I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in
:

I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses
audio, rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.


Rec.audio.tech would eb a good start.

Tim

--

"The strongest human instinct is to impart information,
and the second strongest is to resist it."

Kenneth Graham

New Geoff wrote:


I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B









If you're interested in a worthwhile exchange of subjective opinions about
audio equipment and/or music from variouis media, the Audio Asylum website,
which is moderated to prevent personal attacks, is worth some looks. Also, if
you have an interest in vinyl playback (equipment and/or music), you should
consider subscribing to the Phonogram mailing list ( a major domo run list).



Bruce J. Richman

Subjective is right. The Audio Asylum is full of idiots who believe in
exotic speaker cables, magic stones and CD demagnitizers.


If you're interested in a worthwhile exchange of subjective opinions about
audio equipment and/or music from variouis media, the Audio Asylum
website,
which is moderated to prevent personal attacks, is worth some looks.
Also, if
you have an interest in vinyl playback (equipment and/or music), you
should
consider subscribing to the Phonogram mailing list ( a major domo run
list).

"New Geoff" m.gjb SPHERICAL wrote in message ...
I understand and agree with your frustration. As of now there is no
forum for advice and discussion about audio matters for audio amateurs
and audiophiles. Audio.tech. is for the techs or the tech- minded.
About audio.opinion you already said what needed saying. I'd add only
that not everyone wants to engage in a discussion that is as likely as
not to end in a bucketful of schoolboy filth poured over his head. The
audio.high-end has long ago ceased to be about high-end. It is now an
organ of frustrated engineers, without an original thought in their
head. occasionally helped by those who love the idea that what they
can not hear does not exist. The whole thing is supervised by a
non-objective "objectivist" in sheep's clothing who allows any
innocent asking for advice to be swamped by the "it all sounds the
same anyway" trumpeters and who censors any contrary view under one
pretext or another.
Audio Asylum comes closest but is not high-end by intent
and practice.
To illustrate: 4 days ago in the audio high-end forum
Lawrence Leung asked for experiences and opinions of those who had the
opportunity to compare two different high-end speakers he was
interested in.
He was not asking for the engineering data. He was simply
asking which one sounded "better' to those listeners who'd answer his
query. That is what criticism is for and has been for millennia.
Whether it is quality of art reproduction, of violins or wines. Which
critic you choose to believe is your affair.
He was immediately sat on by the usual suspects. He was
told that choosing loudspeakers was entirely "subjective", because
"differences are obvious" so no advice could be given. The subliminal
message was that he was a simpleton for even asking for help in a
supposedly high-end forum. He, in turn, understandably questioned why
the proponents of "scientific testing" of all things audio suddenly
stop at testing speakers.
At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on a similar occasion every
single word in this sentence is a lie including the "No", and the
majestic "We". ("We" is meant to smuggle in an impression that a
lawyer, Marcus is a spokesman for science and scientists because,
presumably, he managed to struggle through : "Electronics for
dummies")
And what is the truth?
In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
He compared four completely different
loudspeakers ranging in price from $ 5.000 to 11.0000. (He gave no
names but it is my guess that one of them was a M-L hybrid.) . He had
263 listeners. He exposed them to real music not artifacts. The tests
were double blind but he chose NOT to use the ABX method
He used a statistical metric which he says
"…accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ablity to repeat their ratings." This
was his basis for his "Performance" statistics.
And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance… were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)
So much for Marcus' "scientifically proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anyone can tell differences between
speakers.
He follows the advice to budding lawyers:
"If the facts are against you argue the law. If the law is against
you argue the facts. If both are against you thump the table.
To return to RAHE Marcus' "scientific"
table-thumping sees the light of day in that forum for the umpteenth
time. Try and question the DBT, the very basis of his "science", the
"test"- beloved, unproven, never validated by basic research "- , as
meaningless (considering the infinite variety of audio consumers) as
the "objective" comparison between a Gallo product and a Chateau Yquem
and the heavy hand of RAHE chief moderator will grab you by the
throat..
Ludovic Mirabel



I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B

George M. Middius wrote:


John Williams Shelleyed:

Subjective is right. The Audio Asylum is full of idiots who believe in
exotic speaker cables, magic stones and CD demagnitizers.

