John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#11,469
SY said:
syn08, I think you can make your point effectively without stooping to the pejorative.
Click to expand...

Don't think so, but I'll let you for now fight this lost cause. Though, a quote from the Internet wisdom:


Some things to keep in mind about trolls:

1. Even if you find it amusing, even if you think the troll is an *******, you perpetuate the problem by replying to their post.

2. The troll continues to come back and cause trouble because every person who has ever replied to a troll post, no matter how well-meaning they were in replying to said troll post, FEEDS THE TROLL. If all of us were to simply IGNORE the troll they would go away -- but see, by giving the troll attention, they continue to come back, again and again and again. Therefore,

3. Feeding the troll is -essentially- as bad as *being* a troll. As soon as you feed the troll, knowing full well how bad that is, you become part of the problem. Be a part of the solution and IGNORE TROLLS.

4. This should be obvious, but when somebody feeds a troll, and then you jump in and reply to that feeding -- guess what -- you've now just fed the troll *again*. Even if you don't quote the troll or reply to anything they've said, you're still feeding them.
 
#11,470
syn08 said:


Don't think so, but I'll let you for now fight this lost cause. Though, a quote from the Internet wisdom:


Some things to keep in mind about trolls:

1. Even if you find it amusing, even if you think the troll is an *******, you perpetuate the problem by replying to their post.

2. The troll continues to come back and cause trouble because every person who has ever replied to a troll post, no matter how well-meaning they were in replying to said troll post, FEEDS THE TROLL. If all of us were to simply IGNORE the troll they would go away -- but see, by giving the troll attention, they continue to come back, again and again and again. Therefore,

3. Feeding the troll is -essentially- as bad as *being* a troll. As soon as you feed the troll, knowing full well how bad that is, you become part of the problem. Be a part of the solution and IGNORE TROLLS.

4. This should be obvious, but when somebody feeds a troll, and then you jump in and reply to that feeding -- guess what -- you've now just fed the troll *again*. Even if you don't quote the troll or reply to anything they've said, you're still feeding them.
Click to expand...

Well said

I actually tried to ignore the TROLL posts, but when I saw that the TROLL got it right the way he wanted and everybody posted, and the TROLL decided what to discuss, I’m now posting just to show people that it’s a TROLL.

So if everybody could just ignore the posts form the troll I think that would be the best solution.

I’m in.

Stinius
 
#11,471
Some good points.

Joshua, I'd recommend you re-read carefully the procedure I sent you (at no charge) and compare it to what you claim to do. The differences are all the things that prevent your "tests" from being anything more than putting on a white coat and playing make-believe. If you want me to take the time to teach you the ins and outs of experimental design for sensory analysis, we can discuss my hourly rates offline.
 
#11,472
janneman said:



On the contrary, I would like to wish each and every diy-er here a very festive Holiday Season and a great 2009. No exceptions.
May 2009 bring you happiness, health, prosperity and great-sounding cables 😉

Jan Didden
Click to expand...


Apologies for quoting myself, but I think I goofed. Of course, my good wishes are for ALL here, not just the diy-ers. Whether up-here or down-under..😉

Jan Didden
 
#11,473
stinius said:


Well, that is not what I call a fact.
Try to explain the FACT one more time please.
Click to expand...


You may call it whatever you wish.
For me, my audible experience, while neutralizing other possible effects and influencing factors – is a fact.

May be for you a fact is what you read about.
For me, a fact must be validated by my own experience, otherwise it's an unproved theory, or a speculation.

As for explanation – I have no explanation to this fact, which I know by experience. Also, when choosing components for my audio setup, including sometimes cables direction, I care more about the music experience from my setup than intellectual explanations for why a certain component sounds better.

It is a different story when I'm building an amplifier. Here, theory that I know off comes first, including components and wires and case quality – audible differences come later.
 
#11,474
SY said:

Joshua, I'd recommend you re-read carefully the procedure I sent you (at no charge) and compare it to what you claim to do. The differences are all the things that prevent your "tests" from being anything more than putting on a white coat and playing make-believe. If you want me to take the time to teach you the ins and outs of experimental design for sensory analysis, we can discuss my hourly rates offline.
Click to expand...


Again, I prefer you pointing out here, directly, the "white coat and playing make-believe" in my procedure, instead of referring to another procedure.

Please believe me, I'm not into fooling myself – I'm into getting at the facts of the matter. Should you point out flaws in my procedure, I WILL change it. One flaw was already pointed out – paralleling wires. I recognized the flaw and amended my procedure accordingly.
 
#11,477
Here's the procedure I gave Joshua, with the only redaction being a forbidden word on the forum:

Let's say you want to compare two interconnects. Call them A and B. Have someone generate a random table of A's and B's. The best way to do this is to have the person flip a coin 12 times- for each heads, he writes "A," for each tails, he writes "B." You are nowhere in the vicinity when any of this is going on. It's very important that this sequence be random- sometimes there will be a change between trials, sometimes not.

OK, now the fun begins. Swap the interconnects back and forth, sighted, until you think you have a good handle on what you think the differences are. You need to blind things now. Either have the cable swapping done behind a screen or leave the room after each trial. To prevent accidental non-auditory cuing or other variables, even if (say) trial 3 and trial 4 are both A, the A cable should be removed and reattached. You now have two options for the data acquisition. You can either score "A" or "B" for each trial, or you can score "same" or "different" from trial to trial. If you choose to do the latter method, the random sequence should have A refer to keeping the same cable, B referring to changing the cables, rather than A being on cable, B being the other. Again, all swapping should be done with you out of the room or behind a barrier.

You keep a score sheet, then when the test is done, compare it to the random sequence. Typically, you'll want to achieve a better-than-95% confidence (or as a real sensory guy would say, n<0.05), which will generally mean 9 out of 12 correct. As an aid, you should be able to leave the area at any point during the test, have the cables both removed, then repeat the sighted comparisons until you're ready for the next blind trial. Likewise, you should be able to control volume, length of audition, musical choice, or anything else you think will help you in identification.

It is important that the person swapping the cables not be in the area during your listening or look at your scoring, or have any communication with you- it's very easy to have subconscious cuing upset the controls. They should do the swap (or remove and replace) and leave the area before you enter or be behind the barrier and out of sight during the entire test. Yeah, doing an actual controlled test is a pain in the --- and not as much fun as playing audiophile, but the data you get will be valid and repeatable.
Click to expand...
 
#11,478
SY said:
My boss would also like me to work for free.

I gave you a good procedure which will give you quality data. It has the necessary controls. Use it.
Click to expand...


Well, it looks to me like you are avoiding.
You don't see any flaw in my procedure, only, you stick to what you read somewhere.

I have no reason to complicate my procedure, more than necessary.
Should flaws be pointed out – I will change my procedure accordingly.
Else, I'll stay with it.

One more thing – I don't take dictates from others.
I do accept suggestions, when I see their validity.
I don't follow a complex and complicated procedure only because of someone, somewhere, outlined it – not when I can get at the same end results with a simpler procedure. Complexity of a procedure doesn't mean more accuracy – not necessarily. Or, alternately, to get valid results, a more complex procedure isn't always necessary. The simplest procedure that gives valid results is preferred.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom