Home Menu

Menu


AudioBanter.com » rec.audio » Tech > What's all this gum-beating about "tests"?
Reply
Page 9 of 44 « First 2345678 9 1011121314151619 Last »
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:38 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Basically, if someone like Howard says that he can't tell the
difference between amps, I'm inclined to believe him, but this doesn't
mean that a. his bias isn't influencing this (and this should be
tested) and b. that just because HE'S not able to hear differences
means that this is applicable to anyone else. If you take b at face
value, it simply reflects on his competency.

OK - but you need a metric. What degree of difference constitutes a
sufficient difference that a competent listener would tell them apart?
All I can see in your proposals is problems of a fundamentally
practical nature.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #322   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:24:23 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:18:49 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:47:10 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

You haven't followed. The people undergoing these tests are never the
people who carry the "amps=amps" kind of bias. They are always the
people who swear night and day differences. So while what you say is
undoubtedly true, it never applies.

That's why I suggest testing the acuity of those *other* people. The
"amps=amps" peeps.

What would you suggest for an acuity test - for anybody, that is, not
necessarily an "amps=amps" person? Remember that acuity in one audio
parameter doesn't necessarily promise acuity in another.

I'm speaking of those type of people specifically.

This is why the DBT should only be carried out on those claiming to
hear a difference - they are claiming acuity in advance of the test.


Who knows, perhaps their bias isn't strong enough to keep them from
being fooled. Without testing, who knows?

But again, what sort of test?

I already outlined such a test. I think that you might prove someone
incapable of telling the difference even when there IS a difference,
because their bias overwhelms them.

I think it's a valid concern worth addressing. Or do you think that
sighted bias is the only bias out there?


Well, this is the problem with words like bias. I can understand a
bias generated by advance knowledge of what you are listening to, but
what possible bias can come from the lack of that knowledge?

The bias that I'm talking about is a bias that "amps=amps"
overwhelming the actual ability to make the distinction between the
two, even if there IS an audible difference. Howard gave an example of
this bias overwhelming a dbt, when he talked about simply randomly
giving answers before the trials were finished.

There is
no information to generate a bias. It just doesn't make any sense.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about a bias that predisposes someone
to hear no differences. That's what should be testing, using a bit of
misdirection. It's still a blind test after all. If someone claims
that SETs have audible flaws, they should be able to identify such an
amp, even if they are unaware that it's inserted into the test,
wouldn't you say?]

Finally, note I'm not saying that Howard (or Stewart) would fail such
a test. I'm just saying it's a definite possibility that should be
tested for.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #324   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Fella" wrote in message


I woudn't be too sure about this. I don't think these
borgs
*know* just what to measure and how to measure it yet.

We know what to measure and how to measure and what to
listen for and how to listen far better than you, Fella.

You're still mucking around with sighted evaluations for
very small differences, Fella - you failed a very important
IQ test!


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #325   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Fella" wrote in message



I woudn't be too sure about this. I don't think these

borgs

*know* just what to measure and how to measure it yet.


We know what to measure and how to measure and what to
listen for and how to listen far better than you, Fella.

You're still mucking around with sighted evaluations for
very small differences, Fella - you failed a very important
IQ test!



I am not up to your higher standarts eh then arny? Ok.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #326   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:21:55 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:24:23 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:18:49 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:47:10 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

What Dave is saying is that with sighte listening there is this bias,
since you *know* what you are listening. OTOH, there is also, at lest
with some people, the amps=amps kind of *bias* and this one needs to be
adressed too. As *that* bias *also* alters ones perceptions.

You haven't followed. The people undergoing these tests are never the
people who carry the "amps=amps" kind of bias. They are always the
people who swear night and day differences. So while what you say is
undoubtedly true, it never applies.

That's why I suggest testing the acuity of those *other* people. The
"amps=amps" peeps.

What would you suggest for an acuity test - for anybody, that is, not
necessarily an "amps=amps" person? Remember that acuity in one audio
parameter doesn't necessarily promise acuity in another.

I'm speaking of those type of people specifically.

This is why the DBT should only be carried out on those claiming to
hear a difference - they are claiming acuity in advance of the test.


