At what point does audio snake oil become fraud? - Page 19 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #541 of 747 Old 08-28-2011, 06:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

I realize you'd rather distract and dance, raising a fuss about my supposed insults to AES, and my old error (the second one I'm admitting to today...and apparently one y'all missed on that thread back in '07) in writing that Ashihara et al. didn't report the spectrum of their signals' jitter.

Krab, you put forth that post, I didn't. Didn't you read it just now before telling us it is an example of you understanding jitter audibility?

That aside, you said jitter is not a "huge" problem. Did I say it is a huge problem? No. Indeed, I said it is rarer than hearing compression artifacts at 320kbps. Why do you then keep fighting me on it then? Surely we must be agreeing then if you are true to what you said then. Or was that a mistake too?
Quote:
(Btw, I'd say now that the problem with Ashihara et al was more that they used random jitter, rather than jitter with a less homogenous spectrum, to make inference about audibility generally ...even though they concluded what I believe, that jitter isn't likely to be important in consumer audio)

And their conclusion is without much value since it simply became a test of how much noise people can hear. There is no evidence whatsoever that jitter in consumer audio is all made up of random noise/profile they used. Indeed, it is anything but, given the spectrums of real devices already published. You say you now know the definition and impact of the jitter spectrum. Why did you then add that sentence above with the italics?

Quote:
But if you were honest, you'd acknowledge that *I* linked to that 'gem' as proof of this and only this: that I had cited the importance of jitter spectrum re: audiblity, on that thread, even before JJ. Which clearly happened, no?

For sure it puts you a huge step above others who can't spell the words.

Quote:
(And hey, no love for my informative link in that post, to the list of jitter audibility literature? Doesn't fit your narrative of me?)

I will give you A for effort . Let's check for results . Please tell me where it nets out. Again, I can't tell between all the qualifications you use in your posts. Is jitter audible in any situation a consumer may encounter? Love to hear a yes/no and then you can expand with more qualifications if you like .

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #542 of 747 Old 08-28-2011, 06:33 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Don't forget AJ really likes anecdotal sighted reports.

Well, I tried the terryj "forget to remember" blind method of testing (used on the terryj speakers that would "compete with any system at any price anywhere on the planet")...but I kept remembering! Drats

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

BUT it was on costco gear.

Costco sells NuForce and Audiosource??? Dang, since when?

Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

JA has got you (again) AJ, he remembers the room now.

Still no comment on the sound.

Yeah, what's up with that?
It's not like he listened sighted like everyone else.....
Or maybe he just remembers the dude cool enough to drink Newcastle too. Who knows?

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #543 of 747 Old 08-28-2011, 08:14 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Well, I tried the terryj "forget to remember" blind method of testing (used on the terryj speakers that would "compete with any system at any price anywhere on the planet")...but I kept remembering! Drats

whatever.

(for the dummies) I was talking about any and all reports from people who heard your speakers.

you know, the ones you keep telling us about?

Love 'em now eh?

(dipsy, any opining from you yet about this delicious state of affairs?)


Quote:


Costco sells NuForce and Audiosource??? Dang, since when?

HTF would I know? I mentioned this before re krabs pulling 100 people off the street, you yanks are so egocentric, the world revolves around your neighbourhood.

Heck, maybe I got it wrong. I sorta just 'sumed costco is a good enough example of generic electrical items. You know, of the sort Earle uses (as you keep telling us) and riding on the coat tails of others as usual you now tell us the same thing about yours.

At the hi fi show.

Remember telling us that?


Quote:


Yeah, what's up with that?
It's not like he listened sighted like everyone else.....
Or maybe he just remembers the dude cool enough to drink Newcastle too. Who knows?

cheers,

AJ

Who knows indeed. All the other speakers reported on from the show had comments (mostly good) about their sound tho.

Not yours.

Kinda stands out.

BUT, let us be honest here. I think it more likely that John is sensible enough to just keep quiet about it. Not wanting to fan any flames.

Which is kinda sad for you (I mean this BTW) because if he did think they were good/great/excellent you are the one who loses out.

Maybe one of those karmic things (along with aliens and ghosts), seeds you sow and all that hippy stuff.
terry j is offline  
post #544 of 747 Old 08-28-2011, 09:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
TurboFC3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: STL, MO
Posts: 819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I just find it hilarious that AJ, the guy who has spent the last decade trying his damnedest to alienate as many people as possible on every audio forum is now trying to sell something to those same people.

I think you'll find that Karma, is a bitch!

Speaker Designer/Builder
Vapor Audio
TurboFC3S is offline  
post #545 of 747 Old 08-28-2011, 10:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
read the thread on AC...it'll make you sick how sycophantic he was.
terry j is offline  
post #546 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 08:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
TurboFC3S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: STL, MO
Posts: 819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

read the thread on AC...it'll make you sick how sycophantic he was.

