I'm always amused at the patent commissioner misquote. He was actually asking for more money for the Patent Office because of the bright future of inventing. But never let reality get in the way of a good story.
Can we get the scan of the paper with the squiggles and the drawn circles again? I miss that. Good times.
Can we get the scan of the paper with the squiggles and the drawn circles again? I miss that. Good times.
You start a post quoting me and that is adressing ME personally. And you know that.
Actually you are. Read your posts. You are desperately looking for black and white despite having a website that claims you know what you know what you are talking about. A website linked on your every post.
How about
D) No one has come up with a logical reason for a DF >40. Rod actually uses series resistance in his active speakers to tailor the bass response by dropping DF.
Standard internet flame war comments. Not rising to them.
lol. You have a script right?
Done sighted listening sessions, found they were a fun afternoon, but to much suggestion and external influence, not the least knowing what system was being used.
Done DBT found them interesting, and yes quite strange initially because you tend to strive for differences initially even when they are not there. But once that initial period is over I found them interesting and informative and also depressing when you realise that without the sighted bit your not as good at hearing things as I had been led to believe by the ears brigade over my early years as an Audiophile...
So in the face of inarguable evidence my reality had to change
I don't think anyone has said that excluding sight makes hearing more reliable. Excluding sight does avoid confusing sight and hearing, so that what is believed to be heard actually arrived via the ears and not the eyes.Jakob2 said:
Who has dismissed sighted listening? To say that something is unreliable is not the same as dismissing it.
Why can't people address the issue, instead of arguing against things which people have not said and do not believe?
It is precisely because humans are not perfect that controlled conditions are needed. It is known that our senses are not reliable, and easily confused - especially with simultaneous input via other senses. Therefore well-designed controlled tests are more reliable in showing whatever it is they show.
Of course, an amplifier intended for the domestic market may have to look nice and have good story. That is just cosmetics and marketing. Claims about its sound, though, ought to be based on sound alone. If its job is to amplify a voltage signal by 20 times, then that is what it should do and that is what it should be judged on. Problems occur when changes for marketing purposes (e.g. use silver wiring internally) get mixed up with sound. By all means use silver wiring if you think that will boost sales; just don't pretend it will improve sound. I'm sure a good ad copy writer can mention silver wiring in a positive way without actually telling lies.
Exactly. Hearing is very suggestible, very easily fooled - as are most of our perceptual systems.
Yes, you peek and you like others peeking, provided that the results confirms your believes.
I do sighted listening and beeing able to confirm always (up to now) my results in controlled listening tests (including single blind and double blind attempts) i conclude that with quite high probability "sighted listening" isn´t always as unreliable as others (often inexperienced wrt to sensory testing) think.
That's probably still valid... For twitter for sure!
... oh ,and in many places you still can't given the crappy cellular coverage!
This has been described in the literature. Some patients were treated very badly. The doctors see themselves as good people, not evil. When anybody does something bad that is very contrary to their self-image as good people, it's almost impossible for them to see it. Generally, it's very easy to see other people's faults, and very difficult or impossible to see our own. We all tend to have inflated self-images, and having some of that appears to be necessary for good mental and physical health. But it also causes some problems. The only real exception to that general tendency is with people who are clinically depressed. They see themselves about the same as other people see them, and it tends to have the effect of reinforcing the their recurring depressive patterns of thought. Again, 96 seems pretty normal and healthy in this regard. But it can cause some problems, since human nature is complex, and not necessarily self-consistent. Some researchers have argued that the traits I have described are due to natural selection. People who have them are more likely to successfully reproduce, and to out-compete others for limited resources.
A question is when we talk about being blind in testing are we being literal or is that metaphorically said? How I mean that do we truly need to cover our eyes or is it just that we need to place the equipment we are listening to into an area where we can't see it, the amplifiers we are comparing are in another room or covered so we can't see them? Do we need to remove the sense of sight to analyze a component properly in a DBT test protocol? I can believe that when testing speakers we need to be blinded or at the least as JBL/Harman does to have the speakers out of sight, behind a curtain. But that behind the curtain does not cover our eyes, we just can't physically see that particular item, so how blind do we have to be? If I have three amplifiers or DAC's or CDP's and they are in the room but covered by identical covering so I can't tell one from another is that good enough or do I need to take the sense of sight away to have a truly scientific test protocol?
In the end when I am sitting listening to a system with my eyes open and just listening do I like the sound or not, that seems to be the ultimate test in the end, all other scientific testing not withstanding. If I don't like it for some unknown reason I don't think all the testing in the world is going to convince me to like what I hear. Ears in the end for the individual are the ultimate arbitrator.
In the end when I am sitting listening to a system with my eyes open and just listening do I like the sound or not, that seems to be the ultimate test in the end, all other scientific testing not withstanding. If I don't like it for some unknown reason I don't think all the testing in the world is going to convince me to like what I hear. Ears in the end for the individual are the ultimate arbitrator.
Fibromyalgia is close as impossible to diagnose on pure physical grounds.
The condition is linked to psycho-somatic elements, protein abnormalities found in blood samples are merely indications, takes a (mental) background story to be a 100* percent sure.
* give or take a safety margin
(You may likely have been referring to chronic Lyme's disease. A week ago, the very first person in NL was diagnosed with a tick-transferred infection by Borrelia Miyamotoi, already identified 2 decades ago in ticks in Japan. Life rarely is as basic/simple as you apparently would prefer it to be)
Last edited:
billshurv,
Yes you are right on point, in the end it is all preference. Since as Sy has pointed out and many others understand since we have no perfect way to capture an analytically perfect reproduction with a stereo pair of mics and two speaker playback we are never actually getting a perfect reproduced fidelity, we are just painting a picture as close as the recording engineer chooses to do that in the end. There is no replacement for a live event, we can only produce an illusion at best, perhaps a better illusion with multi-channel and multi-mic but that is still also a questionable solution, just perhaps a better than two channel solution.
Yes you are right on point, in the end it is all preference. Since as Sy has pointed out and many others understand since we have no perfect way to capture an analytically perfect reproduction with a stereo pair of mics and two speaker playback we are never actually getting a perfect reproduced fidelity, we are just painting a picture as close as the recording engineer chooses to do that in the end. There is no replacement for a live event, we can only produce an illusion at best, perhaps a better illusion with multi-channel and multi-mic but that is still also a questionable solution, just perhaps a better than two channel solution.
Bear is actually playing black bag rhetoric games - absurd "framing", trying to make out that his chosen strawman claim should be recognized as absurd so he can then claim the whole of the argument he didn't address is wrong
and there have been studies of frequency response difference thresholds in controlled listening tests
and there have been studies of frequency response difference thresholds in controlled listening tests
typo? - of course you can DBT "We matched the output levels of both D/A preamps to within 1dB "
0.1 dB is really the level match needed according to Clark's ABX tests
Clark, David L., "High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol. 30 No. 5, May 1982, pp. 330-338
sorry link died "http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_crit.htm]ABX Amplitude vs. Frequency Matching Criteria"
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.