| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip You don't need anythihng that massive to bludgeon the anti-ABX idiots. Simple truth works just fine. What other valid audio testing do you know you believe support or confirm the notion that audiophiles are, as you had said many times before, delusional for hearing subtle differences that (you think) aren't there ? Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS. A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist. It will for the person making the comparison as it relates to the 2 units being compared. Now how the do you do this if "assuming" that you completely "control" the listener's biases during this comparative test ? I don't have any idea what the above is supposed to mean. Try again. I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. The ABX comparisons done by others involved in different areas of audio, hearing aids and cell phone research, for example, are used to improve their products, and they are non-controversial. [...] As you are saying here, the intent for this particular method of comparison is to search for improvement in their products. There can't be an improvement without a difference. If one is trying to determine if something is better sounding than something else, it has to sound DIFFERENT. If it doesn't sound different, it can't be better. Of course they can't improve and make their products line better if they can't distinguish any differences among them during comparative testing. [...] Only audiophiles claim that they are flawed, yet they have nothing to offer in place of them. Could it be that the above methodology is flawed if adapted and applied to their shopping requirement because their intention is not to improve or change the designs and sound of particular unit when auditioning high-end components. Agree or disagree ? If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. You're suggesting that the audio testing methodolgy above is the best way to determine if subtle differences exist -- FOR THE PURPOSES TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? How can this ABX methodology be applied by audiophiles when shopping for unit if their intention is not to improve or alter the particular designs or sound that the components produced ? See above. The only thing I'm seeing above are lamentable confusion, and shambling of qouted text. Then there's no reason to talk to you. Either you don't understand what's being said, and nothing I said is complicated, I was't referring to myself. or you are pulling my chain. I'm not the one doing that. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
rec.audio.misc can be worthwhile though lately the flame wars here are being cross posted there. There are UK.audio newsgroups as well. RAHE can be worthwhile but it should be called rec.audio.anti-highend more often than not discussion of sound in any compenent excepting speakers is attacked by the predominant group of DBT audio engineer wannabes. Questions about specific equipment are often well received however. -- ----- remove "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Carl Valle wrote: I really don't enjoy audio rec op very much. Are there other news groups that have similar general audio topics with less personal attacks that you can reccomend? R.a.h-e by definition is free from flames. For the widest-ranging discussions, try www.audioasylum.com. Check out www.audioannexe.com also. www.stereophile.com will shortly introduce its own discussion forums. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Carl Valle wrote: I really don't enjoy audio rec op very much. Are there other news groups that have similar general audio topics with less personal attacks that you can reccomend? R.a.h-e by definition is free from flames. For the widest-ranging discussions, try www.audioasylum.com. Check out www.audioannexe.com also. www.stereophile.com will shortly introduce its own discussion forums. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile I will anxiously await stereophile forum could be interesting Carl |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EddieM" wrote in message . .. nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip You don't need anythihng that massive to bludgeon the anti-ABX idiots. Simple truth works just fine. What other valid audio testing do you know you believe support or confirm the notion that audiophiles are, as you had said many times before, delusional for hearing subtle differences that (you think) aren't there ? Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS. A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist. It will for the person making the comparison as it relates to the 2 units being compared. Now how the do you do this if "assuming" that you completely "control" the listener's biases during this comparative test ? I don't have any idea what the above is supposed to mean. Try again. I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This inusres that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. The ABX comparisons done by others involved in different areas of audio, hearing aids and cell phone research, for example, are used to improve their products, and they are non-controversial. [...] As you are saying here, the intent for this particular method of comparison is to search for improvement in their products. There can't be an improvement without a difference. If one is trying to determine if something is better sounding than something else, it has to sound DIFFERENT. If it doesn't sound different, it can't be better. Of course they can't improve and make their products line better if they can't distinguish any differences among them during comparative testing. [...] Only audiophiles claim that they are flawed, yet they have nothing to offer in place of them. Could it be that the above methodology is flawed if adapted and applied to their shopping requirement because their intention is not to improve or change the designs and sound of particular unit when auditioning high-end components. Agree or disagree ? If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. You're suggesting that the audio testing methodolgy above is the best way to determine if subtle differences exist -- FOR THE PURPOSES TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. How can this ABX methodology be applied by audiophiles when shopping for unit if their intention is not to improve or alter the particular designs or sound that the components produced ? See above. The only thing I'm seeing above are lamentable confusion, and shambling of qouted text. Then there's no reason to talk to you. Either you don't understand what's being said, and nothing I said is complicated, I was't referring to myself. or you are pulling my chain. I'm not the one doing that. That only leaves one possible conclusion. You simply CAN'T get it. I'm not pulling your chain. I've done the best I could to explain what is a relatively simple idea, comparisons to see if there are differences and leave it to the person doing the listening to determine if any difference is an improvement. If there's no difference, which is usually the case, then there is no improvement, and no real upgrade in sound. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This insures that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. So what did you meant by "control bias" when you said above: "Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS." Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? So again, how does your propose test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- Could it be that the above methodology is flawed if adapted and applied to their shopping requirement because their intention is not to improve or change the designs and sound of particular unit when auditioning high-end components. Agree or disagree ? If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. You're suggesting that the audio testing methodolgy above is the best way to determine if subtle differences exist -- FOR THE PURPOSES TOWARD THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How can this ABX methodology be applied by audiophiles when shopping for unit if their intention is not to improve or alter the particular designs or sound that the components produced ? See above. The only thing I'm seeing above are lamentable confusion, and shambling of qouted text. Then there's no reason to talk to you. Either you don't understand what's being said, and nothing I said is complicated, I was't referring to myself. or you are pulling my chain. I'm not the one doing that. That only leaves one possible conclusion. You simply CAN'T get it. I'm not pulling your chain. I've done the best I could to explain what is a relatively simple idea, comparisons to see if there are differences and leave it to the person doing the listening to determine if any difference is an improvement. If there's no difference, which is usually the case, then there is no improvement, and no real upgrade in sound. ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven itself to be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ralph Heidecke wrote RAHE can be worthwhile but it should be called rec.audio.anti-highend more often than not discussion of sound in any component excepting speakers is attacked by the predominant group of DBT audio engineer wannabes. Indeed so. Questions about specific equipment are often well received however. So is here, except that this group still has few hard-boiled Objectivist. |
|
#47
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EddieM" wrote in message ... nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This insures that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. So what did you meant by "control bias" when you said above: "Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS." I meant exactly what I said, any bias that can be controlled, is dealt with. Not being able to see which device is in use and having the spl matched, leaving only your ears to determine any difference. Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? So again, how does your propose test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? It's not a test of hearing no difference, it's a comparison to see if difference exists. It allows the person doing the comparison to determine if there is a difference that he/she can hear. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? Yes, by some, possibly more than we know DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? Yes. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? I have never suggested any such thing, in fact I have repeatedly stated that if one is not looking for improvement there is no reason to do a DBT. [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How many ****ing times do I need to say the same thing. If you want to determine if there's ANY DIFFERENCE between two devices, then a DBT is the best way to do it. Of course it's possible, that there is a difference that is not an improvement, which is something else one would want to know. How can this ABX methodology be applied by audiophiles when shopping for unit if their intention is not to improve or alter the particular designs or sound that the components produced ? See above. The only thing I'm seeing above are lamentable confusion, and shambling of qouted text. Then there's no reason to talk to you. Either you don't understand what's being said, and nothing I said is complicated, I was't referring to myself. or you are pulling my chain. I'm not the one doing that. That only leaves one possible conclusion. You simply CAN'T get it. I'm not pulling your chain. I've done the best I could to explain what is a relatively simple idea, comparisons to see if there are differences and leave it to the person doing the listening to determine if any difference is an improvement. If there's no difference, which is usually the case, then there is no improvement, and no real upgrade in sound. ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven itself to be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. If they want to know if there's a difference in sound quality. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. I have not said any such thing. I have said that people who claim to hear differences during sighted comparisons should do a dbt to make sure what they hear is real, because most of time the differences are the result of wishful thinking and not of any actual difference. BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. Never said that either. R&D guys hopefully, are starting from the premise that they already had a good product, and are investigating the possibility that there are improvements to be made, and therefore they compare to see if any changes they made are audible. Sometimes they do DBT's to see if changes they made to save money, made any difference. Because audio electronics has been capable for many years of making equipment that makes no audible difference to the original signal, theres' not a lot of testing for improvement, mostly it's to check for degradation due to proposed cost cutting design. |
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
"paul packer" wrote ...
