tests since we are talking about old news from a "scientific" perspective? Bob said Now, there are two circumstances that could change this: Change what? Given there were no cited Peer reviewed published papers establishing a valid scientific point of view on the sound of amplifiers The only thing I see that can be changed is the lack of a position that is what we might call old news in the world of science. Bob said 1. Somebody could perform a properly controlled listening test that produced an unexpected result, confirming an audible difference where none was expected. That would set off an effort to determine the cause of that difference. I think we need to have a body of evidence that scientists would recognize as valid before we can talk about scientific beliefs being changed. Like I said, it does not appear to be old news scientifically speaking as much as it seems to be no news scientifically speaking. Bob said 2. Somebody could discover a heretofore unrecognized parameter of amplifier performance. In that case, we'd want to examine whether this parameter has an audible effect. Well then I have to ask again. Have we taken every measurable parameter of amplifier sound and compared it's acoustic effect, using a sufficient variety of speakers, against the established thresholds of human hearing? Bob said But don't hold your breath. I won't. |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
previous text below: Quoting literally from the "objectivist" Greenhill text about his "golden ears' (Greenhill's own words)performer is "cherry picking"? Let's see who IS cherry picking. And while we're at it let's see about my "changing the rules". For over 2 years Mr. Pinkerton has been asked to give an author, mag., page, reference to a properly documented, independently proctored, properly published with all the relevant statistical data, and decent-sized panel, positive component comparison test. He found just a SINGLE ONE for the 30 years of ABX existence. Namely his own "research", proctored by who? You guessed it. By Mr. Pinkerton, of course. Published where? Here on the RAHE-for an RAHE "peer review". And his peers have spoken up. Mr. Nousaine, the authority on ABX disagrees; electrically competent amplifiers all sound the same to him- his tests are negative. Mr. Krueger, the presumed inventor of ABX after some waffling agrees with Nousaine and disagrees with Pinkerton. And so does the last available panel review in the 1984 St. Review Should you subscribe to Pinkerton "cherry picking" Mr. Pinkerton, just because he shouts very loud about his "eminently repeatable" test? Repeatable by whom? Not by Nousaine ,not by Krueger and not by anyone else: not by audio mag panel reviews.,not by audio societies. Talk about "absolute nonsense". I have "no evidence" because I am not proposing a "test". You are. I just observe that every ABX researcher insists that the subjects must be selected and trained because some individuals do abysmally badly, some exceptionally well and most fall into the "random guess" middle. Outcome with an average "audiophile" panel? "They all sound the same"and another null result. It is up to the ABX proponents to show that an ABX result of an ABX-inept subject, like myself is more valid (because it is ABXed) than a result of a violinist listening to different amps for the differences between them in reproducing violin music. Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is not exactly a valuable contribution to a debate. Ludovic Mirabel On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:59:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:BX5Ta.116804$ye4.86510@sccrnsc01... On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 22:29:04 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: You requoted that anecdote in full and added it to other similar anecdotes about Pinkerton and Krueger. And...? So what? Do you know what a reference is?: Name of the mag, author, year, month, page? Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX results on several occasions, plus Arny's PCABX website is well-known within this community, and is an excellent resource for those who wish to know the *truth* about detecting sonic differences using douyble-blind protocols, as opposed to your verbose denials. Mr.Pinkerton I'm well aware of your RAHE postings. I said at least twice in the past that hearing the differences between amplifiers is the least I'd expect of a well-trained subjects like yourself. Why? Because there ARE differences between amplifiers audible to some listeners and you are one of them. Even when ABXing. Congratulations. Please note that I have also posted several *negative* ABX results on amplifiers. While many amps do sound different, many others sound the same (to me, in my system yada yada). This should not be a surprise to anyone familiar with the parlous dearth of real design skills in the so-called 'high end'. As far from a peer-repeatable TEST as you can get. No, my tests are eminently repeatable - that's the whole point of such tests. That is why I'm asking for *references*. Reference means precise quote to a peer-reviewed published article with results of component comparisons. Actually, a reference is simply something which refers to something else, no more and no less. You keep changing the rules to exclude every test with which you've been presented. It is however unlikely that *any* test will confirm your prejudices. But that's too much to hope for, as you well know, so I'd settle for any publication with 10 or more panelists, decent statistical criteria, detailed tables of individual results etc. Why? Because all such published material hitherto (30 years experience) showed that most ABXed listeners hear no differences between anything and anything else. MOST but not ALL. It varies from individual to individual. But only within well-defined boundaries. For example, *no one* has yet demonstrated an ability to hear 'cable sound' under controlled conditions, despite many vociferous claims under sighted conditions. But invariably the proctors' conclusion was in favour of majority. When one or two, exceptionally gifted performers heard difference between cables like Greenhill's "golden ear" this is discarded because it doesn't suit the dogma. Absolute nonsense. *You* are the one who attempted to 'cherry pick' results to suit your own agenda, as has been shown ad nauseam in this forum. Till there is EXPERIMENTAL evidence that ABX does not interfere with some subjects ability to discern I'll hold to my opinion and you to yours. I have reliable and repeatable evidence to back my opinion. Where's yours? |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en ews1.newsguy.com... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ ye4.86843@sccrnsc01... In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04, Mr. Pierce goes on: Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not deliver?" Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others, irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs. I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to *any* kind of sighted 'test'. Except that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors. Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or anyone else. Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............ Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any* evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and suggested a logical remedy. Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples. True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than anyone else, I can understand his mistake. I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded treatment or an answer to the problem. You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will continue to be exposed as such. Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th) This is not the subject at issue here. The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue to appear in RAHE. It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since that makes your post completely about audio and not just about another author's comments. Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert to type. Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown in? It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just commented on how useless your posts are. Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email. And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and over again? For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and gladly would not say another word on the subject. But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do. This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of audio components as "thought police". And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr. Pinkerton And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT advocates to present test results that meet your constantly escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and myself to continue to respond to you. |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
In an exchange Nousaine said
Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler, retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes ascribed to them? I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money. Only academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of audio components. So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit. |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
"Keith A. Hughes" wrote in message ...
