I used to work with a guy who was cycling mad. He used elliptical frame tubes to improve aerodynamics, drilled holes everywhere to save weight. But - as we kept pointing out to him - he was build like the proverbial brick ****house, 6 foot 6 tall, and with the aerodynamics of a fridge....
Well, there's those daft pellet fuel "catalysts", magnets to clamp around the fuel lines, all manner of expensive oil additives.....
Sure. Mark threw out a quote to stir the mud and reinforce his views. Carefully cherry picked out of context of course as everyone does!
None of the EE professors I have known would write somethings like that and I bet Howard wouldn't write that about Airplane noise reduction.
Obviously, we will see your book soon. On the movement of electrons between the hood and engine in a retro car. 😀
They have electronic paint nowadays! The new age bling.
Electroluminescent Paint | United States | LumiLor
Electroluminescent Paint | United States | LumiLor
I think lemans cars have had that for a while. My Eldest is doing a PhD on taking this to the next level.
Are you sure, that the cite was out of context? Doing perceptual evaluations on different DACs (presumably with already sufficiently good measurements) is surely something that is sometimes done in a traditional production environment, so seems to be "in context".....
The book was apparently a collaboration of the authors so I don't know if it reflects the reality to attribute a certain statement explicitely to one of them.
Newells main interest is the design of control rooms and from my communication with him I'd say he has a down to earth approach, emphasizing needed corrobation by scientific evaluation.
You have made my point nicely Jakob. Mark inferred the comment was by him or at least supported by him. Not a statement I would normally expect from a professor, associate or otherwise if writing in his official capacity.
Ah, the everlasting joy of communication in a foreign language... 🙂
I tried to express my expectation that both authors stand by the statements in this book.
Right,
This is my 130Hp at the wheels Mini.
No phase distortion or pico seconds delay, just raw and loud to over 200km/hr.
😀 😀
Hans
Attachments
Do we really want to waste a few hours again failing to reach a consensus? You know how this always ends. Best we agree to disagree. Also I really cannot be bothered to find out what they meant by 'component matching' or 'better quality DAC' to try an make any sense of the out of context quote.
I don't know (really) how this always end. Mainly because I don't have this kind of infallable crystal ball at my disposal that "you guys" seem to have.
I usually ask, if someone claims a inconsistency that at a first glance isn't existing (at least to me), as a misunderstanding on my side might be at work.
The statement Markw4 cited means (so my understanding) that the authors think, in a revealing reproduction environment audible differences between devices (DACs in this case) are more likely to detect.
Why this shouldn't be examinable by controlled listening tests is beyond my understanding, but is the premise for the claimed contradiction.
You do, it gets into the sort of discussion that can only be reasonably resolved face to face over a plurality of beers 🙂.
Next part of the DBT on interconnects.
The assignment of "1" and "2" to the interconnects was randomized for each music sample but remained the same for all listeners in set "A" and was switched in set "B" (see my last post The Black Hole......).
Results of trial set "A":
70 participants, 6 music samples, order of results for the "1 better than 2" ; "no difference" ; "2 better than 1"
1.)15;16;39
2.)31;20;19
3.)30;13;27 <-> negative control, identical sample played twice
4.)19;18;33
5.)34;14;22
6.)11;21;38
Results of trial set "B":
42 participants, again the same 6 music samples, order of results as above
1.)12;9;21
2.)8;14;20
3.)18;7;17 <-> negative control, identical sample played twice
4.)7;8;27
5.)27;9;6
6.)13;9;20
Traditionally this kind of results was often analysed by excluding the "no difference" answers or assigning the "no difference" results to the other categories to allow finally a binomial test.
Although this procedure was based on plausible arguments (and studies) but obviously it has some disadvantages and is a in fact a manipulation of the data.
The most innocuous variant would be excluding the "no difference" answers but that unfortunately lowers the effective sample size and therefore the statistical power.
A modern way of analysis is based on a so-called identicality norm, introduced by Ennis and Ennis in ~1980.
The idea is basically to use the results from a negative control (i.e. results from presenting an identical stimulus twice in a row) as a baseline and to calculate if the other trial results diverge from this baseline significantly.
The assignment of "1" and "2" to the interconnects was randomized for each music sample but remained the same for all listeners in set "A" and was switched in set "B" (see my last post The Black Hole......).
Results of trial set "A":
70 participants, 6 music samples, order of results for the "1 better than 2" ; "no difference" ; "2 better than 1"
1.)15;16;39
2.)31;20;19
3.)30;13;27 <-> negative control, identical sample played twice
4.)19;18;33
5.)34;14;22
6.)11;21;38
Results of trial set "B":
42 participants, again the same 6 music samples, order of results as above
1.)12;9;21
2.)8;14;20
3.)18;7;17 <-> negative control, identical sample played twice
4.)7;8;27
5.)27;9;6
6.)13;9;20
Traditionally this kind of results was often analysed by excluding the "no difference" answers or assigning the "no difference" results to the other categories to allow finally a binomial test.
Although this procedure was based on plausible arguments (and studies) but obviously it has some disadvantages and is a in fact a manipulation of the data.
The most innocuous variant would be excluding the "no difference" answers but that unfortunately lowers the effective sample size and therefore the statistical power.
A modern way of analysis is based on a so-called identicality norm, introduced by Ennis and Ennis in ~1980.
The idea is basically to use the results from a negative control (i.e. results from presenting an identical stimulus twice in a row) as a baseline and to calculate if the other trial results diverge from this baseline significantly.
Last edited:
Must say, I used to find Frank's guitar playing transcendent, but in later years it gets a bit tedious.