Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message t... If you have decided to, yet again, neatly but deeply tuck the tail (and this is just my assumption) between the legs, It's a phrase you like to use when people don't behave the way you want them too. Yes, I do not like the way you behave towards audiophiles. Answering questions as accurately as I can? Particularly to those that are newcomers to this hobby. Giving them the best information I can? Letting people know where I think the best values lie? If you think I've treated some newcomer badly, please find a quote and post it. surely Arnii would welcome this fine opportunity and render his services in forcibly yanking the said tail out of its seclusion.. Why don't you forcibly yank your head from where ever it is and realize that one person's score on an ABX test is relevant primarily for that one person. If a person hears a difference, it can also be verified by measurements. Oh, ok.... ;-) ;-) See above. I wasn't talking about an audio test. I was talking about subjective evaluation. An audio test is a subjective evaluations. LoL ! Indicating you still haven't grasped the truth of listening tests. An instance where Michael Fremer admits to detecting positive subtle differences that is audible to him. Could this mean that he's hearing things ? If it's a non-bias controlled, sighted, non-level matched one, almost certainly yes. This would be true for anyone trying to determine anything about subtle differences. If the differences are large enough and ABX test is not really required. The problem is that many of the differences reported tend to unexplainable when the equipment is measured. Some people actually beleive that measurements, aren't revealing enough to tell you what is true about a component. You know, you are confusing and misdirecting no one else here but yourself. I'm not misdirecting anything, you set up the premise. You are the one who is so confused that you don't understand that listening tests are ALL subjective. Before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively. But not anymore. I have maintained for a very long time, that subtle differences are not likely to be discovered by sighted listening. But before, when someone admit to detecting subtle differences, you do not hesitate to give your answer promptly, decisively, and conclusively But this is no more. Nothing has changed. Sighted listening for subtle difference is unreliable. So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that rather simple question is : What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be true for anyone doing that kind of listening. YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very likely hearing things ? Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. If Sean Olive wantedf to know about differences of any kind in audio equipment, he has more than enough resources to do so. Try and understand, ALL evaluations of audio equipment carried out by listening, ARE SUBJECTVE. That includes ABX and ABC/hr. WHAT is the matter with you ? I don't like idiotic questions WHAT is the matter with your head ? Why do ask idiotic questions? So what do you think if someone whom you thought was dignified as her says that she could easily tell the subtle sound differences among her hi-end audio components in her house ? What does dignity have to do with hearing? There shouldn't be. And that is why I'm simply wondering why you're not so forthright and tell what you think. I did tell you what I think, several times. You just don't like the answer. You mean that it is "stupid" for someone dignified as Rosa Parks to tell that they can hear subtle sound differences among their hi-end audio components ? I mean it's a stupid question. I mean her place in history has nothing to do with any ability to hear subtle differences in either sighted or blind comparisons. Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that rather simple question is : What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be true for anyone doing that kind of listening. YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very likely hearing things ? Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing things. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
Clyde Slick said: Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening" and "testing"? TIA. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message t... nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that rather simple question is : What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be true for anyone doing that kind of listening. YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very likely hearing things ? Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff, he is very likely hearing things. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are. I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue being the moron I always knew you were. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Of course listen for pleasure blind is not a totally bad idea, but it does make it harder to find the remote if it's not in your hand already. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening" and "testing"? TIA. You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen. If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind is going to give reliable results, while sighted non-bias controlled listening tests for subtle differences are a waste of time. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that rather simple question is : What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be true for anyone doing that kind of listening. YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very likely hearing things ? Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon." I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are. I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip. I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue being the moron I always knew you were. ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the presence of imminent danger.) |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle differnces. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message . com... nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. So, on the final ask, why don't you now answer the question. And that rather simple question is : What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? In the situation you describe, very likely, but again, the same would be true for anyone doing that kind of listening. YOU mean to tell me that if Mr. Sean Olive carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class over there at Harman and that, towards the end, if he came to conclusion that there was a positive subtle difference between the two then, according to you, he is very likely hearing things ? Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon." I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources when in fact they are only listening to one. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. I have never said that. Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing subtle differences, they control bias. Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX. I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: God no, not that well known Eddie precision. What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? See the list of publications I mentioned. What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very likely lead to unreliable results. I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are. I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip. I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue being the moron I always knew you were. ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the presence of imminent danger.) From what? Are you going to bore me to death? |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
Why oh why was I ever born sighted? Oh woe is me!