Who knows, perhaps their bias isn't strong enough to keep them from
being fooled. Without testing, who knows?

But again, what sort of test?

I already outlined such a test. I think that you might prove someone
incapable of telling the difference even when there IS a difference,
because their bias overwhelms them.

I think it's a valid concern worth addressing. Or do you think that
sighted bias is the only bias out there?


Well, this is the problem with words like bias. I can understand a
bias generated by advance knowledge of what you are listening to, but
what possible bias can come from the lack of that knowledge?

The bias that I'm talking about is a bias that "amps=amps"
overwhelming the actual ability to make the distinction between the
two, even if there IS an audible difference. Howard gave an example of
this bias overwhelming a dbt, when he talked about simply randomly
giving answers before the trials were finished.

There is
no information to generate a bias. It just doesn't make any sense.

You misunderstand. I'm talking about a bias that predisposes someone
to hear no differences. That's what should be testing, using a bit of
misdirection. It's still a blind test after all. If someone claims
that SETs have audible flaws, they should be able to identify such an
amp, even if they are unaware that it's inserted into the test,
wouldn't you say?]

Finally, note I'm not saying that Howard (or Stewart) would fail such
a test. I'm just saying it's a definite possibility that should be
tested for.

Look, for the last time - there is absolutely no point in subjecting
"they sound the same" person to a DBT. There is no incentive to hear a
difference, so they will not hear a difference.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #328   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:25:40 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:30:56 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:25:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Mr. Pinkerton talks about someone inserting a tampered-with wire into
a wire test in order to win his bet. Wouldn't it be interesting if
someone inserted such a wire on a blind test that HE was taking, and
he couldn't hear the difference?

No - it would say nothing apart from the fact that the change
introduced by the wire was below the threshold of audibility. There is
no further conclusion you can draw unless you do a further DBT with
somebody else who *can* reliably discern a difference.

That is a given that audibility would either be claimed or verified by
someone else. I'm talking about inserting a wire that he has already
claimed WOULD be audible (go back and read his comment about a wire
that's down 3 dB at 10k). One could EASILY design a wire that most
people would find different, and yet I wonder if, absent the knowledge
that such a wire is inserted, a person might have his or her bias
overwhelm the ability to detect differences when they *think* that
there are none.

Maybe Stewart wouldn't be tricked. But maybe he would. I suspect that
his bias would kick in.

Stewart wasn't claiming that the trick wire would be audible to him.
He was saying that he would not accept a trick wire that *might* (or
might not) be audible to the triallist. Not the same thing at all.

What he can or cannot hear has no relevance at all when he is offering
blind tests to anybody who claims that *they* can hear a difference.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #329   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:39:09 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:21:00 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:38 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Basically, if someone like Howard says that he can't tell the
difference between amps, I'm inclined to believe him, but this doesn't
mean that a. his bias isn't influencing this (and this should be
tested) and b. that just because HE'S not able to hear differences
means that this is applicable to anyone else. If you take b at face
value, it simply reflects on his competency.

OK - but you need a metric. What degree of difference constitutes a
sufficient difference that a competent listener would tell them apart?
All I can see in your proposals is problems of a fundamentally
practical nature.

Someone has already GIVEN a metric - Howard himself. He claims that
SETs are "defective" and "audibly different" (Stewart has said as much
as well) Also, it would be easy to design a "cripple mod" that would
provide a pretty agreeable level of audible difference. Heck, all one
would have to do is insert an EQ to create an "audible" FR anomoly.
And that audibilty *could* be pretested with someone aware of the
anomoly.

Yup - you keep making there statements about how easy it would be to
make a degree of difference that is "agreeable", but what on earth
does that mean? How much difference, and agreeable to whom? Here's an
idea - design a bunch of equalizers with different degrees of effect.
Now let Stewart blind test them so he can find the smallest one that
he can discriminate every time according to his test protocol. Would
that do?
Can you really not see the fundamental problems with your proposals?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #332   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:43:19 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:39:09 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:21:00 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:38 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Basically, if someone like Howard says that he can't tell the
difference between amps, I'm inclined to believe him, but this doesn't
mean that a. his bias isn't influencing this (and this should be
tested) and b. that just because HE'S not able to hear differences
means that this is applicable to anyone else. If you take b at face
value, it simply reflects on his competency.