Wylie Williams wrote: snip ... In any business you spend money to make money. Only academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of audio components. Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general "marketing" category. So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit. Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional "free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently "claimed", what then is the downside? Surely the cost of such tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget? Keith Hughes What about audio societies such Boston A.S.,Detroit A.S. ( isn't Mr. Krueger a member?) that one knows have many DBT enthusiasts for members.? This should not be beyond their scope. I know for instance that two years ago The Washington State A.S. was engaged in preparing such a session. But it seems the project either didn't pan out or the results were not liked. One way or the other without proper continuing test reports the subject is rather academic and the evidence a matter of conviction/faith rather than science, isn't it? Ludovic Mirabel |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(randyb) wrote:
(Nousaine) wrote in message t.net... (Audio Guy) wrote: I notice you failed to answer any of the points I made in this post and commented on an entirely different post by only repeating your same old arguments which have been shown to be false many, many times. In article QOZSa.114661$ye4.84226@sccrnsc01, (ludovic mirabel) writes ..snip remainder.... It's interesting that the argument that ABX or ABC/hr style double blind testing is "not useful" for evaluating audio components fails to recognize that it is THE recognized test of choice for evaluating codec performance where the finding of often incredibly subtle defect is required. But, in the general context, I can agree that no listening test of any kind is required for modern amplifiers and wires. Even nominally competent models can be expected to be perfectly transparent in a normally reverberant environment. IOW enough controlled listening tests have been conducted that we should expect no sonic failures when the product is being used within design limits. The quote below was posted in a fourm. I was curious your response as to the validity of the statement? "Every so often the AES does double blind a/b tests to prove to themselves that there is no sonic difference between audio components. Only about 2% can actually hear a difference, which they conclude is statistically insignificant, and therefore supports their premise that there is no difference. The interesting thing is, that when you take a closer look at their data, that 2% are about 98% accurate, many can actually identify the equipment being used (I'd venture to say that less than 2 in 100 people can tell the differences in wine vintages). " To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests. I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be statistically significant. It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone. Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a different thing. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message ...
In an exchange Nousaine said Well if this is true why hasn't any manufacturer, enthusiast, wholesaler, retailer or other interested party provided a replicable, peer reviewed experiment that shows amplifers or wires have any of the sonic attributes ascribed to them? I wouldn't dream of entering into the discussion of how to conduct such an experiment, but let me suggest that the reason these experiments are not being performed by manufacturers, wholesalers, or retailers is that they don't need to do that. In any business you spend money to make money. Very true. Such tests would risk killing the goose that laid the golden ear. Only academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. Lumping academics and enthusiasts in the same category is probably not a wise thing to do . . . And we have seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of audio components. .. . .because then you wind up saying something nonsensical like this. The academic world isn't ignoring anything. In the academic world, these questions were asked and answered long ago. It's the enthusiasts--some of them, at least--who are ignoring what's already been learned on the subject. So it's up to the enthusiasts. No, it's not up to them either, unless they'd like to try and refute what the scientific community figured out way back when. Funny thing though: All the people who carp about how science has it wrong never, ever offer ANY solid counterevidence. However, if the debate in RAHE is any predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit. Given that the "most amps sound different" crowd hasn't deigned to provide us with a single shred of repeatable evidence to back that up, we can't really know how the "most amps sound the same" crowd would react, now, can we? bob |
#140
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
Wylie Williams said
... In any business you spend money to make money. Only academics and enthusiasts spend money without the profit goal. And we have seen that the academic world ignores experiments to show sonic attributes of audio components. Keith said Well...the point is that, given the 'debate' in the high-end world about cable/amp/puck/etc. 'sound', having hard empirical evidence to support that *your* product *actually* provides a sonic improvement (or at least a reproducible sonic change that one may prefer or not) should provide a competitive advantage. Hence money spent on such testing would clearly fall under the general "marketing" category. Regardless of what I believe about audibility I think your position doesn't hold water from an advertising POV. Those who laready believe the differences exist are not interested in such tests. Those who do not are not likely to believe claims of manufacturers of positive results. If I were in the business of advertising that is what my position would be. companies that do use blind testing don't seem to make it an advertising priority. Wylie Williams said So it's up to the enthusiasts. However, if the debate in RAHE is any predictor the results would just fuel even more debate, generating sufficient confusion to obscure any potential benefit. Keith said Indeed, and such debate would only provide *more* exposure to the company whose results were published and debated (i.e., additional "free" advertising). *IF* the products perform as currently "claimed", what then is the downside? The downside would be the effort and money it would take. again, those who already believe in the differences don't need to be courted with such tests and those who don't are not likely to take positive results at face value. Further lets say for argument's sake that a manufacturer of an expensive amplifier showed that it was sonically distinguishable from an inexpensive amp with DBTs. How many of you will now buy that expensive amp? A part of advertising is knowing who isn't a potential customer and not wasting time and money trying to court their business. Keith said Surely the cost of such tests (bearing in mind they would use existing stock, and even existing employees, since removal of sighted bias also removes conflict of interest bias - as long as the company is honest at least) is negligible relative to the overall marketing budget? Sounds a bit like "Can't we all just get along?" The very people you suggest will posibly be swayed by such tests are the same people who are likely not to trust the honesty of manufacturers of expensive amps and the like. So, "as long as the company is honest" is a matter that is not likely to be agreed upon. I think one would need a disinterested party to conduct such tests for there to be any chance of mutual trust of such tests. there in lies a problem. Disinterested parties are...disinterested. |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
