john curl said:
John,
as I design audio equipment for more than 25 years, 10 years out of these (1992-2002) "for a living" , I would agree completely with everything you've said here. Spot on!
Cheers
x-pro
Konnichiwa,
And?
Yup. So, traditional measurements are commonly useless if we wish to quantify percieved, audible quality, so why insist on them?
I do not think John was arguing against a BLIND test per se (BTW, nor am I).
I HAVE NOT DONE EITHER OF THE THINGS YOU ALLEDGE!
IS IT ABSOLUTELUTELY NECCESARY THAT YOU MUST DELIBERATLY MISREPRESENT MY COMMENTS AND CRITICSM?
What I have done was to point out (and I am hardly alone) that a specific Test, promoted by a specific group is flawed in bothe methodology and statistsc applied and that it hence fails to be sensitive towards the reliable identification of small but audible differences.
I further pointed out that often the test-setups used by this group fail to offer the potential of making small differences audible beyound and past the limits of methode and statistics.
I further point out that the above criticisms have been repeatedly and much more eloquent and much more based on the methodology of proof so dear to modern "science" leveled against this group and the said group has failed to adjust their methodology accordingly.
I further point out that said group continous issuing pronouncements on what has been proven to be audible and what has been prooven to inaudible (something their methodology cannot provide at any extent) based on their methodology which HAS BEEN PROOVEN unsuited to the task and fails to correct their mistakes and indeed propounds them, so that we have to reject the hyphotesis of "innocent error" comprehensively.
What remains is a group of individuals who misuse statistics and blind tests to their own ends, being fully aware of their methodoloical errors and thus the invalidity of their results and pronouncements and who nevertheless DELIBERATLY mistate the facts.
Note that non of this as such attacks blind testing as a methode to obtain empirical data (on the contrary, as you would be aware from several of my own reviews I use Blind testing where I can see use) nor do I suggest that EVERY EXPERIMENTER who uses blind testing is a charlatan and deceiver.
However, the most vocal group of Experimenters using blind test in the context of making pronouncements on the audibility or not of certain things in "High End Audio" and thusly the one with the by far highets profile and hence almost synonymous with blind testing (I usually find their flawed and hence unallowable results cited and referenced most often if not exclusively) does happen to behave in a manner and fashion that only allows one conclusion as to their aims and methodes.
I accept that if there is a audible difference (and/or preference) there is also a reason that exists in the ultimate reality and can be quantified if we can first qualify it's nature. However, i cannot accept a position that suggests that if deliberatly manipulated tests and conventional measurements fail to observe a proposed effect, that effect is hence non-existent.
Absolutely. But it will not neccesarily be measurable using conventional measurements or may very well be at the current time outside the scope of that which we can measure reliably.
Sayonara
janneman said:
And?
janneman said:
Yup. So, traditional measurements are commonly useless if we wish to quantify percieved, audible quality, so why insist on them?
janneman said:
I do not think John was arguing against a BLIND test per se (BTW, nor am I).
janneman said:
I HAVE NOT DONE EITHER OF THE THINGS YOU ALLEDGE!
IS IT ABSOLUTELUTELY NECCESARY THAT YOU MUST DELIBERATLY MISREPRESENT MY COMMENTS AND CRITICSM?
What I have done was to point out (and I am hardly alone) that a specific Test, promoted by a specific group is flawed in bothe methodology and statistsc applied and that it hence fails to be sensitive towards the reliable identification of small but audible differences.
I further pointed out that often the test-setups used by this group fail to offer the potential of making small differences audible beyound and past the limits of methode and statistics.
I further point out that the above criticisms have been repeatedly and much more eloquent and much more based on the methodology of proof so dear to modern "science" leveled against this group and the said group has failed to adjust their methodology accordingly.
I further point out that said group continous issuing pronouncements on what has been proven to be audible and what has been prooven to inaudible (something their methodology cannot provide at any extent) based on their methodology which HAS BEEN PROOVEN unsuited to the task and fails to correct their mistakes and indeed propounds them, so that we have to reject the hyphotesis of "innocent error" comprehensively.
What remains is a group of individuals who misuse statistics and blind tests to their own ends, being fully aware of their methodoloical errors and thus the invalidity of their results and pronouncements and who nevertheless DELIBERATLY mistate the facts.
Note that non of this as such attacks blind testing as a methode to obtain empirical data (on the contrary, as you would be aware from several of my own reviews I use Blind testing where I can see use) nor do I suggest that EVERY EXPERIMENTER who uses blind testing is a charlatan and deceiver.
