Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote in
message In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." Mike, you mean that Ludovic and Harry have been misreprenting DBTs in general and Sean Olive's work again? All those who are surprised please raise your hand and I'll put a nice dunce cap in it for them to wear! ;-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. A lot of crap, and generally from the golden ears. Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Sillybot said: Actually, I was the one Who cares? You have no knowledge and no discrimination. Your fixation on "tests" has nothing to do with listening to music. You're a pervert. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. A lot of crap, and generally from the golden ears. Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Nice little rant, Arny, but your reply has nothing whatsoever to the RAHE quotes or my response. Because my post was incontrovertible to anybody who read the exchange on RAHE. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast
[dot] net wrote in message Sillybot said: Actually, I was the one Who cares? People who are interested in accuracy. You have no knowledge and no discrimination. George, particularly ironic coming from one of the all-time audio know-nothings of RAO like you. So far your ownly demonstrated talent relates to making up childish nicknames. Your fixation on "tests" has nothing to do with listening to music. If there's anybody on RAO that's fixated on tests, it has to be George Middius. You're a pervert. Have you stopped beating your mother, George? |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. A lot of crap, and generally from the golden ears. Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Nice little rant, Arny, but your reply has nothing whatsoever to the RAHE quotes or my response. Balderdash. Because my post was incontrovertible to anybody who read the exchange on RAHE. Just because a post is internally incontrovertable doesn't mean that it isn't a red herring in the larger context. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message Sillybot said: Actually, I was the one Who cares? People who are interested in accuracy. You have no knowledge and no discrimination. George, particularly ironic coming from one of the all-time audio know-nothings of RAO like you. So far your ownly demonstrated talent relates to making up childish nicknames. Your fixation on "tests" has nothing to do with listening to music. If there's anybody on RAO that's fixated on tests, it has to be George Middius. You're a pervert. Have you stopped beating your mother, George? Thanks for admitting you're a child molester. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your own character flaws. It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Arny Krueger" wrote :
Just because a post is internally incontrovertable doesn't mean that it isn't a red herring in the larger context. Thanks for admitting you were wrong again. Don't you get tired of demonstrating your ineptitude? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your own character flaws. It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote:
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message Sillybot said: Actually, I was the one Who cares? People who are interested in accuracy. You have no knowledge and no discrimination. George, particularly ironic coming from one of the all-time audio know-nothings of RAO like you. So far your ownly demonstrated talent relates to making up childish nicknames. Your fixation on "tests" has nothing to do with listening to music. If there's anybody on RAO that's fixated on tests, it has to be George Middius. You're a pervert. Have you stopped beating your mother, George? My goodness, what an awful *lot* of perverts there are in audiophile-land: 'Our polling also reveals that audiophiles are increasingly willing to go out on a sonic limb to find components, with a whopping 68% of respondents saying that they have already bought something without first hearing it." Jon Iverson, Stereophile, Oct 2005, p 18. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your own character flaws. It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind. Thanks for admitting you are delusional. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote: "Harry Lavo" wrote in message At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. A lot of crap, and generally from the golden ears. Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Arny says: There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room." You're repeating the old mantras endlessly in the hope that you'll outlast and outbore any skeptics. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ....." On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"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. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. A little personal lesson. I learned in my professional life as a consultant cardiologist to check my sources carefully before sounding off in matters of life and death. I apply the same habit to any of my written statements. Check carefully before you take up the dueling sword. Thankfully you don't elect the refuge in childish obscenities like your faithful Sancho Panza NYOB. Regards Ludovic M. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Arny says: There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room." You're repeating the old mantras endlessly in the hope that you'll outlast and outbore any skeptics. What I'm doing Ludovic is countering your constant repetition of old mantras. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ...." Thanks for showing that even providing the complete name of the paper would demolish your posturing, Ludovic. On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...". Like I said, loudspeakers. And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners" ....in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? If you want an answer that question Ludovic, first get back into a reasonable context for asking it. Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. LOL! If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. Sean and I generally agree about subjective testing. Some evidence of this is in the Usenet archives. A little personal lesson. I learned in my professional life as a consultant cardiologist to check my sources carefully before sounding off in matters of life and death. I apply the same habit to any of my written statements. Not in this life you don't Ludovic. You're a classic loose cannon. Check carefully before you take up the dueling sword. Thankfully you don't elect the refuge in childish obscenities like your faithful Sancho Panza NYOB. Fact is Ludovic, the way you trash the truth is obscene. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
'Our polling also reveals that audiophiles are increasingly willing to go out on a sonic limb to find components, with a whopping 68% of respondents saying that they have already bought something without first hearing it." Jon Iverson, Stereophile, Oct 2005, p 18. No doubt they based their purchases on glowing testimonials found in high end audio publications. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
: a
: disc innate : hounded : with : Olive's , : is : given : the : industry : listening : price, : only : first :: : ABX : More than a little crap going down here. : Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. : : Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel : aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your : own : character flaws. : : It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it : comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. : : Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind. : : Thanks for admitting you are delusional. : R. wraparound & snip artiste |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote ...
