| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#282
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"normanstrong" wrote in message ...
"Mkuller" wrote in message news:BXb0b.183627$YN5.135766@sccrnsc01... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message : 4) that reporting as the end-outcome the majority vote of ABX untrained/untalented and ignoring the capable minority who DO hear-exactly the way Greenhill had done (see Marcus quotes)is a perversion of "testing". (Bob Marcus) Date: 8/17/03 4:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: wrote: "Ignoring the minority who DO have fewer and less severe colds after megadosing vitamin C is a perversion of testing." See how silly that argument is? So stop using it. Bob, your analogy comparing DBTs to medical research is wrongheaded. If one person in the Greenhill group, or any other group reliably identifies a difference - then it proves a difference exists! The fact that the others or a vast majority are not able to reliably identify it under THAT test and THOSE test conditions means next to nothing. It's a null - 0 - meaningless. That simply isn't true. All it proves is that the individual in question got results that can be expected only once out of 20 tries relying on guesswork alone--approximately 8 correct out of 10 tries. What conclusion would you draw if an individual got 8 out of 10 wrong! Norm Strong Norman, in this particular case (Greenhill) he attempted to establish some acceptable criteria of statistical validity compatible with real-life restraints. Basing himself on the "binomial distribution table" proposed by the ABX developer Carlstrom in his official "Oakland" ABX website he, Greenhill, said that 12 out of 15 corrects ie 80% in each one of his 6 tests will be considered "correct". This means that all his subjects had to undergo 90 tests. Say 6 minutes minimum for each A, then B then X sequence. 9 hours for 6 tests. Nonstop or breaks for R&R, lunch, dinner and sleep? To me the ABX is part of the problem- not the solution. That largely explains why, indeed, most individuals do get your "8 out of 10 wrong" and in my opinion always will. Even if someone finally gets around to testing full-range speakers against each other. By MUSIC not train whistles and pink noises After that there will be nothing left to confirm that "they all sound the same". In the meantime please explain how you would improve on your brother "objectivist" Greenhill's methods. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#283
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Tom said
And we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of nominal competence. I said Competence is a matter of opinion in this case. Tom said Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals would have verified one element of competence. No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses an equilizer? Tom said Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence? I said Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In your case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is the result and only the result. That is bad science 101. Tom said I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a full set of statistical data and results. The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response. I'm pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data you need beyond a 20 out of 20 score. Tom said Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is what it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun. I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to. Tom said If you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other evidence, please tell us. I said Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal evidence. Tom said Anecdotes? Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal and the scientific community has theirs. Tom said I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur experiment published in 1980 have you? I have not so far. Tom said Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."? Scientifically speaking, yep. I said I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than the ones you like. Tom said But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone duplicated that? Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions. No matter how you dress it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept other than the results. Tom said I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not? What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data? Tom said I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion experiment. IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific. |
|
#284
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#287
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#288
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#289
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Nousaine) wrote in message ...
Many snips-mostly my own previous text. (ludovic mirabel) wrote: Nousaine: It doesn't need an objective reference point. It only needs to confirm that subjects had reliable scores that showed they heard a difference. Isn't that your position.....common objective measurements fail to reveal real audible differences? You're pleased to call ABXing a "common objective measurement" No, it is not. It is just ABX- manifestly a method that some adapt to "by talent" (to quote Greenhill) or training and others do not by lack of talent or lack of training. Translate: 99,5% of audiophiles. This is certainly not true. There were no individuals in that test that reliably demonstrated an ability to differentiate those wires with music. Mr. Nousaine this is your opinion. It happens to run counter to the opinion of immaculately objectivist Greenhill, who said he found a "golden ear" distinguishing cables when pink noise was the signal. But suddenly you change sides and agree with me that musical signal only is what matters. Pink noise no longer THE perfect valid signal- into the rubbish basket with it at your convenience. Like this: No sir. But the logical fallout from those results is that noise is 'overly-sensitive' to audible difference. And it IS compared to music. Define "overly". "overly " to you or to me or to Glenn Gould? But if you repeated this test endlessly comparing the same wire to itself you'd still get the random distribution of results. And even if you used the same subjects in a million trials you'd find the distribution of scores but NOT a pattern based on individual performances. Another unsupported opinion, another prediction (reminds me of the stock-market analysts). Let me just observe that your statistical standards are raised skywards when the dreaded possibility of a "positive" result looms and drop to ground=zero as long as everything is lovely and negative and it all sounds the same. You're not the only one. I'm sorry to say that the same double vision afflicts even the moderates in your camp such as Norman Strong. Actually when real differences are present scores quickly become near-universally positive. To expand, when audibility is truly present there is still a distribution BUT most subjects score positively on individual scores. Which are the "real" demonstrated differences between comparable audio components. References please. So far all you quoted were the negatives. You had 2 years time. That is how long I've been asking for positives. And ABX had 30 Question: what is the practical usefulness to an audiophile of a "test" that has a "distribution with tails"? Not very repeatable, is it? Oh yes it IS very repeatable. If there is no audbile difference then you'll get a random distribution. If there is a true difference then you get a distribution that is not random. Both may have tails. Thereupon you quote your example of real differences(detail snipped). Surprise, surprise: you allow that level differences are audible. Congratulations or Duh.. in the contemporary idiom. Is that all you accept in the world of audio? If you say speakers will sound different I'll say : prove that it will