However, the most vocal group of Experimenters using blind test in the context of making pronouncements on the audibility or not of certain things in "High End Audio" and thusly the one with the by far highets profile and hence almost synonymous with blind testing (I usually find their flawed and hence unallowable results cited and referenced most often if not exclusively) does happen to behave in a manner and fashion that only allows one conclusion as to their aims and methodes.
janneman said:
I accept that if there is a audible difference (and/or preference) there is also a reason that exists in the ultimate reality and can be quantified if we can first qualify it's nature. However, i cannot accept a position that suggests that if deliberatly manipulated tests and conventional measurements fail to observe a proposed effect, that effect is hence non-existent.
janneman said:
Absolutely. But it will not neccesarily be measurable using conventional measurements or may very well be at the current time outside the scope of that which we can measure reliably.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Whats Your definition of paranormal ?
Whats Your definition of "reality" ?
As we haven't talked about "manipulated" tests, could You clarify what You mean by this?
/
Konnichiwa,
Peruse previous discussion over the last 8 or so years on the usenet (RAHE et al), Audio Asylum and here. I'm tiered of repeating the same old facts.
Or even better, rather than reading what I have written, why not look at some of the other writing (by far more scientific and authorative than mine) on the ABX test topic?
Do your own homework and form your own opinions based on observed fact instead taking third or fourth level handdowns from others.
Sayonara
TNT said:
Peruse previous discussion over the last 8 or so years on the usenet (RAHE et al), Audio Asylum and here. I'm tiered of repeating the same old facts.
Or even better, rather than reading what I have written, why not look at some of the other writing (by far more scientific and authorative than mine) on the ABX test topic?
Do your own homework and form your own opinions based on observed fact instead taking third or fourth level handdowns from others.
Sayonara
Kuei Yang Wang said:
Yes you have. Firstly, your posts ARE lengthy. They are on average more than 2 times as long as the average post. (Unnecessary to start discussing 'what is your definition of lengthy' This is MY point. YMMV).
Secondly, you HAVE accused people of manipulating blind tests, again in this post, see above.
Anything else I need to explain?
Jan Didden
How about this for a long post? 😉
In these times of contention it's not my intention to make things plain
I'm looking through mirrors to catch the reflection that can't be mine
I'm losing control now I'll just have to slow down a thought or two
I can't feel the future and I'm not even certain that there is a past
I believe in the worker's revolution
And I believe in the final solution
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the shape of things to come
And I believe in I'm not the only one
Yes I believe in
I believe in
When I poison my system I take thoughts and twist them into shapes
I'm reaching my nadir and I haven't an idea of what to do
I'm painting by numbers but can't find the colours that fill you in
I'm not even knowing if I'm coming or going if to end or begin
I believe in the immaculate conception
And I believe in the resurrection
And I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the elixir of youth
And I believe in the absolute truth
Yes I believe in
I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
I've fallen from favour while trying to savour experience
I'm seeing things clearly but it has quite nearly blown my mind
It's the aim of existence to offer resistance to the flow of time
Everything is and that is why it is will be the line
I believe in perpetual motion
And I believe in perfect devotion
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the things I've never had
I believe in my Mum and my Dad
And I believe in
I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
I'm skippin' the pages of a book that takes ages for the foreword to end
Triangular cover concealing another aspect from view
My relative motion is just an illusion from stopping too fast
The essence of being these feelings I'm feeling I just want them to last
I believe in original sin
And I believe what I believe in
Yes I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the web of fate
And I believe in I'm going to be late
So I'll be leavin'
What I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
Buzzcocks I Believe Lyrics
In these times of contention it's not my intention to make things plain
I'm looking through mirrors to catch the reflection that can't be mine
I'm losing control now I'll just have to slow down a thought or two
I can't feel the future and I'm not even certain that there is a past
I believe in the worker's revolution
And I believe in the final solution
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the shape of things to come
And I believe in I'm not the only one
Yes I believe in
I believe in
When I poison my system I take thoughts and twist them into shapes
I'm reaching my nadir and I haven't an idea of what to do
I'm painting by numbers but can't find the colours that fill you in
I'm not even knowing if I'm coming or going if to end or begin
I believe in the immaculate conception
And I believe in the resurrection
And I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the elixir of youth
And I believe in the absolute truth
Yes I believe in
I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
I've fallen from favour while trying to savour experience
I'm seeing things clearly but it has quite nearly blown my mind
It's the aim of existence to offer resistance to the flow of time
Everything is and that is why it is will be the line
I believe in perpetual motion
And I believe in perfect devotion
I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the things I've never had
I believe in my Mum and my Dad
And I believe in
I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
I'm skippin' the pages of a book that takes ages for the foreword to end
Triangular cover concealing another aspect from view
My relative motion is just an illusion from stopping too fast
The essence of being these feelings I'm feeling I just want them to last
I believe in original sin
And I believe what I believe in
Yes I believe in
I believe in
I believe in the web of fate
And I believe in I'm going to be late
So I'll be leavin'
What I believe in
There is no love in this world anymore
There is no love in this world anymore
Buzzcocks I Believe Lyrics
Originally there were 8 of those lines. I removed some of them as I'm not sure myself if it's a right thing to believe😉
Call me sentimental, but if you believe those lines you might as well curl (sorry John) up and die.
Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important.
- Lisa Hoffman -
Jan Didden
Love is like pi - natural, irrational, and very important.
- Lisa Hoffman -
Jan Didden
I don't neccessarily believe in everything I write.
One thing is certain thou, I don't believe in ABX testing.
One thing is certain thou, I don't believe in ABX testing.
My equipment is sold to people who don't believe ABX testing either.
So I'm not sure how my believes effect anything here?
So I'm not sure how my believes effect anything here?
" Every now and then go away, have a little relaxation, for when you come back to your work your judgement will be surer; since to remain constantly at work will cause you to lose your power of judgement. Go some distance away because the work appears smaller and more of it can be taken in at a glance, and a lack of harmony or proportion is more readily seen". - Leonardo Da Vinci
Jan Didden
PS I like the length of your posts...😀
Jan Didden
PS I like the length of your posts...😀
One can't disregard an advice like that. So I'm back, with a new judgement:
No, it's not bad for business. I just don't want to be looking for another hobby.
janneman said:
No, it's not bad for business. I just don't want to be looking for another hobby.
I find it sad that those of you who believe totally in middleclass science, think that the rest of us would believe in every 'irrational' idea that many others believe in, JUST BECAUSE we criticize scientists who are close minded. There are BOOKS written about this, don't you people ever read anything outside your field?
Try: 'The Experts Speak' by Cerf and Navasky. This will clue you in.
For example: "X-rays are a hoax."1900; "Radio has no future."1897; "Heavier than air machines are impossible."1895. How about that? Want 1000 times more? Read the book!
Try: 'The Experts Speak' by Cerf and Navasky. This will clue you in.
For example: "X-rays are a hoax."1900; "Radio has no future."1897; "Heavier than air machines are impossible."1895. How about that? Want 1000 times more? Read the book!
john curl said:
Is this one included in the book?
"Hate to be the one to tell you, BUT there are diodes in your metal wires. More than you will ever bother to measure. I have measured them." 2003
I find it hilariously ironic that you would recommend such a book. A book which says just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean they're always right and that the claims and pronouncements of "experts" should not be immune to questioning and challenging.
I find this ironic because you have routinely invoked the "expert" smoke screen when it comes to the questioning of claims made by yourself and others.
Instead of addressing the questions, you have impugned and demeaned the "credentials" of others while thumping your chest about your own and those of others.
When Bybee's claims have been questioned, you say Bybee's a physicist. He's worked for the government. He consulted Feynman.
In other words, he should be believed because he's an "expert."
Same with Geoff Kait and your going on about his working for Lockheed, NASA, etc. He's an "expert."
Seems you only want to apply the lessons of that book to those you disagree with.
se
What I have done was to point out (and I am hardly alone) that a specific Test, promoted by a specific group is flawed in bothe methodology and statistsc applied and that it hence fails to be sensitive towards the reliable identification of small but audible differences.
Then why is it the stndard for determining difference, everywhere except amongst the high enders? How do you suppose hearing aids are designed?
How is it flawed?
I further pointed out that often the test-setups used by this group fail to offer the potential of making small differences audible beyound and past the limits of methode and statistics.
How? By matching levels?
I further point out that the above criticisms have been repeatedly and much more eloquent and much more based on the methodology of proof so dear to modern "science" leveled against this group and the said group has failed to adjust their methodology accordingly.
Because the criticisms are not valid.
I further point out that said group continous issuing pronouncements on what has been proven to be audible and what has been prooven to inaudible (something their methodology cannot provide at any extent) based on their methodology which HAS BEEN PROOVEN unsuited to the task and fails to correct their mistakes and indeed propounds them, so that we have to reject the hyphotesis of "innocent error" comprehensively.
Your assertion is quite simply untrue/ Nothing of the kind has been proven.
