Another Objective vs Subjective debate thread - Page 11 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > General Interest > Everything Else

Everything Else Anything related to audio / video / electronics etc) BUT remember- we have many new forums where your thread may now fit! .... Parts, Equipment & Tools, Construction Tips, Software Tools......

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27th June 2011, 02:01 AM   #101
diyAudio Member
 
aardvarkash10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
*sigh*

Sorry JK - I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain secondary school statisiics to you.

I suggest you take an extra-curricular course on the subject.

This is a good start...
__________________
"Folks, you can't prove truthiness with information. You prove truthiness with more truthiness. In a process known as truthinessiness." - Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report

Last edited by aardvarkash10; 27th June 2011 at 02:22 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:01 AM   #102
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarkash10 View Post
If that was the set-up., its soooo not a test capable of any statistcal significance its best described as "putting a finger in the air".

Thats not to say the opinions are NECESSARILY incorrect, just that they are STATISTICALLY unsupportable.
You know, I don't give a penny for all that statistical crap if I know it proves nothing. Like, the majority of DIYers and engineers who are devoted to sound reproduction quality.


__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:21 AM   #103
diyAudio Member
 
aardvarkash10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
You know, I don't give a penny for all that statistical crap if I know it proves nothing. Like, the majority of DIYers and engineers who are devoted to sound reproduction quality.


Hard to understand when you put such store in the detailed numerical analysis of your circuits (with good effect as I am led to believe).

I think it was you who devised the hilarious distotion introduction device - capable of making things "sound great" by purposely distorting the signal. Proof enough for me you are on the side of the angels...
__________________
"Folks, you can't prove truthiness with information. You prove truthiness with more truthiness. In a process known as truthinessiness." - Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:25 AM   #104
jcx is offline jcx  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: ..
different designs, transducers, even differing design philosophies make speaker's frequency response, directivity/room interactions result in large easily measured on axis, reflected and reverberant frequency response differences greatly exceeding Clark's DBT/ABX frequency response discrimination thresholds

so they are expected to give "clearly audible" differences even if level matched as well as possible

I believe jkenny is violating the intent of the thread, exaggerating a opposing point to absurdity and claiming it the universal position of "the opposition" is a crude rhetorical trick with no intent to add to understanding, illuminate the issues – no “Objectist” claims different speaker's in a room are all going to sound alike or that the differences are so subtle that only DBT/ABX can be relied on to make the determination – the positive result of Clark's DBT/ABX tests is that many/most people can identify several dB over several octave frequency response differences without instrumentation


the commentary on medical DBT testing is not directly relevant - massive studies are more about safety - no one spends the big money without considerable evidence of effectiveness from much smaller studies - and yes sometimes effectiveness is found wanting in the bigger study

no great statistical power is required to determine something which can discriminated with 90% reliability by 90% of the population - surely "night and day" differences fall into this category?


criticizing some, even most, audio DBT/ABX tests on methodology doesn't lend any weight to the reliability of "just listen" naive subjectivism - not all "subjectists" are naive, some are familiar with psychoacoustics and perceptual testing methodologies and employ controls, level matching and blinding

but the audiophile press has a great deal of influence and has spent a long time cultivating "connoisseurism", and popularizing uncontrolled listening in florid “reviews” and my reading of various audio related internet forums certainly suggests that there is a large population who do subscribe to a naive "just listen" position - that any perceived subjective differences are absolute, infallible reflections of meaningful differences in equipment, and sonic differences can be ascribed to physical and electrical properties of the equipment without controls, references (but can rely on days, weeks old memory for reference), level matching, blinding protocols are unnecessary or counter productive - and they can discriminate these differences in one piece of the recording/reproduction chain in the presence of larger objectively measurable distortions because their experience lets them "listen through" the other "acceptable" component's errors

my impression is there are many fewer "naive objectivists" who in Thorsten's caricature only care about THD into a resistive load at 70% power - marketing hacks may seize on anything that they think can sell a product but no engineer I know with a AP analyzer is only going to push the THD button and call his amp "perfect" – much more likely to spend days generating megabytes of graphs using as many of the canned tests he can figure out – with many iterations, comparisons, test procedure validations along the way as well as using other instrumentation to verify or find weaknesses in stability, load variation, limiting, psrr, emi rejection...
then when the objective performance has been verified as “working” according to the design intent it might be time to consider listening tests
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:26 AM   #105
Pano is offline Pano  United States
diyAudio Moderator
 
Pano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Milliways
Blog Entries: 4
OT posts removed. Aard & Abrax stay on topic or do not post.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:28 AM   #106
diyAudio Member
 
aardvarkash10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
thanks Pano - noted.
__________________
"Folks, you can't prove truthiness with information. You prove truthiness with more truthiness. In a process known as truthinessiness." - Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:35 AM   #107
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarkash10 View Post
I think it was you who devised the hilarious distotion introduction device - capable of making things "sound great" by purposely distorting the signal. Proof enough for me you are on the side of the angels...
No, it was the device I designed especially for those who kept spreading the nonsense that "tube sound" means big amount of low order distortions. Anyone could use such device to evaluate own beliefs and come to own conclusion. However, types who know nothing except how to use mouse and keyboard are free to draw own conclusions, based on own type of experience...
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:39 AM   #108
diyAudio Member
 
aardvarkash10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
that was the one...
__________________
"Folks, you can't prove truthiness with information. You prove truthiness with more truthiness. In a process known as truthinessiness." - Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 02:43 AM   #109
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally Posted by aardvarkash10 View Post
that was the one...
Yes, that was the one "anti-bull$hit" device. Anyone who claims, "You like tube amps because they distort" could try to add some "tube distortions" to own "non distorting" amp and compare, does it sound now exactly like a nice sounding tube amp, or not.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th June 2011, 03:02 AM   #110
diyAudio Member
 
aardvarkash10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Back to my original point (several pages back...)

I find the whole subjective/objective debate quite startling. Neither is wrong, but one or other may be inappropriate.

I could easily justify a relatively relaxed subjective listening test to confirm a design direction - asking the very course question "is this an idea that has potential?"

I could easily see how design refinement might require objective measures - for example speakers tested in a dead room with appropriately placed and calibrated mikes will provide detail information that a listening test could never give.

Finally, there is no point releasing the device onto an unwilling world, so a detailed listening test at the pre-release stage would give me information on what the listening public might think and any minor tweaks to improve - provided of course that I captured the information and analysed it appropriately.

I might even show them the box so that comments on aesthetics might be used to further improve the chance of success. Separately though. Lets not mix the two issues up.

In short, there is no "wrong" test method (within reason...), just a test method inappropriately applied.
__________________
"Folks, you can't prove truthiness with information. You prove truthiness with more truthiness. In a process known as truthinessiness." - Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The OFFICIAL "Snail Shell" Thread!!! SkinnyBoy Subwoofers 158 4th May 2013 09:06 AM
more objective vrs subjective (from snubberized GC PS thread) Upupa Epops Everything Else 30 30th January 2005 08:55 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:48 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2