Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1481
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message
I would have thought that without that feature of the ABX equipment being utilized, that seriously weakens the generalizability of any null results. It's not always practical or the best idea to let the listener control the switchover points. This is a very simple matter of imparity. The testee/listener won't stand a chance against such equipment. The listener is not in competition with the ABX equipment, if anything he's in competition with the equipment under test. Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add 'additional' variables of its own. That can be determined. What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve by incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the validity of the test ? A more valid test for a given level of effort. How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with regards to its capability to expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect and differentiate subtle sound differences ? Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment, supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking differences that could otherwise be heard. Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch back and forth until they're ready -- which is obviously going to be very time consuming, but I don't see any alternative to doing things whatever way is likely to be most conducive to allowing differences to be detected. I also read and that someone suggested wayy above, You haven't read well enough, it seems. Please don't confuse your lack of familiarity with the relevant facts for limitations on all the ABX tests that have been done. but I don't recall who, that the subject take more time... over a period of day, ... then do a slow switching in hour or days, or just take the whole day for the trial. Then.... while you're at it, .... sit back ! relax ! and enjoy ! Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results harder to do. The obvious problem I see with these of course is that it allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with sighted tests - unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. |
#1482
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message
normanstrong wrote snip It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed "no audible difference" based on the results. It should always be stated as, "Our tests failed to establish an audible difference." Yes! Thank you for accepting that. It's true that human beings are apt to interpret consistent failure to show a difference as indicating that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical failure, not a scientific one. And that is because the test is farrr from scientific. Thank you for that too. What, your grauitous, unscientific claim? |
#1484
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep throwing up engines that aren't British. I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is *not* where good cars are made. Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right. Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family. |
#1485
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... ScottW wrote: and the results? Published in the May 1992, January 1993, September 1993, and August 1994 issues of the magazine. Any of them in the archives. I looked through half the available categories for Aug, '94 and didn't come across anything. I haven't posted these reviews yet. I am slowly working my way backward through the issues. The on-line equipment report archives are 95% complete from the presnt-day back through 1997, but it gets very spotty before 1997. the search tool is kind of lame. I searched May, 1992 in the magazine and got 536 hits. None on the first couple pages were actually May, 1992. That's because the engine interprets the comma as a Boolean "or" operator. To search on the phrase May, 1992 rather than May OR 1992, you need to enclose the string in quotation marks: "May, 1992" John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#1486
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Steven Sullivan wrote: And why, oh why don't you simple *DO SOME 'PROPER' ABX TESTS' if you find the ones *you* know about to be so flawed? I have taken part in several ABX tests over the years, Mr. Sullivan, as well as many other blind, non-ABX tests, some of which produced null results, some of which produced identification. I assume you have also taken part in many DBTs over the years, Mr. Sullivan. Did any of _those_ produce identification of the DUTs? Anybody who wants to identify various kinds of audio products based on DBTs need only visit http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm . Well, no, as has been pointed out to you before, Mr. Krueger, PC-ABX allows the listener to blind-test digitized audio files, not the products themselves. But in any case, why are you answering a direct question asked of Steven Sullivan? As Mr. Sullivan, an impassioned advocate of blind testing, had introduced the subject of listening test experience, it seems reasonable to ask Mr. Sullivan about his own experience? I wait his response with interest, as I will be suprised indeed if his experience of blind tests is as extensive as my own. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#1487