Eek! Look out for cooties!











Probably the sockpuppet name of a frustrated conductor/coimposer/classical
guitaritst wannabe.



Bruce J. Richman

And this guy doesn't have an axe to grind? He ran away with his tail
between his legs from RAHE because no one who pay any attention to his
runon rantings against DBTs as evidenced below.

I'd advise anyone who has a mind of their own to check out each of
the rec.audio.* groups themselves. Just skip this one.

In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
I understand and agree with your frustration. As of now there is no
forum for advice and discussion about audio matters for audio amateurs
and audiophiles. Audio.tech. is for the techs or the tech- minded.
About audio.opinion you already said what needed saying. I'd add only
that not everyone wants to engage in a discussion that is as likely as
not to end in a bucketful of schoolboy filth poured over his head. The
audio.high-end has long ago ceased to be about high-end. It is now an
organ of frustrated engineers, without an original thought in their
head. occasionally helped by those who love the idea that what they
can not hear does not exist. The whole thing is supervised by a
non-objective "objectivist" in sheep's clothing who allows any
innocent asking for advice to be swamped by the "it all sounds the
same anyway" trumpeters and who censors any contrary view under one
pretext or another.
Audio Asylum comes closest but is not high-end by intent
and practice.
To illustrate: 4 days ago in the audio high-end forum
Lawrence Leung asked for experiences and opinions of those who had the
opportunity to compare two different high-end speakers he was
interested in.
He was not asking for the engineering data. He was simply
asking which one sounded "better' to those listeners who'd answer his
query. That is what criticism is for and has been for millennia.
Whether it is quality of art reproduction, of violins or wines. Which
critic you choose to believe is your affair.
He was immediately sat on by the usual suspects. He was
told that choosing loudspeakers was entirely "subjective", because
"differences are obvious" so no advice could be given. The subliminal
message was that he was a simpleton for even asking for help in a
supposedly high-end forum. He, in turn, understandably questioned why
the proponents of "scientific testing" of all things audio suddenly
stop at testing speakers.
At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on a similar occasion every
single word in this sentence is a lie including the "No", and the
majestic "We". ("We" is meant to smuggle in an impression that a
lawyer, Marcus is a spokesman for science and scientists because,
presumably, he managed to struggle through : "Electronics for
dummies")
And what is the truth?
In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
He compared four completely different
loudspeakers ranging in price from $ 5.000 to 11.0000. (He gave no
names but it is my guess that one of them was a M-L hybrid.) . He had
263 listeners. He exposed them to real music not artifacts. The tests
were double blind but he chose NOT to use the ABX method
He used a statistical metric which he says
"…accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ablity to repeat their ratings." This
was his basis for his "Performance" statistics.
And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance… were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)
So much for Marcus' "scientifically proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anyone can tell differences between
speakers.
He follows the advice to budding lawyers:
"If the facts are against you argue the law. If the law is against
you argue the facts. If both are against you thump the table.
To return to RAHE Marcus' "scientific"
table-thumping sees the light of day in that forum for the umpteenth
time. Try and question the DBT, the very basis of his "science", the
"test"- beloved, unproven, never validated by basic research "- , as
meaningless (considering the infinite variety of audio consumers) as
the "objective" comparison between a Gallo product and a Chateau Yquem
and the heavy hand of RAHE chief moderator will grab you by the
throat..
Ludovic Mirabel



I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B

"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
om

At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"

And what is the truth?

In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Questioning the validity of previous studies sheds no light either way on
the claim that "....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound
alone.".

The validity of previous studies is irrelevant to whether or not
"....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. One has to question why someone
would want to confuse them.

And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance. were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)

Studying the performance of different categories of listeners sheds no
light either way on the claim that "....speakers are almost always
distinguishable by sound alone.".

The performance of different categories of listeners is irrelevant to
whether or not "....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound
alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. Again, one has to question why
someone would want to confuse them.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

lid Shelleyed:

And this guy doesn't have an axe to grind? He ran away with his tail
between his legs from RAHE because no one who pay any attention to
his runon rantings against DBTs as evidenced below.