be the case when a representative audiophile panel ABXes a representative high-end full range speakers. My guess (only a guess- but you have nothing better) is that you'll get another "random distribution with tails" for your pains, because such is the nature of the ABX beast. Ludovic wants us to consider any subject who scores better much than 50% as a person who "heard" something whether the individual score or overall score suggests this was the case. Ludovic does not and never did hold such moronic views. I'm disappointed that you'd want to attribute them to me. As much as you claim otherwise what you have specifically asked for is that we accept non-significant, but seemingly high, results on individual subjects as real data "hidden" in the averages. This hasn't ever happened and as far as I can tell has not shown up in any published experimental results. As I said befo speak to Greenhill about it. You gentlemen obviously disagree. Read above re (Grenhill's own) "statistical validity criteria". On the contrary, Ludovic has been trying to explain to a Mr. Marcus for the last two years that adding up the bad, the average and the good together does not a "positive result" make. Unsuccessfully it would seem because he came back with it this very week. So you would have us only 'count' high scores even if they fall within a distribution that we'd get when people were only guessing. No. I'd ask you to run a test with a decent number of panelists, with your own statistical criteria and demonstrate your truths to your own satisfaction. Is there anything in audio where some will get a positive result ABXing that you'll accept? So far no such object or subject have been found, right? Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf (www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or more. OK? So what? Given a chance result we'de find a distribution and we'd find a buried Golden Ear according to Ludovic's reasoning. Why are there no lucky coins in his experiments? The correct guesses between 70 and 80% of a few of his subjects are golden enough, for his test tasks, no? Don't really follow your point. That's because you don't understand experimental design and analysis. No; 70 to 80% correct will be found in many distributions. So will 20 and 30% scores. You seemingly only want to 'count' those scores that will support your previously held biases. You not only deny the validity of the results of the "listening tests" in the Stereo Review etc. but now you're turning against S. Olive, your own example of a good researcher. Look at his website. He repeats ad nauseam that he trained and supertrained his subjects to get valid results and yet according to you all he got was meaningless "distribution with tails". His few that he accepted as performing consistenly well are the tail in your statistics.. His documentation looks transparent and full to me. Take it up with him ,not me. The subject is reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL reproduction differences between components. Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the nature of your test? The "test" has the same conditions under which people happily form subjective difference opinions. Exactly- no difference. The "sound" doesn't change only the knowledge over which component is in the chain or is "X" is withheld. It is true that it's much harder to identify which of 2 identical sounding products is driving the loudspeakers when the blindfolds come out. So? None of that changes the "sound being reproduced. If the ability to distinguish an amplifier under blindfolded conditions (either figurately or literally) disappears when bias controls are introduced then it cannot be said that the device sounds "different." If the subject then insists that the devices were sonically different the conclusion can ONLY be attributed to listener bias. The "bias controls" are the ABX, right? We're back to which bias is better and where it lies? For some subjects it is in the ABX. And yes sighted bias exists as well. The question is what bias does your cure for bias introduce and for how many? Especially as you must agree that training in ABXing improves individual results. How does an audiophile know if he had enough training? When he can 'hear' inaudible differences? Ludovic why not try an ABX test yourself? What you'll find is that 1-2-minutes of "training" is entirely adequate. This is manifest nonsense and perhaps the very answer to how you manage to get your "it all sounds the same" results. Tell it to Krueger, Sean Olive or any psychometrician Have you actually ever taken an ABX or other controlled listening test? pcabx for example? If the answer is "no" I'd say you fall into the same corner that 'audiophiles' always try to back skeptics into. "Have you heard this component? If not HOW DARE YOU question my evaluation?" Not MY question. I would hate to see some people share my likes and dislikes. To the 2nd question the answer is "yes". After 8 tries I was sick of the xylophones (or whatever Krueger used) and I was no longer sure that they were not bells or cymbals. Same as wine tasting. After the 5th sip I no longer know if it is Chateau Lafitte or Gallo. Pity, but my sensory receptors in the brain are poor at retaining the past impressions- however recent. O.K. You're testing how different amps handle the cello sound. You get a significant sample (say 10) of experienced chamber music lovers, selected for their proven ABX training and ability. And by pot luck: I answered already: this shy, modest listener Mr. Pinkerton for one. Greenhill's golden ear for two. Keep trying. Since I believe that ABXing is a skill on its own I can't predict who'll be good at it. Krueger should have a few such by now. who was not only a great listener but also a great ABX performer. So how does a person who has not demonstrated and ability to 'hear' inaudible differences qualify under your criteria. All of my ABX subjects have been great listeners and great ABX performers. You want "ABX significant scores" on components that sound the same? Those people don't exist; but are still "great" subjects. No, I want to read that something DID sound different. Just once. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#290
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Tom said
And we've had a couple+ positive experiments that have confirmed lack of nominal competence. I said Competence is a matter of opinion in this case. Tom said Not true. A frequency response measurement made at the speaker terminals would have verified one element of competence. I said No, it would varify the frequency response. Competence is in the eye of the beholder. Or do you think one forces incomptence on an amplifier if one uses an equilizer? Tom said If the amplifier is not transparent by itself then an equalizer could remedy that incompetence. Not an answer to the question. I never placed any such condition you chose to add to the question. Tom said The best use of an equalizer is to enhance competence but like any tool is could be inappropriately used. It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective. Tom said Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a 3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when this device is used to drive a given speaker. If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence. Tom said And that you noticed differences in the sound of this device compared to another device with a low output impedance and no deviations measured at the speaker terminals. Now; you put a series resistor in the speaker line for the 2nd device and they now cannot be distinguished sonically and you, personally preferred the sound of the devices when response matched. So who has EQ'd what and what difference does any of that make? I'd day your preference is just fine but if you want me to believe that high output impedance devices that introduce response deviations is somehow improving the delivered performance I would argue the point. Argue all you want. It is subjective. Tom said It's no different from just cranking up the bass and treble controls on your preamp because you 'like' the sound that way. That is subjective as well. that was why I asked the question does an equilizer make an amp incompetent? Competence has to do with ability to do something. I am quite confident that the designers and builders of amps you would label as incompetently designed and built are quite capable of designing and building amps you would consider competent. It has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with subjective choices. Tom said Why should we give this experiment more weight that the remaining evidence? I said Who said it should get *more* weight? Why should it get less weight? In your case you seem to be giving it zero weight. It looks like your criteria is the result and only the result. That is bad science 101. Tom said I give it the weight it deserves in light of the other experiments most of which have verified level matching and frequency response and supplied a full set of statistical data and results. I said The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response. Tom said You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was completely reported. Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me. Tom said Why not obtain some of these. Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me? I said I'm pretty sure Stewert said he level matched. I don't know what kind of data you need beyond a 20 out of 20 score. Tom said Well Steve Zipser told me that he regularly scored 19/20 and 20/20 in blind tests; but when I put him to the test he scored 3/10. So? Tom said Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this type of device. So? Tom said And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual conditions that produce similar results. The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what is normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the conditions of his tests pretty well. Tom said Stewart's test verified only level-matching at a single frequency. It is what it is; BUT it is NOT your smoking gun. I said I never said it was a smoking gun. I simply said I see no reason to give it more or less weight than the tests you choose to give wieght to. Tom said Given equal weighting those results are still two dozen to 1 and haven't been replicated. 24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer review. If this is convincing to you fine. Any claims of scientific fact are farfetched at best. Tom said If you have a good reason, other than you are uncomfortable with the other evidence, please tell us. I said Reason for what? You are the one picking and choosing your anecdotal evidence. Tom said It's interesting that you seem to completely lack an interest in the available evidence on the subject and a complete reluctance to acquire any evidence on your own. Once again you have successfully mischaracterized my thoughts. Tom said Anecdotes? I said Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal and the scientific community has theirs. Tom said And YOU speak for the scientific community? Do you think what I said is incorrect? Do you think the scientific community would embrase these tests you use as scientifically valid or as anecdotal? Tom said I'll bet you haven't bothered to acquire copies of the Audio Amateur experiment published in 1980 have you? I said I have not so far. Tom said Do you consider the Masters piece an 'anecdote?' How about "To Tweak..."? I said Scientifically speaking, yep. Tom said And you are qualified to comment on them 'scientifically?' Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced by scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal? I said I don't see much reason to give Stewert's tests more or less weight than the ones you like. Tom said But of that work has an inside loop on the real truth why hasn't someone duplicated that? I said Sounds like you are attacking the test based on the results again. Maybe you should replicate his tests before drawing conclusions. Tom said I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results. Oh, where did you get the Apogees? I said No matter how you dress it, in the end, you are picking and choosing tests based on results if you choose to reject Stewert's tests. So far you have offered nothing to show a flaw in his tests that make them inferior to the ones you accept other than the results. Tom said Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson, Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description of the data. That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific facts though. Tom said Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's viewed favorably by YOU? Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that should be a surprise. Tom said I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not? I said What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data? Tom said No. That seems to be your problem. In a way yes, since I don't toss out data just because it conflicts with other data. you don't have a problem with conflicting data as long as you toss out all the data you don't like. Tom said I'm saying that this single report has never been duplicated by anyone else among the couple dozen published experiments. Why not? Given the many variables, many of which wer foolishly allowed in some of these tests IMO, it is not the least bit surprising to me that the various tests have yielded different results. Tom said And in the last analysis if I said to you that a certain medicine had a great effect in one experiment but not in two dozen others how are you going to 'weight' the results? If you are comparing these anecdotal tests to legitimate medical studies you are on shaky ground to say the least. Tom said I'm guessing for the same reason that no one has duplicated the Cold Fusion experiment I said IOW you are guessing that Stewert's tests yeilded wrong results based on the fact that you don't agree with them. Very unscientific. Tom said Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results you wanted? Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to say no. You are alone on this one. |
|
#291
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote:
...large snips, avoiding the endless misrepresentation of previously published data .... No. I'd ask you to run a test with a decent number of panelists, with your own statistical criteria and demonstrate your truths to your own satisfaction. Is there anything in audio where some will get a positive result ABXing that you'll accept? So far no such object or subject have been found, right? Not for nominally competent ampliifers and wires. Other stuff ..... lots; it's just that nothing supporting your folklore mythology about sound quality has shown that the Urban Legends have substance. Example: Your witness Sean Olive's results in his "listening room" pdf (www.revelspeakers.- address quoted from memory). One of his supertrained professionals' was scoring around 30% , a few 50% or thereabouts, most reached (how many repeats?), significant 70% or more. This data dredging means nothing without context. You have a penchant for grabbing sub-textual detail and bending it to suit an argument that is fatally flawd to begin with. This is a fairly common disengenous technique and amounts to wanting to select only that data that seems to support a parently untenable hypothesis that has not been verified. You not only deny the validity of the results of the "listening tests" in the Stereo Review etc. but now you're turning against S. Olive, your own example of a good researcher. Look at his website. He repeats ad nauseam that he trained and supertrained his subjects to get valid results and yet according to you all he got was meaningless "distribution with tails". His few that he accepted as performing consistenly well are the tail in your statistics.. His documentation looks transparent and full to me. Take it up with him ,not me. I know Sean quite well and if you were being brutally honest you'd recognize that his training is used for improving reliability of numerically scoring acoustic differences that have already been sjown