(Audio Guy) wrote in message .net...
And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT advocates to present test results that meet your constantly escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and myself to continue to respond to you. I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the true light. I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and Pinkerton's private panel testing. That will teach me for my " constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any comparable components at all- with a positive outcome. Do stick around. Ludovic Mirabel In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en ews1.newsguy.com... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ ye4.86843@sccrnsc01... In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04, Mr. Pierce goes on: Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not deliver?" Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others, irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs. I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to *any* kind of sighted 'test'. Except that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors. Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or anyone else. Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............ Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any* evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and suggested a logical remedy. Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples. True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than anyone else, I can understand his mistake. I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded treatment or an answer to the problem. You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will continue to be exposed as such. Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th) This is not the subject at issue here. The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue to appear in RAHE. It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since that makes your post completely about audio and not just about another author's comments. Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert to type. Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown in? It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just commented on how useless your posts are. Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email. And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and over again? For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and gladly would not say another word on the subject. But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do. This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of audio components as "thought police". And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr. Pinkerton |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable contribution to a debate. As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place. There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available, which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific community would suggest that most amps do sound the same, We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component comparison testing with a positive outcome". Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever) Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX results on several occasions... And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level, HIS musical experience. Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same" A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"- the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being REPEATABILITY. So what do we do? Simple. It is no longer a FEW outstanding amps. we're talking about in this audio.high-end forum. We're talking about "MOST" .that "...the wide engineering and scientific community would suggest do sound the same" Talk about rediscovering America! We badly needed "..the wide engineering nd scientific community" to "suggest" that H-K, Technics, Sanyo, Citizen etc differ only in the degree of awfulness they produce. Talk about changing the subject! Cables? Mr. Pinkerton, it is not only cables that "do sound the same" to the majority of panelists in ALL the published ABX component comparison "testing"- with outcome invariably proclaimed to be negative by the proctors- because like you they refused to "cherry pick" between the good and the bad performers. (Unless, of course, it is Mr. Pinkerton cherry picking himself) . It is amps., preamps, cd players, dacs, distortion up to 2%, volume difference up to 1,75 db. It is EVERYTHING ever ABX tested by an "audiophile" panel. That is the nature of the "test" you have on offer. And for a note of black humour you ask me to provide "proof" against it. You already have. You showed/confirmed that the results of your "test" depend on WHO is testing WHOM , Ludovic Mirabel A note about "verbosity". In a different debating culture where people respect each other enough to grant some basic assumptions, some "givens" a lot of repetitive material could be spared. In RAHE they wait in ambush to hook onto any incomplete or awkwardly worded sentence. And you Mr. Pinkerton should know all about that. and that *all* cables sound the same, so it is *you* who requires to provide proof that they do not, rather than continually ranting against an experimental technique which is used *every working day* by some of the most respected names in high fidelity music reproduction. Did you take a poll? My polling result is that even more "respected names" couldn't care less. As noted, why do you not *deliver* on all this ranting? Where is your *proof* that ABX is not a valuable (even indispensible) tool? |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
Nousaine wrote:
To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted ant kind of test under its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of their cassettes vs the cd sopurce) but those are not "AES" tests. I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be statistically significant. But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if *one* person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than chance? Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require more than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'? It is true that in one Stereophile test the administrator "declared" that a score of 5 of 7 was somehow indicative of 'something' although it's not statistically significant by itself and would be noticed from time to time when the devices could not truly be identified by sound alone. Of course, if enough subjects scored 5 of 7 THEN the overall test would have significant results IF the devices were distinguishable by sound. But that's a different thing. -- -S. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Nor do I have any evidence that the other side of the moon is not made of green cheese, that the Sasquatch doesn't visit B.C. and that hand waving and shouting loudly "absolute nonsense" is a valuable contribution to a debate. As ever, you place the burden of evidence in entirely the wrong place. There are many results of reasonably well conducted tests available, which you choose to ignore. The wide engineering and scientific community would suggest that most amps do sound the same, We'll stop at this point to watch Mr. Pinkerton groping for a life-line. The topic was: "Quote ANY published ABX component comparison testing with a positive outcome". I did, my own, published right here on this forum. Please quote *any* evidence you have which supports your own position. Just 2 days ago he responded (loud and emphatic as ever) Mirabel, you are perfectly well aware that I have posted positive ABX results on several occasions... And what did he post? HIS DBT results confirming that SOME amplifiers do sound different. to HIM using HIS ears, HIS ABX training level, HIS musical experience. Yes. And your point is? Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same" A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"- the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being REPEATABILITY. Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got. There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic differences. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04 How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in different places in each of us. I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music. The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music listening experiences. In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening experiences. In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen". |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04... "Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04 How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in different places in each of us. I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music. Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments about our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as more than "mere preference" is what this is a reaction against. And he is right..it is a hobby and there is much to enjoy, including sharing impressions of the equipment we use. The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music listening experiences. This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it. This is what you and some other objectivists here keep saying about us..it is what you want to believe. You completely ignore all the practical problems of dbx'ng components at home in a relaxed environment as well as some of the advantages of proto-monadic testing in a known audio environment that we raise here. You are the one with an "agenda", not us. In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening experiences. In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen". And you completely ignore the number of subjectivists who say they enjoy most listening in the dark. Or those of us who close our eyes at a live concert. As has been pointed out many times here, Arnie. The fact is music is a subjective experience. There is no such objective thing as the sound of music. There is sound. And after processing by the brain, there is music. And enjoyment (or not) of that music is subject to any number of inputs and developmental filters. So some people pay close attention to rhythm. Others to high frequencies. Others to dimensionality. Others to tonality. In assessing music reproduction. Through equipment. As part of a hobby. And they don't necessarily give a rat's ass about comparing the sound of two solid state amplifiers to determine minute differences. They are more interested in what a casual insertion and evaluation into their listening environment produces in the overall sonic gestalt that they value. Why is that so hard for you to accept? |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
Arny,
You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/ emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate. The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of having a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the meter: all these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that viewing an impressive looking system would be conducive to believing that it sounds great. This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different places" the enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of overetched detail, the EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose 901's cranked to max on a Radio Shack receiver, etc. After all the audio system to most of us is a device to create pleasure, not generate scientific datum. If yours pleases you you have the right one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how well it tests. Wylie Williams "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04... "Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04 How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in different places in each of us. I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music. The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music listening experiences. In contrast, the proponents of blind listening tests, in contrast are tacitly saying that their enjoyment of music falls fully within the act of listening to music. They have zero need to see the equipment playing the music to differentiate and/or appreciate their music listening experiences. In fact, they don't want to do anything but "just listen". |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
Keith,