Are you sure you want to be a magazine editor?

Nice explanation of why Atkinson bashes DBTs. He wants to be a magazine
editor some day.

;-)

(ludovic mirabel) said:

I understand and agree with your frustration. As of now there is no
forum for advice and discussion about audio matters for audio amateurs
and audiophiles. Audio.tech. is for the techs or the tech- minded.
About audio.opinion you already said what needed saying. I'd add only
that not everyone wants to engage in a discussion that is as likely as
not to end in a bucketful of schoolboy filth poured over his head. The
audio.high-end has long ago ceased to be about high-end. It is now an
organ of frustrated engineers, without an original thought in their
head. occasionally helped by those who love the idea that what they
can not hear does not exist. The whole thing is supervised by a
non-objective "objectivist" in sheep's clothing who allows any
innocent asking for advice to be swamped by the "it all sounds the
same anyway" trumpeters and who censors any contrary view under one
pretext or another.
Audio Asylum comes closest but is not high-end by intent
and practice.
To illustrate: 4 days ago in the audio high-end forum
Lawrence Leung asked for experiences and opinions of those who had the
opportunity to compare two different high-end speakers he was
interested in.
He was not asking for the engineering data. He was simply
asking which one sounded "better' to those listeners who'd answer his
query. That is what criticism is for and has been for millennia.
Whether it is quality of art reproduction, of violins or wines. Which
critic you choose to believe is your affair.
He was immediately sat on by the usual suspects. He was
told that choosing loudspeakers was entirely "subjective", because
"differences are obvious" so no advice could be given. The subliminal
message was that he was a simpleton for even asking for help in a
supposedly high-end forum. He, in turn, understandably questioned why
the proponents of "scientific testing" of all things audio suddenly
stop at testing speakers.
At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on a similar occasion every
single word in this sentence is a lie including the "No", and the
majestic "We". ("We" is meant to smuggle in an impression that a
lawyer, Marcus is a spokesman for science and scientists because,
presumably, he managed to struggle through : "Electronics for
dummies")
And what is the truth?
In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
He compared four completely different
loudspeakers ranging in price from $ 5.000 to 11.0000. (He gave no
names but it is my guess that one of them was a M-L hybrid.) . He had
263 listeners. He exposed them to real music not artifacts. The tests
were double blind but he chose NOT to use the ABX method
He used a statistical metric which he says
"…accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ablity to repeat their ratings." This
was his basis for his "Performance" statistics.
And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance… were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)
So much for Marcus' "scientifically proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anyone can tell differences between
speakers.
He follows the advice to budding lawyers:
"If the facts are against you argue the law. If the law is against
you argue the facts. If both are against you thump the table.
To return to RAHE Marcus' "scientific"
table-thumping sees the light of day in that forum for the umpteenth
time. Try and question the DBT, the very basis of his "science", the
"test"- beloved, unproven, never validated by basic research "- , as
meaningless (considering the infinite variety of audio consumers) as
the "objective" comparison between a Gallo product and a Chateau Yquem
and the heavy hand of RAHE chief moderator will grab you by the
throat..
Ludovic Mirabel

So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.
Something I have known for years, note.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message


So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.

Exactly.

Something I have known for years, note.

Sander, this trusting only your ears stuff only started when you commenced
basing all of your evaluations on DBTs. Exactly when that start?

"George M. Middius" wrote in message

Sander deWaal said:

So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.
Something I have known for years, note.

No wonder the 'borgs are terrified of you.

Middius, no wonder you've attacked me over 10,000 times - its because I
terrify you.

"Arny Krueger" said:

So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.

Exactly.

Glad you agree.

Something I have known for years, note.

Sander, this trusting only your ears stuff only started when you commenced
basing all of your evaluations on DBTs. Exactly when that start?

Ever since I consciously heard my father's system when I was 12 or so.
Probably even earlier.