to be audible (loudspeakers.) He will agree with me that NO amount of training will improve relability of subejcts when exposed to inaudible 'difference.' When there are truly audible differences his training is designed to help subjects give the same score every time they are exposed a given sound. You are trying to squash an idiological idea (amp/sound) into a loudspeaker evaluation technique. Nothing basically wrong with using proven techniques in new ways but comparing statistical data from an area where differences are known to one where the basis of audibility has never even been shown to exist is just plain disengenous. The subject is reproduction of MUSIC by audio components- not pink noise. in fact saying that ABX performs better with pink noise than music, amounts to saying that ABX is an inappropriate test for assessing MUSICAL reproduction differences between components. Is a "test" that has such variable individual results an appropriate test for audiophile use? How can you be certain that the failure of most of your subjects to recognise differences was not due to the nature of your test? The "test" has the same conditions under which people happily form subjective difference opinions. Exactly- no difference. No sir. In amplifier tests I've conducted subjects swore the devices sounded different yet weren't able to tell them apart with sometimes nothing more than a black cloth was placed over the input/output terminals. The "opinion" was clearly "different." The Truth was "difference not verified." The "sound" doesn't change only the knowledge over which component is in the chain or is "X" is withheld. It is true that it's much harder to identify which of 2 identical sounding products is driving the loudspeakers when the blindfolds come out. So? None of that changes the "sound being reproduced. If the ability to distinguish an amplifier under blindfolded conditions (either figurately or literally) disappears when bias controls are introduced then it cannot be said that the device sounds "different." If the subject then insists that the devices were sonically different the conclusion can ONLY be attributed to listener bias. The "bias controls" are the ABX, right? We're back to which bias is better and where it lies? For some subjects it is in the ABX. And yes sighted bias exists as well. The question is what bias does your cure for bias introduce and for how many? It eliminates listener bias restricting decisions to acoustical sound only. Nothing wrong with that. You've shown no evidence that any other kind of bias has been introduced. You've only told us you don't like any data that doesn't support your folklore. I'd recommend that you find to way to document amp sound without listener bias and then put that evidence on the table so that I can replicate same. Just because no 'objectivist' or 'subjectivist' has failed to document same over the past 30 years isn't a reasonable excuse for the lack of factual evidence supporting amp/wire sound. So how does a person who has not demonstrated and ability to 'hear' inaudible differences qualify under your criteria. All of my ABX subjects have been great listeners and great ABX performers. You want "ABX significant scores" on components that sound the same? Those people don't exist; but are still "great" subjects. No, I want to read that something DID sound different. Just once. Ludovic Mirabel I refer you toToole/Olive whose work has already been referenced by you. |
|
#292
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#293
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
I said
It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective. Tom said If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input terminals to its output terminals without doing anything excpet amplifying it that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer. Jusr another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the world. All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency response. They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better. Tom said If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'ampliifer.' OSAF see above for the same exact comment. Tom said OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more flexibility. Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only that. Tom said Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a 3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when this device is used to drive a given speaker. I said If the end result is prefered sound then one has a hard time claiming incompetence. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence. Tom said You're right; it's a case of a weak design tool set or craziness. You got it part right. I said The reports you sent me didn't contain any info on frequency response. Tom said You only read my brief summary of those reports so you don't know what was completely reported. I said Nonsense. you sent me copies of published articles. Are you saying they were incomplete? They looked like complete articles to me. Tom said Frequency response at the loudspeaker termianls was confirmed in all the full experiments I sent you. I was referring to those listed in "The Great Debate....?" none of which you've seemingly acquired since then. No I haven't been an any easter egg hunts lately. Again, I saw no measurements of frequency response in the ones you sent me but I'll dig them out and look again. Tom said Why not obtain some of these. I said Why would you have deleted the information from the articles you sent me? Tom said Please. Expand your horizons and gather some information on your own. I wonder if this is an adequate response to a peer review group asking for proof of a definitive claim of fact that is allegedly scientifically valid. "I say it's so now you go out and prove it." That isn't going to change many minds. Tom said Not that I'm suggesting anything irregular about Stewart's methods. I'm just saying that he's the ONLY one who has ever reported these results with this type of device. I said So? Tom said And given the results it seems unusual that he didn't verify the usual conditions that produce similar results. I said The results should not cause one to have to do anything different than what is normally expected to be done in varifiable tests. I don't see what was unvarified about the conditions of Stewert's tests. He seems to spell out the conditions of his tests pretty well. Tom said Frequency response differences were not verified. Well, I guess one has to ask at this point, were the amps that Stewert said were "*******" not amps but "equilizers" and how would one know one way or another when one is a mere consumer? People running around believing all amps sound the same except SETs and some OTLs may not be as well informed as objectivists would assume. If those amps sounded different they sounded different. at least to Stewert on his system. I said 24 to 1 in tests done over twenty years that you acknowledge (actually you still seem to be denying Stewert's) none of which have been through peer review. Tom said Stewart's is the 1. And since his hasn't been either published or subject to peer review doesn't it fail you "scientific" criteria? Obviously. don't you remeber i said it was anecdotal scientifically speaking as well as the tests you have cited? I said Scientifically speaking yes. They are all anecdotal just as Stewert's tests were. You may have your personal boundaries of what is and is not anecdotal and the scientific community has theirs. Stewert said So where do we find this list of scientific criteria. If you aren't qualified to pass judgement how can you say one way or another? Gosh, i found it in numerous text books in my science classes in high school and at my university. I also like to ask my friends who also happen to be working research scientists. I am much kinder towards your favorite tests on amplifier sound then they are. I showed them the reports you sent me and they said they were absolute garbage. Tom said But the scientists and engineers I know fully accept these experiments as having failed