Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message What he said is "listening critically" changes the user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and you agreed (as do I). So far so good. That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny. It is the same influence in two different listening circumstances. The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are different depending on whether the listening is blind or sighted. I would argue that this is not true....both involve critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness, then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on the difference. This is all baseless speculation. snip When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the core of one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at those raising the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. Arny's responses above are a case in point. Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-) But to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this, it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that he agrees with this. Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify sighted listening. All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that _in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against sighted listening. Seems clearly logical to me: IF sighted listening is invalid on this ground THEN so is blind listening. I am sure that Mr. Krueger will now again argue that the audience and I prevented him from making case at HE2005. But they didn't, and I didn't, as is clear from the recording of the debate. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message What he said is "listening critically" changes the user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and you agreed (as do I). So far so good. That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny. It is the same influence in two different listening circumstances. The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are different depending on whether the listening is blind or sighted. I would argue that this is not true....both involve critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness, then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on the difference. This is all baseless speculation. Arguments aren't facts. Results observed in the real world are facts. In comparative, short-snippet testing one is forced to stay in comparative mode at virtually all times. An oft-repeated straw man argument. There's no need for a DBT to be a comparative, short-snippet test. However, we know that once a musical passage with an audible defect is found, comparative, short-snippet tests give the quickest, most reliable results. In those cases it is not known whether a musical passage has an audible defect, a comparative, short-snippet tests gives the quickest, most reliable results. Sighted listening conditions the listener to be insensitive to small differences by distracting him with non-sonic influences. Often, these non-sonic influences are huge. Harry has no response Blind listening conditions the listener to be sensitive to small sonic differences by making his sucess as a sensitive listener contingent solely on differences in sound quality. Harry has no response What *IS* a difference is the difference between active, comparative listening (left brain), and more laid-back, absorptive listening (right brain) that we usually do when listening to music. *THAT* is a difference, Arny. Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Harry has no response Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. The idea that laid-back, absorptive listening is more sensitive is like the idea that napping, or otherwise disengaged ball players play better ball. I didn't say it was more sensitive... Not at this instant. But back in the real world and further down the posting, Harry essentially says just that. With Harry, you are supposed to believe his every statement in isolation, it seems. said it uses a different part of the brain, which in turn can slowly bring things to consciousness that are otherwise passed by...then more focused listening using quick-switching can help hone in. That's called "open-ended evaluation". So what? You seem stubbornly determined to deny this phenomenon....despite widespread description of just this protocol as being the most revealing and productive for most listeners when evaluating gear. It ain't widespread, it's productivity is not known. And it doesn't, IMO, require blinding.. Harry has an opinion that blinding isn't required? Who is surprised? That it requires is an honest inquiry with no agenda and no foolish predispositions, e.g. "this one costs twice as much so it must sound better". Is there a living human that is free of all agendas? No! How do we know that the mind doing the evaluation has no predisposition? The foolish part of "foolish predispositions" is a judgement call. I say that Harry has a foolish predisposition towards believing in snake oil like SACD, and he has a number of different opinions. It sure would be nice if we could do listening tests that are as resistant as possible to agendas and predispositions, foolish or otherwise. Sighted tests are obviously not resistant the agenda or predispositions. Blind tests are well-known to be highly resistant to agendas and predispositions. Blinding is a fine tool, and I don't fight it when it can be accommodated. However, Harry has admitted that he fights blind tests in his own life. I believe he's even admitted that he has made zero equipment choices based on blind tests. But I will not throw out the baby with the bath water and adopt a test that both theory and practical experience indicate interferes with the thing under test *just* so I can say I did it double-blind. Harry makes up some pop-psychology theories, and that satisfies the "theory" part of his requirements. One problem with pop psychology theories based on left and right brains is that everybody who is capable of normal functioning has both halves of the brain, and they are tightly coupled. Talking about left and right brain functioning as separate things like like trying to separate the pistons from an engine and then try to talk about the performance of the engine and pistons separately. Harry makes up some speculative reasons why DBTs *might* interfere with the thing under test that disagree with widespread observations, and that satisfies the other part of his requirements. If Harry judged cars like he judges listening tests he'd never go anyplace in a car, because a car *might* crash. Nor will I advocate it to others. Well, that