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Steven Sullivan wrote: And why, oh why don't you simple *DO SOME 'PROPER' ABX TESTS' if you find the ones *you* know about to be so flawed? I have taken part in several ABX tests over the years, Mr. Sullivan, as well as many other blind, non-ABX tests, some of which produced null results, some of which produced identification. I assume you have also taken part in many DBTs over the years, Mr. Sullivan. Did any of _those_ produce identification of the DUTs? Anybody who wants to identify various kinds of audio products based on DBTs need only visit http://www.pcabx.com/product/index.htm . Well, no, as has been pointed out to you before, Mr. Krueger, PC-ABX allows the listener to blind-test digitized audio files, not the products themselves. Consier any listening test, which only allows the listener to blind test the sound coming out of loudspeakers in rooms, not the actual signals coming out of the UUTs. The next logical question is to ask which masks more, loudspeakers in rooms, or digital analog - digital converters or speakers in rooms. The answer to that questions seems to be obvious to just about anybody but Mr Atkinson - speakers in rooms are among the mostly horribly masking things in audio. Why, speakers in rooms are so bad that they're almost as bad as microphones in rooms. So there you have it - Atkinson has a fit over relatively innocious things like good analog - digital converters, while hoping he can keep people from properly prioritizing the far larger masking effects of speakers and microphones in rooms. Just in case people don't want to take my comments about the lack of masking effects in good analog - digital converters on faith, I posted http://www.pcabx.com/product/cardd_deluxe/index.htm . This shows the potentialy audible effects of routing musical samples through some good converters, up to 20 times. While Atkinson seems to want to dismiss this rather compelling evidence about how good converters can really be, the test is exact - there's nothing but the converters being tested in the test. Bottom line is that in Atkinson's world view it *must* be that good converters are virtually *guaranteed* to be totally confounding influences in any listening test. After all, his magazine has devoted acres of print to technical tests and poetry about how converter "A" sounds worlds different than converter "B". Back in the real world I suggest that one and all listen for themselves and reach whatever conclusions their ears (and not their eyes) present to their brains. IOW, don't take Stereophile and its stable of commercially-stimulated audio paranoids and poets as sources of gospel truth. Even Atkinson has recently admited here that his magazine is nothing but anecdotes - no science visible or intended. |
#1488
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote I would have thought that without that feature of the ABX equipment being utilized, that seriously weakens the generalizability of any null results. It's not always practical or the best idea to let the listener control the switchover points. This is a very simple matter of imparity. The testee/listener won't stand a chance against such equipment. The listener is not in competition with the ABX equipment, if anything he's in competition with the equipment under test. Then why is the ABX box in between the listener and the DUT ? So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there to justify that it will have no impact on the listener's ability to discern sound differences, right? Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add 'additional' variables of its own. That can be determined. Can you clarify ? What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve by incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the validity of the test ? A more valid test for a given level of effort. Therefore the listener must meet the same level of performance and precision set forth by the ABX equip 'cause if he fail to detect, the resulting data at the end of the experiment will be corroborated by the ABX equip. as legitimate, no? The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision. No guessing, right ? How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with regards to its capability to expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect and differentiate subtle sound differences ? Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment, supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking differences that could otherwise be heard. I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the differences that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking how does the box validly justify itself in exposing the listener ability to detect subtle differences. Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch back and forth until they're ready -- which is obviously going to be very time consuming, but I don't see any alternative to doing things whatever way is likely to be most conducive to allowing differences to be detected. I also read and that someone suggested wayy above, You haven't read well enough, it seems. Please don't confuse your lack of familiarity with the relevant facts for limitations on all the ABX tests that have been done. What are you talking about ? but I don't recall who, that the subject take more time... over a period of day, ... then do a slow switching in hour or days, or just take the whole day for the trial. Then.... while you're at it, .... sit back ! relax ! and enjoy ! Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results harder to do. Good. The obvious problem I see with these of course is that it allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with sighted tests - unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about long term, extended listening comparison under blind test condition. |
#1489
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "ScottW" wrote in message : news:4mVKe.302$Ji.274@lakeread02 : : (1) What is the center frequency of the alleged anamoly? : : (2) What is the bandwidth of the alleged anamoly? : : Yawn. : holy malony what's an alleged anamoly ? maybe jclause can tell Sander can sure as hell wonder oly ? R. |
#1490
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote normanstrong wrote snip It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed "no audible difference" based on the results. It should always be stated as, "Our tests failed to establish an audible difference." Yes! Thank you for accepting that. It's true that human beings are apt to interpret consistent failure to show a difference as indicating that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical failure, not a scientific one. And that is because the test is farrr from scientific. Thank you for that too. What, your grauitous, unscientific claim? Well don't get mad 'cause I think that Rao is now able to get Mr. Norm Strong to recognize that abx/dbt isn't a valid methodology for audiophiles to discern subtle differences. |
#1491