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is aless relaible way to detect subtle differnces. Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and start again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the simplest exercises in rote recall. Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening" and "testing"? TIA. You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen. Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you don't need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red. If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests" and aBx this and DBT that? .. .. .. .. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle differnces. Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode. I'm sure you believe that. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"George Middius" wrote in message ... All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and start again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the simplest exercises in rote recall. Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening" and "testing"? TIA. You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen. Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you don't need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red. If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests" and aBx this and DBT that? mikey, stop spinning. just give a drect answer to the question. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle differnces. Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode. I'm sure you believe that. I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions. "At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are. you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the same kind of tests you have not participated in yourself. yourself do not participate in |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
John Atkinson wrote:
wrote: I don't think Michael Fremer is ever going to sit through a DBT ever. He has far to much to lose. More faith-based claims of omniscience, I note. Contrary to your uninformed assertion, Mr. McKelvy (and those of Arny Krueger), Michael Fremer has indeed taken part in double-blind tests. More, I suspect, than you have :-) Just for the sake of curiosity, just how did he do? More to the point, did you think that any differences he did hear (assuming he heard any with components that were bench checked and found to be operationally up to mainstream hi-fi standards) were a big enough deal to warrant the copy space utilized hyping (either in ads or in reviews) high-priced components in assorted high-end magazines? Howard Ferstler |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"George Middius" wrote in message ... All together now: "duh! duh! duh!" Mikey, go to the end of the line and start again. Some people seem to need an infinite amount of practice for the simplest exercises in rote recall. Would you please ask Mikey to explain the difference between "listening" and "testing"? TIA. You need to listen to compare, you don't need to see to compare or to listen. Is that what you call an explanation? I ask because it's like saying you don't need eyeballs to distinguish blue from red. If you want to do a comparison for subtle differences, then doing it blind You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests" and aBx this and DBT that? Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can hear things for which there is no known reason to exist. . Paul said: Thus all well-designed, similarly measuring amps do not sound the same. Or am I mis-reading here? I said he was. I have and others have explained many times what the criteria are for SS amps to sound the same |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now. You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests" and aBx this and DBT that? Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can hear things for which there is no known reason to exist. So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend? You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive what is easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is substandard. This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling about "science" and "tests". If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol Arnii Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second the motion that you have your head removed surgically. .. .. .. |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Arny=nasty guy
"George Middius" wrote in message ... The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage. Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then is the problem with you? On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth about you. Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is afflicted with mental problems that go begging for treatment. Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you are convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are? Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many occasions, and also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to behave like a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far more than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded kindnesses toward your ****ful self. Thank him for his dishonesty? You really are an idiot. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message m... nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. snip.................... Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon." I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...] Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability to detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color blue to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to detect" the color red in that instance has not change. Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that. How many times this have to be explain to you. Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about hearing. The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth. [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. How about this: Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their altered perception on sound alone. Yes? Yes. It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources when in fact they are only listening to one. Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for you above. IOW you can't confirm with any research becausethere is none. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon and one is at Harman. And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the place. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or the place. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. I have never said that. uh-oh Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality, it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion? Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing subtle differences, they control bias. That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of bias. It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it. This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect sound differences. And is affected by bias. What are the specific differences with regard to their ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon and when one does it at Harman? See above. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Who said it was? Not me. Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX. You refuse to answer ? LoL! I have answered. You just ignore it. I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: God no, not that well known Eddie precision. What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own. See the list of publications I mentioned. You refuse answer ? LoL! What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very likely lead to unreliable results. I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ? And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests. I think you already got this one LoL! I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are. I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip. I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue being the moron I always knew you were. ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the presence of imminent danger.) From what? Are you going to bore me to death? I'm footless. Whatever that means. I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. snip.................... Now you are changing the situation. Earlier you said the situation would be an audio "saloon", at least that was the case you set up for Fremer. Changing ? You wish. It's not a wish it's what you said just a few paragraphs ago: What if Michael Fremer carried out a Subjective Evaluation between two components of equal class in a local audio saloon over there in L.A. and, towards the end, he came to conclude that there was a positive subtle difference between the two, could this mean that he's hearing things ? And as I have pointed out below that he is still in the "saloon." I'm referring to the level of ability when listening to discern subtle difference. That is, about the function and the ability to hear itself when using the ears to hear differences -- which does not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. The ability to hear doesn't change, that is ther is no difference in the working of the ear, but there is a differnce in the mind. [...] Yes, the ability to hear doesn't change. Let me add additional explanation as to what I meant by that "level of ability to detect." Ex.: Our ability to detect the color red will not diminish even if, say, you add the color blue to the red and mix them completely together. You will have trouble distinguishing the color red in that mix BUT, your "level of ability to detect" the color red in that instance has not change. Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that. How many times this have to be explain to you. [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. How about this: Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their altered perception on sound alone. Yes? It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources when in fact they are only listening to one. Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for you above. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon and one is at Harman. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. I have never said that. uh-oh Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing subtle differences, they control bias. That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of bias. This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect sound differences. What are the specific differences with regard to their ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon and when one does it at Harman? Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX. You refuse to answer ? LoL! I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: God no, not that well known Eddie precision. What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? See the list of publications I mentioned. You refuse answer ? LoL! What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very likely lead to unreliable results. I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ? I think you already got this one LoL! I sniiiippp and disagree with all your comments hereafter. But feel free to re-paste. You disagree before I even respond? What a open minded guy you are. I was referring to the comments you made below the part I snip. I'm sorry if you don't like being told the truth. Feel free to continue being the moron I always knew you were. ( You better pay attention to your position now because there is the presence of imminent danger.) From what? Are you going to bore me to death? I'm footless. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200 Northridge, CA, 91329 McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective" on his title description above. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"George Middius" wrote in message ... Mickey's dander is up. Even the scorpions should be wary now. You haven't answered Paul's question. Why are you always yammering about "tests" and aBx this and DBT that? Because other people are always yammering about how they believe they can hear things for which there is no known reason to exist. So what? How does that affect you? Why do you insist on an irrelevant explanation for phenomena that you are unable to perceive or comprehend? Why do people refuse to admit that it's unlikely that their flawed methods aren't deceiving them? You 'borgs love to stutter about Occam's Razor. Here's a straightforward application of that principle: The fact that you nitwits don't perceive what is easily perceptible by Normals is because your auditory acuity is substandard. The obligatory attack on the hearing of people you don't know and denial of the fact that fllawed comparisons lead to flawed results. This is a far more likely explanation than all of your ignorant babbling about "science" and "tests". No, it's just another denial of reality by you. If it weren't pointless, I'd advise you to "grow a brain", as your idol Arnii Kroofeces loves to say. But it is pointless, so instead I'll just second the motion that you have your head removed surgically. As usual, nothing of substance, just the usual personal attacks. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message nk.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message news wrote in message ink.net... Everybody is subject to bias when listening under sighted conditions. Then one should not EVER, EVER, listen to music while sighted. No one should ever compare for subtle differences that way, listen for pleasure any way you so desire. Listening for pleasure any way I desire INCLUDES the times I compare equipment. I make my comparisons WHILE listening for pleasure. Go ahead. Doesn't change the fact that it is a less relaible way to detect subtle differnces. Its more reliable for me to make my purchasing decisions based upon sighted listening, which is my 'normal' listening mode. I'm sure you believe that. I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions. "At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are. you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the same kind of tests you have not participated in yourself. yourself do not participate in So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round. If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could do me harm. If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about it. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. snip.................... snip Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that. How many times this have to be explain to you. Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about hearing. The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth. Hahahahaha ! I like that! [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. How about this: Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their altered perception on sound alone. Yes? Yes. LoL! Yessss oh yesss. It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources when in fact they are only listening to one. Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for you above. IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none. So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon and one is at Harman. And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the place. Oh my Goodness. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or the place Oh good gracious. Now it's the method. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. I have never said that. uh-oh Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality, it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion? Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo. Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing subtle differences, they control bias. That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of bias. It has everything to do with it, yo just won't admit it Holy mollusk ! This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect sound differences. And is affected by bias. Hmmm, now it's about biasss... What are the specific differences with regard to their ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon and when one does it at Harman? See above. You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Who said it was? Not me. Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't. Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX. You refuse to answer ? LoL! I have answered. You just ignore it. Your terrible. I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: God no, not that well known Eddie precision. What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own. Your agenda is showing again. See the list of publications I mentioned. You refuse answer ? LoL! What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very likely lead to unreliable results. I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ? And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests. Oh no! he doesn't participate ! I think you already got this one LoL! snip I'm footless. Whatever that means. I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing. No, just my foot. Give it back to me. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
wrote in message ink.net... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I am sure you believe otherwise. But its not for you to care one iota about how I go about making my decisions. "At least" I am consistent and not hypocritical, as you are. you keep yammering on about the need for the rest of us to undergo the same kind of tests you have not participated in yourself. yourself do not participate in So, by that logic if I haven't been up in space and seen the earth from there, there is no way to know if the earth is flat or round. If I haven't actually burned myself, I can't possibly know that fire could do me harm. If I haven't actually done something, I can't possibly know anything about it. Apply that to the dieeferences the rest of us know about! |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Take Mikey to the pound.