On 20 Aug 2005 19:02:09 -0700, wrote: ::nothing as usual. Carl Valle said to Art Sackman: I did not see any sarcasm in your comments. What I did see was pointless, nasty, name calling on your part, for no reason other than a dropped letter. I notice that the error did not keep you from reading the post. You have however, to this time, not posted anything useful. Indeed you are providing a very good example of what is, in my opinion, the major thing wrong with RAO. You have yet to post anything OT and have resorted to name calling. You are indeed very clever. Hmmm...tend to agree on this occasion. Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Potts" wrote in message ... "paul packer" wrote ... On 20 Aug 2005 19:02:09 -0700, wrote: ::nothing as usual. Carl Valle said to Art Sackman: I did not see any sarcasm in your comments. What I did see was pointless, nasty, name calling on your part, for no reason other than a dropped letter. I notice that the error did not keep you from reading the post. You have however, to this time, not posted anything useful. Indeed you are providing a very good example of what is, in my opinion, the major thing wrong with RAO. You have yet to post anything OT and have resorted to name calling. You are indeed very clever. Hmmm...tend to agree on this occasion. Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? he is merely a good example of what is wrong with Rogers, Arkansas. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 16:50:00 -0600, "Potts"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote ... On 20 Aug 2005 19:02:09 -0700, wrote: ::nothing as usual. Carl Valle said to Art Sackman: I did not see any sarcasm in your comments. What I did see was pointless, nasty, name calling on your part, for no reason other than a dropped letter. I notice that the error did not keep you from reading the post. You have however, to this time, not posted anything useful. Indeed you are providing a very good example of what is, in my opinion, the major thing wrong with RAO. You have yet to post anything OT and have resorted to name calling. You are indeed very clever. Hmmm...tend to agree on this occasion. Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? Is there a prize if I choose correctly? |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? Is there a prize if I choose correctly? Maybe you didn't realize it, but when you gave up apologizing for Krooger, your esteem increased dramatically in many people's eyes. RAO is not much like the other newsgroups, though, so that may not matter to you. |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This insures that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. So what did you meant by "control bias" when you said above: "Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS." I meant exactly what I said, any bias that can be controlled, is dealt with. Not being able to see which device is in use and having the spl matched, leaving only your ears to determine any difference. So you are not able to control the biases that some people have. Such as those audiophiles who prefer the sound and fond of listening to the warm-sounding tone produce by tube components. By your admission, the only biases controlled by your test are those that the testee can't see as well as the differences in the level of sound intensity (SPL) which are eliminated as a result of level-matching. And that's why I said earlier that: "A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist." Again, allow me to ask if I may: How does your test "completely" control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? So again, how does your propose test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? It's not a test of hearing no difference, it's a comparison to see if difference exists. It allows the person doing the comparison to determine if there is a difference that he/she can hear. As you can tell by now, it is not a dispute whether it is about a test of hearing no difference. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? Yes, by some, possibly more than we know DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? Yes. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? I have never suggested any such thing, in fact I have repeatedly stated that if one is not looking for improvement there is no reason to do a DBT. The subtle differences in sound that audiophiles hear, if detected, between components during the DBT will not necessarily lead them to the sound they prefer. [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How many ****ing times do I need to say the same thing. If you want to determine if there's ANY DIFFERENCE between two devices, then a DBT is the best way to do it. Of course it's possible, that there is a difference that is not an improvement, which is something else one would want to know. The subtle differences in sound that audiophiles hear, if detected, between components during the DBT will not necessarily lead them to the sound they prefer. snip That only leaves one possible conclusion. You simply CAN'T get it. I'm not pulling your chain. I've done the best I could to explain what is a relatively simple idea, comparisons to see if there are differences and leave it to the person doing the listening to determine if any difference is an improvement. If there's no difference, which is usually the case, then there is no improvement, and no real upgrade in sound. That's null. ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven itself to be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. If they want to know if there's a difference in sound quality. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. I have not said any such thing. I have said that people who claim to hear differences during sighted comparisons should do a dbt to make sure what they hear is real, because most of time the differences are the result of wishful thinking and not of any actual difference. Liar. You said: " ... When audiophiles make claims that defy reason and logic, yes I expect they offer some sort of proof, since it is known that people can make themselves believe they hear things that aren't really there." BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. ( I wasn't saying these were you're exact words.) Never said that either. R&D guys hopefully, are starting from the premise that they already had a good product, and are investigating the possibility that there are improvements to be made, and therefore they compare to see if any changes they made are audible. Sometimes they do DBT's to see if changes they made to save money, made any difference. Because audio