I followed the link. Quite what the tests was is unclear to me - just a list of numbers.
If you are telling me you can hear 15 ppm distortion artifacts I am telling you you can’t.
But, let’s have the details of the test and we can discuss it.
My contention is if you play a 15 ppm distortion amp and one of those 1% distortion tube thingies, then I suspect telling the difference will be easy. Play a piece of classical music through a 1 ppm amp (try syn08’s PGP for example) and another amp at 15 ppm you won’t hear it.
Anyway, peace.
Unchecked assumptions are often misleading. 😉
No hunting needed, there are just two topics that are naturally of interest to me (Bayesian approach, and Norms and Standards for the Discourse) which I follow ,so I stumbled upon that, and was slightly surprised.
If such an obvious discrepancy occurs, it is worth mentioning given the context.
I mentioned clearly what my critic is about and therefore do a bit wonder why you didn't object when our two friendly colleagues used only mysterious hints about posts of mine in other forums (that allegedley would show whatever hidden agenda; when pressed for evidence on that a tragicomedy happened) for disparaging purposes?!
One doesn't have to 'hunt' for SY's posts on positive controls - just today he posted on ASR
All you have to do to see his changing attitude is search here on his posts mentioning Positive Controls - always prevaricating, "where appropriate" (this is his politician's get-out clause) - not "Experimental Design 101" as he posts on ASR
As I said, performance artist
FOMO? I had to look it up and yep, I can understand that.
My interest with diyAudio is with browsing the technical forums (invaluable) and this thread, which has been of considerable help in understanding delusional behaviour through adherence to outmoded belief systems of doubtful provenance. Extremely valuable training for self-assessing my own visual artwork at a time when I am right out on an existential limb with no one in sight.
tapestryofsound
The peer review comes in the form of adoption of the technology or methodology. Given the politics of publication peer review (and gaming), I'd argue the latter is infinitely more important than any publication.
And I always read the methods section after the abstract/intro to draw my own conclusions about the true nature of the results rather than the stated ones (which are often not justified by the experiments themselves). Both fortunately and sadly, methods is getting pushed out of papers into the supplemental literature, which means it's often more thorough in description, too.
Alas, all should remember that the onus of proof falls on the claimant. If you don't care, then that's fine as well, but don't expect to be taken seriously.
Last edited:
You mean the Foobar ABX results? The "Gold Standard" for used here for "proof" that something is audible?
Perhaps you could read the ALL of the thread whose link I gave
Sure, peace but read & understand the ABX results linked to
Sorry PMA, but your claim and your obligation to bring the evidence.
You surely remember "the burden of proof is on the claimant" and you would not try the old reversal approach, would you?
And please, take Feynman's advice/reminder serious and try to not fool yourself.
If you really think that asking for evidence for your claim has anything in common with word games then you must have lost something during your journey.
That's interesting.
So what you are saying is, you do DBT but not level matched?
Dear Jakob, under EU law rules you have to prove me wrong. If you do not agree, you have to prove me wrong. And you are unable to make so.
I'm glad you were not trying to suggest that a PhD conferred an expertise across the board.
Sure & I don't doubt SY's technical abilities in electronics what I'm talking about is how he chooses tests & conditions which support his worldview & lead to the conclusions he wants - not what I would call a scientific approach but all too often is found in science & SY is well practised at this art
I don't know what beef a couple of people have with you and I don't actually care. What matters to me is the discussion on here. Which is why I don't object as I don't have a clue what they are on about.
As such what someone who got fed up with the behaviour on here which is at times between the average politican and 4-chan and moved on is posting now somewhere else is of zero relevance to me. Hence my comment.
In the last 24 hours this thread has once again proved to be beyond redemption. Any hope of any progress gets stamped out. Time to go and discuss something completely pointless but hopefully more satisfying on another thread (steps up for MMs I gotta find a use for them).
Andrew, you know not to play the discs in the background with that thing, right? 😀
mmerrill99,
Stuart is not here to defend himself, so drop it.
I happen to know him personally on a one to one basis. We worked a little together and I found he was both honest and funny as heck! He did have a finely developed BS meter you you apparently are one of those people who set it off often.
Knowing Stuart as I do, if I have to judge what you are saying against what I know to be true, you come up rather short in the honesty department if you have nothing to say but negative things. And that behind his back! Cowards all.
Given a chance to work with him again, I would jump at the chance.
-Chris
Stuart is not here to defend himself, so drop it.
I happen to know him personally on a one to one basis. We worked a little together and I found he was both honest and funny as heck! He did have a finely developed BS meter you you apparently are one of those people who set it off often.
Knowing Stuart as I do, if I have to judge what you are saying against what I know to be true, you come up rather short in the honesty department if you have nothing to say but negative things. And that behind his back! Cowards all.
Given a chance to work with him again, I would jump at the chance.
-Chris
Mhm, does that mean in your book there is no difference between a description of a subjective perceptual description and a assertion about a certain property of a test protocol?
The latter being the most commonly used test protocol in various fields (according to the literature) and now there is demand to 'proof the negative' (i.e. that it does not suffer as a test protocol more than others from the knowledge of participants about the EUT)???
It is still a thread for friends of surrealism..... 🙂
The second least liked SME arm. I have the least liked as does syn08 🙂
Fidelity is heading steadily downhill and I'm having fun.
Good on you
When you see him next you might ask about his change in attitude about Positive controls in sensory testing that he now states on ASR Vs what he used to state here
It's interesting to read the follow on post on ASR where someone says about positive controls "it depends" (which is what he used to say in his posts here) & his answer is "In sensory research, it's the norm. This isn't pharmacology, so not surprisingly, the experimental design needs to be different."
Interesting in his change of position.
If he says that he has learned something along the way then I would be impressed but judging from his history of posts, I doubt it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.