Was? You mean still is ... humorous watching him kiss the asses of the same people he's been talking down his nose to for years. You know, the "seasoned audiophiles" that according to his website are now the people he's courting.

Speaker Designer/Builder
Vapor Audio
TurboFC3S is offline  
post #547 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 08:33 AM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Yes, but have you heard his speakers?

No, but I hope to when I visit JJ next spring, which is the next time I will be in Seattle.

Quote:


According to amir, if he hasn't blind tested them......

It is difficult to blind-test speakers. (See Sean Olive's and Floyd Toole's work.) But Amir's point is that those who aggressively promote exclusive blind testing for audio products are obliged to be just as rigorous in their own testing. If they are not, then they should be less eager to criticize others for behaving in a similar manner. As you don't judge your speaker's worth under blind test conditions, you can't logically hold others to a higher standard than that you yourself practice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is online now  
post #548 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 08:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Costco sells NuForce and Audiosource??? Dang, since when?

Which models?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #549 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 08:54 AM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboFC3S View Post

I just find it hilarious that AJ, the guy who has spent the last decade trying his damnedest to alienate as many people as possible on every audio forum is now trying to sell something to those same people.

I think you'll find that Karma, is a bitch!

I've definitely found the bitches and the bitching. Karma to follow?

Turbo, where were you at CapFest? That's the second time you've dodged me now. Look, real sorry that my $1k model directly competes with your just released $1k model, but think about the huge disadvantage that I'm plagued with, by being stone deaf to wire "burn in", boutique caps and all the other stuff an audio engineer such as yourself can "hear".
That disadvantage should surely be reflected in the soundfield (pardon the pun) of our products, yes?

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #550 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 09:16 AM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

No, but I hope to when I visit JJ next spring, which is the next time I will be in Seattle.

Cool. be sure to tell him if he hasn't blind tested them, he has no business telling folks who make claims about audio, no matter how outrageous, that they might not "hear" what they think they hear under controlled conditions.
So make sure to listen to his speakers blind John!

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

It is difficult to blind-test speakers. (See Sean Olive's and Floyd Toole's work.)

We know. Including in stereo (which Harman doesn't do), not to mention level matching...which is also position dependent...etc, etc, etc.
The one electro-acoustic component in the chain is vastly different from blind testing any electronic only output component.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

But Amir's point is that those who aggressively promote exclusive blind testing for audio products are obliged to be just as rigorous in their own testing.

Wrong. That's Amirs smokescreen. Amir claims to HAVE blind tested. Do you understand that difference John? HAS done blind tests for HDMI, SPDIF and HAS collaborating evidence to support his woo woo AUDIBLE claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

If they are not, then they should be less eager to criticize others for behaving in a similar manner. As you don't judge your speaker's worth under blind test conditions, you can't logically hold others to a higher standard than that you yourself practice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Once again John, what specific audible claim have I made (about my loudspeakers) that would warrant a blind test for "proof of concept"?
Where have I fabricated (lied if you prefer) doing blind tests to support a woo woo audible claim about my loudspeakers?

And lastly, amir also claimed in this thread that his elitist ears take issue with avr amp/dac "performance".
John, how would you suggest we verify the veracity of such a claim?

cheers,

AJ

p.s. don't let terry know we have conspired to keep him in the dark about all things Soundfield.
AJinFLA is offline  
post #551 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 09:21 AM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Which models?

Don't remember, they were given to me at a charity raffle.....or something like that.

My elitist system at home has much better "performance". I listen to it with my nose pointed to the ceiling.


cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #552 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Randy Bessinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,279
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

When was the last time anyone here listened to the music for the sake of musical enjoyment without whacking off over their equipment and supposed peerless "knowledge"?

Me on Saturday.....new John Hiatt and Keb Mo CD's. Also, the Blasters Live CD on my car CD player, and yesterday Tedeski Trucks CD on my IPOD while walking.
Randy Bessinger is offline  
post #553 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 09:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Would you consider that a sales pitch of subjectivity, or....?

Subjectivity? Not at all. First, it was not a sales pitch since you would be buying that USB to S/PDIF adapter from the manufacturer, not me. Second, I suggested to buy the device and test it blind at home. Or yes, I remember. You think any blind test that you have to run is too hard. So naturally you would think that I was suggesting a subjective test.

Me offering you to evaluate a device at home is not at all a defense for you selling speakers based on no unbiased hearing tests. Let me repeat: you are selling speakers that have had no unbiased hearing test. The speakers my company sells from Harman have been through such a test. So can we agree your speakers are not as good as theirs? Or is objectivity out the window the minute you become a speaker salesman and money becomes more important than science?

Quote:


I wish! Then I could put on a straight face and just lie and lie, completely fabricate a tale, about having done blind tests on my speakers...