And no, no DBTs in sight (pun intended).
I listen to music for entertainment, not to prove anything to anyone.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
(ludovic mirabel) said:


So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.
Something I have known for years, note.

--
Sander deWaal
"SOA of a KT88? Sufficient."

And you got it right for years. Only a pseudo-"scientist"
would think that an individual aesthetic experience- be it perfumes,
colours, tastes (cheeses, wines), hearing (violins, pianos, loudspeakers)-
becomes "science" by filling in a form.
This takes nothing away from audio DBTs as a pleasant
passtime for those who enjoy that kind of thing. Or as a research tool with
well-defined target, controlled sample population etc.
And it takes nothing away from the inventors of an ingenious
gadget designed to simplify such testing
Ludovic Mirabel

wrote in message
...
And this guy doesn't have an axe to grind? He ran away with his tail
between his legs from RAHE because no one who pay any attention to his
runon rantings against DBTs as evidenced below.

I'd advise anyone who has a mind of their own to check out each of
the rec.audio.* groups themselves. Just skip this one.

To find out once again that the sharpest wit and the best brain in audio
faithfully reads my rants makes it all worthwhile.
Thank you Mr. Audioguy for your thoughtful contribution.
Ludovic Mirabel
In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
I understand and agree with your frustration. As of now there is no
forum for advice and discussion about audio matters for audio amateurs
and audiophiles. Audio.tech. is for the techs or the tech- minded.
About audio.opinion you already said what needed saying. I'd add only
that not everyone wants to engage in a discussion that is as likely as
not to end in a bucketful of schoolboy filth poured over his head. The
audio.high-end has long ago ceased to be about high-end. It is now an
organ of frustrated engineers, without an original thought in their
head. occasionally helped by those who love the idea that what they
can not hear does not exist. The whole thing is supervised by a
non-objective "objectivist" in sheep's clothing who allows any
innocent asking for advice to be swamped by the "it all sounds the
same anyway" trumpeters and who censors any contrary view under one
pretext or another.
Audio Asylum comes closest but is not high-end by intent
and practice.
To illustrate: 4 days ago in the audio high-end forum
Lawrence Leung asked for experiences and opinions of those who had the
opportunity to compare two different high-end speakers he was
interested in.
He was not asking for the engineering data. He was simply
asking which one sounded "better' to those listeners who'd answer his
query. That is what criticism is for and has been for millennia.
Whether it is quality of art reproduction, of violins or wines. Which
critic you choose to believe is your affair.
He was immediately sat on by the usual suspects. He was
told that choosing loudspeakers was entirely "subjective", because
"differences are obvious" so no advice could be given. The subliminal
message was that he was a simpleton for even asking for help in a
supposedly high-end forum. He, in turn, understandably questioned why
the proponents of "scientific testing" of all things audio suddenly
stop at testing speakers.
At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on a similar occasion every
single word in this sentence is a lie including the "No", and the
majestic "We". ("We" is meant to smuggle in an impression that a
lawyer, Marcus is a spokesman for science and scientists because,
presumably, he managed to struggle through : "Electronics for
dummies")
And what is the truth?
In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
He compared four completely different
loudspeakers ranging in price from $ 5.000 to 11.0000. (He gave no
names but it is my guess that one of them was a M-L hybrid.) . He had
263 listeners. He exposed them to real music not artifacts. The tests
were double blind but he chose NOT to use the ABX method
He used a statistical metric which he says
".accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ablity to repeat their ratings." This
was his basis for his "Performance" statistics.
And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance. were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)
So much for Marcus' "scientifically proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anyone can tell differences between
speakers.
He follows the advice to budding lawyers:
"If the facts are against you argue the law. If the law is against
you argue the facts. If both are against you thump the table.
To return to RAHE Marcus' "scientific"
table-thumping sees the light of day in that forum for the umpteenth
time. Try and question the DBT, the very basis of his "science", the
"test"- beloved, unproven, never validated by basic research "- , as
meaningless (considering the infinite variety of audio consumers) as
the "objective" comparison between a Gallo product and a Chateau Yquem
and the heavy hand of RAHE chief moderator will grab you by the
throat..
Ludovic Mirabel



I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would
be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their
arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might
hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you
don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
om

At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"

And what is the truth?

