AudioBanter.com - View Single Post - Why scottw is too 'toopid' to debate with...

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote in message

Quotes me:
It is a shame that one has to nail a malicious 0.04 of a db. midget
over and over again.
As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges
to blather again about my
"difficulty" with facts. He does not say which "facts" in keeping
with his M.O. of throwing mud around in the hope that some of it
will stick.
I 'm not going to write messages again and again at his pleasure.
Better to repeat what I said before. Till it sinks.
One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive
asked his
panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he said he aked
them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way
round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up.

And answers with this original fencing opener thrust:
Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight.
You know it was your implication that they couldn't
respond when asked which is different but could if they asked
which they preferred that I contested.
I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors.

Some "implication":
Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article
(JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806):
"Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms
of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found
among the different categories of listeners...
.PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER
PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL
CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS...
And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats:
"The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were
generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally
untrained listeners..."
"THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED
LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN
PERFORMANCE..."
He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student
group.
Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this
0.04 of a db. midget?
This is the fourth time.

The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's
and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient,
let me assist you.

This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your
clown-prince last November:
" I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In
most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers
under test are
measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore
the more interesting
question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how
much, and why?" "

To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX."

To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive
agrees with you. I said
you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a
feat).. "

But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to
Olive's paper
as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different.
Clearly Olive makes no such claim.

Every time after a silent interval he repeats the same idiocy.
Sorry,but to call it a lie would be to dignify it by giving it some
semblance of intelligent design.

He went on about that for weeks and called me a liar for saying one or
the other. A stickler for "facts" is our Scottie.
The other I quote in extenso:

Scottie accused me of lying about Greenhill's ABX
cable comparison in 1983. Greenhill compared an early Master
cable against 16g zipcord.
. Greenhill did not give a diameter for the Master cable
but I assumed that- if for no other reason- an objectivist would not
falsify the data to favour the proprietary Master (Remember? "Wire
is wire" is an article of faith in the Chapel.)
I assumed the cables were of the same diameter= functionally
identical.
Scottie calculalated the monster gauge at 12 ( "or maybe 14").

He said I was "lying" when I said that 16g zipcord that Greenhill
used and Master cable were equal ( same diameter, functionally
identical,whatever)
I reread
Another clever thrust comes:
Actually you complained that it took too long to download
implying you hadn't actually read it.. at least not recently
enough to accurately recall it.

No I did not recall every word and every figure in a 10 page article
that I last read 3 years before. No, I did not like having to download
and read the same 10 page article over and over again.
No I do not like getting sore typing fingers to nail you for the 4th.
time.
No, I do not like boring the readers over and over again.
Like this for instance. I said:
" Greenhill and found that the frequency response
difference between the two was all of 0,04 db. Yes, 0,04.!!!

Scottie had an answer:
Can't get your facts straight... again. .04 db was FR error.
What was the insertion loss?

So .I answered:

"THE INSERTION LOSS WAS 0,16 OF A DB. REPEAT 0,16
OF A DB.
Even dogs may have difficulty hearing it.

He has an answer, he has:
Another error.. as some on the panel did hear it with pink noise
and Greenhill acknowledged they did.
None were able to with music though.
Level matched test between the two were never run.

Keep your facts straight and in support of your conclusions
and you'll have no problem with me.... go off and
extrapolate beyond what the facts support and I
may be around to call you on it.
ScottW
Greenhill' purpose when comparing cables was to see if
his audience could detect any difference between a proprietary
Monster and a zipcord. NOT TO FIND OUT IF THEY COULD HEAR
0,16 OF A DB INSERTION LOSS IN THE MONSTER.
Any article setting out to discuss that would land the writer in the
lunatic fringe file. No one can hear it..
Any positive or negative
results were the response to a total performance difference
between these two cables And in fact in the summary table called
"Statistical analysis of the entire panel's scores" Greenhill
summarises
the Monster vs. zipcord pink noise group result thus: "Is result
psychoacoustically significant by 75% rule?" And answers:
"NO"

But Ludo... don't ignore the possible existence of golden eared
people... you do believe that some people are blessed with
better hearing...don't you?
In any case... Greenhill also said, "When 16 gauge was pitted against
Monster Cable using pink noise as the program material, 3 of the
panelist correctly identified it (Monster from 16 gauge) in
12 out of 15 tries. Again, it is
very unlikely that this could have occurred by chance. But when
choral music was used instead of pink noise, none of the panelists
could correctly distinguished 16 gauge from Monster Cable to a
psychoacoustically significant degree (75%)."

This clearly indicates some people can hear that .16 of a db
difference with the proper material.

Perhaps your real gripe is that you're simply not blessed with
neither a golden ear nor a sharp mind.

ScottW