You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were superior to the others on the market to the satisfaction of the skeptics you could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone. As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products actually is superior? They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to justify the time and trouble? All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if they are they are keeping the results very very quiet. Wylie Williams "Keith A. Hughes" wrote in message news:GX%Va.24355$o%2.14663@sccrnsc02... Wylie Williams wrote: This has been an interesting exchange. Some see it as futile, others valiantly debate on. "Killing the goose" - Certainly it is not in the interests of the audio industry to have definitive tests, ... snip This misses the point. I'm not claiming *anything* about being good for "the industry". Quite the contrary in fact. Marketing (by individuals) is for the express purpose of paring down "the industry", as much as possible, to just YOU. If *I* can provide evidence that *my* products sound different than the products produced by the rest of the industry (or more typically, by my direct competitors), then my marketing strategy is clear: There are two sonically distinguishable products (wires, s/s amps, etc. - makes no difference) out there, *Mine* and *All Others*. Having firmly established a dichotomy, I then need only make the pitch "Why waste your money on X, Y, or Z products that all have the same dull, lifeless sound, when for only a gazillion more, you can have My wonderful product preferred 10 to 1 by all my family and friends". Establishing the dichotomy is the only way to expand the market to the untapped crowd of cynics. Cynics typically want data, and if you can provide reasonable data to show difference, then you can make a case for better/worse preference, with concomitant impetus for experimentation (i.e. shopping) that currently does not exist. That is a competitive advantage - entry into an untapped demographic. Keith Hughes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:b8mWa.37408$YN5.33241@sccrnsc01 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:PhaWa.29049$uu5.3459@sccrnsc04... "Wylie Williams" wrote in message news:HU%Va.23635$uu5.3018@sccrnsc04 How seldom on RAHE do we encounter the idea that audio systems are for the enjoyment of music. And that enjoyment resides in different places in each of us. I don't think that the "different places" that the enjoyment of music resides in properly falls outside the act of just listening to music. Your continual obstinence in insisting that all subjective comments about our hobby must be abx'd if they are to be taken seriously as more than "mere preference" is what this is a reaction against. Where did I say that all subjective comments must be ABX'd if they are taken seriously? I've always taken the following positions that contradict this claim: (1) ABX is not the only valid form of DBT. In fact other forms of DBTs are more valid when certain very common questions are being asked. My www.pcabx.com web site proudly distributes non-ABX listening test management software as well as ABX listening test management software. Therefore any claims that I favor the use of only the ABX DBT listening test methodology are clearly false. (2) When the differences between sonic alternatives are generally agreed upon to be large and clearly audible, particularly when this can be demonstrated by some DBT listening test method, or technical test, then there's no need for blind testing to support claims of most if not all kinds of audible differences. For example my friends Clark and Nousaine are proponents of a listening evaluation methodology called LTT which does not include blinding the listener in any way. I have never criticized them for this practice and I expect I never will. I also support the use of AES standard 20, http://www.aes.org/standards/b_pub/aes20-1996.pdf which does not include blinding the listener in any way. Therefore we can see that Mr. Lavo is very poorly informed about my activities and opinions, and might consider correcting himeself in this matter. And he is right..it is a hobby and there is much to enjoy, including sharing impressions of the equipment we use. Since when have I ever said that music shouldn't be enjoyed? The controversy about sighted versus blind listening tests finds the proponents of sighted listening tests tacitly saying that a significant part of their enjoyment of music falls outside the act of listening to music. They have to see the equipment playing the music in order to differentiate or properly appreciate their music listening experiences. This is just bull****, Arnie, and you know it. I can't believe that inflamatory talk like this has passed moderation. I decline to further respond to this kind of thing. Please comment further when proper restraint can be exercised. |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01...
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same" A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"- the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being REPEATABILITY. Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got. There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic differences. I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the same equipment as you do. So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the "amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or 30 years. Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier. Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and recant his sins. A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the same manufacture can differ, Nothing would remain but make a collection for Nousaine to travel to your castle and listen there. This "reproducible test" is beginning to run into money. And it does seem to be somewhat limited in its usefulness for the average audiophile peasantry that owns all kinds of Goodness knows what. Let alone the problem of getting Apogees from an extinct manufacturer. (One of these blood-sucking billionaire high-end designers who can be exposed only by valiant ABXers) Or have you just been kidding all these years? Ludovic Mirabel Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a "test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their musical qualities. You believe Duettes allow you to recognise differences? Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's. They are not testable. In no other sphere of life do people talk about a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard. Why we should be so favoured God only knows. |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
