Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Drunkie said: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. If you think "tests" are the only thing "stopping people wasting money", you must be a different species from homo sapiens. Correct, I am a member of homo sapiens sapiens. Top off the laird, innkeeper. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious. Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to wonder. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good price. So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that). Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment. Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-) DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the difference. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:29:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really. Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well. Not really. I've proved to my *own* satisfaction that my Pioneer sounds as good as anything on the market, so purchasing an Oracle - to run through a Benchmark DAC-1 - would simply be an indulgence for the sheer beauty of the thing. No expectation of superior sound required. So, you HAVEN'T performed a dbt. Very well. I think that we can simply chalk this up to 'expectation effects". I hope you're willing to grant *others* their *own* satisfaction without grousing. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
No, I am not an engineer and don't claim to be. The NI line consists
of very expensive PCI and CompactPCI modules that are not what Arny is talking about and almost invariably go int ATE setups, not what a bench tech would use. The bare backplane and chassis for CompactPCI costs several times what a loaded commodity PC does. Having an x86-instruction set microcontroller is a long way from being "PC-based." Most test equipment is based on a off the shelf embedded platform, but does not run an OS that can be accessed as one would a computer-the Infiniium scopes and some Tek/R&S logic analyzers and comm boxes are an exception, and, I would argue, unfortunate ones. A local organization had to format and reload a half dozen of the infiniiums when the Sasser worm got in them and rendered them inoperative. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:06:48 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Don Pearce said: DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Trouble reading, Don? None at all, George. You? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Trouble reading, Don? None at all, George. You? Pardon? In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the "results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really objective and not really tests). Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion. In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis. That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. Why resort to Kroologic to make your point? It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it, If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that extrapolate beyond the facts. Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves. since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound. Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you become a mirror of what you despise. I don't see how you figure. Do you like being portrayed as something you're not? I didn't say that I agreed with Howard. Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me? I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals. ScottW |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Guaranteed Ferstler result....no difference. ScottW |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message ... Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable that gets the job done. Even when the distance is longer? Wouldn't get the job done then, would it? chuckle You are easily amused it seems. MrT. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? So you know that the extra kiloDollar or whatever, is mainly for looks and profit. Then you can make an INFORMED choice. MrT. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message ... And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse. Of course you can. (It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.) One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which in itself is debatable). The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance. As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area. Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though. It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio *REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost. MrT. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"dave weil" wrote in message news I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's performance either. At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX around a race track. I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy either! One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO. MrT. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... The commodisumer PC is not a piece of test equipment. It is unbenchworthy for many reasons. Strange then that most test labs are full of them. A real test/measurement/calibration engineer knows when and how to select appropriate equipment for his intended purpose. Those that don't are better off sticking with what is cheapest, often a PC solution. At least then their useless results don't cost them so much. MrT. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
On 16 Jul 2005 19:02:33 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:
dave weil wrote: On 16 Jul 2005 10:15:37 -0700, "ScottW" wrote: dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:26:50 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: Ah, but I already *have* all the CDs I want - and a tiled kitchen floor. So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. Why resort to Kroologic to make your point? It's NOT Kroologic at all. I was just wondering if he agreed with it, If you wonder ask... instead you make statements of conslusion that extrapolate beyond the facts. Always playing the game, always portraying people as something other than what they are rather than accepting them for themselves. since he's always taking people to task for considering expensive gear that he claims doesn't make a difference in sound. Some of you get so zealous in your attempts to make a point you become a mirror of what you despise. I don't see how you figure. Do you like being portrayed as something you're not? I didn't say that I agreed with Howard. Speaking of zealous, how do you explain your obsession with me? I rest my case. You never stop with the portrayals. Are you not constantly going after me? You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting stones. This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR conversations. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:59:30 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message .. . Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable that gets the job done. Even when the distance is longer? Wouldn't get the job done then, would it? chuckle You are easily amused it seems. Well, yes. Aren't you? BTW, this was a play on a previous post, so Johnny-come-latelys probably DO have trouble seeing the joke. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:24:45 +1000, "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote:
"dave weil" wrote in message news I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. So good luck to them. People don't buy a Rolls Royce because of it's performance either. At least they don't pretend it will beat a Ferrari, or even a Subaru WRX around a race track. If everyone had the same objective hearing system, you could equate absolute sound to track times. Unfortunately for your argument, people respond to musical stimuli differently, either because of variations in the hearing organ itself, cognitive differences, or cultural biases. You also can't pretend that a Ferarri will carry four people and a week's worth of luggage either. This is part of the "performance" aspect of the car. You can't pretend that a Ferarri will outperform a Rolls-Royce in the cabin noise parameter either. Nor can you claim that the Ferarri performs as well in stop and go traffic either. I don't think many people buy a Rolex for their time keeping accuracy either! Although they're accurate enough for wrist wear. One should at least know WHAT you are buying IMO. Somoeone spending $60,000 for an Audio Note amplifier is likely top know what they are buying. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 19:29:54 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Don Pearce said: DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Trouble reading, Don? None at all, George. You? Pardon? In case you ain't seen it, this issue done been hashed to death. Why won't Ferstler admit his crackpot pseudo-tests are worthless? Because the "results" confirm what he already "knows". Why does Pukey rail on and on about "wasting" money on audio gear when he has some super-expensive stuff of his own? Because he knows how ridiculous it is to mix personal preference in the same pot with "objective tests" (even though they're not really objective and not really tests). Maybe you really haven't seen Pukey's ranting and raving about DBTs. He prescribes them for everybody else, you see. That's because he claims he did a series of tests once upon a time. Those tests, whose details remain unknown to this day, are alleged by Pukey to have established that his Krell and his Yamahaha and his something or other all sound indistinguishable when he doesn't know which one is playing. That's when he got religion. In the real world, if two amps have a sonic performance that's so close to indistinguishable that you really do need a DBT to see if you can tell them apart, well then, the choice isn't really about sonics, is it? Any human being would be much better off choosing one of the amps on some other basis. That's what being human is all about. That's what sets us apart from machines. Of course, some might wish they were machines instead of flesh and blood. Nothing to be done about that except shake your head. George, I've no idea what you are talking about. My post was addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not interested in as you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was pointing out that there is no value in subjecting to DBT somebody who hears no difference sighted; it will tell you nothing. DBT only has a purpose in testing a claim of difference. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:44:13 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:16:57 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:50:14 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 20:51:58 +0200, Sander deWaal wrote: Stewart Pinkerton said: The Krell is useful as a reference, because if I sold it, then brain-dead clowns like you would say that I only say the things I do because I've never heard a decent amp. Besides, I like the brutal *look* of that big mother****er! :-) So here we've arrived at the heart of the matter: people select certain components not only for their sound, but also for their looks, their fancy nameplate, their build quality, whatever. So what's the relevance of double blind testing for an average consumer again? It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. No need to overstate the bleedin' obvious. Well, the obvious would be, "Did you actually DO a head to head dbt between these three players"? I don't think it's an "overstatement" to wonder. OK, let me rephrase - I *hope* it won't sound any different than my Sony or Pioneer, because then it would be broken. When you've done a couple of dozen comparisons, and only the whacko stuff like the seriously broken Audio Note sounds different, then you get a degree of confidence that all well-designed players sound the same. This leaves you free to buy on other criteria. I've no reason to suppose that the Oracle isn't a good standard player, so I can happily consider purchase for the sheer beauty of it. If push comes to shove, I'd probably go for the transport only, and hook it up to a Benchmark DAC-1. That way, I can *guarantee* SOTA sound. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:48:48 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:25:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton wrote: So the Howard admonition that one shouldn't spend a cent more for hardware than they "have to" because they could buy software is something that you disagree with. No, I got the Krell/Apogee pair from the same dealer at a really good price. So? You could sell the Krell, buy a Behringer or similar "PA" amp that will perform just as well and have a few thousand left over for cases of Lagavulin (surely one NEVER has enough of that). Actually, I doubt that I'd get more than a grand for the Krell. OTOH, that's what I paid for it. And a grand won't buy me anything with the same current reserves as that old Krell. Of course, Howard doesn't take HIS own advice either, since he's got plenty of "expensive" or superceded equipment. Actually it makes you look a bit hypocritical when you use the cost vs. benefit thing so loosely. I'm sure that someone who spends $60,000 for Audio Note amplifiers AND enjoys the sound has roughly the same outlook as you do. They probably aren't concerned with the "value" of the gear, just as YOU aren't. Indeed, but they get *really* crap sound! :-) DBT info please. Perhaps you might not even be able to tell the difference. Oh yeah, I can tell the difference, it's not in *any* way subtle! SET amps are absolutely hopeless unless you use them with ultrasensitive speakers, which brings its own raft of sonic problems. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
