| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
I'm starting a new thread because Google "disappeared" the old one
without an answer from normally voluble A.Krueger. (It was "SACD, DVD-A...." on April 2nd .....Krueger said: "OK Mirabel I'll help you out. A reliable perceptible difference is a different that is reliably perceptible as opposed to difference that is not reliably perceptible". Why, his old reliable ABX component smoke-screen of course. He answered: "Well Mirabel you seem to have ABX on your mind. I was thinking of any of the zillions of ways that can be used to introduce the concept of reliability into listening tests. Blind testing is just one of many ways to improve the relaibilty of listening tests. ABX is just one of many means for blind testing. I hope you find this information helpful in the future." You won't get out of it shouting "zillions" Krueger. . The criteria for a reliable DBT were laid down clearly and concisely by its creators Bradford Hill and Richard Doll in the Med. Research Ccil. of U.K. I quoted those to you 3 days ago. Let me refresh your memory. The listeners' sample is representative of gender, age, social status, education and experience. They have a randomised placebo control group.(randomised means sequential in each pair-one of each) They have a rigid test protocol and employ a statistician or know enough statistics to lay down a sound statistical basis. I know that no scientific professional journal would accept any "research" not so grounded. Even if you tell them about your zillions. What experimental research can you quote Krueger to justify your claim that "ABX is one of the many means for blind testing"? We're talking about differentiating audio components. At least I am. Are you? Which professional audio journal published such research? When? Blogs on the web are not it Krueger. Till you have such experiments published your ABX is your and your clownish pseudoscientist's Sulivan toy -for use by others if so inclined. As for ABX being "just one of many means for blind testing"; yes quite; astrology is just one of many means of pursuing astronomy. I said: "He loves using terms from formal logic. How's this: "Begging the question" Krueger answers the Krueger's way: "How's this: "straw man"?" Webster says: "To beg the question- To use an argument that assumes as proved the very thing one is trying to prove." See the postscript and start trying . Krueger . So far you kept silent about it. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
|
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
wrote in message oups.com... Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. You have forty years of ABX to look through. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. You have forty years of ABX to look through. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW As I forecast this undead whom I showed up to be a lying ignoramus did not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it will be all forgotten and now reemerges. You quote my misrepresentations and I'll quote yours. Quote means QUOTE not your travesty. I'll quote you OK.- it will be a pleasure Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
wrote in message
oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. Trying to match your selfimportant, pompous style Krueger I "explained to you many times" that RAO is not an audio research populariser but a voice of lay audio consumers. I also "explained to you many times" Krueger that an engineer is welcome to give such measurements as he's capable of doing at this point in time and then; if he wants to be listened to as a critic he takes off his hat and talks like another listener. His engineering school credentials make his opinions no more valid than those of a carpenter about the aesthetic effect of the Louis the XVith chair on the buyer. Till you get this into your head you'll continue to be mocked for a self-promoting, self-inflated product of an engineering school with pretences above his station. Just the introduction. Details discussed in the next posting. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. We,re talking about what S.E. Olive did Krueger; not about your ideas what he should or should not have done: S.E. Olive: "Differencews in performance and PREFERENCE of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in LOUDSPEAKER Tests: A case study"; JAES., vol.51, #9, Sept. 2003" P. 806; "The four loudspeakers used in both tests are shown in table 1" They were coded but the data were so transparent that I guessed the identity of the electrostatic one correctly (my guess confirmed by S.Olive) Krueger says in his USUAL weasely way : "...they are not USUALLY about consumer product testing". How many times Krueger do I have to "explain" to you that they are USUALLY not- except when they ARE- about consumer product testing. ABX WAS NOT USED. Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. Now we get another weasel word; "generally" -"pass ABX tests". What exactly are you trying to say Krueger? What does "pass" mean in this context? Are you trying (very ineptly) to say that ABX is only good for testing components that do not "pass" ie "they all sound the same"? Well, we already know that. And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. Explain which areas of interest to RAO participants are "suitable for ABX.". Are there any at all? We're not psychometric researchers down here in the real world. Isn't testing of loudspeakers what you promote in your PCABX? If not say so clearly and unequivocally. We're listening.. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. Olive tested audio components under coded names. He did not use ABX. List the other coded audio component comparisons using ABX that appeared in JAES. Or say that ABX is only suitable for "science" and close off your PCABX This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. You're a laugh, you are Krueger Ludovic Mirabel Personal note: I sound harsh even to myself. Once anyone calls me a liar the gloves are off. This is an explanation and a warning. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