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:40:42 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep throwing up engines that aren't British. I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is *not* where good cars are made. Only reason Cosworth still exists is because of Ford. So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering talent..................... Pukey, I think somebody has pushed your buttons and you're steaming. When you say "good cars", don't you mean cars that you like? Specifically, don't you mean cars that are designed to be fun to drive, responsive rather than cushy? For me to drive, yes. But I include well-made, quiet and comfortable saloons/sedans, such as Lexus make. And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers? That's true of all companies that are still in business. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#1492
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... : "John Atkinson" wrote : in message : : But also, from my experience of having taken part in some : of those tests as : a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to introduce : an element of confusion into the scoring, thus increasing : the possibility of a null result. : : Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia. : hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, there were definite incentives to get the sample size and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration with the limitations of the technically & economically viable solution available in 1980. that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) Rudy nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? |
#1493
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep throwing up engines that aren't British. I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is *not* where good cars are made. Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right. As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting the UK, I'm knocking the US. Let's remind people why it's good to be a two Jaguar family. They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques they got from Mazda. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#1494
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said: So what? The US has plenty of cash, just not much engineering talent..................... And isn't it true that the characteristics of cars made by American companies are determined by marketers and accountants, not by engineers? That's true of all companies that are still in business. Thank you for recanting your previous stupid claim. |
#1495
|
|||
|
|||
Stewart Pinkerton said: They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques they got from Mazda. Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation? |
#1496
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep throwing up engines that aren't British. I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is *not* where good cars are made. Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right. As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting the UK, I'm knocking the US. And what YOU fail to understand is the fact that I'm not defending US cars here but knocking British cars, many of which historically are cute little cars that you pray start in the morning (but see below). What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance (as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes, I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one would hardly call "cutting edge performance"). Having said all that, I think that the US car segment is seriously out-of-whack and only recently has actually tried to market some interesting and capable cars. It's pretty easy to take a mid 70s Arny-era Chrysler product and hold it up to ridicule. Heck, I'll even play that game. Corinthian leather indeed. One of my favorite days in the UK was visiting Malvern Link. It was fun watching tinsmiths banging away at fenders and seeing row after row of ash (?) frames just waiting for their Rover engines...a marvelous day walking through the factory. |
#1497
|
|||
|
|||
"Per Stromgren" wrote in message ... Scott W: Thats fine I guess... I don't find blind speaker tests all that interesting Why? I think that blind testing of loudspeakers does a lot of good. I have seen large speakers lack in the bass when listened to blind, but sounding very heavy when seen. Try blind speaker tesing, if you happen to have two sets of speakers that can be moved to one room and set up with some cloth between you and the speakers. Or even simpler, turn your back to the speakers! Granted, you lose some highs and imaging in the latter case, but the difference in the sound of the speakers comes through fine. I'm always surprised at the unwillingness of audio professionals to comment on the sound of speakers whose identity they do not know. One might think that being able to listen to a variety of program material over a significant length of time would be sufficient to allow an evaluation of an unknown speaker. Apparently not. I'm unaware of it ever being done. Wine connoisseurs can tell you a lot about a wine from simply tasting it. Audio experts can't even tell you if a speaker is cheap or expensive until they see the beast. Norm Strong |
#1498
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
"jclause" wrote in message In article , says... "jclause" wrote in message This may be of interest. I once owned an Audio Research SP-8 preamp, and a "magic brick". It was felt the brick made a slight difference - nothing dramatic - when placed on the SP-8 in sighted listening. A friend had a brand x of about the same cost. We compared the two (sighted comparison)and there was no question but what brand X was "warmer" and "had more ambience". Now we placed the magic brick on brand X and felt sure it was now doing its "thing" and making a difference. Investigation showed the SP-8 to have a much smaller circuit board for the RIAA phono stage, in fact brand X had one large board about 7x14 inches with all the circuitry on that one board except a cut-out in one corner for the power transformer. The board was flexible, and we suspected the input tubes were acting as microphones and creating "ambience" from the delayed sound waves vibrating