OK - but you need a metric. What degree of difference constitutes a
sufficient difference that a competent listener would tell them apart?
All I can see in your proposals is problems of a fundamentally
practical nature.

Someone has already GIVEN a metric - Howard himself. He claims that
SETs are "defective" and "audibly different" (Stewart has said as much
as well) Also, it would be easy to design a "cripple mod" that would
provide a pretty agreeable level of audible difference. Heck, all one
would have to do is insert an EQ to create an "audible" FR anomoly.
And that audibilty *could* be pretested with someone aware of the
anomoly.

Yup - you keep making there statements about how easy it would be to
make a degree of difference that is "agreeable", but what on earth
does that mean? How much difference, and agreeable to whom? Here's an
idea - design a bunch of equalizers with different degrees of effect.
Now let Stewart blind test them so he can find the smallest one that
he can discriminate every time according to his test protocol. Would
that do?

Sure. Then a year later, secretly insert such an anomoly during a test
where he isn't aware that it's affecting the signal.

Can you really not see the fundamental problems with your proposals?

I understand what you're saying. What YOU don't seem to understand is
that there's a way to test this idea that a predisposed bias might
overwhelm someone's ability to support a "no difference" claim. If
they can't tell the difference between items that are shown to be
audibly different, then their first claim is meaningless. The thing
is, they have to be unaware of the different component. It's just a
"trickier" blind test, that's all.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #333   Report Post  
Don Pearce
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:51:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Yup - you keep making there statements about how easy it would be to
make a degree of difference that is "agreeable", but what on earth
does that mean? How much difference, and agreeable to whom? Here's an
idea - design a bunch of equalizers with different degrees of effect.
Now let Stewart blind test them so he can find the smallest one that
he can discriminate every time according to his test protocol. Would
that do?

Sure. Then a year later, secretly insert such an anomoly during a test
where he isn't aware that it's affecting the signal.

Can you really not see the fundamental problems with your proposals?

I understand what you're saying. What YOU don't seem to understand is
that there's a way to test this idea that a predisposed bias might
overwhelm someone's ability to support a "no difference" claim. If
they can't tell the difference between items that are shown to be
audibly different, then their first claim is meaningless. The thing
is, they have to be unaware of the different component. It's just a
"trickier" blind test, that's all.

But you keep proposing to test the wrong person. Stewart has nothing
to test. If he fails to discern a difference - who cares?

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #339   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:18:32 +0300, Fella wrote:


Send an email to you puke. Let's arrange the
details.

Why do you need to hide in email?



Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:10:42 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:55:52 +0300, Fella wrote:



Sorry - your tone is just far too rude for me to join this one. If you
can't be even a little civilized, I'm not interested.

Oh my! A fourth item to the list: I need to learn some manners too I
guess.

Here is a copy-paste of the ORIGINAL post, Mr Pearce, no cuss words
there, dig in:

-------------------------------------------------------------


Fella Jan 19, 8:25 am
Newsgroups: rec.audio.opinion
From: Fella -
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:25:56 +0200
Local: Wed,Jan 19 2005 8:25 am
Subject: James Randi: "Wire is not wire. I accept that."

I sent this email to: '

"Greetings,

I am an "audio quack" as you would put it. I can hear sonic differences
between amplifiers, CD players, even WIRE, speaker wire. Is your
challenge applicable to, for instance, speaker cables?


Mine certainly is - indeed, it's specifically *for* cables.


The self made
speaker cables I am currently using (you are free to measure and examine
these using pink noise, etc, prior to putting them to the test) against
radioshack lamp cords. I am claiming that I can hear the difference as
to which is employed each and every time. Since "wire is wire" this must
fall into the realm of your challenge.


No problem. Care to make it interesting by putting your own money
where your fat mouth is?


I do have my reservations though:

!) A revealing amplifier (densen beat b 100 mk5, for instance), high
quality speakers (sonus faber cremona floorstanders for instance) and a
decent CD player will be used to conduct the test.