In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Questioning the validity of previous studies sheds no light either way on
the claim that "....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound
alone.".

The validity of previous studies is irrelevant to whether or not
"....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. One has to question why someone
would want to confuse them.

And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance. were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)

Studying the performance of different categories of listeners sheds no
light either way on the claim that "....speakers are almost always
distinguishable by sound alone.".

The performance of different categories of listeners is irrelevant to
whether or not "....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound
alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. Again, one has to question why
someone would want to confuse them.

Am I alone not being able to follow the logic of this argument?
Ludovic Mirabel

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" said:

So all this comes down to trusting your own ears only.

Exactly.

Glad you agree.

Something I have known for years, note.

Sander, this trusting only your ears stuff only started when you
commenced basing all of your evaluations on DBTs. Exactly when that
start?

Ever since I consciously heard my father's system when I was 12 or so.
Probably even earlier.

And no, no DBTs in sight (pun intended).
I listen to music for entertainment, not to prove anything to anyone.

Thanks Sander for keeping your baseless opinions to yourself, and saving
everybody else the trouble of repeating your errors.

"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
om

At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob
Marcus took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what
we said at all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a
shadow of a doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable
by sound alone"

And what is the truth?

In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published
a paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus
untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

Questioning the validity of previous studies sheds no light either
way on the claim that "....speakers are almost always
distinguishable by sound alone.".

The validity of previous studies is irrelevant to whether or not
"....speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. One has to question why
someone would want to confuse them.

And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance. were found among the.different
categories of listeners." He was interested only in comparing
groups (Piquantly audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by
this kind of test, anyway.). His best performers were his trained
technicians. BUT his web site posting of previous group of tests
showed enormous differences in individual performance WITHIN his
trained group (from 30 to 70% correct answers)

Studying the performance of different categories of listeners sheds
no light either way on the claim that "....speakers are almost
always distinguishable by sound alone.".

The performance of different categories of listeners is irrelevant
to whether or not "....speakers are almost always distinguishable by
sound alone.".

These are quite clearly different topics. Again, one has to question
why someone would want to confuse them.

Am I alone not being able to follow the logic of this
argument? Ludovic Mirabel

Obviously you're a newbie around here Ludovic. You're supposted to start
ranting about "krooglish" in order to dodge the point of my response.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net wrote in message



Am I alone not being able to follow the logic of this
argument? Ludovic Mirabel

Obviously you're a newbie around here Ludovic. You're supposted to start
ranting about "krooglish" in order to dodge the point of my response.

No, the particular Krueger lapse in this instance was Kroologic, not
Krooglish.

"Arny Krueger" trolled in message
...
Nice explanation of why Atkinson bashes DBTs. He wants to be a magazine
editor some day.

That's strange. I thought I _was_ a magazine editor. I'll check the
nameplate on my office door when I go in the office tomorrow. :-)

John Atkinson
Editor (I assume), Stereophile (the magazine, note)

In article ,
"ludovic mirabel" elmir2m @pacificcoast.net writes:

wrote in message
...
And this guy doesn't have an axe to grind? He ran away with his tail
between his legs from RAHE because no one who pay any attention to his
runon rantings against DBTs as evidenced below.

I'd advise anyone who has a mind of their own to check out each of
the rec.audio.* groups themselves. Just skip this one.

To find out once again that the sharpest wit and the best brain in audio
faithfully reads my rants makes it all worthwhile.
Thank you Mr. Audioguy for your thoughtful contribution.
Ludovic Mirabel

Nice to see that you agree with my points about the uselessness of
your posts.