wrote in message nk.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage. Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then is the problem with you? On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth about you. Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is afflicted with mental problems that go begging for treatment. Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you are convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are? Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many occasions, and also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to behave like a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far more than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded kindnesses toward your ****ful self. Thank him for his dishonesty? You really are an idiot. Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey? He can't be allowed to run loose. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey=dumb person
wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is lost permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal remains about the same." They are both true statements. Got a problem with that? Mmmm....very butch, aren't we? Something for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time. The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors and lying, Paul. You made you do it. Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime. And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it. Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a nasty person Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****. If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me and to those who have always been cordial to him. If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta like you against McCarty, or me. If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of you, especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then **** off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here. See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that kind of bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person possibly can. More irony. Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are. Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime." |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Take Mikey to the pound.
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:36:35 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: wrote in message ink.net... "George Middius" wrote in message ... The Krooborg is kornered and krazed with rage. Robert, if simply being a dumb person doesn't explain the years of stupidity you've inflicted on this group, what then is the problem with you? On the contrary, Turdy -- Morein has only recently embraced the truth about you. Namely, and to wit, that you are a very obnoxious individual who is afflicted with mental problems that go begging for treatment. Why do ascribe your characteristics to others George? Is it because you are convinced that everyone esle is corrupt and dishonest as you are? Up until the recent past, Morein tried to reason with you on many occasions, and also overlooked your snotty attacks in the hope of persuading you to behave like a real person. He gave you far more latitude that most Normals do, and far more than you deserve. You should be thanking him for his undue and unrewarded kindnesses toward your ****ful self. Thank him for his dishonesty? You really are an idiot. Arny, do you have a choke collar for Mikey? He can't be allowed to run loose. AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT JUST KILLFILE ME YOU DUMB TWIT |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Mikey=dumb person
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:37:27 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: wrote in message link.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... wrote in message k.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... "paul packer" wrote in message ... On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 10:00:04 -0400, "Arny Krueger" wrote: "In the case of ATRAC encoding, 80% of the information is lost permanently. But, the energy contained in the audio signal remains about the same." They are both true statements. Got a problem with that? Mmmm....very butch, aren't we? Something for Arny to explain to me at length in Paradise, where we'll all have a lot more time. The good news is that I'm not responsible for your errors and lying, Paul. You made you do it. Do you see me contradicting your statement, Arnie? I merely said that I'll have to get you to explain it more fully sometime. And incidentally, while I fully admit to errors (as indeed you would be wise to when appropriate), lying has nothing to do with it. Someone should explain to Mikey that this is why Arny is considered a nasty person Someone should explain to you that I don't give a ****. If I get the answers I want from him about the questions I ask, then he's done all I need him to do. He's never been anything but cordial to me and to those who have always been cordial to him. If he gets treated less than cordially he tends to hold a grudge, sorta like you against McCarty, or me. If your ego is so fragile that it can't stand somebody's criticism of you, especially when you're dead wrong, which happens a lot it seems, then **** off. You're obviously too big a candy ass to be here. See Arny's recent reply to Paul, Mikey. If you continue to copy that kind of bad character, you'll end up with as bad a character as a dumb person possibly can. More irony. Mikey, the only thing which limits how bad you can be is how dumb you are. Your life could be the theme for "Disorganized Crime." But then again the future will be better tomorrow |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message m... nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. snip.................... snip Now, saying that there is going to be a difference in the mind tells you that you should avoid DBT because it will alter the way you perceive the stimulus (sounds) unto your peripheral field. And DBTest does exactly just that. How many times this have to be explain to you. Your "explanation" is in direct dontradiction with what is known about hearing. The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth. Hahahahaha ! I like that! [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. How about this: Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their altered perception on sound alone. Yes? Yes. LoL! Yessss oh yesss. Let's change that to "unalterd perception." It can be influenced by various biases, which is why removing them and doing a blind comparison, level matched, is best. I am talking about the "acuity" of their "ability to discern" subtle differences and NOT about the influence of various biases. That is, the ability to discern do not change for any Subjective "listening" Evaluation. It doesn't? Please point me to the research that confirms this notion. The consenus is that hearing is influenced by what one sees and that people can be routinely fooled into thinking they are listening to 2 different sources when in fact they are only listening to one. Let me point you instead to the example about the color RED for you above. IOW you can't confirm with any research because there is none. So, you have to have your confirmation. Hmmmm. So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon and one is at Harman. And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the place. Oh my Goodness. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or the place Oh good gracious. Now it's the method. Always was. But if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective "listening" Evaluation at Harman and detect positive subtle difference, he is likely to not hear things. I have never said that. uh-oh Uh-oh is right. I've never siad either person was more likely to hear bettter or worse than other, it's how the listening is done, not who is doing it, unless of course there is some reason to believe that one of them has defective hearing. Judging by some of the things Fremer has said in print a case could be made that his hearing is defective, but in actuality, it's his methods that we know for sure are unrelaible. How else could he praise the WAVAC amp with it's gross amounts of distortion? Your agenda is showing.... yooohooo. You mean telling the truth is an agenda? Could you describe to me the specific differences in their senses leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things? It is not about Fremer or about Olive it is about bias, people have them and can't escape them. That is why DBT's are the preferred method for determing subtle differences, they control bias. That's pretty evasive of you. This has nothing to do with the discussion of bias. It has everything to do with it, you just won't admit it Holy mollusk ! This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect sound differences. And is affected by bias. Hmmm, now it's about biasss... Goes along with method. What are the specific differences with regard to their ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon and when one does it at Harman? See above. You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Who said it was? Not me. Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't. Provide a quote. Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. They tend to use groups of trained listeners in blind comparisons. I'm not asking you if whether Mr. Olive would still be doing Subjective Evaluation himself or use a group of trained listener. I'm asking you to describe the specific differences regarding their sense to detect. See the list of publications below in the Case for ABX. You refuse to answer ? LoL! I have answered. You just ignore it. Your terrible. I thought that was clear. Let me ask again (as I hope) to be equally precise: God no, not that well known Eddie precision. What is/are the specific differences to their senses with regard to the "ability itself" in detecting for sound differences -- leading you to validate that Michael Fremer is very likely hearing things ? I was speaking of his apparent lack of sanity based on his writing and the fact that based on those writings he can't seem to hear very well. What is certain is that he and the other reviewers at SP do not use reliable methods to determine if the things they review are indeed any different from other things they've reviewed in the past or things they currently own. Your agenda is showing again. See the list of publications I mentioned. You refuse answer ? LoL! What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ----------- if both him and Michael Fremer's "ability to detect" has not change when carrying out Subjective Evaluation ? Why are you setting up a strawman? I've said several times now, that it doesn't matter who is doing the listening, if it's sighted then it will very likely lead to unreliable results. I said: What is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that causes him to NOT hear things ? And my response is that I hasve no idea what he hears or doesn't hear, since I don't think he personally participates in any of thte listening tests. Oh no! he doesn't participate ! I think you already got this one LoL! snip I'm footless. Whatever that means. I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing. No, just my foot. Give it back to me. I think it's stuck in your ear. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
"EddieM" wrote in message . .. Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200 Northridge, CA, 91329 McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective" on his title description above. Why? |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote .............
