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

wrote:
ScottW wrote:
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.

_______________________________________

One more point:
ScottW says:
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.

Any kind of blind "testing" ie ABX/DBT using snippets is
unsuitable for determining DIFFERENCES.between components by
unselected, untrained groups of audio consumers..

Are you bitching about snippets or unselected untrained groups of
audio consumers?

No matter... neither is mandatory for ABX.

This is
not an opinion.
It's a fact stated very clearly by S. Olive himself
If Olive's own words that I quoted above about poor
PERFORMANCE of his panelists as contrasted with excellent
consistency in PREFERENCE are beyond your understanding
that's tough.
S. Olive discusses at length the differnce in PERFORMANCE
between trained and untrained listeners. His says that his trained
people PERFORMED 27 times better

But Ludo... you quoted Olive and said, :"This metric
accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between
loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...".
And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE....

were found among the different categories of listeners"
Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it
"unsuitable" for his task. "

So what is your point?

than audio students

Kind of off topic ... but what the hell is an audio student?

BUT
there was no such difference in PREFERENCE.

So without training you can't answer different (not determined by ABX
but some other method) but you can identify preference.
Interesting... but not conclusive of anything regarding ABX.

My own belief is that training is mainly training in being
good
at blind testing- so as to perform better in a lab environment.
That's me not S. Olive.

Thats fine Ludo but Olive didn't use ABX. It simply doesn't address
the question he was trying to answer...possibly simply because he had
more than 2 speakers to evaluate.

ScottW