"Quaalude" You have experience with them, don't you? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Arny says: There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room." You're repeating the old mantras endlessly in the hope that you'll outlast and outbore any skeptics. What I'm doing Ludovic is countering your constant repetition of old mantras. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ...." Thanks for showing that even providing the complete name of the paper would demolish your posturing, Ludovic. On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...". Like I said, loudspeakers. And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners" ...in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? If you want an answer that question Ludovic, first get back into a reasonable context for asking it. Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. LOL! If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. Sean and I generally agree about subjective testing. Some evidence of this is in the Usenet archives. A little personal lesson. I learned in my professional life as a consultant cardiologist to check my sources carefully before sounding off in matters of life and death. I apply the same habit to any of my written statements. Not in this life you don't Ludovic. You're a classic loose cannon. Check carefully before you take up the dueling sword. Thankfully you don't elect the refuge in childish obscenities like your faithful Sancho Panza NYOB. Fact is Ludovic, the way you trash the truth is obscene. __________________________________________________ _______ __________________________________________________ _______ What I'm doing Ludovic is countering your constant repetition of old mantras. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ...." You answer: Thanks for showing that even providing the complete name of the paper would demolish your posturing, Ludovic. This is typical. In a normal, decent debate respectful of your audience you'd now quote this "complete name" that "demolishes" me. But this is not a decent debate.. This is only A. Krueger and this is only RAO. So one slyly insinuates sinister motive to the omission of insubstantial part from the typing chore. One hopes of course that no one will check . So here, damn you for forcing me into your time-wasting nonsense games, is the complete title. "Differences in PERFORMANCE AND ( my capitals L.M.) preference of trained versus untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study" Did I omit a comma somewhere Arny? That would be because I'm so demolished that I can no longer distinguish real discussion from your degrading version of it. On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...". Like I said, loudspeakers. And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners" Arny adds: "..in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different". Would you please translate this gobbledygook into normal language of communication between literate humans.? What on earth are you saying? Sean Olive sounds clear enough to me without your pompous pseudo-scientific parody of his clear statement.: He found and reported SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS. Twist and turn that is what he says. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. You answer: Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. Arny- you can keep on repeating that "speakers "generally"sound different" till you're blue in the face. But you can not say that Olive agrees with you: his papers examines "the differences in performance ...COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS" Please don't forget to harumph that I did not repeat the complete title this time for the sinister reason of making you sound ridiculous. Because that was my reason.. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. Krueger shrills: "You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. " Here we go again. In the end when up against it you couldn't resist reaching for the classical last resort weapon of your tribe: assaulting your opponent's character .and accusing him of bad faith. Obscenity can not be far behind.. For me this stops any reasoned argument dead. I have no taste for exchanging insults. For your information- in other places arguments are about truth. "Winning" your way does not interest me. I can say a thousand times that you're wrong but I wouldn't call you a liar. The fact that you think that winning matters at any price is a reflection on you. For myself I'd never say you're lying. Not even that you're hysterical. I think you're naturally prejudiced in favour of your brain-child to a point of using everything eg. twisting your opponents meaning often in a rather silly manner as for example in the "complete title" exchange.. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? Krueger says: "If you want an answer that question Ludovic, first get back into a reasonable context for asking it". More meaningless gobbledygook. What "reasonable context" you'll allow? What's your's? Define it and answer: Where is your basic research? Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. LOL! If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. He assures me: "Sean and I generally agree about subjective testing. Some evidence of this is in the Usenet archives. We're not talking about "subjective testing" whatever that may mean. How do you "test" "subjectively". Subjectively you can only voice your opinion.. We're talking about using ABX to compare components for their musical reproduction characteristics. Repeat : no quarrel with double blind comparison. It removes one source of bias. But to imagine that just because you listened double blind you're entitled to lay down a rule for me is nonsense. You're you with your preferences, experience etc and I am I. There are many people whose opinion sighted I'd prefer to many others double blinded. As for ABX protocol it is another matter again.. Research it. Validate it. Show when and to whom it will get positive results. Then come back. Ludovic Mirabel |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
wrote in message