Look McKelvy, your skull is as thick as the one that Ferstler has, but I can only come in and out of this computer for so much especially lately. ..........I'll be back tommorow though, sometime before PM....... |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote
EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote nyob123 wrote Sniipp and disgreed to all the things you said. Feel free to repaste though. snip snip snip The only reason to avoid a DBT is to avoid the truth. Hahahahaha ! I like that! [...] That's why using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus on sound alone. How about this: Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their altered perception on sound alone. Yes? Yes. LoL! Yessss oh yesss. Let's change that to "unalterd perception." Ok. If it's unaltered, then, what does the word "blind" in the context of DBT cognitively and visually requires to ensure that perception remain unchanged ? What does "using only the ears" in the context of ABX and/or DBT cognitively requires, if, when guessing is not allowed, yet, ensure that perception remain unchanged ? ........ snip So if Michael Fremer carry out a subjective listening Evaluation at audio "saloon" and detect positive subtle diff., he is very likely hearing things. Same stupid question. The answer has been given to you several times. If one listens for subtle differences without proper bias controls, no matter who they are, they are very likely to beleive they hear differences that are not there. What are you talkin about ? I said to you that both person are carrying out the same Subjective listening Evaluation. One is at an audio saloon and one is at Harman. And what has the location to do with anything? It's the method not the place. Oh my Goodness. Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Where did I say that was the case? Again it's the method, not the preson or the place Oh good gracious. Now it's the method. Always was. Okey then, let's do the method. The method for both are the "same" ie, they're both Subjective "listening" Evaluation. What else is Mr. Olive "doing" there at Harman that lead you to believe that he isn't hearing things ? But if Mr. Olive ... snip ....... Holy mollusk ! This has to do with the sense of perception and the ability to detect sound differences. And is affected by bias. Hmmm, now it's about biasss... Goes along with method. What are the specific differences with regard to their ability to detect when one carrys out Subjective Evaluation at audio saloon and when one does it at Harman? See above. You're way up in the ozone man. .......way up Why is it that the one at Harman is likely to NOT hear things, but not for the one at the audio saloon even if their ability to detect (See color Red example) has not change ? Who said it was? Not me. Before, you said it does, now you say it doesn't. Provide a quote. I object to this tactical manuever of having me do the footwork to explain each time you smack yourself on the head. Olive would not likely be doing any sighted evaluations himself. .........snip Oh no! he doesn't participate ! I think you already got this one LoL! snip I'm footless. Whatever that means. I was thinking it was some other organ you were missing. No, just my foot. Give it back to me. I think it's stuck in your ear. I'm footless again. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote EddieM wrote Sean Olive, Manager Subjective Evaluation R&D Group, Harman International 8500 Balboa Blvd., PO Box 2200 Northridge, CA, 91329 McKelvy, I think you're being misdirected and should ask Mr. Olive to refrain from using the word "Subjective" on his title description above. Why? For one, because according to you, if Mr. Olive carrys out Subjective listening Evaluation over there at Harman and discern subtle differences, he is NOT "hearing things." Yet, if Michael Fremer carrys out Subjective listening Evaluation at audio saloons and discern subtle differences, he is. What the F*** ! |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking my chicken and it won't get up !"
Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo ! Anybody home ?? Well, when your done busy choking that chicken, maybe you can have Arny lend a hand and start working on the tail neatly cleaved in those thigh. And how strong they are! Arny says, " Poor boy! That's some heavy-duty, sturdy legs you got there, Mike. I might have to charge you extra this time around. Thing is, for this job, I'll need Ferstler services to ... like perhaps, tickle you a bit up and down the thighs so I can work on the back and ever so slowly eke the said bewitching tail out of confinement..... you see, that cost me extra! Won't you turn around here now poor boy and see if plucking them cheeks help loosens things a bit..." Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken instead!" Arny says, ".... |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote ......."I'm choking! I'm choking! and it won't get up !"
Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo ! Yoooohoooo Mikey says, " Why don't you stop and help me choke the chicken instead!" Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout myself..... uhhmm." Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! " |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
More from Sean
nyob123 wrote ...."I'm panting! I'm panting! and it still won't go !"
Hellllooooooo .............Helllllllllllllllloooo ! Knock.........knock ......... Arny says, ".... Easy now old boy! I'm standing here lookin at that limpid, scintillating hole and making me forget 'bout myself..... uhhmm." Mikey said, "......... Moo moo moo... I like that! I Iike that ! " Arny says, " There you go Ol' Boy..! You got me distracted! Let me blow! Let me blow! ........ Sweet nothing in the air, and pucker things up! You know what it's like when in the mood ........... for some Love! " |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
More from Sean Olive | Audio Opinions | |||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive | Audio Opinions | |||
Sean Sez | Audio Opinions | |||
From Sean Olive hisownself | Audio Opinions | |||
Sean Olive on loudspeakers | High End Audio |