u "dave weil" wrote in message ... Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable that gets the job done. Even when the distance is longer? Wouldn't get the job done then, would it? chuckle You are easily amused it seems. Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to mention he needs a life. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really. Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well. So you don't understand DBTs. You said a mouthful! If you did you would know that they are inapplicable in a situation where the putative subject has expressed an opinion that there is NO difference. True, but it won't stop Weil from trolling. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
George, I've no idea what you are talking about. George is proselytizing for his know-nothing religion again. My post was addressing a specific point raised by Weil. I'm not interested in as you say - all the other rantings and ravings. I was pointing out that there is no value in subjecting to DBT somebody who hears no difference sighted; it will tell you nothing. DBT only has a purpose in testing a claim of difference. DBTs are also good for preference testing when it is known that a difference exists to base preference on. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Mr.T" MrT@home said:
And another thing: one can't call SET amps and vinyl reproduction 'inferior", just because it performs objectively worse. Of course you can. (It is OK to prefer inferior though if you want.) "Inferior" implies a judgement on all accounts, including preference. One can just say they don't conform to a certain hifi standard (which in itself is debatable). The only debate is whether YOU want that level of performance. The entire "hifi" standard is debatable. See below. As far as I'm concerned, audio still is mostly a subjective area. Of course. Much more so in music PRODUCTION though. It is generally accepted by most intelligent people however, that in audio *REPRODUCTION*, it is better to have an output as faithful to the input as is possible, within the imposed constraints such as cost. This standard is debatable in the way that what YOU are looking for, by the above admission, is 'fidelity" from source to speakers only. That leaves out: a: the recording and mastering in all its stages, b. the room and speaker interaction. True fidelity is an exact reproduction of what a certain band, orchestra or performer sounded like during the recodring, where we still have a choice in listening position. True fidelity is NOT, IMHO, taking just a "perfect" source spinning a disk of whatever kind, combined with a "perfect" amplifier. From all this follows that "high fidelity" in itself doesn't exist, at its best it's is strictly personal and might very well ask for components with deviating behaviour from the "ideal". Thinking that "high fidelity" can be achieved with 0.0001% THD and a frequency response from DC to light is simply absurd. This is something that not may people are ready to accept, especially when they're some kind of audio "professional" ( usually with blinders on). -- "Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes." - Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005 |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:18:09 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message . au "dave weil" wrote in message ... Here's a news flash that you obviously need Fella: Speaker cables come in different lengths and its often good to use the shorter cable that gets the job done. Even when the distance is longer? Wouldn't get the job done then, would it? chuckle You are easily amused it seems. Weil is desperately in need of attention from me, not to mention he needs a life. Wow, right on schedule. Thanks for the attention, Arnold. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:12:40 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 12:35:47 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 16:49:51 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:30:00 -0500, dave weil wrote: It stops people wasting money in an attempt to improve sound quality. I'd love an Oracle CD player, but I know it won't *sound* any different than my Sony or Pioneer. DBT details please. Let's see if you can tell us why a DBT would not be appropriate. Well, it *wouldn't* be appropriate if we didn't care about this statement as applicable to anyone other than Stewart. And if this were the case, then his statement doesn't mean anything really. Surely you or Stewart would be demanding a dbt if someone was claiming that they knew that the Oracle kicked the Sony or Pioneer's ass. It works the other way as well. So you don't understand DBTs. You said a mouthful! If you did you would know that they are inapplicable in a situation where the putative subject has expressed an opinion that there is NO difference. True, but it won't stop Weil from trolling. You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and Stewart. Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to do such a thing. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil
wrote: You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and Stewart. A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive. A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be hard put to give a false negative. Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to do such a thing. As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine won't strain any further, please enlighten. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil wrote: You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and Stewart. A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive. See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative. A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be hard put to give a false negative. Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to do such a thing. As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine won't strain any further, please enlighten. Let me propose this test. Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between "properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations (these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on this newsgroup). All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an "objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are different, while all the time they are listening to the same component and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably prove them wrong. But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks *should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell (operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials), because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be inclined to support their bias. Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the difference and reports it, or he doesn't. In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't (or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove which it is - and you can't. Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to actually determine differences in the first place. One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound". The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test, theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might have overlooked in the past. In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion. Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's what you asked. None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is still patently absurd however you look at it. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 15:53:03 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 10:42:51 -0500, dave weil wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:11:08 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:02:11 -0500, dave weil wrote: You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, the dbt WILL expose differences IF they are there, whether of not they think there are none. Of course, that takes someone who's HONESTLY taking the test, so perhaps you're (Mr. Pierce) right in the case of Arnold and Stewart. A DBT can only expose dishonesty in a falsely claimed positive. See below as to how a dbt *could* prove disprove a negative. A badly run DBT can easily provide a false positive, but it would be hard put to give a false negative. Also, a dbt CAN be designed to expose such rotten behavior. Don, if you strained a couple of your brain cells, you might figure out how to do such a thing. As you have clearly already strained yours to this extent, and mine won't strain any further, please enlighten. Let me propose this test. Howard Ferstler claims that he can't hear the difference between "properly designed amps". He also claims that, not only are SETs NOT properly designed amps because they introduce onerous distortions that run counter to "hi-fi" and let's take this further and say that he claims that he could identify them based on these characterizations (these are restatements of the very things that Howard has said on this newsgroup). All one would have to do to test this is a variation of what an "objectivist" talked about recently (Stewart, I think) whereby you fake switching between two components that the listener THINKS are different, while all the time they are listening to the same component and they end up "hearing a difference". Sure, the score would probably prove them wrong. But, flip this on its head and take two components that Howard thinks *should* sound the same, such as a Yamaha amp and Stewart's Krell (operating within parameters of course), but secretely substitute an SET that is measurably and audibly quite different for one of the amps. I'd suggest that there's a good chance that someone convinced of their ability to judge the SET inferior wouldn't find any differences and would score randomly (as a matter of fact, Howard claims to have just started guessing during a test of amplifiers after a few trials), because they wouldn't trust their own ears, plus, they would be inclined to support their bias. Well, you have two possible outcomes here. Either he hears the difference and reports it, or he doesn't. In neither case have you proved anything other than that he couldn't (or wouldn't) identify a difference. Now it is up to you to prove which it is - and you can't. It really doesn't matter in this case. You have shown that he can't even tell a difference when there *is* a verifiable difference. I think this is an important point. Now, you've cast doubt on two things - their honesty in conducting the test (are they simply SAYING that they think everything sounds the same and basically just guessing randomly?) and their ability to actually determine differences in the first place. One could easily construct the same sort of test with Stewart secretly substituting a NAIM CD player that he thinks has a "signature sound". The upshot of this? If someone were as disabused of their abilities as you claim that someone like Zip should have been after his amp test, theoretically, they might actually take the next test with fewer preconceptions and might lose the "dishonest" aspect of their trials by actually being FORCED to listen for differences that they might have overlooked in the past. In any case, you've cast doubt on their ability to discern differences. All of this is assuming, of course, that they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and I'm sure that until such a test is made, that they would continue to insist that there is no way that they wouldn't. But now we're back to bias and pure, untested opinion. Of course, *my* comments fall into the same speculation, and I grant this. But, the test *could* be constructed in such a manner and that's what you asked. None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is still patently absurd however you look at it. But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then there *are* differences. This casts doubt on his ability to make the first claim. And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e. the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are* differences). |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil
wrote: And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e. the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are* differences). But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather than unable to identify a difference. And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say about the possible result of another test. Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in testing an identified difference. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: Are you not constantly going after me? Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread? You inspired this. You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting stones. This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR conversations. Like you haven't? Get real Dave. But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or one-on-one. You want that... take if offline. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently. We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm not going there. ScottW |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: You BOTH are idiots. If someone takes the test HONESTLY, How can anyone other than the subject know they did that? In this scenario you were calling for DBT results from someone who said "no difference". DBT results from them that say "no difference" don't really have any significance as DB is irrelevant to that conclusion. You really should examine your argument closely before the gratuitous insults start flying. ScottW |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
dave weil wrote: None of which helps your case, which was that somebody claiming to hear no difference should use a DBT to see if he is wrong. The idea is still patently absurd however you look at it. But what you HAVE proved is that he can't hear differences even then there *are* differences. No you didn't. All you did was prove that you could bias the listener to a false negative through sighted perception. He doesn't think he heard a difference sighted... why should he hear one blind? You have attacked his mental stamina and degraded his motivation for critical listening and then you call the outcome "rotten". Give us a break, Dave. But show how you can accomplish the reverse when the listener believes he hears a difference sighted. This bias is what the test is designed to confirm or deny and nothing else. This casts doubt on his ability to make the first claim. And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e. the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are* differences). I can think on no more "rotten behavior" than what you propose to do as a test administrator and the conclusion you erroneously claim a no difference outcome would demonstrate. ScottW |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Don Pearce said: And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e. the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are* differences). But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather than unable to identify a difference. With certain individuals, it's laughably easy to demonstrate the unwillingness -- just ask them. And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say about the possible result of another test. Absolutely true. Perhaps the 'borgs will take note of this small caveat. Tommi, are you listening? Harold, ten-HUT! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Jul 2005 09:39:30 -0700, "ScottW" wrote:
dave weil wrote: Are you not constantly going after me? Did you not just make a gratuitous reference to me in another thread? I don't know. You tell me. You inspired this. We can go back and forth on this. You've been taking me on for several years now. A this point, who knows who inspired what? You need to look in the mirror YOURSELF before you start casting stones. This conversation I'm having with Mr. Pinkerton is good example of your interference. Maybe I should start barging into all of YOUR conversations. Like you haven't? Get real Dave. I DON'T. As you know. You are participating in two threads right now that I'm not participating in AT ALL. I'm not jumping in to tell you how full of **** you are. But unlike you I don't expect a usenet exchange to be a private or one-on-one. You want that... take if offline. All I know that you're obsessed with me. That's *your* issue, not mine. I only point it out. Oh wait, I've got a life, unlike you, apparently. We've all heard far too much about the struggles in your life. I'm not going there. Yeah, life is a real struggle for me. I've got a job that I like, I have flexibility in the hours that I work, I have a house that's appreciating like nobody's business and I have fun. And I live smack dab in the middle of BBQ country, where BBQ is real and not some imported affair. |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:13:34 -0500, dave weil
wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:35:28 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote: On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 11:28:30 -0500, dave weil wrote: And remember, I proposed the test to expose "rotten behavior" (i.e. the willful desire to hear no differences, even when there *are* differences). But as you have acknowledged, it can't do this. To achieve this you need to demonstrate that the subject is actually unwilling, rather than unable to identify a difference. And of course the result of one test has absolutely nothing to say about the possible result of another test. Stick to using these DBTs where they demonstrably have value - in testing an identified difference. You're actually testing the ability of the listener to determine a claimed difference, even if it is a left-handed way of doing it. I think this is the same thing as testing whether a listener can tell the difference between two things that YOU think they shouldn't. Double blind tests are not for testing the abilities of listeners. They are for testing whether identified differences actually exist. If you believe your listeners aren't good enough, get new listeners. If the listeners are the only ones making the claim, then a DBT will prove them either right or wrong. But I repeat. There is absolutely nothing you can do with "no difference" claims by way of DBT - they are simply inapplicable. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
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 |