You have no ability to analyse what Nousaine has written about blind testing & instead try to use various deflections - appeals to authority 'regional VP of AES', 'dead men can't change what they have posted', anything but your own analysis of what Nousaine wrote
So now that ABX testing discussion is done - time to return to the mainstream debate
How did you get to that conclusion? You can really tell my abilities from a couple of posts on a forum? HR types should be paying you millions to pick their employees for them.
You offer no analysis therefore I conclude you have none but maybe instead of being coy & fluttering your eyelashes, you want to prove my conclusion wrong 😀?
I think we are having the wrong approach here. "If I can't measure it then it doesn't exist blah blah". Sounds too much like a boring form of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent
I propose we could take a more entertaining path and examine the issue from the perspective of Rule 34.
I propose we could take a more entertaining path and examine the issue from the perspective of Rule 34.
I may well do that, but first I would need to read, understand and digest both the original paper and Tom's comments on it, with perhaps some additional side research. You dissed Tom's work so quickly that you either
a) are an expert in this and could digest quickly. I have no idea on that as prior to this thread you didn't post much so I have no idea who you are or what your specialities are.
b) You scanned it and just emboldened some bits randomly
c) You hate the late Tom and trawl the web to diss his work.
Whichever I cannot provide a reasoned response as quickly. Dismissing the fact I want to do due diligence as having 'no ability' is a bit of a snap response. Like I said, nowt as queer as folk as they say in Yorkshire.
a) are an expert in this and could digest quickly. I have no idea on that as prior to this thread you didn't post much so I have no idea who you are or what your specialities are.
b) You scanned it and just emboldened some bits randomly
c) You hate the late Tom and trawl the web to diss his work.
Whichever I cannot provide a reasoned response as quickly. Dismissing the fact I want to do due diligence as having 'no ability' is a bit of a snap response. Like I said, nowt as queer as folk as they say in Yorkshire.
...this ABX/testing/statistics stuff is so incredibly off topic, could you guys just go get a room somewhere, or start a thread on this topic and keep that discussion IN that thread?? Just maybe?? It's like a VIRUS, it seems to infect far too many otherwise useful topics. Now you're going to chum the waters with Tom Nousaine?? Go over to the Lounge and have at it. How about it "gentlemen"?
so much for asking nicely, being polite or trying to be subtle around here...
so much for asking nicely, being polite or trying to be subtle around here...
Last edited:
No, his errors have been pointed out and there are no challengers to the explanations only the usual patterns of ad hominems which are fairly strong indicators there's nothing wrong with the analysis that's been presented. I mean if the deflectors had an ace to play surely they'd play it rather than kick up so much sand, right?
are you kidding?
WTF does that have to do with the TOPIC?
Nothing at all.
you know it, I know it, and everyone reading knows that too.
everyone who is self assured that their position/belief/whatever is certain can merely state their position, like placing a monument in a field, and LEAVE IT BE.
The idea that people need to keep arguing for their ORTHODOXY, no matter what they think backs it up is pretty nutz. It's like a ******* religious argument!
Move the ball down the field instead of arguing where it is, who touched it last, or other less worthwhile things.
Mental and verbal gymnastics. Peh.
WTF does that have to do with the TOPIC?
Nothing at all.
you know it, I know it, and everyone reading knows that too.
everyone who is self assured that their position/belief/whatever is certain can merely state their position, like placing a monument in a field, and LEAVE IT BE.
The idea that people need to keep arguing for their ORTHODOXY, no matter what they think backs it up is pretty nutz. It's like a ******* religious argument!
Move the ball down the field instead of arguing where it is, who touched it last, or other less worthwhile things.
Mental and verbal gymnastics. Peh.
That topic that I see is 'What's wrong with opamps?' and I'm seeing precious little answering of this question so its mostly OT. Lots of denial but very few suggestions.
I have an old Hi-fi News test CD which has a couple of tracks for comparing the sound of transistor mic amps with that of valve mic amps. I clearly heard a difference between them - the transistor one had a similar sonic characteristic to what I hear when opamps aren't implemented correctly (note this is not the intrinsic sound of opamps to me, then can sound fairly decent though not quite transparent, but I've only listened to a fairly narrow selection of mostly cheap opamps). Having heard an obvious difference I pulled up the files in Audacity and naturally enough there was a huge difference in the spectrum in the upper-mid to HF. The 'transistor' amp is clearly adding a lot of stuff which is simply not there in the 'valve' one. Could this be an indicator of where to look for 'opamp sound' do you think?
Dunno Abraxalito. But in the light of rule 34 I did a google search for "x-rated opamp" and LM358 popped up as the second result. (the first one was TI opamp site, I'll let John explain that marketing technique lol).
So going this path, maybe we could check whether LM358 has a rather peculiar "sound" when compared to 3-legs (pre)amps?
So going this path, maybe we could check whether LM358 has a rather peculiar "sound" when compared to 3-legs (pre)amps?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.