to confirm the existance of amp/wire sound. We are obviously talking to different scientists. Tom said I'll list a few of them again: Shanefield, Geddes, Rich, Lip****z, Vanderkooy, Toole, Olive, Clark, Eargle, Breithaupt, Ranada, Hirsch, Davis, Gibeau.... Julian Hirsch was a scientist? Mr. Clark's report was scoffed at by my scientist freinds. Is he considered a research scientist? Tom said I'm accepting their opinion over yours. That's fine. I never set myself up as an authroity. You respect the opinions of some in audio and I respect the opinion of some others. But didn't Julian Hirsch come out and say the old 14 bit CD players playing the old undithered CDs were sonically superior and audibally free of distortion? You are free to take his word on things if you wish. I said Do you think that they are scientifically valid tests that would be embraced by scientists as such or do you think scientists would consider them anecdotal? Why not answer the question. Are YOU qualified to comment? Because it is irrelevant. Why not answer the question I asked you? It is relevant. I think what i do know about the scientific method qualifies me. I am quite confident that my friends who happen to be actual research scientists are quite qualified to comment. They called them anecdotal. The word garbage was also thrown around. The problem is my "qualifications" are not at issue. My comment that they are anecodtal tests scientifically speaking is not right or wrong because of my qualifications or lack there of. So can you answer the relevant question i asked you? I'm betting you don't answer the question and instead focus on me and my qualifications. we'll see. Tom said I HAVE replicated his test and many others with differing results. I said Oh, where did you get the Apogees? Tom said I and others have replicated this experiment a couple dozen times with differing results with other speakers and other amplification devices. Then you didn't replicate Stewert's tests. Tom said Let's put it this way; Shanefield, Masters/Toole, Masters/Clark, Pererson, Jackson et al, Shanefield et al have duplicated this test with different conclusions from those reported by Stewart. And with a greater description of the data. I said That's nice. It isn't what i would consider a basis for claims of scientific facts though. Tom said Why not? There's no other confirming data of amp sound is there? I guess you missed the part about tests being anecdotal scientifically speaking. Tom said Why am I required to reject all the other extant evidence just because it's viewed favorably by YOU? I said Never said you were. You are the one who seems unable to deal with different result from different tests. As if with all the variables in these tests that should be a surprise. Tom said Tom said I don't mean that they have to use the same devices but only that those results haven't been obtained by anyone else? Why not? I said I said What are you saying? That you don't know what to do with conflicting data? Tom said I know exactly what to do with all data. Here's a hint. Tossing data you don't like isn't it. Tom said You are the person that seems to have that difficulty. Why? Because I am not picking and choosing data? OK........ Tom said Like your rejection of published experiments that didn't have the results you wanted? I said Since I have made no such rejection of published experiments I would have to say no. You are alone on this one. Tom said OK then you accept "The Great Chicago Cable Caper" and "To Tweak or Not to Tweak" and "Do All Amplifiers Sound The Same?" Great!!! Amps is Amps and Wire is Wire !!! I accept those tests for what they are. i don't suspect fraud. i just don't share your interpretation of the results of those tests. I don't draw global conclusions and claim they are definitive and scientifically valid from a few anecdotal tests. We part ways there in a big way. |
|
#294
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Quote one single sentence of mine "spouting that the researchers are wrong". The labeling of masking (a long understood property) as a 'meaningless buzzword'. |
|
#295
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news  Bd2b.188345$Oz4.51245@rwcrnsc54...I said It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective. Tom said If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input terminals to its output terminals without doing anything except amplifying it that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer. Well, both. In this day and age electronics packages that include both amplification and equalization are fairly common. They are commonly used in mobile audio, and for building speakers used by audio professionals, particularly production monitors. There are also a few consumer speakers that include equalizers and amplifiers as part of the product package. For a long time we've had amplifiers that included user-operated equalizers. We called the user operated equalizers tone controls and the products were called integrated amplifiers. There is no confusion in the mainstream audio world over the fact that these pieces of equipment are composites, and are designed for specific applications. If a product is sold as a basic power amplifier, and has no visible controls for frequency response shaping, then it is presumed that it was designed to have the widest, flattest response possible. Just another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the world. No, just reflecting accepted practice. All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency response. All amplifiers have non-flat frequency response. All amplifiers distort the signals. However it is generally accepted that basic power amplifier will have the broadest, flattest response over the audible range that is reasonably possible and that it will have inaudible nonlinear distortion. They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better. I see no games being played with what Tom said. Tom is very conversant with the modern audio arts. Tom said If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'amplifier.' Agreed. OSAF see above for the same exact comment. But as I just showed, the comment is wrong and does not reflect current accepted practice in mainstream audio. Tom said OH if that's what you want. I prefer my equalizers to have more flexibility. Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only that. No, what Tom is saying reflects current mainstream thinking. Tom said Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a 3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when this device is used to drive a given speaker. I said If the end result is preferred sound then one has a hard time claiming incompetence. The problem here is that an amplifier that imposes random audible changes in its frequency response, changes that vary depending on the impedance curve of speakers, which vary more-or-less randomly among various makes and models, is generally considered to be technically incompetent. Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence. An amplifier that audibly changes its response with various speakers is like a car that can't go minimum legal speeds when its air conditioner is cycling. |
|
#296
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#297
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
I said