electronics has been capable for many years of making equipment that makes no audible difference to the original signal, theres' not a lot of testing for improvement, mostly it's to check for degradation due to proposed cost cutting design. But why is it that when audiophiles claim to hear sound difference between audio gear but fail to hear those differences during ABX/DBT, they're accused of defying reason and logic who can make themselves believe to hear things --- BUT not for the R&D guys ? |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer wrote Carl Valle said to Art Sackman: snipped I did not see any sarcasm in your comments. What I did see was pointless, nasty, name calling on your part, for no reason other than a dropped letter. I notice that the error did not keep you from reading the post. You have however, to this time, not posted anything useful. Indeed you are providing a very good example of what is, in my opinion, the major thing wrong with RAO. You have yet to post anything OT and have resorted to name calling. You are indeed very clever. Hmmm...tend to agree on this occasion. How can you talk about equipment and then be labeled as a tube and vinyl bigot. |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EddieM" wrote in message . .. nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This insures that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. So what did you meant by "control bias" when you said above: "Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS." I meant exactly what I said, any bias that can be controlled, is dealt with. Not being able to see which device is in use and having the spl matched, leaving only your ears to determine any difference. So you are not able to control the biases that some people have. Such as those audiophiles who prefer the sound and fond of listening to the warm-sounding tone produce by tube components. By your admission, the only biases controlled by your test are those that the testee can't see as well as the differences in the level of sound intensity (SPL) which are eliminated as a result of level-matching. And that's why I said earlier that: "A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist." Again, allow me to ask if I may: How does your test "completely" control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? What bias are you worried about? Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? I would assume that a person doing a DBT for the pupose of an upgrade would be comparing things that he has a natural prefernce for. A tube lover would be comparing other tubed gear for example. So again, how does your proposed test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? It's not a test of hearing no difference, it's a comparison to see if difference exists. It allows the person doing the comparison to determine if there is a difference that he/she can hear. As you can tell by now, it is not a dispute whether it is about a test of hearing no difference. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? Yes, by some, possibly more than we know DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? Yes. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? I have never suggested any such thing, in fact I have repeatedly stated that if one is not looking for improvement there is no reason to do a DBT. The subtle differences in sound that audiophiles hear, if detected, between components during the DBT will not necessarily lead them to the sound they prefer. It will tell them if there is a differnce they can hear, it is up to them to decide if the differences are what they prefer. Knowing there is a difference, is a piece of information they wouldn't have otherwise. [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How many ****ing times do I need to say the same thing. If you want to determine if there's ANY DIFFERENCE between two devices, then a DBT is the best way to do it. Of course it's possible, that there is a difference that is not an improvement, which is something else one would want to know. snip That only leaves one possible conclusion. You simply CAN'T get it. I'm not pulling your chain. I've done the best I could to explain what is a relatively simple idea, comparisons to see if there are differences and leave it to the person doing the listening to determine if any difference is an improvement. If there's no difference, which is usually the case, then there is no improvement, and no real upgrade in sound. That's null. ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. I said they frequently use them to see if design changes have made a differnce. I doubt that there is much impovement in sound quality going on in conumer audio, there might be in other areas like cel phones and hearing aids. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven itself to be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. Only if there is a question of a new device sounding better or worse than an existing piece of equipment. If they want to know if there's a difference in sound quality. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I have not said any such thing. I have said that people who claim to hear differences during sighted comparisons should do a dbt to make sure what they hear is real, because most of time the differences are the result of wishful thinking and not of any actual difference. Liar. You said: " ... When audiophiles make claims that defy reason and logic, yes I expect they offer some sort of proof, since it is known that people can make themselves believe they hear things that aren't really there." Where is the word idiot? BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. ( I wasn't saying these were you're exact words.) Of course not, you prefer to make it up. Never said that either. R&D guys hopefully, are starting from the premise that they already had a good product, and are investigating the possibility that there are improvements to be made, and therefore they compare to see if any changes they made are audible. Sometimes they do DBT's to see if changes they made to save money, made any difference. Because audio electronics has been capable for many years of making equipment that makes no audible difference to the original signal, there's not a lot of testing for improvement, mostly it's to check for degradation due to proposed cost cutting design. But why is it that when audiophiles claim to hear sound difference between audio gear but fail to hear those differences during ABX/DBT, they're accused of defying reason and logic who can make themselves believe to hear things --- BUT not for the R&D guys ? Where did I say that? I said that hearing differences in a sighted evalution are essentially meaningless, unless they are big differences that wouldn't require a DBT. Those kinds of differences would easily show up in measurements. The ones that are subtle are the ones that a DBT would be useful for. I also said that is the denial of the efficacy of ABX that makes idots out people. Thanks for once again proving you don't know what you're talking about. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. You ever talk about audio? |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. \ too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick said: too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. What do you mean? Is Mickey denser than a petrified Kroo-turd? |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. What do you mean? Is Mickey denser than a petrified Kroo-turd? No, Mikey is probably a floater. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 07:22:43 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? Is there a prize if I choose correctly? Maybe you didn't realize it, but when you gave up apologizing for Krooger, your esteem increased dramatically in many people's eyes. RAO is not much like the other newsgroups, though, so that may not matter to you. Please explain that last sentence, George. |
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? Is there a prize if I choose correctly? Maybe you didn't realize it, but when you gave up apologizing for Krooger, your esteem increased dramatically in many people's eyes. RAO is not much like the other newsgroups, though, so that may not matter to you. Please explain that last sentence, George. RAO is a ... uh... well, it's something. Long-term group therapy, maybe. Some of us have strong likes and dislikes about other posters. (More dislikes than likes.) |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 07:27:20 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: paul packer said: Do you agree that Richard Malesweski of Rogers, Arkansas, who posts as torresists when he's not posting forgeries, is a very good example of what is wrong with RAO? Or do you think he's a very good example of the lowest scum of RAO? Is there a prize if I choose correctly? Maybe you didn't realize it, but when you gave up apologizing for Krooger, your esteem increased dramatically in many people's eyes. RAO is not much like the other newsgroups, though, so that may not matter to you. Please explain that last sentence, George. RAO is a ... uh... well, it's something. Long-term group therapy, maybe. Some of us have strong likes and dislikes about other posters. (More dislikes than likes.) No, I understand the difference between RAO and other NGs. What I meant was, why would the extreme nature of RAO be a reason I didn't care what other posters thought of me? Incidentally, I would take issue that I was ever an Arnie apologist. I tried to appraise him fairly, despite the hysteria he aroused. I still feel no malice toward him, as I've said elsewhere, maybe because it's so obvious he suffers from one of those personality disorders that denies him any kind of real self-appraisal, and thus self doubt, which is genuinely sad. (I think it was Peter Ustinov who said that the inability to have a doubt was a sure sign of madness). Also, I would hope that my esteem here would be in proportion to the relevance and/or usefulness of my posts rather than whether I did or didn't support Arnie. But maybe that's being a bit idealistic. As you said, RAO is not like other NGs. |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. \ too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. And you sometimes post responses without actually responding, sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row. You always have the option of ignoring me. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: RAO is not much like the other newsgroups, though, so that may not matter to you. Please explain that last sentence, George. RAO is a ... uh... well, it's something. Long-term group therapy, maybe. Some of us have strong likes and dislikes about other posters. (More dislikes than likes.) No, I understand the difference between RAO and other NGs. What I meant was, why would the extreme nature of RAO be a reason I didn't care what other posters thought of me? Well, I guess because we behave like a bunch of children a lot of the time. IOW, we're not on our best behavior, so if you play here, there's a presumption you want to do likewise. And if so, that implies you don't care how others perceive your RAO persona, since some of us will hate it (e.g., in your case, the Krooborg). Incidentally, I would take issue that I was ever an Arnie apologist. I tried to appraise him fairly, despite the hysteria he aroused. On RAO, that is the definition of Kroopologism. There can be no middle ground regarding Arnii Krooger. If you don't feel that way yet, you will in time. I still feel no malice toward him, as I've said elsewhere, maybe because it's so obvious he suffers from one of those personality disorders that denies him any kind of real self-appraisal, and thus self doubt, which is genuinely sad. (I think it was Peter Ustinov who said that the inability to have a doubt was a sure sign of madness). Good on you for rising above the playground level. Personally, my pity for the Beast was washed away long ago by the tidal waves of snot. Also, I would hope that my esteem here would be in proportion to the relevance and/or usefulness of my posts rather than whether I did or didn't support Arnie. But maybe that's being a bit idealistic. As you said, RAO is not like other NGs. I'm sure some people care primarily about your contributions about audio on RAO. G |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. \ too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. And you sometimes post responses without actually responding, sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row. You always have the option of ignoring me. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. \ too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. And you sometimes post responses without actually responding, sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row. You always have the option of ignoring me. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
" wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I recognize that most people recognize that you are recognized as an idiot. Thank you for the idiot perspective. \ too bad that you are too dense to recognize your poor writing skills. And you sometimes post responses without actually responding, sometimes 2 or 3 times in a row. You always have the option of ignoring me. That's just a sticky mouse! Ah, it got me again. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:27:17 -0400, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Well, I guess because we behave like a bunch of children a lot of the time. IOW, we're not on our best behavior, so if you play here, there's a presumption you want to do likewise. And if so, that implies you don't care how others perceive your RAO persona, since some of us will hate it (e.g., in your case, the Krooborg). Well, I'll always be me, for what that's worth, even here, and as you say that will please some more than others. But I come here purely for recreation, which is why I'm not much interested in political and/or technical threads. And if I misbehave, it's bound to be pretty mild because I'm not a natural misbehavor. Just a bit of repartee does me. (Hey, I rhymed!) Incidentally, I would take issue that I was ever an Arnie apologist. I tried to appraise him fairly, despite the hysteria he aroused. On RAO, that is the definition of Kroopologism. There can be no middle ground regarding Arnii Krooger. If you don't feel that way yet, you will in time. Yipes! I still feel no malice toward him, as I've said elsewhere, maybe because it's so obvious he suffers from one of those personality disorders that denies him any kind of real self-appraisal, and thus self doubt, which is genuinely sad. (I think it was Peter Ustinov who said that the inability to have a doubt was a sure sign of madness). Good on you for rising above the playground level. Personally, my pity for the Beast was washed away long ago by the tidal waves of snot. I'm relieved you can still discuss Arnie relatively dispassionately, George. That ability isn't always apparent from your posts. But maybe if you regard Arnie from the point of view suggested by Mr. Ustinov, you can find a little pity still. (I believe the exact quote was: "For what more certain sign of madness can there be than the inability to have a doubt?"). Also, I would hope that my esteem here would be in proportion to the relevance and/or usefulness of my posts rather than whether I did or didn't support Arnie. But maybe that's being a bit idealistic. As you said, RAO is not like other NGs. I'm sure some people care primarily about your contributions about audio on RAO. G I'm sure you're being too kind. ;-) |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
paul packer said: Good on you for rising above the playground level. Personally, my pity for the Beast was washed away long ago by the tidal waves of snot. I'm relieved you can still discuss Arnie relatively dispassionately, George. That ability isn't always apparent from your posts. But maybe if you regard Arnie from the point of view suggested by Mr. Ustinov, you can find a little pity still. The answer to your question about why your philosophical comments were "insults" to Mr. **** lies in that very area. Kroo**** persists in a delusion that he is all-knowing and, I believe, perfect. At least as far as what he calls "the debating trade". Thus your suggestion that some part of what he said might be imperfect is an "insult". They don't call it borganoia for nothing. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote snip I said how do you suppose the test could prove the absence of subtle (nuance) sound preference that exist if we assume that your test completely control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? The things being controlled is the ability to see the devices being tested and the spl levels of same. This insures that if there are audible differences they will be heard and not masked by differences in SPL. So what did you meant by "control bias" when you said above: "Any comparisons that control bias and rely only on what the listener HEARS." I meant exactly what I said, any bias that can be controlled, is dealt with. Not being able to see which device is in use and having the spl matched, leaving only your ears to determine any difference. So you are not able to control the biases that some people have. Such as those audiophiles who prefer the sound and fond of listening to the warm-sounding tone produce by tube components. By your admission, the only biases controlled by your test are those that the testee can't see as well as the differences in the level of sound intensity (SPL) which are eliminated as a result of level-matching. And that's why I said earlier that: "A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist." Again, allow me to ask if I may: How does your test "completely" control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? What bias are you worried about? Personal preferences. Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? I would assume that a person doing a DBT for the pupose of an upgrade would be comparing things that he has a natural prefernce for. A tube lover would be comparing other tubed gear for example. Are you saying now that it is OK to have a little bit of prefernce during ABX/DBT test. That it is now OK to have specific biases as an example of being a bit charmed and enchanted by the sound produce by tube components for as long as the other components under test meet the same specified criterion that meet your biases. Can you describe a bit more about this protocol ? So again, how does your proposed test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? It's not a test of hearing no difference, it's a comparison to see if difference exists. It allows the person doing the comparison to determine if there is a difference that he/she can hear. As you can tell by now, it is not a dispute whether it is about a test of hearing no difference. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? Yes, by some, possibly more than we know DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? Yes. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? I have never suggested any such thing, in fact I have repeatedly stated that if one is not looking for improvement there is no reason to do a DBT. The subtle differences in sound that audiophiles hear, if detected, between components during the DBT will not necessarily lead them to the sound they prefer. It will tell them if there is a differnce they can hear, it is up to them to decide if the differences are what they prefer. Knowing there is a difference, is a piece of information they wouldn't have otherwise. Yes but unfortunately, again, you misdirect the results you obtain. When you are comparing two components and ending up prefering one, on what basis were you comparing them during the test? Remember that it cannot be base on SPL and preferences. [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How many ****ing times do I need to say the same thing. If you want to determine if there's ANY DIFFERENCE between two devices, then a DBT is the best way to do it. Of course it's possible, that there is a difference that is not an improvement, which is something else one would want to know. snip ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. I said they frequently use them to see if design changes have made a differnce. I doubt that there is much impovement in sound quality going on in consumer audio, there might be in other areas like cel phones and hearing aids. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven titself o be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. Only if there is a question of a new device sounding better or worse than an existing piece of equipment. If they want to know if there's a difference in sound quality. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I have not said any such thing. I have said that people who claim to hear differences during sighted comparisons should do a dbt to make sure what they hear is real, because most of time the differences are the result of wishful thinking and not of any actual difference. Liar. You said: " ... When audiophiles make claims that defy reason and logic, yes I expect they offer some sort of proof, since it is known that people can make themselves believe they hear things that aren't really there." Where is the word idiot? BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. ( I wasn't saying these were you're exact words.) Of course not, you prefer to make it up. Never said that either. R&D guys hopefully, are starting from the premise that they already had a good product, and are investigating the possibility that there are improvements to be made, and therefore they compare to see if any changes they made are audible. Sometimes they do DBT's to see if changes they made to save money, made any difference. Because audio electronics has been capable for many years of making equipment that makes no audible difference to the original signal, there's not a lot of testing for improvement, mostly it's to check for degradation due to proposed cost cutting design. But why is it that when audiophiles claim to hear sound difference between audio gear but fail to hear those differences during ABX/DBT, they're accused of defying reason and logic who can make themselves believe to hear things --- BUT not for the R&D guys ? Where did I say that? I said that hearing differences in a sighted evalution are essentially meaningless, unless they are big differences that wouldn't require a DBT. Those kinds of differences would easily show up in measurements. The ones that are subtle are the ones that a DBT would be useful for. I also said that is the denial of the efficacy of ABX that makes idots out people. Thanks for once again proving you don't know what you're talking about. You are a piece of work. |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
"EddieM" wrote in message ... So you are not able to control the biases that some people have. Such as those audiophiles who prefer the sound and fond of listening to the warm-sounding tone produce by tube components. I think many people doing a DBT of tubed vs. SS would be suprised at how similar they sound when not driven to clipping. By your admission, the only biases controlled by your test are those that the testee can't see as well as the differences in the level of sound intensity (SPL) which are eliminated as a result of level-matching. Which is usually sufficient. And that's why I said earlier that: "A result of hearing no differences under your condition above will not prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist." It proves that for the person taking the test there was no difference. Again, allow me to ask if I may: How does your test "completely" control the listener's biases when making comparison during the test ? What bias are you worried about? Personal preferences. When a person doesn't know what device he's listening to such "preferences tend to disappear, but even if they don't, why would a person be comparing thigns that they tend not to prefer? Does this test you were talkin about no longer include eliminating the listener's biases e.g. personal preferences? I would assume that a person doing a DBT for the pupose of an upgrade would be comparing things that he has a natural prefernce for. A tube lover would be comparing other tubed gear for example. Are you saying now that it is OK to have a little bit of prefernce during ABX/DBT test. That it is now OK to have specific biases as an example of being a bit charmed and enchanted by the sound produce by tube components for as long as the other components under test meet the same specified criterion that meet your biases. I'm saying that the main biases being controlled are visual and spl. Can you describe a bit more about this protocol ? Check the PCABX web site. So again, how does your proposed test of hearing no differences prove the absence of subtle sound preferences that physically exist ? It's not a test of hearing no difference, it's a comparison to see if difference exists. It allows the person doing the comparison to determine if there is a difference that he/she can hear. As you can tell by now, it is not a dispute whether it is about a test of hearing no difference. Why are anti-abx idiots ? For rejecting the methodology, and the findings. They are so convinced that the differences are real that even when they try an ABX comparison, and fail to detect them, they claim the test is faulty. snip -------- If you are not looking to upgrade or improve the sound of your system, there would be no reason to do a DBT. [...] You're suggesting above to do a comparative listening test called DBT in order to improve the sound of the components in your system ... No, that's your interpretation pulled out of the air. Pulled out of the air ? I pulled it out from your comment when you said that your above comparative listening are used by mfr. to improve their products. Are DBTs use by mfr. to improve their product lines ? Yes, by some, possibly more than we know DBT, (double blind test) is about making it as easy as possible for someone to HEAR differences. Whether those differences are improvements is entirely subjective, you either like the difference or not. There is a strong likelyhood that there won't be any differences to hear in which case there could be no improvement in sound quality. But this is for the purpose of improving by redesigning and changing the sound quality produced by the products