No problem. And you can use any music you like, and any volume level
you like.


!!) No abx comparator boxes in between, the wires should be interchanged
manually.


No problem.


!!!) Someone I trust (but of course I will not have any sort of eye
contact, or any form of other contact with him/her duration of the test)
to actually observe that the wires are being changed (or not) and the
data recorded"


No problem, a third-party proctor acceptable to both parties is a
standard part of the deal.


James Randi replied that:

"There are big differences between lamp cord and larger-gauge cable.
That's not the question, at all. Wire is not wire. I accept that."

More on "challenging the million dollar challenge" later. This post,
on a FYI basis.


Randi failed to stipulate one simple condition - regardless of the
nature of the two cables, they must provide the same voltage level at
the speaker terminals +/- 0.1dB at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz. No problem
for me to match any 'audiophile' cable of your choice in that regard,
with a few feet of cheap 'zipcord' and perhaps a few pennies worth of
capacitors for the really bizarre stuff like MIT and Transparent
cables with the 'network boxes'.


--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #340   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:50:01 +0300, Fella wrote:

I am going through rounds of comparing amps these days arny. The last
one I matched up against the densen was this audio analouge sentata
whatever pretentious amp. Looked WAYYY better then the densen but
*still* I didn't like the sound. It too sounded larger-then-life.
Especially in the midrange. It had slow, blubbering bass. It had almost
no control over my sonus fabers. Now, in an ABX all these differences
would not be heard.

Of course not - because they DO NOT EXIST. Jeez, you're stupid.

In *no* field of knowledge or expertise has the last word been said. We
*constantly* work and strive for the better and find out more and do
research, etc.

That's right. That's why DBT comparisons continue to be used by the
major audio manufacturers.

But you two-bit internet clowns act like the last word
*has* been said in audio design and testing, and that it is *you*
clowns, and no one else, knows that last word. AMAZING! Truly AMAZING
arrogance!

Not at all, simply acknowledging that sighted comparisons are easily
dismissed as utterly worthless, and quick-switched DBTs are *proven*
to be the most sensitive measures for *real* sonic difference. The
fact that *you* are so incredibly stupid as to ignore all this is not
*our* problem.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #341   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 17:25:39 +0300, Fella wrote:

dave weil wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

And yet, you all refuse to believe the results of the only comparisons
which *remove* expectation bias. Funny that the results of these tests
remain the same for all sections of the audience, from total skeptic
to true believer.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #344   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:11:00 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:28:48 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:23:12 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

And "sighted bias" isn't the only bias worth exposing. The bias of
"wire=wire" and "amps=amps" is worth exposing as well, even if it
means using "deception" to accomplish it.

How do you mean? In all the proposed tests, the subject who has said
they are different is given absolutely everything he wants by way of
test material and environment apart from the information of what he is
listening to. Could the test be any further swung in favour of hearing
a real difference?

What deception do you see here?

I was talking about using "deception" to uncover the "everything
sounds the same" bias using a test outline that you pooh-poohed.

The trouble is that this 'bias' is the result of conducting many tests
where I was indeed expecting that there *would* be a difference. The
surprise to me - and to the other listeners in the first few blind
tests I took part in - was that where I had heard 'night and day'
differences sighted, these differences mysteriously vanished when I
didn't *know* what was playing. Through the years, I've discovered
that this rule appears to apply to everyone.

Let me ask you something - if someone claimed that there were no
differences but was found to still claim no differences even when
there were demonstratable differences, wouldn't this cast doubt on
their original claim?

Yes, but it's not going to happen, because those who claim no
difference actually were expecting to hear differences - otherwise
they wouldn't have bothered with the test.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #345   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:24:22 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:00:55 +0300, Fella wrote:


Don Pearce wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 15:24:45 +0300, Fella wrote:



Don Pearce wrote:



Exactly. If a listener claims to hear a difference, we must presume he
has the ability to hear that difference - we must take that for
granted. When we do the DBT on that claim, we are testing whether what
he hears is an audible difference, or a psychosomatically generated
internal difference based on sighted bias

"psychosomatically generated internal difference based on sighted bias"
you say.. Is there any academic paper, study, book, etc, that examines
whether or not such a phenomenon exist (in the *audio* realm!). Or is
this "bias" the invention of the borg?

