Such a statement is too vague for scientific work. You need to determine a way to weight the probability of cheating. Otherwise, a biased experimenter is free to invoke the excuse at will. There needs to be an objective basis for evaluating it as an influencing factor on outcomes. IMHO, of course.
Last edited:
No it is not. Only less than a dozen contributors here so your hyperbole is silly.
From my tiny corner of the world your input is becoming a PITA.
When I do it it is tedious pedantry. When you do it it is merely attention to detail. Did I get that right?mmerrill99 said:
Yes, I offer no definition. Any definition I offer will be carefully picked over for flaws, which will then be held aloft with a triumphant cry. In life we do not have to rigourously define every word we use. Most reasonable people know what the word 'reasonable' means. No definition could possible cover all possible unreasonable tests, because there is no limit to the foolishness of others.
I seem to recall inviting him to comment on this before, some months ago, but he declined and tried to divert the discussion. I may be wrong; it could have been someone else.scottjoplin said:
A reasonable test would not be strongly biased either way. I expect you will now ask me to define 'strong bias'. It could be tortoises all the way down.
A resonable baseline would be to set the level so that the waveform difference (after time-alignment) during low volume passages is minimal (as measured and by listening to the residual) as we would assume distortion is lowest at low levels. At high level, in the 1% THD range, there will be deformation of the peaks, any combination of expanding or compressing peaks of individual polarity may occur so no way to level-align this with peak-hold values or RMS during louder passages. The larger the distortion and the more dynamic the recording the lesser one can match levels... which section of the file to choose for the statistics? Do we want same percieved loudness during low level passages or during (very occassional) lound bursts? One could make histogramms of short-term (200ms) rms value bins and then concentrate on the passages with many blocks in/near the distribution peak and level-align using those sections, to get a sort of weighted average level trimming.
Your refusal to deal with the detail & repeat the same mantra is what is tedious.
You hold no expectation of the quality of a test, you simply judge it as it comes, play it by ear, i.e. make it up as you go along
How do you know a test is "strongly biased" - just your 'belief system', again at play?
It took me sometime, yes there is a Merrill Audio site
Element 118 Power amplifier Monoblocks
They use highend components like
and I think they mention a GHz BW somewhere.
Last edited:
If you can't deal with the logic of the arguments & have to revert to trying to bait the person, then many readers make of this what they will.
Can we pretty please stop feeding the troll?
The man has a vested interest (what percentage financial vs ideological I don't know or care given they're interrelated) in spreading FUD about DBT in audio, especially ABX. Good luck getting any sort if reasoned discussion out of him, nor is he willing to provide anything constructive, like an experimental protocol that ostensibly works. Instead he practices manipulative arguing methods, complete with their logical fallacies, (particularly selective and out of context quoting followed by a conflation of "if this minor thing is arguable, then the overall position is wrong") and then complains loudly that he's being treated unfairly when someone comments against a point he makes unambiguously, especially when it is technically and unambiguously wrong. Mark, Jacob, if that reads like attacking a person rather than his ideas, I understand. I also don't know how to separate the toxicity of the individual's methods from his long ago historically argued points. Frankly the most cogent points he makes are when he parrots or directly quotes someone else, oftentimes completely in the wrong context, which certainly doesn't inspire confidence in his reasoning.
The man has a vested interest (what percentage financial vs ideological I don't know or care given they're interrelated) in spreading FUD about DBT in audio, especially ABX. Good luck getting any sort if reasoned discussion out of him, nor is he willing to provide anything constructive, like an experimental protocol that ostensibly works. Instead he practices manipulative arguing methods, complete with their logical fallacies, (particularly selective and out of context quoting followed by a conflation of "if this minor thing is arguable, then the overall position is wrong") and then complains loudly that he's being treated unfairly when someone comments against a point he makes unambiguously, especially when it is technically and unambiguously wrong. Mark, Jacob, if that reads like attacking a person rather than his ideas, I understand. I also don't know how to separate the toxicity of the individual's methods from his long ago historically argued points. Frankly the most cogent points he makes are when he parrots or directly quotes someone else, oftentimes completely in the wrong context, which certainly doesn't inspire confidence in his reasoning.
Last edited:
I don't know anything about some random hypothetical unspecified test. I take it you do not have a belief system? If so, thinking must be hard work as you have nothing to start from. Each time you want to calculate the value of a resistor you first have to discover what physical law (if you believe in physical laws - maybe you don't?) is obeyed by resistors (do I need to define the word 'resistor'?).mmerrill99 said:
Surely 'baiting' is what you have been attempting to do with me for some time?
I was aware of that. It appears to be at the shiny, expensive, 'lifestyle' end of the audio market, while claiming not to be. The website has lots of fine words but very few facts. I do not know what, if any, connection it has with mmerrill99 here. If he is connected with that business then I can well imagine why he wishes to defend sighted tests. Fortunately it is likely that few of Merrill Audio's customers will seek audio wisdom on this forum, so I doubt if we are affecting sales.PMA said:
Sounds like its a tri axis rotational problem. (just looking at the comments after my new white room distortion post)
Regardless, new brain toy:
Researchers defy 19th Century law of Physics in 21st century boost for energy efficiency
whut dey be sayin? Magnetic diode.
This may help in some of your work John.
Assamalute zero might get a bit more friendly, and move closer to you on the dewar. Too bad, it will be totally frigid.
Last edited:
And this is how the usual script goes on audio forums from people who are afraid to deal with logical arguments - attack the poster for being X or not being X (doesn't matter as long as it's accepted by the groupthink), then label him/her a troll & appeal to others to ignore - all to avoid facing the truth of what's being said
Again we see the usual m.o - build a strawman - I've said it before, the mindset that dominates certain types - unless a prescription is given on how to do something they feel they have been cheated - it seems they can't deal with analysis of the 'test' & the weaknesses inherent in t - they just don't want to know.
I already gave a way of embedding hidden controls within a ABX test but PMA either doesn't understand or pretends not to. Whatever, the reason, neither he nor the main ABX supporters on here are interested in controls
Don't know what you are talking about but if you aren't able to deal with details about ABX testing, or details about auditory perception then maybe I can help you - the first step is being truthful with yourself.
Ah, just get to the ad-hominem stuff straight away in your next post - no need for the lead-in
- Status
- Not open for further replies.