In article YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: (Audio Guy) wrote in message .net... And as long as you continue to post "idiotic challenges" to the DBT advocates to present test results that meet your constantly escalating requirements for "acceptability", count on others and myself to continue to respond to you. Note: This paragraph was created by taking Ludovic's paragraph quoted at the end of this post and changing it from anti-DBT to pro-DBT. Due to his continuing habit of not interspersing his new text with the applicable quoted text it is likely most didn't get this. I do hope you mean it and don't quit on me. I do need your penetrating analysis of my character deficiencies that disable me from seeing the true light. Mine are no more so than your typical comments, and I am not the one who fails to place his new text after the appropriate quoted text so that the flow of the discussion is obvious. Is there a reason you almost always fail to do so? Methinks so. I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and Pinkerton's private panel testing. Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on your part I would say. That will teach me for my " constantly escalating requirements" such as asking for one, single reference to a published, proctored ABX comparison test on any comparable components at all- with a positive outcome. They've been provided many times to you, but you refuse to investigate them. Nousaine and others have mentions quite a few in the "Blindtest question" thread. Have you looked at any of them? Do stick around. Count on it. Ludovic Mirabel In article ctqUa.132328$OZ2.26337@rwcrnsc54, (ludovic mirabel) writes: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:bforbp01hem@en ews1.newsguy.com... On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 19:08:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Richard D Pierce) wrote in message news:0KgTa.118670$ ye4.86843@sccrnsc01... In article kKeTa.118895$Ph3.14413@sccrnsc04, Mr. Pierce goes on: Perhaps the thread should be retitled, "Why Mirabel does not deliver?" Mr. Mirabel has bolstered his argument by simply ignoring data contrary to his point, msrepresentation of the views of others, irrelevant diversions and non-sequiturs. I could answer in kind and I would know how to. In spades. Well now, that's the point, isn't it? Despite thousands of lines of posting, you actually have *never* produced a shred of evidence in support of your own position. You simply bluster and waffle about how bad ABX tests are, without noting that they are at least superior to *any* kind of sighted 'test'. Except that, if no one else does, I feel embarrassed on behalf of the audio.high-end forum, its readers and its contributors. Instead I'll ask-not for the first time-why is this kind of scurrilous personal attack, without a shred of any audio interest allowed to see the light of day again and again in a moderated forum? Against me or anyone else. Scurrilous personal attack? Hardly............ Dick was simply pointing out the obvious: *you* created a scurrilous and unjustified thread title, then you failed to provide *any* evidence to back it up. Dick simply pointed out this anomaly, and suggested a logical remedy. Just for the record. The thread was not started by me and the thread title is not mine. Falsification/dyslexia is making disciples. True, but since you have seem to have posted more to this thread than anyone else, I can understand his mistake. I answered the previous similar ones in the "RAHE discuss" forum and asked there why this is being allowed. Mr. Pierce's postings appeared in the open forum, in this thread. The horse bolted. I do not think that slamming the door in my my face, now, would be evenhanded treatment or an answer to the problem. You don't *want* even-handed treatment. You want your own hand-waving and bluster to be accepted without complaint. That isn't going to happen. Keep making illogical and baseless claims, and they will continue to be exposed as such. Mr. Pinkerton, complain all you want. Expose all you want On the 23rd you posted such a complaint exposing my non- p.c. views in civilised terms. You got a civilised answer today (25th) This is not the subject at issue here. The subject is not whether I am right or not but whether postings containing personal invective AND NO OTHER SUBSTANCE should continue to appear in RAHE. It was commentary on your method of "debating" and IMHO totally appropriate. It was not "personal invective" since it was about your debating style and not about you. I guess he should follow your lead and do as you do below and throw in "ABX" a couple of times since that makes your post completely about audio and not just about another author's comments. Your today's text shows that once that is allowed it can not be stopped. Especially if some indiciduals are given a licence to revert to type. Talk about hand-waving! Wouldn't you like a little censorship thrown in? It seems your are the one advocating censorship, not him. You are the one asking that his post should not have been accepted, he just commented on how useless your posts are. Your tactics are effective. People with politically incorrect views drop out of RAHE one by one rather than be subjected to a stream of invective. They barely dare to send me a message of support by email. And your tactics wouldn't cause someone to avoid reading the group due to your continued repetition of the same tired argument over and over again? For your information. I am sick to death of hearing about DBTs and gladly would not say another word on the subject. But having grown up with thought police- and worse- around me I'm grateful that verbal bullying is the worst you can do. This explains a lot, you equate those who advocate blind testing of audio components as "thought police". And as long as I see the idiotic challenges to people, who point out that ABX is geared towards a negative result, to "prove it"- how?- by subjecting themselves to the ABX test - count on me to respond Mr. Pinkerton |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
Noussaine wrote
You are describing the process of merchandising commodity grade products. Basic electrical audio equipment such as amplifiers and accessories like wires are sold in the same way that large companies promote and sell laundry detergent. Some different perfume and color combines with "New, Improved" plus vague performance claims like "Cleans Your Clothes Better" to help turn over product. Well, it is a business for all manufacturers, large and small, and there are only so many sales methods to choose from. Back as far as the days on mono hi-fi I recall speakers were advertised as producing sound indistinguishable from the real event, and amplifiers with distortion too low to be detected. It seems to me that the worst offenders in advertising claims are not the makers of the commodity grade items, but some of the high end producers. Some of the claims are little short of amazing, but I am sure that most of us take them with the proverbial grain of salt. Wylie Williams P.S.- In the above I did not mention Bose at all. Bose is an exceptional product and company in many ways. |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 15:59:55 GMT, (Audio Guy)