them. We staunched up the board, listened and that "warm" and ambient sound was no longer there in comparison with the SP-8. The boards on both preamps were then braced and damping placed around the tubes themselves, and we then felt the SP-8 had a little more detail (sighted listening again). Both however sounded good and we were both content with our preamps. Now a question.. would ABX or tests into a dummy load have shown up the difference? That there was an audible difference, is a speculative hypothesis, not a fact. That the audible difference was due to microphonics is a speculative hypothesis, not a fact. How deep do you want to stack your speculative hypotheses? Are you implying the effect of a microphonic tube is not audible? It all depends. On what? Also your lack of reply to the question is noted. No reasonable question has been asked. The question rephrased: Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration to a microphonic tube? JC the elder |
#1499
|
|||
|
|||
"jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased: Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration to a microphonic tube? No... the test does not. Exposing a tube to acoustic vibration can but this would happen in the course of normal use & a test. If you want to insure microphonics aren't at play with your amp in a test, you either seperate the amp and speakers or use a simulated load and headphones. I suggest the former. ScottW |
#1501
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:30:58 -0700, normanstrong wrote:
snip I'm always surprised at the unwillingness of audio professionals to comment on the sound of speakers whose identity they do not know. One might think that being able to listen to a variety of program material over a significant length of time would be sufficient to allow an evaluation of an unknown speaker. Apparently not. I'm unaware of it ever being done. Wine connoisseurs can tell you a lot about a wine from simply tasting it. Audio experts can't even tell you if a speaker is cheap or expensive until they see the beast. Probably because the correlation between price and sound quality is so weak. The price is more down to branding. /Martin |
#1502
|
|||
|
|||
ScottW wrote: How many times has your test data showed some rather significant shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised? Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews. But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for publication. When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it? John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#1503
|
|||
|
|||
"jclause" wrote in message ... In article o9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02, says... "jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased: Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration to a microphonic tube? No... the test does not. Then the ABX test could be misleading, especially to someone with a tube preamp, who was unaware of the test's limitation. Unless of course AK has noted this limitation on his web site. We have often pointed out the potential for masking in the listeners playback system. Arny points to listener training tools to certify the playback system as transparent. I don't think that is sufficiently comprehensive myself. ScottW |
#1504
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... ScottW wrote: How many times has your test data showed some rather significant shortcomings in a product that the reviewer praised? Not that often, but here are two examples in the August issue of Stereophile, our Tetra loudspeaker and Cyberlight cable reviews. But my standing instruction to my writers is to report what they hear regardless of what the measurements might subsequently show. I am interested in their honest reaction to the sound, not what they think they ought to hear, which is also why they don't see the measurements until _after_ they have submitted their reports for publication. When there is a conflict, the question then becomes: did they hear what they heard _because_ of the measured performance or _despite_ it? I recognize ABX speakers is a bit of a task.... but the cables present a perfect opportunity to at least validate there is some audible difference against a standard which measurements may explain. More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible differences for which measurements cannot explain. Alas.. the lack of reviewers routinely conducting such tests will leave that opportunity missed ScottW |
#1505
|
|||
|
|||
In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02,
"ScottW" wrote: More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible differences for which measurements cannot explain. Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is impossible. |
#1506
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message ... In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02, "ScottW" wrote: More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible differences for which measurements cannot explain. Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is impossible. I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect. ScottW |
#1507
|
|||
|
|||
FantasyBorg accidentally impales himself. Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is impossible. I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect. That's not what Nousiane and Krooger say. Are you trying to get yourself branded as an apostate? |
#1508
