Re: Now for a little science..

[Boon]

On Feb 2, 9:43�am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to the
> mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate comparisons
> between trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners clearly
> performed better than any of the untrained groups, by quite a large margin.

[ScottW]

On Feb 2, 11:25*am, Boon > wrote:
> On Feb 2, 9:43 am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
> >http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> > "The performance scores of the untrained groups are scaled relative to the
> > mean scores of the trained listener in order to facilitate comparisons
> > between trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners clearly
> > performed better than any of the untrained groups, by quite a large margin.
> > The relative performance of the untrained groups, from best to worst, were
> > the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers (20%), the audio
> > marketing-sales group (10%), and the college students (4%). "
>
> > IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers scored 20% and audio
> > sales people scored 10%.
>
> Why do you Internet geeks keep offering blogs as evidence of anything?
>
> Boon

Dissing a blog authored by Sean Olive might be something a player in
the
industry should reconsider.

ScottW

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Feb 2, 9:43?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>
>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are
>> scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained
>> listener in order to facilitate comparisons between
>> trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners
>> clearly performed better than any of the untrained
>> groups, by quite a large margin. The relative
>> performance of the untrained groups, from best to worst,
>> were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers
>> (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the
>> college students (4%). "
>>
>> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers
>> scored 20% and audio sales people scored 10%.

> Why do you Internet geeks keep offering blogs as evidence
> of anything?

Because science from a recognized authority is science, whether its in a
blog, or whatever.

Now Marc, let's talk about you putting an employee of a power conditioner
vendor in charge of power conditioner testing at Tone Audio. It took me
about a minute to make the connection. Why didn't you make the same
connection for lo these many years?

If had first broken this story in a blog, would that had made it invalid?

[Boon]

On Feb 2, 12:07�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 9:43?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >>http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> >> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are
> >> scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained
> >> listener in order to facilitate comparisons between
> >> trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners
> >> clearly performed better than any of the untrained
> >> groups, by quite a large margin. The relative
> >> performance of the untrained groups, from best to worst,
> >> were the audio retailers (35%), the audio reviewers
> >> (20%), the audio marketing-sales group (10%), and the
> >> college students (4%). "
>
> >> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers
> >> scored 20% and audio sales people scored 10%.
> > Why do you Internet geeks keep offering blogs as evidence
> > of anything?
>
> Because science from a recognized authority is science, whether its in a
> blog, or whatever.
>
> Now Marc, let's talk about you putting an employee of a power conditioner
> vendor in charge of power conditioner testing at �Tone Audio. �It took me
> about a minute to make the connection. Why didn't you make the same
> connection for lo these many years?

Why do you keep lying about "power conditioner testing"?

>
> If had first broken this story in a blog, would that had made it invalid?-

I'm certainly not questioning Sean Olive, who is a respected industry
figure. I just question the blog format, where the only
accountability is to the writer of the blog. Unless he presents the
entire paper for free, how can we be sure that he isn't being
selective about the results to prove a point? That's my point about
blogs.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Boon" > wrote in message

> On Feb 2, 12:07?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Boon" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 2, 9:43?am, "Arny Krueger" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>>
>>>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are
>>>> scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained
>>>> listener in order to facilitate comparisons between
>>>> trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners
>>>> clearly performed better than any of the untrained
>>>> groups, by quite a large margin. The relative
>>>> performance of the untrained groups, from best to
>>>> worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio
>>>> reviewers (20%), the audio marketing-sales group
>>>> (10%), and the college students (4%). "
>>
>>>> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers
>>>> scored 20% and audio sales people scored 10%.
>>> Why do you Internet geeks keep offering blogs as
>>> evidence of anything?
>>
>> Because science from a recognized authority is science,
>> whether its in a blog, or whatever.
>>
>> Now Marc, let's talk about you putting an employee of a
>> power conditioner vendor in charge of power conditioner
>> testing at ?Tone Audio. ?It took me about a minute to
>> make the connection. Why didn't you make the same
>> connection for lo these many years?

<Marc has no relevant answer>

>> If had first broken this story in a blog, would that had
>> made it invalid?-

> I'm certainly not questioning Sean Olive, who is a
> respected industry figure.

> I just question the blog> format, where the only accountability is to the
> writer of
> the blog.

Having problems putting 2+2 together, Marc? The author was Sean Olive, who
as you put it, is a repected indstry figure.

>Unless he presents the entire paper for free,
> how can we be sure that he isn't being selective about
> the results to prove a point?

I suspect that the paper is available for free. But the price of the
document is irrelevant to its veracity.

> That's my point about blogs.

IOW, you have nothing relevant to say, Marc.

[Boon]

On Feb 2, 1:43�pm, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 12:07?pm, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Boon" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> >>> On Feb 2, 9:43?am, "Arny Krueger" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>http://seanolive.blogspot.com/
>
> >>>> "The performance scores of the untrained groups are
> >>>> scaled relative to the mean scores of the trained
> >>>> listener in order to facilitate comparisons between
> >>>> trained and untrained listeners. The trained listeners
> >>>> clearly performed better than any of the untrained
> >>>> groups, by quite a large margin. The relative
> >>>> performance of the untrained groups, from best to
> >>>> worst, were the audio retailers (35%), the audio
> >>>> reviewers (20%), the audio marketing-sales group
> >>>> (10%), and the college students (4%). "
>
> >>>> IOW, compared to trained listeners @ 100%, reviewers
> >>>> scored 20% and audio sales people scored 10%.
> >>> Why do you Internet geeks keep offering blogs as
> >>> evidence of anything?
>
> >> Because science from a recognized authority is science,
> >> whether its in a blog, or whatever.
>
> >> Now Marc, let's talk about you putting an employee of a
> >> power conditioner vendor in charge of power conditioner
> >> testing at ?Tone Audio. ?It took me about a minute to
> >> make the connection. Why didn't you make the same
> >> connection for lo these many years?
>
> <Marc has �no relevant answer>
>
> >> If had first broken this story in a blog, would that had
> >> made it invalid?-
> > I'm certainly not questioning Sean Olive, who is a
> > respected industry figure.
> > �I just question the blog> format, where the only accountability is to the
> > writer of
> > the blog.
>
> Having problems putting 2+2 together, Marc? �The author was Sean Olive, who
> as you put it, is a repected indstry figure.

So?

>
> >Unless he presents the entire paper for free,
> > how can we be sure that he isn't being selective about
> > the results to prove a point?
>
> I suspect that the paper is available for free.

At the bottom of the article is a link for buying the complete
article.

But the price of the
> document is irrelevant to its veracity.

It is if we're presented with a truncated version.

>
> > �That's my point about blogs.
>
> IOW, you have nothing relevant to say, Marc.

Not to you and your NPD. Then again I think you misunderstood the
article completely.

Boon

[[email protected]]

Unless he presents the
> entire paper for free, how can we be sure that he isn't being
> selective about the results to prove a point? *That's my point about
> blogs.
>
> Boon

Actually, if you read that particular blog posting I wrote, you will
find the reference to my paper that says
"This paper can be purchased from the Audio Engineering Society here,
or downloaded for free courtesy of Harman International." The free
link is:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20090204/12206.pdf
Cheers
Sean Olive