would involve Harry admitting that he is wrong. When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the core of one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at those raising the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. An admission of your own denial. Arny's responses above are a case in point. Notice that he never does tackle the argument that his style of ABX testing reduces if not eliminates the chance for slow-building, subconscious (originally) impresses to arise but instead uses primarily an alien (left-brain) mechanism for musical evaluation. You want him to lie? He calls it "a strawman" but has never offered any conflicting scientific support for his view that the issue is moot (I suspect because none exists). Perhaps he thought you might have the will to find the truth for yourself. Foolish of him, no? |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... Harry Lavo wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message What he said is "listening critically" changes the user's mindset, whether done blinded or sighted, and you agreed (as do I). So far so good. That is *NOT* two different influences, Arny. It is the same influence in two different listening circumstances. The point is that sighted and blinded listening for the purpose of evaluating equipment makes changes in the listener's mindset that are different. Knowing that the listening is for the purpose of evaluating the equipment changes the listener's mindset, but the changes are different depending on whether the listening is blind or sighted. I would argue that this is not true....both involve critical listening, which is comparatively conscious and left brain oriented. While ordinary music listening is relatively right-brain oriented. When listening and comparing at home, as most of us do, we can stay inthe absorptive mode until something rises to consiousness, then switch to comparative mode in order to hone in on the difference. This is all baseless speculation. snip When one has no real defense against arguments that strike at the core of one's beliefs, one resorts to meaningless blather aimed at those raising the arguments, rather than the arguments themselves. Arny's responses above are a case in point. Arny will be accusing you next of attacking his children, Harry. :-) Atkinson siezes the moral low ground, once again. I know, I know, Arny made you do it. But to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this, it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that he agrees with this. Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify sighted listening. Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that _in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against sighted listening. Another lie. Seems clearly logical to me: IF sighted listening is invalid on this ground THEN so is blind listening. Except that sighted listening gives results that are at odds with reality and blnd listening for subtle differences doesn't. I am sure that Mr. Krueger will now again argue that the audience and I prevented him from making case at HE2005. But they didn't, and I didn't, as is clear from the recording of the debate. What is clear is that you wish people not to beleive the truth about sighted listening for subtle differences. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message nk.net... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud. ----== 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 =---- |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
|
#287
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
" wrote in message nk.net... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud. Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Therefore, sighted evaluations related to small differences are duds, right Art? |
#288
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message oups.com No, not a lie at all, Mr. McKelvy. Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"? Nope. This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's mouth. |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message " wrote in message nk.net... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud. Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Therefore, sighted evaluations related to small differences are duds, right Art? You are known to be a liar. ----== 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 =---- |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"? Nope. No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said "coffee" and "alcohol." This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's mouth. You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr. Krueger. No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I merely felt your analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger. If it bothers you that much, substitute "coffee" and "alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in my statement above (whichever way round you feel appropriate). Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's head. Your metaphor, your foot, so to speak. John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message " wrote in message nk.net... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:17:57 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: Wrong Harry. There's nothing that says that laid-back, absorptive listening can't and hasn't been done under blind conditions. Since you seem to be very unclear about this Harry, let me say it specifically: I've personally done laid-back, absorptive listening under blind conditions. The results were evaulations with far poor sensitivity to small differences. But surely not hearing any differences at all is also a sign of "far poor sensitivity", Arnie? And that seems to occur most often with very un-laid-back A/B listening. But what if there were no differences to be heard? That emans the person was as sensitve asa he needed to be. But what if you had a test designed to tend to to produce the result of not hearing differences. that means the test is a dud. Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences were undetected? It would have to include an element of deception. ScottW |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
" wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. Got it? ScottW |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote
in message ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Hmm, did I just say "bad" or "good"? Nope. No you didn't say "bad" and "good," Mr. Krueger. You said "coffee" and "alcohol." Both of which are fine beverages in the appropriate contexts. This would be one of those Atkinson paraphrases, where he puts the words of his choice in the purported speaker's mouth. You seem incapable of saying anything without framing it as a "have you stopped beating your wife" statement, Mr. Krueger. You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. No, this not another "Atkinson paraphrase." I merely felt your analogy was over-stretched, Mr. Krueger. Here's a friendly suggestion John, if your problem is that you felt the analogy was over-stretched, try saying so without resorting to the ethically questionable debating trade practice of putting made-up words in my mouth. If it bothers you that much, substitute "coffee" and "alcohol" for "good" and "bad" in my statement above (whichever way round you feel appropriate). You seem to be missing the point Atkinson, which you must to in order to pursue the travesty of an equipment testing procedure that Stereophile seems to have relied on for its now-flagging commercial success. Either way, it seemed to have gone over Mr. McKelvy's head. Your metaphor, your foot, so to speak. I think he got my point just fine. If it went over someone's head, I would point to the person who can't quote it properly, one who confused a declaration with a question. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message
newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with you. Scotty. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question. A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
"paul packer" wrote in message
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 07:31:17 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: You seem to be confused, Atkinson. "have you stopped beating your wife" is a question. The statement above is a declaration. Forgive me for butting in, Arnie, but I think you've missed the point. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a statement, not a question. No it's a question with a so-called hidden meaning. There was nothing hidden in my declaration. I think Atkinson is at the core of it struggling with the strength of my presentation of the advantages of bias-controlled listening tests. It's easy to make a strong presentation for a strong concept, and a strong tool. A bit like "Are you still a jerk?" "No" affirms that you used to be. Yet another question with a hidden meaning. It functions like a declaration on some level, but first and foremost it's a question. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
"ScottW" wrote in message news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02... " wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-) Norm Strong |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Arny Krueger wrote: "ScottW" wrote in message newsa9Re.99618$Ep.21677@lakeread02 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Sighted evaluations are known to and therefore are designed to distract the listener from hearing small differences. Their result is known to be keeping people from hearing small differences by distracting them with influences related to sight. Ouch... somebody poked me in the eye with gibberish. You just made sure I'm not going to waste much time with you. Scotty. I am blessed. and your are unable to respond to my point. "What kind of "sighted test" proved small differences were undetected? It would have to include an element of deception. " ScottW |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... "ScottW" wrote in message news:gf9Re.99619$Ep.29598@lakeread02... " wrote in message nk.net... Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. I'm gonna have to go into calling BS everytime I see it but I fear my strength last. Sighted listening is not a waste time for an individual. It's only a waste of time if you want to provide irrefutable proof to others of your ability to perceive difference. I'm sorry, but sighted listening may indeed be a waste of time--even for an individual--or it may not be. Trouble is, you have no way of knowing if it was a waste of time until you double check the results while blinded. :-) So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted. That's my normal music listening MO, so wahtever satisfies that would be my choice. DBT is the time waster. ----== 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 =---- |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
"John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... wrote: "John Atkinson" wrote in message oups.com... to return to the statement of mine that provoked this outbreak of bile from Mr. Krueger, I was addressing Mr. Krueger's point that he made at the HE2005 debate that sighted listening changes the listener's state of mind. I have said that I agree with this, it does. I have also said that blind listening changes the listener's state of mind. It does, and Mr. Krueger has said that he agrees with this. Where I disagree with Mr. Krueger is in his raising of this change of state of mind _without qualification_ at the debate to disqualify sighted listening. Everybody who is rational knows that sighted listening for subtle differences is a waste of time, even you. Your mind-reading abilities aside, Mr. McKelvy, no I don't "know" this. Willful ignorance is no excuse. All I am doing is pointing out, as I did at the debate, that as blind listening _also_ changes the listener's state of mind, that _in itself_ is an insufficient reason to make a case against sighted listening. Another lie. No, not a lie at all, Mr. McKelvy. Even Arny Krueger has effectively agreed with my statement by subsequently arguing that there are different types of changes that occur and that he meant the "bad" kind that invalidates sighted listening, not the "good" kind that validates blind listening. Except he failed to make this subtle distinction at the debate. Perhaps you'd better let Mr. Krueger take a glance at your postings before you post them, to make sure you and he are on the same page. The changes from a blind comparison are in favor of detection of subtle differnces, consequently you should be in favor of them. |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
So what, if there were a descrepancy, I would go with sighted. Given how nice of a guy you've been over the years Art, I think that would be a very good thing for you to do. ;-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stereophile: not a shred of integrity | General | |||
Stereophile...source of all this bitterness?...Not! | Audio Opinions | |||
Stereophile Tries To Come Clean About The DiAural Fiasco | Audio Opinions | |||
Integrity (was Steely Dan The Absolute Sound) | High End Audio | |||
Note to the Idiot | Audio Opinions |