oups.com Arny adds: "..in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different". Would you please translate this gobbledygook into normal language of communication between literate humans.? It already is, at least for people with a high school reading level. Ever go to a good college, Ludovic - a good college in an english-speaking country? What on earth are you saying? Get a translator. Sean Olive sounds clear enough to me without your pompous pseudo-scientific parody of his clear statement.: He found and reported SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS. Twist and turn that is what he says. OK Ludovic, so I blew your little mind by using the word "significantly" instead of "significant". Other than that we're pretty much saying the same thing. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. Which is hardly news because he was doing quantitive tests for audible differences that were known to exist, not go/no-go tests to see if an audible difference exists. You answer: Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. Ah so you can read English after all, Ludovic! Huzzah! BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. Arny- you can keep on repeating that "speakers "generally"sound different" till you're blue in the face. Right, and its pretty clear that Ludovic can't get that simple concept. But you can not say that Olive agrees with you: his papers examines "the differences in performance ...COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS" Which differs from what I said, how? I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. Krueger shrills: "You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. " Here we go again. In the end when up against it you couldn't resist reaching for the classical last resort weapon of your tribe: assaulting your opponent's character Admittedly, when I assult your character Ludovic, I'm picking on something that is very weak. It's not really an assault, it more like a finger flick. .and accusing him of bad faith. Obscenity can not be far behind.. Ludovic, in your dreams, little man For me this stops any reasoned argument dead. I have no taste for exchanging insults. For your information- in other places arguments are about truth. "Winning" your way does not interest me. Niether does rationality or truth seem to interest you, Ludovic. I can say a thousand times that you're wrong but I wouldn't call you a liar. That has something to do with the fact that I try very hard not to tell lies. Of course with you Ludovic, there is a serious question about whether you're lying or whether you're just that far out of it. The fact that you think that winning matters at any price is a reflection on you. Ludovic I'm not concerned with winning because such battle as ever was is long over and your side lost. Remember that you came into this situation with a bogus listening test that was based on sighted evaluation of two different pieces of equipment playing at the same time! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Arnii Krooborg's black magic "ssicicccnece"
The Krooborg plays the Inferiority Card. Ever go to a good college, Ludovic Do you mean one as good as a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Arnii Krooborg's black magic "ssicicccnece"
"George Middius" wrote in
message The Krooborg plays the Inferiority Card. Ever go to a good college, Ludovic Do you mean one as good as a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? To do better than Ludovic currently is, not even that. George, why not give me an example of a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? Let's see how much you know about Michigan schools. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Arnii Krooborg's black magic "ssicicccnece"
Move over, Wilma. A cosmic snotstorm is brewing up north. Do you mean one as good as a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? George, why not give me an example of a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting that you are nearly uneducated. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message 'Our polling also reveals that audiophiles are increasingly willing to go out on a sonic limb to find components, with a whopping 68% of respondents saying that they have already bought something without first hearing it." Jon Iverson, Stereophile, Oct 2005, p 18. No doubt they based their purchases on glowing testimonials found in high end audio publications. Quite possibly -- the perverted poll-ee quoted afterwards mentions 30-day return policies and 'good reviews' as impetus enough to buy before hearing. -- -S "The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Arnii Krooborg's black magic "ssicicccnece"
"Ge0rge Middius" wrote in
message Watch Ge0rge bob and weave, now that with my nudging he finally figured out that calling "Oakland University" "a small community college" sounds very stupid on the face of it Do you mean one as good as a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? Ge0rge, why not give me an example of a small community college in the hinterlands of Michigan? Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting that you are nearly uneducated. IOW Ge0rge just dug himself another hole. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Arnii Krooborg's black magic "ssicicccnece"
The Beast smears himself with you-know-what. Thanks Mr. Kroofeces for admitting that you are nearly uneducated. IOW Ge0rge[sic] just dug himself another hole. Thanks Mr. Kroo**** for admitting you aspire to live in the hole beneath an outhouse. .. .. .. .. .. .. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
wrote in message oups.com... Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room. Monadic testing of speakers is also a red herring for similar reasons and then some. Since there's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice. Speaker tests by so-called objectivists have been monadic for one or more decades. Check out the AES22 standard including speaker evaluation form which can be downloaded from the web site belonging to that well-known coven of objectivists - the AES. So, when Lavo tries to claim some kind of victory when so-called objectivists do monadic tests of speakers, its really very old news. It is yet another example of Harry speaking out of the back of his neck with a forked tongue. :-( Arny says: There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different. ABX testing can distinguish speakers from themselves if you just move them around a bit in the room." You're repeating the old mantras endlessly in the hope that you'll outlast and outbore any skeptics. What I'm doing Ludovic is countering your constant repetition of old mantras. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ...." Thanks for showing that even providing the complete name of the paper would demolish your posturing, Ludovic. On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...". Like I said, loudspeakers. And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners" ...in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? If you want an answer that question Ludovic, first get back into a reasonable context for asking it. Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. LOL! If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. Sean and I generally agree about subjective testing. Some evidence of this is in the Usenet archives. A little personal lesson. I learned in my professional life as a consultant cardiologist to check my sources carefully before sounding off in matters of life and death. I apply the same habit to any of my written statements. Not in this life you don't Ludovic. You're a classic loose cannon. Check carefully before you take up the dueling sword. Thankfully you don't elect the refuge in childish obscenities like your faithful Sancho Panza NYOB. Fact is Ludovic, the way you trash the truth is obscene. __________________________________________________ _______ __________________________________________________ _______ What I'm doing Ludovic is countering your constant repetition of old mantras. Olive named his paper: "Differences In PERFORMANCE AND preference ...." You answer: Thanks for showing that even providing the complete name of the paper would demolish your posturing, Ludovic. This is typical. In a normal, decent debate respectful of your audience you'd now quote this "complete name" that "demolishes" me. But this is not a decent debate.. This is only A. Krueger and this is only RAO. So one slyly insinuates sinister motive to the omission of insubstantial part from the typing chore. One hopes of course that no one will check . So here, damn you for forcing me into your time-wasting nonsense games, is the complete title. "Differences in PERFORMANCE AND ( my capitals L.M.) preference of trained versus untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study" Did I omit a comma somewhere Arny? That would be because I'm so demolished that I can no longer distinguish real discussion from your degrading version of it. On p.808 he defined his performance "metric:".:"This metric accounts for the listeners' ability to DISCRIMINATE between loudspeakers as well as their ability to repeat their ratings...". Like I said, loudspeakers. And in the preamble he said: Significant differences in PERFORMANCE.... were found among the different categories of listeners" Arny adds: "..in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different". Would you please translate this gobbledygook into normal language of communication between literate humans.? What on earth are you saying? Sean Olive sounds clear enough to me without your pompous pseudo-scientific parody of his clear statement.: He found and reported SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS. Twist and turn that is what he says. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. You answer: Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. Arny- you can keep on repeating that "speakers "generally"sound different" till you're blue in the face. But you can not say that Olive agrees with you: his papers examines "the differences in performance ...COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS" Please don't forget to harumph that I did not repeat the complete title this time for the sinister reason of making you sound ridiculous. Because that was my reason.. I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. Krueger shrills: "You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. " Here we go again. In the end when up against it you couldn't resist reaching for the classical last resort weapon of your tribe: assaulting your opponent's character .and accusing him of bad faith. Obscenity can not be far behind.. For me this stops any reasoned argument dead. I have no taste for exchanging insults. For your information- in other places arguments are about truth. "Winning" your way does not interest me. I can say a thousand times that you're wrong but I wouldn't call you a liar. The fact that you think that winning matters at any price is a reflection on you. For myself I'd never say you're lying. Not even that you're hysterical. I think you're naturally prejudiced in favour of your brain-child to a point of using everything eg. twisting your opponents meaning often in a rather silly manner as for example in the "complete title" exchange.. First research it: What kind of panel, how selected to represent a listener variety from boom box carriers to virtuoso flute players, how widely representative of gender, age , training and experience, what statistical criteria are you using., what degree of physical difference between the components for study you'll allow? Krueger says: "If you want an answer that question Ludovic, first get back into a reasonable context for asking it". More meaningless gobbledygook. What "reasonable context" you'll allow? What's your's? Define it and answer: Where is your basic research? Once you've done this field work come back and present you results for independent review Arny either we've been reading two different papers, or you two learned gentlemen Sean Olive of the Nat. Research Ccil of Canada. , McGill Univ. PH.D. candidate. And AES Fellow . and you of the RAO are in serious disagreement. LOL! If I were you I'd take it up with him instead of lecturing me and this captive audience. He assures me: "Sean and I generally agree about subjective testing. Some evidence of this is in the Usenet archives. We're not talking about "subjective testing" whatever that may mean. Of course we are you freaking idiot. Using objective methods to do so is the part you don't like. How do you "test" "subjectively". Subjectively you can only voice your opinion.. We're talking about using ABX to compare components for their musical reproduction characteristics. Which are ultimately determined by the person or persons taking the test. One could assume after so many of them that they apply universally, but that would not necessarlly be true. ABX is still an objective way to get more reliable subjective details. Repeat : no quarrel with double blind comparison. It removes one source of bias. But to imagine that just because you listened double blind you're entitled to lay down a rule for me is nonsense. You're you with your preferences, experience etc and I am I. There are many people whose opinion sighted I'd prefer to many others double blinded. Because you are not as smart as you ought to be. As for ABX protocol it is another matter again.. Research it. Validate it. Show when and to whom it will get positive results. Then come back. Ludovic Mirabel Why is it you won't admit that it's all been done. ABX is one of the AES standards for determining differences along with others. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for being so crushingly predictable. Roll over. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your own character flaws. It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind. Good doggie. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"surf" wrote in message ... " wrote ... "Quaalude" You have experience with them, don't you? |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
"surf" wrote in message ... " wrote ... "Quaalude" You have experience with them, don't you? Only in witnessing a few people I no longer associate with use them. Seemed like a big waste. Take a drug that had not been legitimately manufactured for years and then get goofy for 30 minutes and sleep for several hours. Boring. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote...
