I suppose they might speak about this suggestion (sighted preamp blackbox test)?
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
and also the objections to ABX tests
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part III
Exactly. testing for oneself is not an issue - it's the demands to 'prove' what you have discovered for yourself that is the problem & what seems to be the stumbling block around audio forums.
As you say, this approval seems to be important to many or people attempt to make this approval & proof important by stating that if you can't prove your experience then it has no validity
You have been presented with numerous carrots but refuse to even look at it (teach a man to fish, etc...) - now you want a predigested carrot instead but I know it's the argument you want, not any chance of learning (yet you proclaim interest) as you have proved many many times already
Great, thanks for stating this 😀
People often think they have to use Foobar ABX for their self-testing (mainly because they don't understand what's involved & also because they want to present their finding sin a forum they know will accept this test ) - again Jakob & I were pointing out the pitfalls in this type of test
Nothing wrong with Mark's test
Yes we know - for example the long tube amp test thread - however to me it sounds like excuses. Excuses why to deny some unpopular results and better do nothing but debating. Forum on-line format does not enable better methods, at least I have not seen such suggestions. If you prefer opinions and statements like "I heard it" that often lead to absurd stories, it is your choice, or maybe it reflects some kind of interest?
Can I just point out that to people who don't have a certain level of knowledge in a particular field then discussions in that field can seem to them like word salad. To those who understand the terms & the specific meaning of the terminology used in that field, it's not word salad (or at least they can judge this with some assurance). To continually demonstrate that what is being said is above your understanding by trying to demean it as word salad is, well, ignorant.
Many who don't have the grounding in electronics that many here have could ignorantly claim talk of PM/GM, poles etc was simply word salad but they would be wrong.
Some perspective & self examination, please
Many who don't have the grounding in electronics that many here have could ignorantly claim talk of PM/GM, poles etc was simply word salad but they would be wrong.
Some perspective & self examination, please
Re proper test method - I am pretty sure that any test method that brings different results than expected and requested will be doubted. Especially if it touches business interests.
In all things balance is important.
When tests or measurements of audio electronics are performed, it is quite normal & acceptable to examine the test methods & suggest any shortcomings identified (I seem to remember an exchange between you & JN in this regard). The objective is not to demean (at least it shouldn't be) but rather to improve the test
The same applies to perceptual tests - if somebody who has a certain level of understanding of such testing identifies shortcomings, (particularly when research & evidence is presented to illustrate the shortcomings) why should that not be equally acceptable? Why should it not serve as something to learn & hopefully improve the test? The underlying supposition is that a search for truth is the goal
It's difficult, I know, to do this in public as egos kick in (audio forums are probably the most venal in this regard) & defensive knee-jerk reactions are often visible to see but the scientific method is exactly what is at play in this scenario & it should be embraced by all those who believe in science as a useful method for arriving at some objective reality.
You can keep up the usual slings & arrows from the bible of audio forum debating but it really does not put you in a good light.
I never saw any details or did I miss them, you know positive and negative controls, listener training, etc. (like in the studies linked).
Do you ever say anything of value, other than just relentlessly troll? Seriously.
Mark's test isn't about proving anything to anybody but himself (but I think you know this already)
The studies linked to are using an accepted methodology for perceptual testing when papers are being published & wish to be included in the scientific arena. I don't need to explain scientific test methodology which in the case of perceptual testing which can involve statistical analysis, training, positive & negative controls because what is being tested, perception, is inexact
Last edited:
You have to work on your sense of humor too.
I'm always open to people changing or learning & often miss their sarcasm as I assume their statements/intentions are honorable - what a failure as a human being I must be 😱
Or maybe I'm just a failure as an audio forum debater/demeaner - sorry if I don't know the rule book for trying to demean others as well as others seem to know it
- Status
- Not open for further replies.