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote The listener is not in competition with the ABX equipment, if anything he's in competition with the equipment under test. Then why is the ABX box in between the listener and the DUT ? ABX boxes facilitate blind tests. Sighted tests are often totally invalid. So if the listener fail to detect, the ABX box is there to justify that it will have no impact on the listener's ability to discern sound differences, right? No. If the listener fails to detect it could well be that there is nothing to detect. ABX box is there to help ensure that the listener isn't just reported his prejudices and biases. Assuming of course that the equip. does not again add 'additional' variables of its own. That can be determined. Can you clarify ? Sure, which equipment are you talking about? What is the objective that the proctor wish to achieve by incorporating such ABX equipment with regards to the validity of the test ? A more valid test for a given level of effort. Therefore the listener must meet the same level of performance and precision set forth by the ABX equipment,. No, the listener must meet his own standard for his personal best. 'cause if he fail to detect, the resulting data at the end of the experiment will be corroborated by the ABX equip. as legitimate, no? Its the corroboration of the listener's responses by the ABX equipment that tells us whether the listener's responses are legitimate or just random guessing. The listener must be absolutely precise in his decision. No guessing, right ? If the listener is just guessing, then the ABX equipment will help identify that. How does abx equip. 'validly justify' itself with regards to its capability to expose whether or not, the listener is able to detect and differentiate subtle sound differences ? Certainly tests done without ABX equipment, that duplicate the results of tests done with ABX equipment, supports the idea that the equipment isn't masking differences that could otherwise be heard. I'm not asking whether the ABX box is masking the differences that otherwise could be heard, I'm asking how does the box validly justify itself in exposing the listener ability to detect subtle differences. The box is a simple mechanism with a simple function. If it executes that simple function properly, then it will expose whether or not the listener is detecting subtle differences. Whether or not the box is executing its simple function can be determined by doing a test whose outcome is obvious, such as when one of the two pieces of equipment being compared is turned off and not responding at all. Let the subject have as long as is needed to make a judgment and have unlimited opportunities to switch back and forth until they're ready -- which is obviously going to be very time consuming, but I don't see any alternative to doing things whatever way is likely to be most conducive to allowing differences to be detected. but I don't recall who, that the subject take more time... over a period of day, ... then do a slow switching in hour or days, or just take the whole day for the trial. Then.... while you're at it, .... sit back ! relax ! and enjoy ! Been there, done that. It's doesn't help, if anything it makes obtaining the most sensitive possible results harder to do. Good. The obvious problem I see with these of course is that it allow it to introduce another unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. Yes, those are very serious unsolvable problems with sighted tests - unacceptable variables which are -- personal preferences and biases. We're not talking about sighted test, we're talkin about long term, extended listening comparison under blind test condition. Then the listener's personal preferences and biases are removed as influenced in the test by the proper use of the ABX box to do a blind test. |
#1509
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Stewart Pinkerton said: They're OK now that they're made by Ford using production techniques they got from Mazda. Are you praising Mazda, knocking Ford, or some other permutation? LOL! Sounds like Stoopi is on crystal meth these days. Cheers, Margaret |
#1510
|
|||
|
|||
"Ruud Broens" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "John Atkinson" wrote in message But also, from my experience of having taken part in some of those tests as a listener, it is because the proctor wanted to introduce an element of confusion into the scoring, thus increasing the possibility of a null result. Yet another example of Atkinson's paranoia. hmm. clearly, in the case of establishing the CD format, there were definite incentives to get the sample size and rate as low as possible: to get an adequate duration with the limitations of the technically & economically viable solution available in 1980. that's not an opinion, but a fact :-) Rudy nb Philips originally wanted to settle on a 14 bit linear coded format. Sony upped that to 16....come on, 14 bits ?? who are ya kiddin? Listening tests ??? You can do listening tests comparing 14 bits to 16 bits using files you can freely download at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/bits44/index.htm You can do listening tests comparing "24 bit" to 16 bit recordings using files you can freely download at http://www.pcabx.com/technical/sample_rates/index.htm |
#1511
|
|||
|
|||
"EddieM" wrote in message
Arny Krueger wrote EddieM wrote normanstrong wrote snip It's a mistake to claim that a double-blind test showed "no audible difference" based on the results. It should always be stated as, "Our tests failed to establish an audible difference." Yes! Thank you for accepting that. It's true that human beings are apt to interpret consistent failure to show a difference as indicating that a difference doesn't exist, but that's a logical failure, not a scientific one. And that is because the test is farrr from scientific. Thank you for that too. What, your grauitous, unscientific claim? Well don't get mad 'cause I think that Rao is now able to get Mr. Norm Strong to recognize that abx/dbt isn't a valid methodology for audiophiles to discern subtle differences. No such thing. |
#1512
|
|||
|
|||
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article OCtLe.396$Ji.327@lakeread02, "ScottW" wrote: More interesting... over time there may come an example of audible differences for which measurements cannot explain. Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is impossible. Atkinson routines claims to do the impossible. Trouble is, its impossible to get him to support his claims in a meaningful way. |
#1513
|
|||
|
|||
"jclause" wrote in message
The question rephrased: Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration to a microphonic tube? It can. |
#1514
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message
news9sLe.386$Ji.29@lakeread02 "jclause" wrote in message The question rephrased: Does your ABX test as now being done cause vibration to a microphonic tube? No... the test does not. It does if you want it to. |
#1515
|
|||
|
|||
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message FantasyBorg accidentally impales himself. Of course, we've been told here (or was it rahe?) that this is impossible. I consider it unlikely... but no test regimen is perfect. That's not what Nousiane and Krooger say. Just another case of Middius lying out the back of his neck. yawn. |
#1516
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message news On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 15:59:12 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 07:06:01 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: I find it amusing that you want to get all nationalist on this but keep throwing up engines that aren't British. I'm not being nationalist at all, except in the sense that the US is *not* where good cars are made. Yeah, the Brits are known for THEIR reliable cars. Right. As I said, but as usual you failed to comprehend, I'm not supporting the UK, I'm knocking the US. And what YOU fail to understand is the fact that I'm not defending US cars here but knocking British cars, many of which historically are cute little cars that you pray start in the morning (but see below). What you also fail to take into account is the more benign usage and environmental conditions that European cars are subject to (in an overall sense) as opposed to American cars. American cars in general aren't as "edgy" as their European counterparts, partly because America (ironically, I think) has taken the lead in being strict on emissions standards, which robs an engine of its maximum performance (as well as mandating sometimes ridiculous "safety standards" which adds weight and bulk to the car. I'm referring mostly to those over-the-top body prodection requirements of the 70s - 90s). They also have to be designed to extreme usage in a wide variety of environmental conditions and long-term mileage requirements (and yes, I'm aware of Volvo's reputation in this regard - another line that one would hardly call "cutting edge performance"). Well they do have a 4WD wagon with 2.5 liter inline 5 that produces 300 hp which incidentally amounts to more per liter than the BMW and Audi Pinkerton was blathering about. I drove one most of last winter in arctic conditions and it performed flawlessly and looked good with the best seats of any car I've ever been in. I've never felt so secure on slippery roads despite the tremendous power. If only it hadn't been an ugly "seafoam" green. |
#1518
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:34:31 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:00:38 GMT, (paul packer) wrote: On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 21:43:31 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Indeed - we generally sent the dregs off to the colonies, as is now obvious to all..... Aussies listening in. Taking offence. Getting cranky. Invasion of RAO by aus.hi-fi imminent...... Sorry mate, it's simply not *possible* to offend an okker........ Please explain. And that's "ocker", incidentally. Of which I'm not one. |
#1519
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:47:33 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: I do have certain knowledge that aBxism is a cure for a nonexistent disease, and one of shockingly poor efficacy at that. Hang on, George. If the disease doesn't exist how can anything be efficacious? Good point to bring out on. Allow me to clarify more clearly: aBxism is not a cure, it's an affliction. Its true purpose (undisclosed publicly, but apparent upon close inspection) is to suborn Normals into Hive-think. Once subsumed, an assimilee will begin to make "logical" claims like "it can't sound better because it costs more" and "that company advertises so we all know they're corrupt". Since the true purpose of aBxism is to aid in assimilation, one should judge its efficacy based on its track record. There is a record of only one successful assimilation as a result of the aBxism torture rituals. And that individual fits nobody's definition of success. I confess I have a veritable hive of confusions about this whole ABX thing. Firstly, I don't understand why A/Bing never seems to show up any but the grossest differences; I only know it doesn't. How do I know that? Because I only have to play one 5 minute track off any CD through the two components in question to easily perceive the difference--the difference that was not at all apparent on A/B switching. Which brings me to my next confusion: how do the proponents of A/Bing explain this phenomenon? Do they ever move on to Step 2, and if so, and assuming they actually hear a difference, do they then say, "This must be imagined, or it would have shown up on A/Bing". Also, how do they explain electronic design? I mean, if one amp is designed one way, fastidiously using the best components, and another uses any old components in a nevertheless competent fashion to arrive at similar distortion and noise figures, are the A/Bers saying there cannot be any audible difference given the figures, and if so, then what is the point of manufacturers making top grade components like Black Gate etc, or audio designers attempting to achieve the best sound BEYOND the noise and distortion figures? Or is that all audiophool mumbo jumbo? For myself I'm a cheapskate. I'd prefer to believe that the cheapest items are as good as the other sort given similar specs; unfortunately my ears too often, though not always, tell me otherwise. I know all this has been thrashed out ad nauseam here and elsewhere, but I'm still confused as to what the A/Bers actually hear when they play a favourite track first on a $200 amp and then on a $2000 one. I don't understand, above all, how this debate ever arose in the first place, or what currently sustains it when the evidence is clear. |
#1520
|
|||
|
|||
"Margaret von B." wrote in message ... I appreciate you keeping Arny on a leash. Thank you, John! Leash or not, one still can't control where ARny will drop his turds. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? | Audio Opinions | |||
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question | Tech | |||
Yet another DBT post | High End Audio | |||
Run Rabbit Run | Vacuum Tubes |