of the mfr., as you said, right ? Yes. I'm suggesting that if one is considering an upgrade to his system, and wants to make sure the money being spent is for an improvement, then doing a DBT (double blind test) is the best way to determine if there are subtle differences. Again, you're suggesting above to do DBT 'cause it's the best way to determine subtle differences to ensure that the money is -- BEING SPENT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WHAT ? Sound quality, what else would it be for? Sound quality ? But why would you suggest audiophiles do a DBT if their intention is not to redesign or change the sound quality produced by the components that they want to just either hear or buy ? I have never suggested any such thing, in fact I have repeatedly stated that if one is not looking for improvement there is no reason to do a DBT. The subtle differences in sound that audiophiles hear, if detected, between components during the DBT will not necessarily lead them to the sound they prefer. It will tell them if there is a differnce they can hear, it is up to them to decide if the differences are what they prefer. Knowing there is a difference, is a piece of information they wouldn't have otherwise. Yes but unfortunately, again, you misdirect the results you obtain. No the unfortuante thing is that I've spent this much time with an idiot. When you are comparing two components and ending up prefering one, on what basis were you comparing them during the test? Remember that it cannot be base on SPL and preferences. Ask the person who made that choice. [...] Nobody here has suggested that anybody needs to do one for any buying decision, only that it's the best way to determine if there are subtle differences between devices. ............... So here, are you still suggesting to do DBT to determine subtle differences 'cause it's the best way to improve the sound produced by the devices ? No. It's the best way to determine if subtle differences exist. It doesn't improve the sound quality by doing a DBT, it simply tells you if there are any improvements at all. If one wants to determine that a unit being considered as an upgrade, really is an upgrade, a DBT is the best way to discover if there are any improvements, or if they sound the same. So the DBTs are the best way to discover if there's necessary improvement or if they sound the same..... for the purposes of WHAT ? How many ****ing times do I need to say the same thing. If you want to determine if there's ANY DIFFERENCE between two devices, then a DBT is the best way to do it. Of course it's possible, that there is a difference that is not an improvement, which is something else one would want to know. snip ON THE ONE HAND, you proclaim that abx/dbt are proven to be highly effective methodology as when employed by mfrs. for the purposes of redesigning and improving the sound quality of their product lines. I said they frequently use them to see if design changes have made a differnce. I doubt that there is much impovement in sound quality going on in consumer audio, there might be in other areas like cel phones and hearing aids. If the R&D guys detect a sound differences, and deem that the differences greatly enhances the sound quality of their products, then there will be room for improvement and hence, redesign their products. AND FROM THERE, you derive that since this methodology proven titself o be effective in detecting sound differences as when use by mfr. to improve and enhance the quality of their products, You, therefore, affirm that audiophiles should do the same. Only if there is a question of a new device sounding better or worse than an existing piece of equipment. If they want to know if there's a difference in sound quality. If they're not able to detect differences, or hear differences that aren't really there which they believe should really be there, YOU CLAIM THAT THEY'RE IDIOTS FOR * HEARING THINGS* THAT DON'T EXIST. Nope, never said that. I said the people who don't recognize that a ABX is recognized to be an effective tool for determining differences and that people who deny this fact are idiots. I have not said any such thing. I have said that people who claim to hear differences during sighted comparisons should do a dbt to make sure what they hear is real, because most of time the differences are the result of wishful thinking and not of any actual difference. Liar. You said: " ... When audiophiles make claims that defy reason and logic, yes I expect they offer some sort of proof, since it is known that people can make themselves believe they hear things that aren't really there." Where is the word idiot? BUT, when the R&D guys don't hear any sound differences, or feel that the differences aren't really there, you claim that there will be no need to redesign and improve the sound quality of their PRODUCTS. The sound quality is, therefore, good. ( I wasn't saying these were you're exact words.) Of course not, you prefer to make it up. Never said that either. R&D guys hopefully, are starting from the premise that they already had a good product, and are investigating the possibility that there are improvements to be made, and therefore they compare to see if any changes they made are audible. Sometimes they do DBT's to see if changes they made to save money, made any difference. Because audio electronics has been capable for many years of making equipment that makes no audible difference to the original signal, there's not a lot of testing for improvement, mostly it's to check for degradation due to proposed cost cutting design. But why is it that when audiophiles claim to hear sound difference between audio gear but fail to hear those differences during ABX/DBT, they're accused of defying reason and logic who can make themselves believe to hear things --- BUT not for the R&D guys ? Where did I say that? I said that hearing differences in a sighted evalution are essentially meaningless, unless they are big differences that wouldn't require a DBT. Those kinds of differences would easily show up in measurements. The ones that are subtle are the ones that a DBT would be useful for. I also said that is the denial of the efficacy of ABX that makes idots out people. Thanks for once again proving you don't know what you're talking about. You are a piece of work. And you're an idiot. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| John Atkinson: audio ignoramus or sleazebag? | Audio Opinions | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| question for anyone who bought an Aardvark product bundled with Cakewalk | Pro Audio | |||
| RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