"surf" wrote... " wrote ... "Quaalude" You have experience with them, don't you? Only in witnessing a few people I no longer associate with use them. Seemed like a big waste. Take a drug that had not been legitimately manufactured for years and then get goofy for 30 minutes and sleep for several hours. Boring. Interesting. A 20 yr old, second hand experience. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Arny adds: "..in a context where it is a given that the alternatives sound significantly different". Would you please translate this gobbledygook into normal language of communication between literate humans.? It already is, at least for people with a high school reading level. Ever go to a good college, Ludovic - a good college in an english-speaking country? What on earth are you saying? Get a translator. Sean Olive sounds clear enough to me without your pompous pseudo-scientific parody of his clear statement.: He found and reported SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS. Twist and turn that is what he says. OK Ludovic, so I blew your little mind by using the word "significantly" instead of "significant". Other than that we're pretty much saying the same thing. Finally he did not use ABX protocol because he found it "unsuitable" for his task. Which is hardly news because he was doing quantitive tests for audible differences that were known to exist, not go/no-go tests to see if an audible difference exists. You answer: Completely understandable since there is no controversy as to whether speakers sound different from each other. Ah so you can read English after all, Ludovic! Huzzah! BTW just in case you forgot again Ludovic, speakers generally sound different so ABXing them to see if they sound different is a waste of time. Arny- you can keep on repeating that "speakers "generally"sound different" till you're blue in the face. Right, and its pretty clear that Ludovic can't get that simple concept. But you can not say that Olive agrees with you: his papers examines "the differences in performance ...COMPARING LOUDSPEAKERS" Which differs from what I said, how? I see nothing wrong with using a common sense precaution of double-blinding. I see a lot wrong with trumpeting certainties about a never researched, never validated ABX protocol APPLIED TO COMPARING MUSICAL REPRODUCTION OF AUDIO COMPONENTS. Krueger shrills: "You're lying again Ludovic, or maybe you're just too hysterical to know that you aren't telling the truth. " Here we go again. In the end when up against it you couldn't resist reaching for the classical last resort weapon of your tribe: assaulting your opponent's character Admittedly, when I assult your character Ludovic, I'm picking on something that is very weak. It's not really an assault, it more like a finger flick. .and accusing him of bad faith. Obscenity can not be far behind.. Ludovic, in your dreams, little man For me this stops any reasoned argument dead. I have no taste for exchanging insults. For your information- in other places arguments are about truth. "Winning" your way does not interest me. Niether does rationality or truth seem to interest you, Ludovic. I can say a thousand times that you're wrong but I wouldn't call you a liar. That has something to do with the fact that I try very hard not to tell lies. Of course with you Ludovic, there is a serious question about whether you're lying or whether you're just that far out of it. The fact that you think that winning matters at any price is a reflection on you. Ludovic I'm not concerned with winning because such battle as ever was is long over and your side lost. Remember that you came into this situation with a bogus listening test that was based on sighted evaluation of two different pieces of equipment playing at the same time! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Quotes from Krueger's former appearances in this thread: "Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different". "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" Differences are clear to Krueger. They are so clear that ABXing is not needed. Apparently we have a new position from Arny the Resourceful.. ABX is for testing only if there is controversy about difference. It is not necessary when testing for preference. Silly me I thought that one of the ABX articles of faith was that you cannot detect a preference unless you first detect a difference. Or is it my English again? Silly Sean Olive did not consult him though and went ahead testing how different groups of listeners 1) discriminate (perform) 2) how they prefer..when listening to loudspeakers. He went as far as to say in the very summary at the very beginning: "Significant differences in performance expressed in terms of magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners" And devotes three pages ( 818- 820) two graphs (figures 7 and 8) tand two paragraphs ( par.3.11"Performance among different listening groups"; par3 .12; "Occupation as a factor in listener performance") In the discussion he distinguishes unequivocally.between the listeners Performance and Preference and stresses that they did NOT go together; (p.820): "The differences between trained and untrained listeners ( "untrained" meant some 80+ % of the listeners - like in real life L.M.) are mostly related to differences in performance." And "However the loudspeaker rank ordering and the relative differences in preference between them were quite similar for both trained and untrained listeners" Mr. Krueger without ifs, and ands, buts and clever-clever comments with no relation to the matter at hand: 1) Did Olive test for difference between loudspeakers or did he not? 2) Did he use ABX or did he not? 3) Are you turning and twisting or just plain lying? 4) Is that what they taught you in your "good College" that you think I should have learnt as well? 5) Have you found yet that one,single published report of ABX component comparison, any component whatsoever, with a positive outcome. ( Published means submitted to an editorial judgement in a journal or a mag. not private web site..)? Regards Ludovic Mirabel |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