In article ,
(ludovic mirabel) writes:
I understand and agree with your frustration. As of now there is no
forum for advice and discussion about audio matters for audio amateurs
and audiophiles. Audio.tech. is for the techs or the tech- minded.
About audio.opinion you already said what needed saying. I'd add only
that not everyone wants to engage in a discussion that is as likely as
not to end in a bucketful of schoolboy filth poured over his head. The
audio.high-end has long ago ceased to be about high-end. It is now an
organ of frustrated engineers, without an original thought in their
head. occasionally helped by those who love the idea that what they
can not hear does not exist. The whole thing is supervised by a
non-objective "objectivist" in sheep's clothing who allows any
innocent asking for advice to be swamped by the "it all sounds the
same anyway" trumpeters and who censors any contrary view under one
pretext or another.
Audio Asylum comes closest but is not high-end by intent
and practice.
To illustrate: 4 days ago in the audio high-end forum
Lawrence Leung asked for experiences and opinions of those who had the
opportunity to compare two different high-end speakers he was
interested in.
He was not asking for the engineering data. He was simply
asking which one sounded "better' to those listeners who'd answer his
query. That is what criticism is for and has been for millennia.
Whether it is quality of art reproduction, of violins or wines. Which
critic you choose to believe is your affair.
He was immediately sat on by the usual suspects. He was
told that choosing loudspeakers was entirely "subjective", because
"differences are obvious" so no advice could be given. The subliminal
message was that he was a simpleton for even asking for help in a
supposedly high-end forum. He, in turn, understandably questioned why
the proponents of "scientific testing" of all things audio suddenly
stop at testing speakers.
At this point a real audio heavy weight called Bob Marcus
took the stage and sounded off thus: ""No, that is not what we said at
all. Scientific investigation has *proven*, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that speakers are almost always distinguishable by sound alone"
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on a similar occasion every
single word in this sentence is a lie including the "No", and the
majestic "We". ("We" is meant to smuggle in an impression that a
lawyer, Marcus is a spokesman for science and scientists because,
presumably, he managed to struggle through : "Electronics for
dummies")
And what is the truth?
In September 2003 Sean E. Olive , Fellow of Audio Eng.
Socy., a genuine audio researcher not a RAHE loudmouth,. published a
paper in the Journal of Audio Eng. Society on p. 806 entitled
"Differences in performance and preference of trained versus untrained
listeners in loudspeaker tests"
He found only TWO previous loudspeaker
listening studies and accepted ONE ONLY as valid research. So much
for Marcus's "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
He compared four completely different
loudspeakers ranging in price from $ 5.000 to 11.0000. (He gave no
names but it is my guess that one of them was a M-L hybrid.) . He had
263 listeners. He exposed them to real music not artifacts. The tests
were double blind but he chose NOT to use the ABX method
He used a statistical metric which he says
".accounts for the listeners ability to discriminate between
loudspeakers as well as their ablity to repeat their ratings." This
was his basis for his "Performance" statistics.
And the conclusions? "Significant
differences in performance. were found among the.different categories
of listeners." He was interested only in comparing groups (Piquantly
audio reviewers were the worst performers!- by this kind of test,
anyway.). His best performers were his trained technicians. BUT his
web site posting of previous group of tests showed enormous
differences in individual performance WITHIN his trained group (from
30 to 70% correct answers)
So much for Marcus' "scientifically proved
beyond a shadow of a doubt" that anyone can tell differences between
speakers.
He follows the advice to budding lawyers:
"If the facts are against you argue the law. If the law is against
you argue the facts. If both are against you thump the table.
To return to RAHE Marcus' "scientific"
table-thumping sees the light of day in that forum for the umpteenth
time. Try and question the DBT, the very basis of his "science", the
"test"- beloved, unproven, never validated by basic research "- , as
meaningless (considering the infinite variety of audio consumers) as
the "objective" comparison between a Gallo product and a Chateau Yquem
and the heavy hand of RAHE chief moderator will grab you by the
throat..
Ludovic Mirabel



I think I'll go and try and find a groiup that actually discusses audio,
rather than US politics & a load of personal attacks.

Of the last 100 posts here I haven't seen one that's relevant to the
supposed subject of the group.

Personally, I'd suggest that there are several regular posters who would
be
better off starting their own group so they could carry on their
arguments
and then those of us who came here to read about audio matters might
hang
around a little longer.

To those who seem normally adjusted, I wish you well and hope that you
don'r
succumb to the curmudgeons.

Toodle-pip

_______
Geoff B