I *see* something and it affects how I hear it.. Hmmm.. No wonder they
make those high-end gear so good looking.


Never mind academic papers,


Just beleive you me, eh, Mr. Pearce? Sure. Never mind academic papers,
science says that you shouldn't beleive what you hear if you see it. Ok.


Academic papers are not written about the bleedin' obvious!


Ofcourse they are! Are you now claiming to stipulate what and what not
academic papers are written about!!? You piece of arrogant, brown, 60
year old disgusting ****!

I'm not stipulating, I'm stating a fact. Ever read any academic
journals? Ever seen an article discussing the possibility of the Moon
being made of green cheese, or even that all wires sound the same?

The man comes in blazin guns about "psychosomatically generated internal
difference based on sighted bias" as if it grows on trees!

As ever, you are confused. That was someone else.

experience it for yourself


Been there, done that. I did quite a few amp abx tests. Amps that
sounded HUGELY different in the real world sounded confusingly similar
when subjected to an ABX. I, in a sincere manner, relayed my
observations to RAO also.

That's because what you hear in an ABX test *is* the real world. What
you *think* you hear in a sighted comparison is mostly happening
*inside* your head.

In the *real* world music lovers use amps on a variety of volume levels,
in a variety rooms, with varying speakers of reactionary loads.

Indeed they do - so what?

So decide which one is the real world you piece of pukey ****. DECIDE!
First you puke that ABX "*is*" the real world and then "indeed they
do".. You demented piece of crap. Is it an ABX test premise or music
lovers using amps on a variety of volume levels, in a variety rooms,
with varying speakers of reactionary loads, *WHICH* is the real WORLD!?!!!

An ABX test can be conducted in any room, with any speaker, and with
varying volume levels. You're the one living in a fantasy world, you
cretin.

I don't eat with my eyes closed, I don't ski with my eyes closed, I
don't drink wine with my eyes closed so WHY THE **** SHOULD I LISTEN TO
MY MUSIC WITH MY EYES CLOSED!?!?!

Many music lovers do - it helps you to focus on the sound. However,
anyone with a functioning brain knows that this is not the meaning of
a blind test.

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

So long as you don't care about reality..............

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #347   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 10:37:11 +0300, Fella wrote:

LOOK YOU PUKEY PIECE OF ****! I AM READY ANYTIME TO TAKE WHATEVER
TWO-BIT CHALLENGE YOU HAVE. YES I CAN PUT MY OWN MONEY ON THIS. AND YES
I HAVE DONE BLIND TESTING WITH CABLES AGAINST MY (EVEN SOME OF THE
HIG-END STUFF) CABLES.

Fine, so let's discuss the details. BTW, your caps lock key appears to
be stuck.

ITS JUST THAT IF YOU DON'T BEHAVE I'LL KICK YOUR 60 YEAR OLD BUTT BEFORE
AND AFTER THE TEST ALSO. SO BEHAVE YOU COCKSUCKER!

You can try, but I've found that a fat mouth like yours usually
shrivels up when face to face with reality.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #348   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

So long as you don't care about reality..............

Guess you're not familiar with the concept of gestalt.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #349   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

So long as you don't care about reality..............

Guess you're not familiar with the concept of gestalt.

It doesn't fit into 'his' reality.



----== 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 With QuoteReply With Quote
  #350   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:39:09 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:21:00 GMT,
(Don
Pearce) wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:14:38 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

Basically, if someone like Howard says that he can't
tell
the difference between amps, I'm inclined to believe
him,
but this doesn't mean that a. his bias isn't
influencing
this (and this should be tested) and b. that just
because
HE'S not able to hear differences means that this is
applicable to anyone else. If you take b at face value,
it
simply reflects on his competency.

OK - but you need a metric. What degree of difference
constitutes a sufficient difference that a competent
listener would tell them apart? All I can see in your
proposals is problems of a fundamentally practical
nature.