What remains is a group of individuals who misuse statistics and blind tests to their own ends, being fully aware of their methodoloical errors and thus the invalidity of their results and pronouncements and who nevertheless DELIBERATLY mistate the facts.
Provide some quotes of those misstatements.
I feel somewhat certain I can get Tom Nousaine to point out where you are wrong.
Note that non of this as such attacks blind testing as a methode to obtain empirical data (on the contrary, as you would be aware from several of my own reviews I use Blind testing where I can see use) nor do I suggest that EVERY EXPERIMENTER who uses blind testing is a charlatan and deceiver.
Sure seems like you do. When you say the methodolgy is fundamentally flawed.
However, the most vocal group of Experimenters using blind test in the context of making pronouncements on the audibility or not of certain things in "High End Audio" and thusly the one with the by far highets profile and hence almost synonymous with blind testing (I usually find their flawed and hence unallowable results cited and referenced most often if not exclusively) does happen to behave in a manner and fashion that only allows one conclusion as to their aims and methodes.
quote:
Originally posted by janneman
Still, I strongly believe in the scientific method explained earlier, that to accept that something "sounds better" must have some objective foundation.
I accept that if there is a audible difference (and/or preference) there is also a reason that exists in the ultimate reality and can be quantified if we can first qualify it's nature. However, i cannot accept a position that suggests that if deliberatly manipulated tests and conventional measurements fail to observe a proposed effect, that effect is hence non-existent.
What manipulations are you speaking of?
quote:
Originally posted by janneman
After all, if it sounds better (contrary to perceives better) it must be because the electrical signal going into the speaker system is 'better', and that means the output signal of the amp is 'better', so in principle it is measurable.
Absolutely. But it will not neccesarily be measurable using conventional measurements or may very well be at the current time outside the scope of that which we can measure reliably.
And your proof of this assertion is what?
Sayonara
Then why is it the stndard for determining difference, everywhere except amongst the high enders? How do you suppose hearing aids are designed?
How is it flawed?
I further pointed out that often the test-setups used by this group fail to offer the potential of making small differences audible beyound and past the limits of methode and statistics.
How? By matching levels?
I further point out that the above criticisms have been repeatedly and much more eloquent and much more based on the methodology of proof so dear to modern "science" leveled against this group and the said group has failed to adjust their methodology accordingly.
Because the criticisms are not valid.
I further point out that said group continous issuing pronouncements on what has been proven to be audible and what has been prooven to inaudible (something their methodology cannot provide at any extent) based on their methodology which HAS BEEN PROOVEN unsuited to the task and fails to correct their mistakes and indeed propounds them, so that we have to reject the hyphotesis of "innocent error" comprehensively.
Your assertion is quite simply untrue/ Nothing of the kind has been proven.
What remains is a group of individuals who misuse statistics and blind tests to their own ends, being fully aware of their methodoloical errors and thus the invalidity of their results and pronouncements and who nevertheless DELIBERATLY mistate the facts.
Provide some quotes of those misstatements.
I feel somewhat certain I can get Tom Nousaine to point out where you are wrong.
Note that non of this as such attacks blind testing as a methode to obtain empirical data (on the contrary, as you would be aware from several of my own reviews I use Blind testing where I can see use) nor do I suggest that EVERY EXPERIMENTER who uses blind testing is a charlatan and deceiver.
Sure seems like you do. When you say the methodolgy is fundamentally flawed.
However, the most vocal group of Experimenters using blind test in the context of making pronouncements on the audibility or not of certain things in "High End Audio" and thusly the one with the by far highets profile and hence almost synonymous with blind testing (I usually find their flawed and hence unallowable results cited and referenced most often if not exclusively) does happen to behave in a manner and fashion that only allows one conclusion as to their aims and methodes.
quote:
Originally posted by janneman
Still, I strongly believe in the scientific method explained earlier, that to accept that something "sounds better" must have some objective foundation.
I accept that if there is a audible difference (and/or preference) there is also a reason that exists in the ultimate reality and can be quantified if we can first qualify it's nature. However, i cannot accept a position that suggests that if deliberatly manipulated tests and conventional measurements fail to observe a proposed effect, that effect is hence non-existent.
What manipulations are you speaking of?
quote:
Originally posted by janneman
After all, if it sounds better (contrary to perceives better) it must be because the electrical signal going into the speaker system is 'better', and that means the output signal of the amp is 'better', so in principle it is measurable.
Absolutely. But it will not neccesarily be measurable using conventional measurements or may very well be at the current time outside the scope of that which we can measure reliably.
And your proof of this assertion is what?
Sayonara
- Status
- Not open for further replies.