|
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
wrote in message
oups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. Trying to match your selfimportant, pompous style Krueger I "explained to you many times" that RAO is not an audio research populariser but a voice of lay audio consumers. So then why do you keep bringing up audio research here, Mirabel? BTW Mirabel, take all the time you need to answer the question given that you've answered zero of the points I brought up, above. I also "explained to you many times" Krueger that an engineer is welcome to give such measurements as he's capable of doing at this point in time and then; if he wants to be listened to as a critic he takes off his hat and talks like another listener. His engineering school credentials make his opinions no more valid than those of a carpenter about the aesthetic effect of the Louis the XVith chair on the buyer. You've done no such thing, Mirabel. In fact google searching shows zero instances of you mentioning "school credentials" before this. Till you get this into your head you'll continue to be mocked for a self-promoting, self-inflated product of an engineering school with pretences above his station. Keep on talking Mirabel, you've just proven yourself to be a coward and liar in that order. LOL! |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
wrote in message
ups.com Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. We,re talking about what S.E. Olive did Krueger; not about your ideas what he should or should not have done: S.E. Olive: "Differences in performance and PREFERENCE of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in LOUDSPEAKER Tests: A case study"; JAES., vol.51, #9, Sept. 2003" P. 806; "The four loudspeakers used in both tests are shown in table 1" They were coded but the data were so transparent that I guessed the identity of the electrostatic one correctly (my guess confirmed by S.Olive) Thanks Mirabel for confirming that the JAES uses coded names when commercial products are mentioned. Krueger says in his USUAL weasely way : "...they are not USUALLY about consumer product testing". Gosh, there might have been an exception or two in the history of man. Sue me for trying to make a correct post. How many times Krueger do I have to "explain" to you that they are USUALLY not- except when they ARE- about consumer product testing. ABX WAS NOT USED. So what Mirabel, no matter how single-minded you are, there are other valid paradigms for doing bias-controlled listening tests than ABX. I've told you over and over again, but you keep harping on ABX. Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. Now we get another weasel word; "generally" -"pass ABX tests". Gosh, there might have been an exception or two in the history of man. Sue me for trying to make a correct post. What exactly are you trying to say Krueger? What does "pass" mean in this context? Dooh, it means that in general loudspeakers sound different in ABX tests. Google searching suggests that I've said this several 100 times on RAO. Are you trying (very ineptly) to say that ABX is only good for testing components that do not "pass" ie "they all sound the same"? No, I'm saying that speakers sound different so much of the time that its a waste of time to use ABX to test loudspeakers because the outcome of the test is *that* predictable. Well, we already know that. Then Mirabel you know wrong, but we already know that! And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. Explain which areas of interest to RAO participants are "suitable for ABX.". Been there done that, 1,000s of times. Are there any at all? We're not psychometric researchers down here in the real world. You're not in the real world Mirabel, so why ask with that as a pretext? Isn't testing of loudspeakers what you promote in your PCABX? Here's an web IQ test for you to take Mirabel - check the PCABX web site www.pcabx.com and see how many speaker tests you come up with. If not say so clearly and unequivocally. We're listening.. Try reading... For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. Olive tested audio components under coded names. As I predicted he would. He did not use ABX. I've both predicted and explained that. List the other coded audio component comparisons using ABX that appeared in JAES. Not my job. Or say that ABX is only suitable for "science" and close off your PCABX Who elected you a god, Mirabel? You don't get to set up hoops for me to jump through. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. You're a laugh, you are Krueger The only laugh here is you, Mirabel. You just go 'round and 'round. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
ScottW wrote: DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. At your advanced age, you should really wonder if that is the way you want to finish your life. ScottW ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- One should not allow oneself to get entrapped in a correspondence with this thing that glories and crows in triumph every time it manages to get his elders and betters to respond.. But just this one time... Scenario: I said: I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. The mud-slinger answered: If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW I answered: As I forecast this undead whom I had shown for a lying ignoramus did not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it will be all forgotten and now reemerges. And I added "You quote my misrepresentations and I'll quote yours. Quote means QUOTE not your travesty. I'll quote you OK.- it will be a pleasure" The artful dodger in his answer cut this last sentence of mine. A characteric trick worthy of this ankle-snapping mud slinger. His answer: DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. At your advanced age, you should really wonder if that is the way you want to finish your life. ScottW He "pointed out my errors" but the pointing remains his secret. He will not respond to the invitation to quote. The truth is that if I made any errors he'd be the last person to spot them. Well- here it is. No more replies till we get something more than mud-slinging. Go and bark at the Mexican grape pickers for a change. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
wrote in message oups.com... He "pointed out my errors" but the pointing remains his secret. Posts of just a few months past are hardly "secret". He will not respond to the invitation to quote. Once again, for poor demented deLudo, we must cover ground already travelled. I guess, in respect for my elder, it isn't too much to ask. Can you follow a message id? The truth is that if I made any errors he'd be the last person to spot them. Well- here it is. No more replies till we get something more than mud-slinging. Go and bark at the Mexican grape pickers for a change. No grapes for you.... then again, you fled to Canada. ScottW |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
ScottW wrote
elmir2m wrote: ScottW wrote: elmir2m wrote Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. You have forty years of ABX to look through. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW As I forecast this undead whom I showed up to be a lying ignoramus did not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it will be all forgotten and now reemerges. DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? At your advanced age, you should really wonder if that is the way you want to finish your life. ScottW |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
JBorg, Jr. wrote: ScottW wrote elmir2m wrote: ScottW wrote: elmir2m wrote Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. You have forty years of ABX to look through. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW As I forecast this undead whom I showed up to be a lying ignoramus did not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it will be all forgotten and now reemerges. DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? ------------------------------------------------------------- JBorg asks: Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? Thank you for asking.. As you will have seen from further correspondence ScottW amputated from my message my request for a substantiating quote for his slander. When I pinned him him to the wall he made his usual gutter-humour references to my age and instead of a quote gave a Google reference This was the answer from Google: Your search . com - .did not match any documents: So I made my own research and dug out what I could find: As I foresaw after a suitable interval he reemerges to blather again about my "difficulty" with facts. .... One fact I "had difficulty with" was that I said that Sean Olive asked his panelists which speaker they "liked better". In fact he(Scott) said he (Olive) asked them which one they preferred. Or maybe it was the other way round - I can't be bothered to keep looking it up. And answers with this original fencing opener thrust: Thanks for proving you do have difficulty keeping your facts straight. You know it was your implication that they couldn't respond when asked which is different but could if they asked which they preferred that I contested. I only called you a liar after you repeated your errors. Note:there is not a word about ABX here. But he weasels it in next when at a loss, trying desperately to confuse the issue. I continued: Some "implication": Sean Olive says in the "Summary" that opens his article (JAES, vol.51,#9, 2003, p.806): "Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms of the magnitude of the loudspeaker statistic Fl were found among the different categories of listeners... .PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCES ASIDE LOUDSPEAKER PREFERENCES WERE GENERALLY CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL CATEGORIES OF LISTENERS... And on p. 821 in "Conclusions" he repeats: "The loudspeaker preferences of trained listeners were generally the same as those measured using a group of nominally untrained listeners..." "THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRAINED AND UNTRAINED LISTENERS ARE MOSTLY RELATED TO DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE..." He says later trained group did 27 times better than a student group. Do you know how many times I typed this for the benefit of this 0.04 of a db. midget?