Someone has already GIVEN a metric - Howard himself. He
claims that SETs are "defective" and "audibly different"
(Stewart has said as much as well) Also, it would be easy
to
design a "cripple mod" that would provide a pretty
agreeable
level of audible difference. Heck, all one would have to
do
is insert an EQ to create an "audible" FR anomoly. And
that
audibilty *could* be pretested with someone aware of the
anomoly.

Arny has a set of such graded differences on his PCABX
website. You mean you've never tested your own acuity with
them?

Of course not. Middius would never allow Weil to do that.


Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #352   Report Post  
Fella
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:50:01 +0300, Fella wrote:


I am going through rounds of comparing amps these days arny. The last
one I matched up against the densen was this audio analouge sentata
whatever pretentious amp. Looked WAYYY better then the densen but
*still* I didn't like the sound. It too sounded larger-then-life.
Especially in the midrange. It had slow, blubbering bass. It had almost
no control over my sonus fabers. Now, in an ABX all these differences
would not be heard.


Of course not - because they DO NOT EXIST. Jeez, you're stupid.

Somebody needs to flush the toilet. This 60 year old **** stinking up
the place.



That's right. That's why DBT comparisons continue to be used by the
major audio manufacturers.

Care to give a list of those "major audio manufacturers? You **** in
**** in **** **** of a concentrated ****. When your mother **** you into
this world she should have flushed, you sshhit.


and quick-switched DBTs are *proven*
to be the most sensitive measures

Give me *ONE* just *ONE* proof you ****ty **** ****, just *ONE* link,
book, whatever, just *ONE* academic study of that ptoof you concentrated
****, you polution, you waste of flesh piece of sixty year old ****.
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #353   Report Post  
Sander deWaal
 
Posts: n/a
Default
Stewart Pinkerton said:

The trouble is that this 'bias' is the result of conducting many tests
where I was indeed expecting that there *would* be a difference. The
surprise to me - and to the other listeners in the first few blind
tests I took part in - was that where I had heard 'night and day'
differences sighted, these differences mysteriously vanished when I
didn't *know* what was playing. Through the years, I've discovered
that this rule appears to apply to everyone.


Yes, but when you listen in your home to your stereo, you *do* know
what's inside the boxes, don't you?

My observations are in parallel with yours, except that I *accept* the
biases that come with sighted listening, and put them to use, so to
speak.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #354   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:03:20 +0300, Fella wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:50:01 +0300, Fella wrote:


I am going through rounds of comparing amps these days arny. The last
one I matched up against the densen was this audio analouge sentata
whatever pretentious amp. Looked WAYYY better then the densen but
*still* I didn't like the sound. It too sounded larger-then-life.
Especially in the midrange. It had slow, blubbering bass. It had almost
no control over my sonus fabers. Now, in an ABX all these differences
would not be heard.


Of course not - because they DO NOT EXIST. Jeez, you're stupid.

Somebody needs to flush the toilet. This 60 year old **** stinking up
the place.

Thanks for making my point.

That's right. That's why DBT comparisons continue to be used by the
major audio manufacturers.

Care to give a list of those "major audio manufacturers?

Harman-Kardon, B&W, KEF, Revel, JBL, Mission, Mark Levinson, Tannoy,
Celestion, Dolby Labs, THX, Meridian, and many others.

You **** in
**** in **** **** of a concentrated ****. When your mother **** you into
this world she should have flushed, you sshhit.

Thanks for confirming that you have a mental age of six.

and quick-switched DBTs are *proven*
to be the most sensitive measures

Give me *ONE* just *ONE* proof you ****ty **** ****, just *ONE* link,
book, whatever, just *ONE* academic study of that ptoof you concentrated
****, you polution, you waste of flesh piece of sixty year old ****.

That's what's used to develop and test codecs such as MP3, for one
thing, and they have tried *every* possible form of audio comparison.
To be precise, I believe that the ABChr form of DBT is currently
regarded as the ultimate. As ever, you only succeed in proving both
your ignorance and your immaturity.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #355   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:27:48 +0200, Sander deWaal
wrote:

Stewart Pinkerton said:

The trouble is that this 'bias' is the result of conducting many tests
where I was indeed expecting that there *would* be a difference. The
surprise to me - and to the other listeners in the first few blind
tests I took part in - was that where I had heard 'night and day'
differences sighted, these differences mysteriously vanished when I
didn't *know* what was playing. Through the years, I've discovered
that this rule appears to apply to everyone.