wrote in message
oups.com Quotes from Krueger's former appearances in this thread: "Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different". If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. Differences are clear to Krueger. They are so clear that ABXing is not needed. If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. Apparently we have a new position from Arny the Resourceful.. ABX is for testing only if there is controversy about difference. If you think this is a new position Ludovic, then it speaks to your ignorance. Here's one of many examples of me saying essentially the same thing in the distant past: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4999d89ed35602 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:53:08 GMT "DBTs are required if you want to talk about subtle or controversial differences. There are a wealth of audible differences that are not subtle and for which there is no controversy. For example, most things involving speakers other than speaker wire are generally regarded as not being subtle." So Ludovic, where the heck were you when this all happened years ago? It is not necessary when testing for preference. Incorrectly stated. ABX is not a test of preference, it is a go/no-go test for the presence of audible differences. As my 2001 post says, if you want to do a qualitative test, not a simple yes/no test, use ABC/hr: "Please let me introduce you to the ABC/hr DBT that produces numbers comparing the relative *impairment* of the two devices being compared. This retrieval will provide many examples of its use, and additional details about different ways that it is implemented: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=abc+hidden+reference" Note, ABC/hr is not the same as testing for preference. If you want to test for preference, do a public opinion survey. Silly me I thought that one of the ABX articles of faith was that you cannot detect a preference unless you first detect a difference. Or is it my English again? It's your lack of being properly informed, Ludovic. Silly Sean Olive did not consult him though and went ahead testing how different groups of listeners 1) discriminate (perform) 2) how they prefer..when listening to loudspeakers. Sean Olive knows all about the ABC/hr test. He went as far as to say in the very summary at the very beginning: "Significant differences in performance expressed in terms of magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners" And devotes three pages ( 818- 820) two graphs (figures 7 and 8) tand two paragraphs ( par.3.11"Performance among different listening groups"; par3 .12; "Occupation as a factor in listener performance") In the discussion he distinguishes unequivocally.between the listeners Performance and Preference and stresses that they did NOT go together; (p.820): "The differences between trained and untrained listeners ( "untrained" meant some 80+ % of the listeners - like in real life L.M.) are mostly related to differences in performance." And "However the loudspeaker rank ordering and the relative differences in preference between them were quite similar for both trained and untrained listeners" Mr. Krueger without ifs, and ands, buts and clever-clever comments with no relation to the matter at hand: 1) Did Olive test for difference between loudspeakers or did he not? He did a qualitative test, not a simple yes/no test. 2) Did he use ABX or did he not? Clearly Olive didn't use ABX for these tests, and clearly he shouldn't have. 3) Are you turning and twisting or just plain lying? I'm being consistent with the accepted state of the art, and saying the same thing here I said here years ago. 4) Is that what they taught you in your "good College" that you think I should have learnt as well? Yawn, Ludovic is trying to be snotty again. 5) Have you found yet that one,single published report of ABX component comparison, any component whatsoever, with a positive outcome. ( Published means submitted to an editorial judgement in a journal or a mag. not private web site..)? Asked and answered. Yawn, Ludovic is trying to be snotty again. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Quotes from Krueger's former appearances in this thread: "Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different". If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. Differences are clear to Krueger. They are so clear that ABXing is not needed. If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. Apparently we have a new position from Arny the Resourceful.. ABX is for testing only if there is controversy about difference. If you think this is a new position Ludovic, then it speaks to your ignorance. Here's one of many examples of me saying essentially the same thing in the distant past: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...4999d89ed35602 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:53:08 GMT "DBTs are required if you want to talk about subtle or controversial differences. There are a wealth of audible differences that are not subtle and for which there is no controversy. For example, most things involving speakers other than speaker wire are generally regarded as not being subtle." So Ludovic, where the heck were you when this all happened years ago? It is not necessary when testing for preference. Incorrectly stated. ABX is not a test of preference, it is a go/no-go test for the presence of audible differences. As my 2001 post says, if you want to do a qualitative test, not a simple yes/no test, use ABC/hr: "Please let me introduce you to the ABC/hr DBT that produces numbers comparing the relative *impairment* of the two devices being compared. This retrieval will provide many examples of its use, and additional details about different ways that it is implemented: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=abc+hidden+reference" Note, ABC/hr is not the same as testing for preference. If you want to test for preference, do a public opinion survey. Silly me I thought that