* This is the fourth time. He answered: The fourth time you left out the critical statement of Olive's and my subsequent point. So, since you are memory deficient, let me assist you. This is from deLudo, "Sean Olive said to your clown-prince last November: " I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" " To which I replied, "That is not a question for ABX." To which deludo replied, "You're damn right. I agree with you. Olive agrees with you. I said you're brighter than the # 1 Krueger disciple (not too difficult a feat).. " But subsequently to this "agreement" you have repeatedly turned to Olive's paper as evidence that ABX is not suitable for determining different. I suppose "determining different" means "determining difference" He still doesn't quote me. How could I say that Olive's paper is "evidence" about ABX when Olive DID NOT use ABX. . What I said was that double blind simple A-B test protocol when used on average group of audio listeners results in poor performance in discerning differences . But the same people who got lost when asked "is A different from B ?" had no difficulty when asked ""which one do you like better?" Of course there are implications for the ABX protocol which says" This is A. Now this B. Now this is X. Is X like a or like B?" . To me the lessons of S. Olive's interesting article about comparing loudspeakers by A-B DBT is that 1) the differnces between loudspeakers are a hurdle even when a much simpler protocol than ABX is used. The implications for ABX loudspeaker testing are obvious. 2) Krueger's contention that testing loudspeakers by ABX is a waste of time because differences are so obvious is so much eyewash . He is worried about what will transpire. 3) ScottW is one of the less pleasant nitpicking excrescences on the freedom of the web. Ludovic Mirabel *He made song and dance and called me a liar previously because, like the author , I ignored .04db (yes .04) difference between cables in Greenhill test. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
elmir2m wrote
JBorg, Jr. wrote: ScottW wrote snip DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? ------------------------------------------------------------- JBorg asks: Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? Thank you for asking.. As you will have seen from further correspondence ScottW amputated from my message my request for a substantiating quote for his slander. When I pinned him him to the wall he made his usual gutter-humour references to my age and instead of a quote gave a Google reference This was the answer from Google: Your search . com - .did not match any documents: Yes, so did I. So I made my own research and dug out what I could find: Thank you Dr. Mirabel. All these (what appear to be) deceptive and fabricated accusations from your scournful nemesis is causing me some pain. Right now, I'm inclined to think that all these allegation he just happen to pluck in parts when no one is looking. I don't know why things has to be so. snip... for now. I will read more unto your post, and respond more later because right now, I have to put in the 8 hrs. [bbl] |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Right, why confuse Mirabel with mere facts? Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. This is Mirabel's idea of proof of non-existence of DBTs: Absence of a peer-reviewed paper saying that some certain person did an ABX test of specific pieces of audio gear. What a bogus criteria! Name a few better criteria than approval by a professional peer-reviewed journal. You had 40 years to get just ONE. I've already explained to Mirabel that scientific papers as a rule don't involve actual commercial products, and when they do, the make and model information is often concealed. What Mirabel does not seem to get is the idea that scientific papers are about science, they not usually about consumer product testing. We,re talking about what S.E. Olive did Krueger; not about your ideas what he should or should not have done: S.E. Olive: "Differences in performance and PREFERENCE of Trained versus Untrained Listeners in LOUDSPEAKER Tests: A case study"; JAES., vol.51, #9, Sept. 2003" P. 806; "The four loudspeakers used in both tests are shown in table 1" They were coded but the data were so transparent that I guessed the identity of the electrostatic one correctly (my guess confirmed by S.Olive) Thanks Mirabel for confirming that the JAES uses coded names when commercial products are mentioned. You forgot to say "unusually mentioned" Krueger says in his USUAL weasely way : "...they are not USUALLY about consumer product testing". Gosh, there might have been an exception or two in the history of man. Sue me for trying to make a correct post. : Typical of Mirabel's deceptions. The JAES as rule does not print any audio component research articles at all. You obviously need your memory refreshed Let's see where the "typical deception" dwells: A few references out of many See footnote ............................................ How many times Krueger do I have to "explain" to you that they are USUALLY not- except when they ARE- about consumer product testing. ABX WAS NOT USED. So what Mirabel, no matter how single-minded you are, there are other valid paradigms for doing bias-controlled listening tests than ABX. I've told you over and over again, but you keep harping on ABX. Sorry, I thought it was one Arny Krueger who was harping on ABX for audio=consumer use.. Do you recommend something else nowadays? Mirabel also ignores the fact that Sean Olive is primarily a developer of speakers, not electronic components. Speakers generally pass ABX tests. Frankly testing speakers is not a strength of ABX testing. Now we get another weasel word; "generally" -"pass ABX tests". What exactly are you trying to say Krueger? What does "pass" mean in this context? Dooh, it means that in general loudspeakers sound different in ABX tests. Google searching suggests that I've said this several 100 times on RAO. Are you trying (very ineptly) to say that ABX is only good for testing components that do not "pass" ie "they all sound the same"? Well, we already know that. No, I'm saying that speakers sound different so much of the time that its a waste of time to use ABX to test loudspeakers because the outcome of the test is *that* predictable. Once again and again and again: Loudspeakers no good: too obvious. 9But that was not so in S. Olive loudspeaker tests- see reply to J. Borg). "Well designed" amps, preamps,cdplayers, dacs waste of time- all the same . What is ABX good for as far as audio consumers are concerned. Don't tell me about RESEARCH- this is RAO not JAES. Then Mirabel you know wrong, but we already know that! And this is another one of Mirabel's deceptions - he lumps all bias-controlled tests under the name "ABX". Olive is well-known for doing bias-controlled listening tests, but he generally uses testing procedures that are more suited to his area of interest - not ABX. Explain which areas of interest to RAO participants are "suitable for ABX.". Do you suggest in your PCABX website that readers should use other "Testing procedures when more suitable" Which ones? When? I did not see any guidelines in your web page though you say: Been there done that, 1,000s of times. Well, just for your admirers do it the !001st. time. Points of puzzlement: 1) ABX is not for loudspeakers because they sound too different to need it. OK. (*but see footnote) 2)Amplifiers, preamplifiers, cd-players, dacs,if "well-designed" sound the same. That is your chapel's credo-yes, no? 3) What is the ABX for? Not needed for loudspeakers, nul results for everything else. Is it only for badly designed components? Who needs it to find out what one can hear by casual listening? Are there any at all? We're not psychometric researchers down here in the real world. You're not in the real world Mirabel, so why ask with that as a pretext? That was very funny. Excellent answer too. Isn't testing of loudspeakers what you promote in your PCABX? Here's an web IQ test for you to take Mirabel - check the PCABX web site www.pcabx.com and see how many speaker tests you come up with. If not say so clearly and unequivocally. We're listening.. Try reading... How about quoting the relevant sentence, like:" My ABX not needed for testing loudspeakers" For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. Asked and answered. Mirabel seems to think that audio professional journals are supposed to compete with Stereophile or Sound and Vision. See the refernces above. Don't speak for "the audio professional journals". Most of sus can read. Olive tested audio components under coded names. As I predicted he would. He did not use ABX. I've both predicted and explained that. List the other coded audio component comparisons using ABX that appeared in JAES. Not my job. Another very funny ha ha! answer. All of us low IQ morons ask: "How can he do it again and again. Such wit shouldn't be wasted in RAO. But.. Don't you keep a little file somewhere? You're a researcher ,no? I'd think it is VERY MUCH your job to keep track of your brain-child. Or say that ABX is only suitable for "science" and close off your PCABX Who elected you a god, Mirabel? You don't get to set up hoops for me to jump through. Don't. You're a free agent. And remember what you refused to answer. You might be reminded oof it. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. Asked and answered, many times. You're a laugh, you are Krueger The only laugh here is you, Mirabel. You just go 'round and 'round. Around you Krueger. In ever narrowing circles. Ludovic Mirabel S. Bech, Selection and Training of Subjects for Listening Tests on Sound Reproducing Equipment", JAES, vol. 40, 1992, pp590-610 S,E. Olive et al.,"The Variability of Loudspeaker Sound Quality among Four Domestic-Sized Rooms,JAES Abstracts,vol.43,1995, 1088-1089 A. Gabrielson, "Loudspeaker Frequency Response and Perceived Sound Quality", J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 90, 1991, pp.707-1991 F.E.Toole, "Loudspeaker Measurements and their relationship to Listener Preferences', JAES, vol.34, 1986, pp.237-285 M.R.Jason, "A Real-World Implementation of Current Theory in Loudspeaker Subjective Evaluation", JAES Abstracts, vol. 39, 1991, pp. 385 S.E.Olive, "Differences...... Loudspeker Tests: A Case Study" JAES, vol.51, 2003. pp 806-825, which compared four COMMERCIAL loudspeakers. Many more but my typing two fingers feel faint. And a few more; Eleven-Day Sound System for 325,000 People Volume 20 Number 7 pp. 568-573; September 1972 Design, installation, and equalization of a complex rental sound reinforcement system for the Billy Graham Crusade 71 in Chicago's McCormick Place are described. Uniformity of coverage parameters in the cavernous 720- by 421- by 65-ft exhibition hall led to the decision to install a multicluster delayed loudspeaker system. The complete system, employing thirty-four loudspeakers, ten microphones, and eight power amplifiers had to be installed in forty-eight hours. Author: Ancha, Robert F. E-lib Location: (CD aes3) /jrnl6877/1972/7107.pdf -------------------------------------- Operational Amplifier Implementation of Ideal Electronic Crossover Networks Volume 19 Number 1 pp. 7-11; January 1971 Electronic Crossover Networks and Their Contribution to Improved Loudspeaker Transient Response Volume 19 Number 8 pp. 674-679; September 1971 Tone-burst testing of loudspeakers provides a significant indication of a loudspeaker's ability to reproduce transients in program material. A comparison of several studio monitor loudspeaker systems is presented and the improvement in loudspeaker transient response is illustrated when electronic crossover networks and multiple amplifiers are used to replace conventional inductor-capacitor crossover networks. Author: Smith, Allan P. E-lib Location: (CD aes3) /jrnl6877/1971/7012.pdf ------------------------- Active and Passive Filters as Loudspeaker Crossover Networks Volume 19 Number 6 pp. 494-502; June 1971 This tutorial paper defines the function of a crossover network and then explores methods of meeting this function. For moderately priced two-way loudspeakers, a passive network at about 800-1600 Hz will continue to dominate the designs of the future. However, the use of active filters (electronic crossover networks) and buffer amplifiers offers the most significant means of loudspeaker improvement in the next decade. As one typical factor, crossover frequencies need to be lowered and crossover slopes increased, and the active filter is the only economical method of doing this. Authors: Ashley, J. Robert; Kaminsky, Allan L. E-lib Location: (CD aes3) /jrnl6877/1971/6993.pdf ----------------------------------------- During the study of ideal crossover networks, the value of operational amplifiers became obvious. Now that integrated-circuit operational amplifiers are available at reasonable cost, an electronic crossover network employing them will be demonstrated. There will also be discussion of the optimum filter characteristics and of the power requirements of the amplifiers which follow the networks. Authors: Ashly, J. Robert; Henne, Lawrence M. E-lib Location: (CD aes3) /jrnl6877/1971/6938.pdf ----------------------------------- Operational Amplifier Applications for Audio Systems Volume 17 Number 1 pp. 14-21; January 1969 The application of microminiature and miniature operational amplifiers to audio systems is presented with practical examples. Microphone-disc-tape preamplifiers, mixers, line amplifiers, disc and tape equalization, bias and erase oscillators, a cue tone latching detector, a graphic equalizer, lowpass-bandpass-highpass filters, a power amplifier, power supplies and other circuits are described. Author: Losmandy, B. J. Enough anyway for you to find if your ABX was used in any of them. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
elmir2m wrote: JBorg asks: Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? Thank you for asking.. Yes, I reread the post in its entirety and so, based on the BS O' Meter Detector I have atop my head, this is indeed a case of one plucking out slanderous misstatement in areas where the sun shines not. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
JBorg, Jr. wrote: elmir2m wrote: JBorg asks: Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? Thank you for asking.. Yes, I reread the post in its entirety and so, based on the BS O' Meter Detector I have atop my head, this is indeed a case of one plucking out slanderous misstatement in areas where the sun shines not. Thank you. I missed this your posting till I dug out the thread from the RAO caves because the thing had the temerity to direct someone else -MNe in the"ScottW..." thread to the same address. Regards Ludovic M |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
When you have no answe stay silent till it is shelved
JBorg, Jr. wrote: ScottW wrote elmir2m wrote: ScottW wrote: elmir2m wrote Don't tell me who is a supporter of what. Just give a reference to ONE SINGLE audio component comparison by S. Olive using ABX. For that matter give a reference to ANY component comparisons by ANYBODY that appeared in an *audio professional Jornal*. This request has been repeated again and again for the last five years. So far no takers. Be the first. You have forty years of ABX to look through. Ludovic Mirabel P.S. I know Sean Olive papers because he sent them to me unasked. If thats the case...why did you so grossly misrepresent them? ScottW As I forecast this undead whom I showed up to be a lying ignoramus did not answer, piped discreetly down, waited a suitable interval hoping it will be all forgotten and now reemerges. DeLudo, If you had any real appreciation for the truth you would be grateful for my pointing out your errors. Obviously, your ridicule reveals you to be a lying slave to an agenda rather than the truth. Is there a way to reflect upon these errors with regard to the truth as stated above? Sure, search this group for the Terms ABX and Olive, author Ludovic Mirabel and follow the numerous threads. You will see repeatedly that Ludo uses Olive's work to discredit ABX while Olive clearly states that he was not interested in difference as the speakers under evaluation were both subjectively and objectively different (note, Olive didn't discuss how that objective difference was determined), so he moved on to the more interesting question to him, preference. A question which most will agree, ABX isn't designed to address. Review the history for yourself before drawing conclusions. Ludo likes to obscure reality with volume so it is a tedious effort. ScottW |
Linear Mode