It seems you aren't getting the point still. Flat frequency response is a sign of competence if that is what the designer set out to do. If a designer sets out to build an amp that does not have a flat frequency response and succeeds then there is no incompetence. It is, as i said before subjective. Tom said If an amplifier is not capable of transporting a signal from its input terminals to its output terminals without doing anything except amplifying it that its not an amplifier but is an equalizer. Arny said Well, both. In this day and age electronics packages that include both amplification and equalization are fairly common. They are commonly used in mobile audio, and for building speakers used by audio professionals, particularly production monitors. There are also a few consumer speakers that include equalizers and amplifiers as part of the product package. For a long time we've had amplifiers that included user-operated equalizers. We called the user operated equalizers tone controls and the products were called integrated amplifiers. There is no confusion in the mainstream audio world over the fact that these pieces of equipment are composites, and are designed for specific applications. All of which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed. we are talking about power amplifiers only. Not amplifiers that include equilizers, preamplifiers, tuners or anything else. Arny said If a product is sold as a basic power amplifier, and has no visible controls for frequency response shaping, then it is presumed that it was designed to have the widest, flattest response possible. You and Tom are free to make all the presumptions you like. Neither of you write the rules of high end amplifier design and manufacturing. Not everyone shares your beliefs or sensibilities. It seems that you are both part of a small group of audiophiles with a particular belief system. Nothing wrong with being part of a small group but pretending to speak for everyone is a mistake. I said Just another example of you wishing to write the rules of audio for the world. Arny said No, just reflecting accepted practice. No. There is no accepted practice I know of in consumer audio where manufacturers call their power amps equilizers just because objectivists are disatisfied with the frequency response of their amps. If you can find one example of a manufacturer calling their dedicated power amps an equilizer please cite it. It is clearly a case of Tom writing his own meanings of commonly used words in audio and you buying it. walk into any high end shop that sells amps that you or Tom call equilizers and ask to see equilizers. I bet they don't show you any of the amps in question. You guys want to make up your own audio language fine. Enjoy each other's company. I said All amplifiers distort the signal, some amps do not have a flat frequency response. Arny said All amplifiers have non-flat frequency response. All amplifiers distort the signals. However it is generally accepted that basic power amplifier will have the broadest, flattest response over the audible range that is reasonably possible and that it will have inaudible nonlinear distortion. Again another global claim of what is accepted. You will do better just speaking for those with whom you agree on this subject. I said They are still amps. Why do you now want to play humpty dumpty and change the meanings of words? It won't make your points any better. Arny said I see no games being played with what Tom said. Tom is very conversant with the modern audio arts. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. I see word games. I am sure many others would as well if they were to read tom's post. You seem to be confusing your beliefs with universal beliefs. Tom said If it has no adjustable controls allowing it to pass the signal without alteration than its a fixed equalizer. If its not labeled as such than it doesn't hold the primary competence of an 'amplifier.' Arny said Agreed I said OSAF see above for the same exact comment. Arny said But as I just showed, the comment is wrong and does not reflect current accepted practice in mainstream audio. You didn't show anything. You simply agreed with Tom. More OSAF. I said Believe what you want , prefer what you want. Realize that they are only that. Arny said No, what Tom is saying reflects current mainstream thinking. No Arny, it relfects the thinking of a small subset of audiophiles. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with being in a small club but your small club does not represent anything more than the small club. Tom said Let me turn this question around. Say that you have a tubed amplifier with a 3-ohm output impedance that introduces 2-3 dB frequency response changes when this device is used to drive a given speaker. I said If the end result is preferred sound then one has a hard time claiming incompetence. Arny said The problem here is that an amplifier that imposes random audible changes in its frequency response, changes that vary depending on the impedance curve of speakers, which vary more-or-less randomly among various makes and models, is generally considered to be technically incompetent. By a some yes. Again these global claims are nonsense. I have already explained to Tom the difference between competence and design choice. Please feel free to review those comments on this thread so i don't have to be redundant in these responses. I said Again, it is subjective. If it is what the designer sets out to do and he likes it then it isn't a case of incompetence. Arny said An amplifier that audibly changes its response with various speakers is like a car that can't go minimum legal speeds when its air conditioner is cycling. Amplifiers are equilizers to Tom and cars to you. Amplifiers are amplifiers to me regardless of their sonic signatures. |
|
#298
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"ludovic mirabel" wrote in message
news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03 Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX method you get false negative results. Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly. At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first paragraph is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen. This is because masking is a function of the human ear and all listening tests involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of tests that are most profounding affected by masking are also those that are most highly dependent on just hearing. Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix. As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is gratuitous and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the evaluation is done by just listening. |
|
#299
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX method you get false negative results. Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly. Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix. And since it is the musical properties of audio components that I want to compare I shall avoid ABX? So masking goes away, like magic, during sighted tests? I guess those reserachers are wrong after all, no? Too bad. Perhaps you might find better answers to your questions over in alt.solipsism or the like. |
|
#300
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news:NP33b.276712$uu5.62322@sccrnsc04... "ludovic mirabel" wrote in message news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03 Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX method you get false negative results. Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly. At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first paragraph is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen. This is because masking is a function of the human ear and all listening tests involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of tests that are most profounding affected by masking are also those that are most highly dependent on just hearing. Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix. As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is gratuitous and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the evaluation is done by just listening. I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and that it sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with longer term exposure. |
|
#301
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
Harry Lavo wrote:
I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and that it sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with longer term exposure. Perhaps you're talking about training. Music students who are learning how to identify chords, their inversions and harmonic progressions by ear have to learn to work with the ears masking a great deal. |
|
#302
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
