I can't have music on when I'm eating. Thankfully I don't go to restaurants much where there is background music, for a start my life revolves around this forum and if I'm away from a device for too long FOMO starts to set in big time.
Okay, you're a delusional crook. Now you are only rarely called those things. 🙂
Why not more often? Perhaps because most people try harder than you do to be accurate in the charges they throw around.
Last edited:
I guess the warranty expired on Sy's PhD and proven track record in research, development, and peer review.
I certainly cannot blame him for discontinuing discussion here. I also find most of this to be not my cup of tea.
jn
I agree, A/B is fine in case you do not know what you are testing. That means, it would not work for yourself, if you know what you are testing. I have a good experience with A/B if I have visitors who do not have any idea what is tested. Then, most of them cannot tell -40dB of H2/H3 distortion. Not -120dB, but -40dB (re FS). Makes no sense to try to name it HD or IMD, one cannot live without the other.
I'm talking about his performance art on DIYAudio & now on ASR
I don;t think his PhD comes into this - what was it in - audio electronics? I don't believe so? Do you believe that a PhD in one area means across the board qualification in all areas?
Hi Jn: Good to see you at least pop your head around the door to see if the catfight is still going on 🙂
He was often very strict wrt demands on test methodology and publication - you know, if not peer reviewed it doesn't count, Oohashi et al's work were reviewed by the wrong reviewers, test not done double-blind do not count and so on - and I would not doubt his approach to experiments/publications in his professional work.
But did he publish anything related to audio in a peer-reviewed journal?
When asked about examples of useful blind audio tests, he often pointed to his piece in Jan's Linear Audio, but that was neither peer reviewed nor double-blind.
I'll give another example, nowadays he mentions that he used in his sensory panels (for example) positive controls as if it were a matter of course; wouldn't you expect that he were very supportive when I brought up the concept of positive controls (and negative ones as well) beginning in the threads from 2008?
Somehow that did not happen...... 😉
As Feynman wrote, the easiest one to fool is oneself; scientists are first of all humans and if the own ego (and belief) is at stake, it is not so easy anymore.
Which is incorrect.
Knowledge about the EUT can be detrimental or beneficial but that depends on a lot of variables and is simply is not a specific problem of the paired comparison test variant (aka A/B test).
Therefore, if you could cite some relevant literature to back up your claim, I'm very interested.
+100 🙂
I get that you go hunting the web for things SY posts for you to critise, but It is starting to come across as very very very petty on your part?
It is up to you to prove me wrong, by citations of a relevant literature.
Hope you do not think I have not discovered your endless word games.
Last edited:
If you think his posts are performance art, what are yours? SY dispensed a lot of very good and helpful information. You? Zero other than pot stirring with FUD and gross misunderstandings.
My brain has rebelled against fidelity following today's discussion. I've started with early specials and intend to go downhill from there.
I concur that it does not.. However, as I said, research, development, scientific method, and peer review are all part of a PhD and R and D. Once the methodology for rigorous scientific work is known and understood, it can indeed be applied to other realms. (edit: In my review of work of others, I may not be an expert, but that does not stop me from evaluation of a paper for internal consistency as well as scientifically sound method. When I point out flaws in either, nobody ever tells me I'm an idiot because I don't know the discipline..they would have to meet me to know I'm an idiot 😉 ).Peer review is a further test of the validity of a method and conclusions.
I too am rather strict on test methodology, it is far too easy to fool one's self.
As to peer review, in my line of work that is far more difficult. A combination of doing things never done before, and the concern of intellectual property. I've fixed very expensive object motion control issues, but cannot publish or peer review as there are several vendors of those objects, all with the same problems.
But luckily, collaboration, discussion, knowledge transfer, are all quite congenial and occur at very nice levels...unlike the distastful catfight here.
jn
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.