You did worse than that AJ. You looked like a crook running away from 60 minute cameras with those posts. All at a time when you are trying to be a speaker salesman. If you had lied, you would be the only want to know. But with those posts, we all know you are not an honest and up front poster -- about blind testing or being a speaker salesman.

Quote:


So you didn't explain that to him that he wasn't an objectivist at all? For not blind testing his speakers? You naughty little hypocrite.

Why? Because you are confused how the real world objectivists work? You worship Floyd. Do you think he walks around all day doing blind tests? Do you think he never powers on a speaker and listens to it subjectively? Of course he does. We all do.

But you don't belong in our camp because you also didn't do blind tests. Reasons are:

1. We have all run countless blind tests in our career to verify our understanding of audio. By your admission, you have run none to increase your understanding of speakers.

2. We all have educational background to match what we do. You are a civil engineer with zero education to back speaker or audio design.

3. We understand the technology we are talking about. You don't understand a thing about DACs, amplifier design, HDMI, etc.

So just because all of us go to same grocery store as you do, doesn't mean for a moment that you belong to the same camp as us. Or that you can justify your actions through what we do.

Quote:


IOW, your definition of "hear" isn't the audible soundwaves one.

You sure you want to run with that? Because I said my definition in that sentence was what *you* hear. If you are saying you are incapable of hearing, then that is fine by me .

Quote:


No amirm, I'm saying you (amirm) can't hear 10x lower THD, from 0.01% to .001% measured.

THD? Who talked about THD? Jitter doesn't create THD. And with amps, I have never talked about THD differences being audible. What did I say about you not understanding the topics being discussed?

Have you read Earl's paper on THD. If so, what does it say?

Quote:


But being a woo woo subjectivist grandeurs of delusion elitist, you claim you can.

Better hearing is an elitist thing? It is not being elitist to hear better lest you tell me your ability to hear speaker aberrations is no better than the guy behind the fast foot counter. In which case, you better never apply for a job at Harman. I have formally trained my ears to hear digital artifacts as do people at Harman do to hear FR variations. That you think we are all elitist because we spent the time and energy, together with understanding the science to know what artifacts sound like, is elitist, shows how confused you are about what is involved in the evaluation of audio.

You must think ITU recommendations to train listeners before blind tests is making an army of elitists. And that we should celebrate ignorance of what to listen for in audio equipment. I wonder what your customers think of you calling anyone elitists for having better ability to hear said "sound waves."

I wonder if these trained listeners at Harman have a valid employment claim against them for turning them into elitists to be made fun of: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html



Or is it the case of being jealous of that group who dare to hear, through hard work and learning the technology, specific impairments that lead to better designs? It can't possibly be that someone can learn something through those means. It must be all imagination. Heaven help your customers who buy a product from you, when you think this about skilled and professional listeners.

Your debating tactics may work on average poster AJ. But not here. Keep trying.
Quote:


He's [[JJ] still nowhere to be found here. Perhaps you "hear" him here, in your imaginative little mind?

I told you I spoke to him in person recently. You know, using "sound waves" to communicate, as opposed to you learning what you know from forum posts.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #554 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 10:09 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Don't remember, they were given to me at a charity raffle.....or something like that.

Ah, more running away from cameras .

Reding on NuForce web site it says this about their amplifier:

"explosive dynamics and superb bass control for surround-sound home theater, and for two-channel listening, the rich, exquisitely detailed sound that has earned NuForce its enviable reputation among audiophiles and reviewers."

Do you think they used "sound waves" to determine how exquisite their sound was AJ? And what about that bass? You have vigorously fought any notion of an amplifier having better bass. Yet, you rewarded a manufacturer with your money that talks "bass control." Do amps vary in how much bass control they have AJ?

And what about the proof point being what audiophiles and reviewers say as opposed to double blind testing?

Quote:


My elitist system at home has much better "performance". I listen to it with my nose pointed to the ceiling.

We are not concerned about which way your nose points. We are concerned about the cotton balls showing from each ear.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #555 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 10:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Krab, you put forth that post, I didn't. Didn't you read it just now before telling us it is an example of you understanding jitter audibility?

Again (and why do you so often need things to be repeated to you?) I put it forth as an example of me asserting that jitter spectrum is important to establishing audibility...something JJ asserted too at the end of the thread.

Quote:


That aside, you said jitter is not a "huge" problem. Did I say it is a huge problem? No. Indeed, I said it is rarer than hearing compression artifacts at 320kbps. Why do you then keep fighting me on it then? Surely we must be agreeing then if you are true to what you said then. Or was that a mistake too?

OK, if it is rarer than hearing compression artifacts at 320kbps, the word 'minor' hardly begins to describe its insignificance, as a problem. So why do you blather on about it so?