one of the ABX articles of faith was that you cannot detect a preference unless you first detect a difference. Or is it my English again? It's your lack of being properly informed, Ludovic. Silly Sean Olive did not consult him though and went ahead testing how different groups of listeners 1) discriminate (perform) 2) how they prefer..when listening to loudspeakers. Sean Olive knows all about the ABC/hr test. He went as far as to say in the very summary at the very beginning: "Significant differences in performance expressed in terms of magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners" And devotes three pages ( 818- 820) two graphs (figures 7 and 8) tand two paragraphs ( par.3.11"Performance among different listening groups"; par3 .12; "Occupation as a factor in listener performance") In the discussion he distinguishes unequivocally.between the listeners Performance and Preference and stresses that they did NOT go together; (p.820): "The differences between trained and untrained listeners ( "untrained" meant some 80+ % of the listeners - like in real life L.M.) are mostly related to differences in performance." And "However the loudspeaker rank ordering and the relative differences in preference between them were quite similar for both trained and untrained listeners" Mr. Krueger without ifs, and ands, buts and clever-clever comments with no relation to the matter at hand: 1) Did Olive test for difference between loudspeakers or did he not? He did a qualitative test, not a simple yes/no test. 2) Did he use ABX or did he not? Clearly Olive didn't use ABX for these tests, and clearly he shouldn't have. 3) Are you turning and twisting or just plain lying? I'm being consistent with the accepted state of the art, and saying the same thing here I said here years ago. 4) Is that what they taught you in your "good College" that you think I should have learnt as well? Yawn, Ludovic is trying to be snotty again. 5) Have you found yet that one,single published report of ABX component comparison, any component whatsoever, with a positive outcome. ( Published means submitted to an editorial judgement in a journal or a mag. not private web site..)? Asked and answered. Yawn, Ludovic is trying to be snotty again. __________________________________________________ ____ Quotes from Krueger's former appearances in this thread: "Speaker testing is a red herring in a discussion of listening tests involving digital formats because it is a completely different game. There's no controversy over the idea that speakers sound different". If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. No Arny I have no problem with this- I".m glad you agree. Speakers do sound different "Since there's no controvery over the idea that speakers sound different, the ABX test would be a poor choice" If you've got a problem with that, then deal with it as it sits, Ludovic. Yes I have a problem with that. There is no disagreement that speakers do sound different. Therefore they constitute an ideal object for demonstrating the validity of any proposed component testing method. Especially the one in question that as yet failed ,repeat FAILED, to show differences between any other audio component class to the majority of panelists in any trial reported in any mag, anywhere.. The controversy is not about obvious facts- it is about the best way of investigating them. You say it is ABX. Show it!. Investigating means answering detailed questions such as: what level of difference ibetween what speakers is perceivable by what class of people. And others such I notice you did not answer my question Nr,1: DID OLIVE TEST FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOUDSPEAKERS OR DID HE NOT? In capitals so that you do not miss it this time. As I showed he did not think : no controversy- no investigation necessary. He researched it double blind because ABX was "not suitable". And you know what ?. Majority of his panelists could not distinguish loudspeakers-one from the other- not even just double blind. Just imagine the hash they would make of ABXing, But when asked a straightforward like or dislike question the same majority selected the better speakers. This is what Olive's investigation made of that other objectivist mantra.: "You can't tell the difference- then you can't have a preference". Remember the loud huzzahs about the Zipper/Singh failure to differentiate under ABX? And please do not start dragging your red herrings down this trail. Whether ABX/hr is useful in research or not I don't know and I don't care. This is not a research forum and no one is asking research questions. You promote the ABX as a "don't leave home without this audiophile tool " Stick to it. Do not reject the easy bits, like loudspeakers, just because you're scared that what happened in Olive test would happen to you and ABXing your panel would fail to tell the loudspeakers from each other. Maybe even, Lord forbid, even you. Arny let me now say something in sorrow rather than anger. You are an inventive guy , a cut above average, you're bright and articulate well, you forgot more about electronics than I will ever know. I am told that. your ABX or its derivatives are used daily by researchers.. This should be plenty satisfying to you. You don't need to extend the ABX empire to where it does not fit. Believe me your not so smart dodges, red herrings, answers with no relevance to the subject at hand, or street -wise ripostes like "Asked and answered" when there was no answer,ever, do not add to your stature- on the contrary. When I argue I always hope with one part of my mind to be persuaded by a clever argument- you succeed only in irritating - and not myself alone. Ludovic Mirabel |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Since Quaaludeovic is so fond of Sean Olive
" wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... "Robert Morein" wrote in message ... " wrote in message link.net... "Harry Lavo" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ink.net... I havd to share this from RAHE. wrote: Harry Lavo wrote: In this test. That's all you can say for sure. However it is not an uncommon phenomenon in abx testing. Sean Olive reportedly has to screen out the majority of potential testers because they cannot discriminate when he starts training for his abx tests, even when testing for known differences in sound. Sean Olive doesn't do ABX tests. He doesn't "screen out" potential testers, either; the article Sully referred to used a couple of hundred listeners. What he has done is assembled an expert listening panel, specially trained to identify specific differences in frequency response. That's a tough task, and not everyone can do it, even with training. But it has nothing to do with either ABX or preference testing. This is the second time in a week you have misrepresented Mr. Olive's work, Harry. I suggest you ceasse referring to it until you learn something about it. In the work reported in the 2003 paper, Olive 'screened out' one listener -- part of the group that underwent training at Harman to become 'expert' listeners -- because his results were perfectly 'wrong' -- that is, they showed a perfect *negative* correlation between loudspeaker preferences in 4-way and 3-way tests. As it turned out, he suffered from broad-band hearing loss in one ear. All the other listeners were audiometrically normal. The various listeners, btw, consisted of audio retailers (n=250), university students enrolled in engineering or music/recording industry studies (14), field marketing and salespeople for Harman (21), professional audio reviewers for popular audio and HT magazines (6), and finally a set of Harman-trained 'expert' listeners (12), divided into 36 groups ranging from 3 to 23 listeners per group (each group, AFAICT, was 'monotypic' - only one 'type' of listener in each group). Retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners took the 4-way speaker comparison test; the 3-way comparison was performed by retailers, trained listeners, marketers, and students. Amusingly, when the 'listener performance' metric -- a measure of the listener's ability to discriminate between loudspeakers, combined with the consistence of their ratings -- was calculated for the different listener occupations participating in the four-way loudspeaker test (retailers, reviewers, and trained listeners), audio magazine reviewers were found to have performed the *worst* on average (that is , least discriminating and least reliable). In the three-way loudspeaker tests (retailers, marketing people, students, trained listeners) students tended to perform worst. In both tests trained listeners performed best. I quote: 'The reviewers' performance is something of a surprise given that they are all paid to audition and review products for various audiophile magazines. In terms of listening performance, they are about equal to the marketing and sales people, who are well below the performance of audio retailers and trained listeners." That said, the other take-home message was that even with the difference in performance, the rank order of the speakers by preference was similar across all 36 listening groups groups -- the various groups of listeners tended to converge on the same ideas of 'best' and 'worst' sound when they didn't know the brand and appearance of the speaker. And the 'best' (most preferred) loudspeakers had the smoothest, flattest and most extended frequency responses maintained uniformly off axis, in acoustic anaechoic measurements. This speaker had received a 'class A' rating for three years running in one audiophile magazine. The least-preferred loudspeaker was an electrostatic hybrid , and it also measured the worst. This speaker had *also* received a class A rating for three years running, and better still had been declared 'product of the year', by the same audiophile mag (I wonder which?) Another quote from Olive 2003, from the conclusion of the results section: "It is the author's experience that most of the differences in opinion about the sound quality of audio product(s) in our industry are confounded by the influence of nuisance factors tha have nothing to do with the product itself. These include differences in listening rooms, loudspeaker positions, and personal prejudices (such as price, brand, and reputation) known to strongly influence a person;s judgement of sound quality (Toole & Olive, 1994). This study has only reinforced this view. The remarkable consensus in loudspeaker preference among these 268 listeners was only possible because the judgements were all made under controlled double-blind listening conditions." You might want to continue reading the posts over there. In the first place, I wasn't talking about this specific test...that was NYOB's own dumb mistake. Harry, I didn't post this here to embarrass you, I'm not needed for that. That I was sure Mr. Olive used ABX testing is in fact my error, that ABX is one of the standards for audio testing is still a fac that many including you seem to try and ignore. Next I was challenged by Bob that Sean didn't use ABX testing, to which I replied by pulling Stewart and JJ's remarks at random from 109 Usenet posts on the subject. At which point Bob replied that, well, Sean wasn't Harman and those other references don't count. Oh no, he just works with Floyd Toole as the entire Harman International testing department. More than a little crap going down here. More than a little disembling on the part of those who don't like what ABX keeps demonstrating. Thanks for admitting you have an inferior mind. Thanks for demonstrating you are unable to quit stalking those you feel aren't as smart as you are. It's nice to see you come clean about your own character flaws. It would be better however if you get over your admitted laziness when it comes to doing bias controlled testing of things like amps. Thanks for admitting you feel you have an inferior mind. Good doggie. Mikey, you have an inferior mind. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Summing up | Audio Opinions | |||
Time for the 'borgs to admit the truth | Audio Opinions | |||
Sean Olive on loudspeakers | High End Audio |