I'm betting a bat couldn't either.....a blind test should be easyYou are correct, there is a very real possibility that my grampa's ears really could not hear any difference anyway.
And another example of hilarious rhetoric (I still find the irony here) - have you looked at your own link to the 5 step protocol where step 5 is categorizing someone with one word - "Troll" for instance
I see this happening from people on one side of this discussion, only - hilarious Would this be an example of being "hoisted by your own petard"??
Last edited:
I guess it's quite possible to troll a troll, I saw you and Pano doing it earlier. Regards labels I think ABX protocol warrior fits you quite well
Haha, you've certainly drunk the kool-aid of the 5 step social warrior protocol without even a hint of self-reflection.
You've heard of the Overton Window, right? I would suggest this discussion is a perfect example of it
Doomed by an answer? I mean, if it is what constitutes sufficient evidence for _him_ it is just that....
If you had dropped me a note, i could have spare you the time for searching?!
Did you check the "PEQS-Files" or just the "SQAM-Files" ?
To me it looks like the "PEQSs" are dithered while the "SQAMs" are not (admitting having not checked all the "PEQSs" though)
Now you say that it is easy for me to find out for sure on the non audibility of phase response variation vs frequency once I have the new amp. It really is a challenge for me to get what you mean.I'm betting a bat couldn't either.....a blind test should be easy
Yes, doomed to a list of personal opinions and it is interesting to observe the ones that are attacked the hardest. Mr Marsh has been quite clear on several occasions that he is happy with his concept of "metadata" gathered from forums, blogs, chat sites, etc. with no analysis or judgement applied ("blind', sighted, who cares) just add up the votes.
No big deal on the other thing but when a level of rigor is asked for it would be nice to not have it on all levels.
Last edited:
Sorry, to correct myself, I expect equal rigor at all levels. When someone asks me a design related question I try to help I don't send them a link to 50 pages of electronics theory and tell them if they don't want to read and understand it they are not worth talking to.
EDIT - Yes, I misspoke.
EDIT - Yes, I misspoke.
@scott & others - you have been given explanations & links for further information - maybe the explanation isn't sufficient but I haven't see any reasonable questions being asked just criticism (& abuse being hurled)?
Have you a genuine interest or just feigning interest in the workings of auditory perception & what it means for this hobby? ScottJ, Pano & some others express no interest, have you?
Have you a genuine interest or just feigning interest in the workings of auditory perception & what it means for this hobby? ScottJ, Pano & some others express no interest, have you?
Last edited:
I guess there is a fundamental block here, I'll say again I trust that you have done the homework so please outline something that might work in the context of a forum with people spread all over the globe.
I don't want to become an expert in psycho-acoustics. I was once asked to serve on a jury for medical training videos (due to my film studies). We watched open heart surgeries and kidney transplants in full detail, I still would not kibitz the doctor.
And I & Jakob already told multiple times both here & on other threads that including controls within the ABX test would help to evaluate results - I even gave a suggestion of a simple control that could be included in such ABX trials.
You choose to ignore or pretend not to have read this every time it is presented.
The fact of the matter is that perceptual testing of any quality cannot be done without some knowledge of the pitfalls which you choose to ignore
Hence I make the point that such blind tests are anecdotal, at best
It's a shame that you choose to ignore a bit of learning which is necessary to understand what Jakob & I have said multiple times. I wonder how you would react to the same attitude to your posts - "I don't want to become an expert in electronics - just tell me how to develop a flawless opamp"
Last edited:
Do you mean this?:
If you are buying it that knowledge of psychoacoustics makes any difference to this test that's your problem and a scotch may be money better spent
Same goes for almost all tests posted on internet forums.
No problem, should I tell Markw4 that he has no business working on a DAC card unless he tries to understand DAC design at Martin Mallinson's level? BTW I had dinner Friday with some of Martin's friends, they said he has been posting some very interesting philosophical stuff related to design, I don't know if it is on a public forum but I'm sure you might be interested.
BTW - Do you make a good faith effort to understand enough general and special relativity before accepting results of things like LIGO, etc.?
Last edited:
Yes, so?
People operate at the level they are comfortable with based on the experience & knowledge they have achieved - they don't blame others for their lack of interest or lack of understanding as you are doing with blind testing.
Thanks, I would be interested to hear Mallinson's thoughts - we need people who have expertise in the electronics design field & can also appreciate what they don't know - as in Jakob's quoting of that book excerpts - we need people that have a depth of knowledge in both electronic design & psychoacoustics
I see you again just ignored what I said about including controls in ABX testing as you have done in the past many times - are you going to post again sometime in the future "I guess there is a fundamental block here, I'll say again I trust that you have done the homework so please outline something that might work in the context of a forum with people spread all over the globe."
This is silly & a direct contradiction of your stated position - you won't accept what Jakob & I have posted about blind testing, you avoid reading the links which backup what we say & you then complain about us not giving you clarity - either read the research or accept the knowledge from some people who have read the work (Jakob more than I) - you may wish to moan about it but learning is tough (especially when you have no interest in learning about this)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.