news:rpd3b.279608$uu5.62798@sccrnsc04 "Arny Krueger" wrote in message news:NP33b.276712$uu5.62322@sccrnsc04... "ludovic mirabel" wrote in message news:V_W2b.271692$Ho3.36096@sccrnsc03 Put it this way: Proposition: When music is used as a signal to compare music reproduction properties of components by ABX method you get false negative results. Rejoinder: That's because music masks differences, silly. At this point we observe that the inclusion of "ABX" in the first paragraph is irrelevant. Music masks differences no matter how you listen. There are many means by which music masks differences. There are two general kinds of masking, temporal masking and spectral masking. Music tends to create situations where either or both kinds of masking take place. This is because masking is a function of the human ear and all listening tests involve the use of the human ear. Those kinds of tests that are most profoundly affected by masking are also those that are most highly dependent on just hearing. Rejoinder II: Thank you for giving a name for what I observed long ago: music and ABX do not mix. As has been shown, the inclusion of ABX in the first paragraph is gratuitous and irrelevant. Music masks differences, whenever the evaluation is done by just listening. I have a vague recollection (perhaps others can help in confirming or denying) that masking is also at its greatest in the short term, and that it sometimes becomes possible to hear through the mask with longer term exposure. You might be speaking of temporal masking, which relates to the fact that loud noises mask softer noises for dozens of milliseconds before and after the loud noise. Since even the shortest proximate switching involves longer periods of time than that, it is not an issue in properly-run tests. Besides, it is well known that there is nothing about proximate-switching tests that inhibits or prohibits long term listening. Therefore, exposure duration is not a problem for them. |
|
#303
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
The original argument though was about what kind of noise should one use when listening for differences between components. It appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when music is used as a signal. Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence, the Dark Ages would never have ended. What you are doing is like endlessly pondering the question that if one puts their hand near a fire and it causes pain, is it the fire or your hand that produces the pain? You simply refuse to consider evidence that contradicts your immediate personal impressions on this issue and to hell with understanding what is really going on. Carry on if that makes you happy. I've got other things I'd rather do. |
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
|
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
ludovic mirabel wrote:
Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink noise? After all the local authorities eg. Nousaine and Krueger explained to me that was the reason why Greenhill's cable test subjects who did brilliantly with pink noise failed with music. I'm getting dizzy. Its awful to be a survivor of U.K. Med. Research Ccil Dark Ages of DBT research only to have to face the RAHE real science. All I can say is that you obviously did something very different there than what you do here. |
|
#306
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
In article myM3b.297598$Ho3.42122@sccrnsc03,
(ludovic mirabel) writes: wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: The original argument though was about what kind of noise should one use when listening for differences between components. It appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when music is used as a signal. Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence, the Dark Ages would never have ended. Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink noise? After all the local authorities eg. Nousaine and Krueger explained to me that was the reason why Greenhill's cable test subjects who did brilliantly with pink noise failed with music. I'm getting dizzy. Its awful to be a survivor of U.K. Med. Research Ccil Dark Ages of DBT research only to have to face the RAHE real science. Yes you are confused. Pink noise works better for any comparison of audio equipment due to masking as has been explained over and over to you. As to your expertise in science matters, did you play hooky the day that they taught that one needs to be trained in a specific discipline in order to be able to make any useful judgments on the validity of procedures in that discipline? It seems so. And you keep insisting that only DBTs in medical research are the only valid uses. What about psychology, another science without objective measures of correctness? Are those scientists no practicing "real science" either? What you are doing is like endlessly pondering the question that if one puts their hand near a fire and it causes pain, is it the fire or your hand that produces the pain? You simply refuse to consider evidence that contradicts your immediate personal impressions on this issue and to hell with understanding what is really going on. A beatiful and a very apt analogy. Glad you think so, it really describes your approach to this discussion very well. Carry on if that makes you happy. I've got other things I'd rather do. You mean no one left to ease my passage from the Dark Ages to modernity? No, it seems you have no desire to move on. |
|
#307
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:myM3b.297598$Ho3.42122@sccrnsc03...
wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: The original argument though was about what kind of noise should one use when listening for differences between components. It appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when music is used as a signal. Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence, the Dark Ages would never have ended. Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink noise? Try this: ABX "appears" to have this flaw because you are only looking at the results of ABX tests. (This is an example of selection bias. You remember selection bias.) If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at all. bob |
|
#308
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message news:myM3b.297598$Ho3.42122@sccrnsc03... wrote in message ... ludovic mirabel wrote: The original argument though was about what kind of noise should one use when listening for differences between components. It appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when music is used as a signal. Your operative word is 'appears'. Yes, it can appear that way. And if people still used that way of thinking to the exclusion of other evidence, the Dark Ages would never have ended. Sorry- I'm confused. You mean ABX DOESN'T work better with pink noise? Try this: ABX "appears" to have this flaw because you are only looking at the results of ABX tests. (This is an example of selection bias. You remember selection bias.) If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at all. bob Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities. In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track and relax. As regards your tacked on reference to right-left- I wish you wouldn't. You may be making my day but people will be guessing that you're my public relations man, read my today's reply to you in the "What is so high..." thread and suspect collusion. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#309
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03... If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at all. bob Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities. In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track and relax. I guess you missed the part where I said, "certain kinds of differences." bob Sorry: requote: it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. A perfect test for a "they all sound the same as the Citizen integrated" result. Or will you now move 180 degrees and ask for music? Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#310
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net...