wrote: In article YoKVa.10282$Oz4.4141@rwcrnsc54, (ludovic mirabel) writes: I do need your masterful, factual demonstration of ABX infallibility as a scientific test, proved by JJ's recollections and Pinkerton's private panel testing. Both are much better evidence than your constant declarations of "I am a poor ABXer, so ABX must be deficient". Pretty poor evidence on your part I would say. Unfortunately, we only have Ludovic's word that he is a poor ABX'er. He might actually be very good at it, but his problem is that he goes into the test 'knowing' that things 'should' sound different, so when they don't, he blames the test. Some of us actually *do* 'trust our ears', and accept that, despite our previous prejudices, all cables really do sound the same, and so do many amps. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 14:57:41 GMT, (ludovic
mirabel) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message news:iW%Va.24701$YN5.23392@sccrnsc01... On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:27:20 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote in message ... On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:57:36 GMT, (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Snip previous discussion that underwent surgical treatment already Whereupon I confronted him with disagreement from other noted ABX experts using THEIR ears, THEIR ABX TRAINING level and THEIR musical experience: To them ABXing showed that: "No there are no differences between competent amplifiers ever. They all sound the same" A very awkward situation for someone claiming that he has a "test"- the very essence of a test ( as opposed to an opinion) being REPEATABILITY. Sure it's repeatable - but you have to use the same equipment. Tom and Arny used different equipment, and got the reults that they got. There's no inconsistency here - unless you are a Mirabel with an agenda. Please supply details of *any* test which you can demonstrate to be superior in its ability to resolve subtle but *real* sonic differences. I get it. It is after all possible to duplicate that one and one only epoch-making positive ABX result of yours but.... only if one has the same equipment as you do. Not epoch-making at all, as Arny has also posted lots of positive ABX results. Indeed, he has a whole website full of them. So Mr. Nousaine pouring ridicule on the "amplifier sound" has been making a mistake for the last was it 20 or 30 years. Not what I said at all, as you well know. Mr. Nousaine didn't buy Apogee Duettes and Krell amplifier. He also didn't compare the same amps that I did. Had he done so he would hear how different the amplifiers sound and recant his sins. Note that the Audiolab 8000P and Hafler XL600 did *not* sound different from the Krell. You really must abandon all this posturing, and try to come up with some kind of rational defence for your position. A little problem remains though. Let's say Nousaine does get your equipment and still hears no "amplifier sound". You might say (in fact you almost certainly would) that it is well known that speakers of the same manufacture can differ, Not at all. I might simply accept that I have better hearing! :-) However, I would be very surprised if Tom and I did not come up with very similar results if taking part in the same tests. IME, human hearing doesn't have anything like the variation that you guys try to claim. Try the 'hearing tests' on Arny's website, and you'll find a pretty sharp change from 'undectable' to '100% detectable' which is consistent for most listeners. Heck, that's how JJ et al go about *designing* all those nice codecs like AAC and MP3! Sorry no "evidence" to give. Mr. Pinkerton, only opinions. How can I convey to you (and others) that I don't believe any individual has a "test" valid for other individuals for comparing components for their musical qualities. No, Ludovic, your problem is that *no* test will confirm your own prejudices. Just because you *think* that two components should sound different, doesn't mean that they actually do. You believe Duettes allow you to recognise differences? So do lots of other speakers - where there is a *real* difference. There is however *no* speaker which will allow you to hear the difference between two 'audiophile' cables....................... Good for you. But not for me. You're sure your opinion is better than mine? Everybody's opinion is better than everybody else's. They are not testable. Sure they are - you just don't like the results! In no other sphere of life do people talk about a "test" to compare differences- only in this little audio courtyard. I take it that you have never heard of the pharmaceutical industry? -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
Wylie Williams wrote:
Keith, You make a good point. If *you* could prove that *your* products were superior to the others on the market to... Now, now...that's not exactly what I said. You only have to *prove* a difference. Once you establish the difference (not currently accepted by 'skeptics', insofar as rocks, blocks, and wires are concerned at least), you are free to wax rhapsodic about the wonders of your product. You don't have to *prove* any superiority, as at that point, the better/worse debate is strictly one of individual preference. the satisfaction of the skeptics you could open up that market, but I haven't heard of it being done by anyone. As to why I can only speculate: is it that nobody feels their products actually is superior? In the case of "high end" cables, I personally seriously doubt (though claim no evidence in that regard) that most manufacturers really believe any of their own hyperbole. So, certainly, they have no incentive to do such testing. That's the crux of the argument. *If* they were certain their cables were sonically distinguishable from other high-end cables, then proving such could confer a marketing advantage. Yet they have not. They don't think skeptics are enough of a market to justify the time and trouble? While, again, claiming no numerical evidence, I suspect the skeptics are the vast majority of the market. That is not to say, however, that "skeptics" are immune from high pressure sales tactics, and/or marketing technobabble, so I suspect that there is considerable market penetration for a number of these products. OTOH, verifiable evidence of the sonic differences of cables would provide the already "experienced" sales force with a valuable, persuasive, tool for pushing a *specific* product. All we seem to know is that nobody is comparing components with DBTs. Or if they are they are keeping the results very very quiet. Well, the audiophiles I know personally are mostly like me. For example, at a local HiFi Expo, I attended a cable demo put on by Audioquest. In the demo, I was *clearly* able to distinguish between Monster speaker cable, and the high end Audioquest cable. The differences were not subtle either (ring a bell?). These results were, however, inconsistent with my knowledge of electrical theory and solid state physics. So, I did SBT's of interconnects and cables, the same cables observed in the demo, at home in my system. Under SBT conditions, I could distinguish no differences...nada. And yes, I was surprised at how comprehensively my expectations had affected my perceptions (damn! *only* human I guess). So, I use the low end Audioquest speaker cable (cause its flat) and Rat Shack gold interconnects (because they're built better than the el cheapos). However, the amplifier I use for my main system is a Meridian 557. At $2400, it's not cheap, but not exorbitant either. Did I DBT it with an equivalently rated, cheaper amp to see if perhaps a $1K expenditure would have "sufficed"? No. Why? I don't care. I like the way it looks, it's built very well, and does what I need it to. I don't *need* to feel that it's superior to, or different from, a Rotel for e.g., to justify my purchase. It meets my sonic criteria, and other factors/features justify, for me, any 'additional' associated costs. This is why I say that all the 'Audiophiles' I know personally (and I suspect even two or three others) are like me; they buy components *they* like, for a variety of reasons, and don't do any SBT/DBT evaluations. They buy electronics based on the entirety of their features, and usually the "coolest" one they can afford (it *is* a hobby after all). They also don't waste money on exotic cables and interconnects because a) they don't (in our experiences) make any difference, and b) they're hidden away (typically), so Pride of Ownership plays an insignificant role. So, you do not see me posting 'requirements' for DBT'ing components, as some people are fond of claiming that *we* skeptics do, because *I* don't use DBT's, and I don't know anyone who typically does (for selection of personal audio gear). Nor do I make claims about the sonic performance of equipment that I have no data to support. Were I to make such claims, then it would be incumbent on me to perform a series of rigorous tests to support my assertions. Such do I expect from others making claims that are a) unpredicted, or unsupportable by current scientific data/theory, and/or b) contradict commonly understood results or methodologies. Keith Hughes |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech CD-do-something)
"Wylie Williams" wrote in message
news:P8mWa.36590$Ho3.6492@sccrnsc03 You are right, and both camps are right. Much of the enjoyment many audiophiles get from their audio systems is visual and psychological/ emotional: the joy of owning great toys. And that is legitimate. Of course. Their money, their time, their preferences. I'm trying to suggest that part of the conflict is semantic. People who confuse various kinds of experiences in their statements will of course not always be properly understood. The pride of ownership of the new technology, the masculine joy of having a beefy new component, the glow of the tube, the swing of the meter: all these have great sway on many owners. I have no doubt that viewing an impressive looking system would be conducive to believing that it sounds great. IME that's true for a time. Eventually the perception of the glitter becomes routine, and sound quality issues may reassert themselves. This is part of what I mean by referring to the "different places" the enjoyment may reside. There are others: the love of overetched detail, the EQ with the smily face settings, the Bose 901's cranked to max on a Radio Shack receiver, etc. After all the audio system to most of us is a device to create pleasure, not generate scientific datum. Exactly. However there are people, perhaps a great many people, for whom sound quality in the narrow sense is of primary importance. There needs to be some way that they can be communicated with. If yours pleases you have the right one. If it doesn't. it is not the right one, no matter how well it tests. IME that isn't always cast in cement. The knowledge that performance is as good as it can possibly be can also enhance the quality of the experience. |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message . net... Steven Sullivan wrote: Nousaine wrote: To the best of my knowledge the AES has never conducted any kind of test under its banner. There have been presentations of kinds at conventions and an occasional 'exhibit' (such as a cassette tape manufacturer comparing copiers of their cassettes vs the cd source) but those are not "AES" tests. I've examined practically every blind listening test ever published and so far none of them have discovered subjects at the tails of the distribution with scores that were obscured by the total. That's the beauty of statistical analysis; if there are high scoring individuals that occur at a rate greater than those one would expect due to chance alone the overall results will be statistically significant. But, as I've am asked periodically by irritated 'subjectivists', what if *one* person consitently scores 99% correct and all the others score no better than chance? Are you saying something like that's never occurred? Or that it would require more than one such individual in a test, to conclude 'difference'? I've carefully investigated subjects who have taken part in more than one test and have yet to find an individual who appears to have a Golden Ear. How about describing how you went about the "careful investigation". Did you compare their performance on different tests? In absolute? Relative to the means? Did you combine the tests in some fashion? Did you interview the subjects? Inquiring minds want to know. Yes I've watched the scoring of individuals across multiple tests both my individual experiments, PSACS and SMWTMS to find individuals who scored significantly when the overall results were null (found none), who appeared to score more highly in different tests (no long term golden ears) and offered retests for subjects who wanted them (few) or when I asked them or trial extension for subjects who wanted them (one.) A more interesting phenomenon is getting subjects to finish an experiment. When strong proponents find they are unable to easily detect "clearly audible" when nothing more than the pre-knowledge of the equipment playing is withheld they sometimes want to quit. Thus, I typically ask subjects to agree to complete at least 10 trials before they begin and I pay them as well. I have always asked if subjects wanted a retest. Few do. In one case I repeated a test of wires using a different set of equipment where the subject claimed there would be an obvious difference between cheap rcas and his designer cables. Null there too. I think that many subjectivists think that these tests are somehow designed to 'hide' differences when, in fact, they are intended to uncover audible (but, ONLY audible) difference. I'm a professional and a hard core enthusiast. I have no need to hide truly audible difference. Why would I, or anybody, want to do that? But I see no rational reason to insist others accept 'differences' that exist only in the minds of people who can't show they have sonic cause. I want to maximize the sonic quality and throughput of my systems with an optimal deployment of resources. Why not? |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Why DBTs in audio do not deliver (was: Finally ... The Furutech
|
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out? | Car Audio |