Yes, but when you listen in your home to your stereo, you *do* know
what's inside the boxes, don't you?

When I'm not conducting DBTs, of course I do.

My observations are in parallel with yours, except that I *accept* the
biases that come with sighted listening, and put them to use, so to
speak.

Agreed, I would always use the Krell in my main system, even if I
changed the speakers. There's comfort in knowing for absolute sure
that the amp is blameless. OTOH, any old wire will do..........

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #356   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:07:18 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

So long as you don't care about reality..............

Guess you're not familiar with the concept of gestalt.

Sure I am - also with the concept of confidence trickery.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #357   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:16:25 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 05:58:01 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

For all I care, it is completely OK that sight, or knowledge adds
something to my musical enjoyment and perceptions! Nothing wrong with it.

So long as you don't care about reality..............

Guess you're not familiar with the concept of gestalt.

It doesn't fit into 'his' reality.

It's not 'my' reality, it's just reality, a concept which you refuse
to acknowledge, since your fantasy world is so much more colourful!
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #358   Report Post  
Stewart Pinkerton
 
Posts: n/a
Default
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:20:30 +0300, Fella wrote:

Wartstew pukerton, you 60 year old ****, it's time to shut up and put
up, you know what to do.

I've already done it. I'm not the one making bull**** claims about
being able to hear 'cable sound', now am I?

I've been 'putting up' for about six years, and none of you
loudmouthed clowns has ever stepped up to the plate.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #359   Report Post  
George Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Pukey, isn't it about time you at least gave lip service to your loose bearings?

Guess you're not familiar with the concept of gestalt.

Sure I am - also with the concept of confidence trickery.

For anybody who is not familiar with Pukey's backstory, here's a recap. Once
upon a time, before he turned all bitter and smug, Stewie actually enjoyed
music. He also enjoyed buying, using, and fiddling with high-end audio stuff. He
didn't worry about "proof" and he didn't have a stick up his butt about "tests".
He was able to integrate audiophilia into the rest of his life. In short, he
used to be Normal.

Then something happened. We don't know what; Pukey has guarded that secret
zealously. But now, everything has changed. No longer is simply liking audio
gear enough; now, Pukey is consumed by a 'borgish fever. All preferences are now
"claims" and must be "proven" with "tests". When Pukey goes into one of his
frenzies, he's indistinguishable from a really hard case like Arnii Krooger.

Nowadays, audio isn't a means to an end for Pukey. It's an avenue of religious
devotion. He has absolute faith that if people are forcibly subjected to
"tests", they will renounce their love of music and audio gear and join him in
his pseudo-communistic prayer rituals. So off he goes to Usenet, day after day,
to spread the good news and crusade against the E.H.E.E.

On balance, Pukey is not nearly as noxious as the Krooborg. Thank the lord for
small graces. G

Reply With QuoteReply With Quote
  #360   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

Of course not. Middius would never allow Weil to do that.



But would Middius allow Atkinson? Would Atkinson allow Middius?
Would Weil allow Atkinson? Would Atkinson allow Weil?
Would Weil allow Middius? Please tell us exactly which paranoid
vision is eating your mind today.



----== 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 With QuoteReply With Quote
Reply
Page 9 of 44 « First 2345678 9 1011121314151619 Last »
Thread Tools
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Arny vs. Atkinson debat - Could someone post a blow by blow? Victor Martell Audio Opinions 1154 July 18th 05 10:16 PM
The Bill May Report on Single-Ended Output Transformers for 300B etc [email protected] Vacuum Tubes 6 May 4th 05 03:16 AM
Sub Amps - a Follow up Question T Tech 26 April 29th 05 05:26 PM
Yet another DBT post Andrew Korsh High End Audio 205 February 29th 04 06:36 PM
Run Rabbit Run Patrick Turner Vacuum Tubes 8 November 24th 03 12:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"

 

Contact Us AudioBanter Home Privacy Statement