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03... If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at all. bob Thank you for taking me along with you on this guided tour of audiology, "musical sounds" and related topics. You do provide a lucid commentary to Mr.Jjnunes technicalities. In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track and relax. I guess you missed the part where I said, "certain kinds of differences." bob Sorry: requote: it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice for that purpose. bob |
|
#311
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:tv36b.269205$cF.84970@rwcrnsc53...
(ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message t.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message news:wIq4b.315866$Ho3.44773@sccrnsc03... Thus he spoke: If you looked more broadly, ... See below for the quote in full I answered: In the future when going shopping for an amp I will no longer burden myself with Maria Callas recording to find out if the component renders her high C as a screech, or a Perahia Mozart disk to find out if his pedal notes change the system into a boom-box or an Oistrakh violin into a crow-screech. I'll just play a gorgeous pink noise track and relax. Marcus answered: Sorry: requote: it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. I asked: That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. Marcus the next day: Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice for that purpose. bob Fancy that! I must remember it. Solo (must it be solo?) piano for transients is it? I always wanted to know but didn't dare to ask. Especially as the subject here was not what kind of INSTRUMENT to use for ABXing components but what kind of SIGNAL. Like that. I had said 4 days ago: The original argument though was about what kind of noise should one use when listening for differences between components. It appears that ABX works better with pink noise and works miserably when music is used as a signal. Thereupon he lectured me sternly: If you looked more broadly, and considered what sound is and how the ear detects sounds (including, of course, musical sounds), you'd realize that whatever comparison method you use, it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. Pink noise works better in sighted as well as blind tests, in A-B comparisons, in anything. It would even work better in your left-right test--if that test worked at all. Note: "OF COURSE, MUSICAL sounds". Note "INCLUDING particularly". (what does it include not particularly?), Note the hymn to pink noise: "works BETTER in sighted etc..." Note: This is the ONLY test Marcus proposes for comparing MUSICAL differences between components. Till to day anyway. And now note that yesterday I pointed out that it is useless for what makes music music and not a collection of "sounds".- composer's and performer's art in putting transients, harmonics, timbre, pedal note in the right places. Never at a loss Mr. Marcus now narrows down pink noise usefulness to showing up JUST level differences and deviations from FR. (I don't know how he knows this last- I'd put my hat on music for that- but let it pass) So for everything that makes music music A MUSICAL signal is best after all? Or what is the latest? Because using my prophetic gifts I forecast yesterday: " Or will you now move 180 degrees and ask for music?" Waiting for the next turnaround. Ludovic Mirabel |
|
#312
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT, (Bob Marcus) wrote: (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message tt.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice for that purpose. Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for pretty tedious listening! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics; those programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener forcing them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully. That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program segments and fast switching. |
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Nousaine" wrote in message
news:SyS6b.285105$cF.88295@rwcrnsc53... (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT, (Bob Marcus) wrote: (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message tt.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice for that purpose. Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for pretty tedious listening! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics; those programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener forcing them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully. That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program segments and fast switching. And as the Ooshami et al testing suggests, perhaps along with it *decreases* the ability of people to respond to and evaluate the ability of the components to provide musical enjoyment (including emotional impact). As opposed to extended listening in a proto-mondaic yet blind fashion, lest you have forgotten what I reference here. |
|
#314
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why do the anti-ABX folks not deliver?
"Harry Lavo" wrote:
"Nousaine" wrote in message news:SyS6b.285105$cF.88295@rwcrnsc53... (Stewart Pinkerton) wrote: On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 17:14:02 GMT, (Bob Marcus) wrote: (ludovic mirabel) wrote in message tt.net... (Bob Marcus) wrote in message ... it will be easier to hear certain kinds of differences--including particularly FR and level--with pink noise than with music. That's it or does "certain" conceal further surprises to bring out as required? If that's it, then ABX "test" with the ideal pink noise does not help with timbre, transients, harmonics, microphone induced distortion ie. everything that could make Callas screech, Perahia boom etc.etc. Certain means here, "some, but not others." If you want to know whether two speaker cables handle transients differently, pink noise is probably not what you should use. Solo piano would be a good choice for that purpose. Or that other 'laboratory' favourite for transients - clicks and castanets. I am hard pushed to think of any differences which would not be most clearly revealed by fast-switching ABX (or ABChr) testing with a combination of clicks and pink noise. OTOH, this does make for pretty tedious listening! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering That's one of their endearing and sensitivity enhancing characteristics; those programs eliminate the connection between the music and the listener forcing them to concentrate on the 'sound' more carefully. That's also one of the sensitivity enhancing elements of short program segments and fast switching. And as the Ooshami et al testing suggests, perhaps along with it *decreases* the ability of people to respond to and evaluate the ability of the components to provide musical enjoyment (including emotional impact). As opposed to extended listening in a proto-mondaic yet blind fashion, lest you have forgotten what I reference here. Ah; but it only vaguely "suggests" and has yet to be verified while all the extant research not only 'suggests' but actually shows otherwise. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Crazy market saturation! | Car Audio | |||
| FAQ: RAM LISTING OF SCAMMERS, SLAMMERS, AND N'EER DO WELLS! V. 8.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
| A quick study in very recent RAHE moderator inconsistency | Audio Opinions | |||
| System balance for LP? | Audio Opinions | |||
| gps install: how to mix its audio (voice prompting) with head unit audio-out? | Car Audio | |||
Linear Mode