Quote:


And their conclusion is without much value since it simply became a test of how much noise people can hear. There is no evidence whatsoever that jitter in consumer audio is all made up of random noise/profile they used. Indeed, it is anything but, given the spectrums of real devices already published. You say you now know the definition and impact of the jitter spectrum. Why did you then add that sentence above with the italics?

Sorry, your incomprehension at my sentence choices baffles me. I thought the meaning was plain. Ashihara et al's paper has a problem , not with the lack of a spectrum, as I wrote originally, but with the profile it did use. I note a problem with their paper, then and now, even though their conclusion accords with my view of jitter audibility and importance. That's just an aside to address your continued implication that the strawman 'militant' objectivists you write of, are blinkered and one sided in their critiques. Clear now? Or would you like to parse this out for another ten posts?

(I wouldn't.)

Quote:


For sure it puts you a huge step above others who can't spell the words.

Well, I did screw up 'audibility' there. Typos happen. It doesn't necessarily mean a person *can't spell*.

Quote:


I will give you A for effort . Let's check for results . Please tell me where it nets out. Again, I can't tell between all the qualifications you use in your posts. Is jitter audible in any situation a consumer may encounter? Love to hear a yes/no and then you can expand with more qualifications if you like .

If you 'can't tell', you aren't paying attention. Or, it appears, you're cherry picking the bits that suit your purpose.

The answer, since you phrased the question as 'ANY' situation, is of course, "COULD HAPPEN, THOUGH ITS UNLIKELY".

The less loaded, more real-world question is, 'Is jitter audible in situations the consumer is likely to encounter? " My answer is clearly NO. Obviously. Plainly. If that wasn't apparent to you by now, there's something wrong with your comprehension. If you can't get with the language of likelihood and possibility rather than absolutes, if that's 'weasel words' to you, tough luck. That's how science works -- and so does the real world.
krabapple is offline  
post #556 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

No, but I hope to when I visit JJ next spring, which is the next time I will be in Seattle.



It is difficult to blind-test speakers. (See Sean Olive's and Floyd Toole's work.) But Amir's point is that those who aggressively promote exclusive blind testing for audio products are obliged to be just as rigorous in their own testing. If they are not, then they should be less eager to criticize others for behaving in a similar manner. As you don't judge your speaker's worth under blind test conditions, you can't logically hold others to a higher standard than that you yourself practice.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


It really quite depends on what you say about them doesn't it?

Amir is mildly fixated on the fact that I'm not talking about my gear's sound. Having not blind tested it, as a objectivist/rationalist why should I? If someone else does blathers on about the 'sighted' sound of their gear, absent any other data, I typically consider it useless information, hopelessly compromised, and will treat it as such in any replies. I don't expect anyone else to find it more than that, coming from me. (Yes, that goes for 'trained listeners' too. They'll be 'right' more often than civilians, but they're still subject to bias. The conscientious ones will always admit that. And guys like Floyd Toole don't rely JUST on sighted , subjective impression to make a quality call. Big difference in how he phrases and supports his claims, versus how 'subjectivsts' do.)

I can talk about how my gear measures or works, based on tests I or others have done. I can talk about the features it offers, and how those are supposed to affect the sound. I can talk about 'Audio Theory' and work being done on the edges that can be expected to have effects that are typically audible (e.g., room correction). That's the stuff for me.

Or I can say whether I *LIKE* the sound or not, though I'm always happy (and often careful) to acknowledge it could be grossly affected by bias, especially when the difference is likely to be 'subtle'.

Bottom line, I don't give a rat's ass what you or AJ or Amir or anyone thinks their speakers (or other gear) sound like, 'sighted', as a data point. Nor do I think anyone *should* care...except when Sean Olive is studying how sighted bias probably determined , say, a high-end magazine's choice of "Loudspeaker of the Year'.
krabapple is offline  
post #557 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 10:48 AM
 
diomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

1. We have all run countless blind tests

What kind of blind test, single blind, double blind or something else?

Quote:


2. We all have educational background to match what we do.

What kind of education, formal, self-taught, real world experience, academic theories or something else?

Quote:


3. We understand the technology we are talking about.

"We", meaning including yourself?
diomania is offline  
post #558 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 11:09 AM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Bottom line, I don't give a rat's ass what you or AJ or Amir or anyone thinks their speakers (or other gear) sound like, 'sighted', as a data point.

Well that's a relief. But to be honest, I don't think anyone did believe that you do care.

Quote:


Nor do I think anyone *should* care...except when Sean Olive is studying how sighted bias probably determined , say, a high-end magazine's choice of "Loudspeaker of the Year'.

There is the matter that Sean's blind testing of speakers is carried out almost entirely in mono. I know that Sean strongly feels that a speaker that performs best in mono will do likewise when used as a stereo pair, but that remains to be proven, IMO. On the other hand, speaker models that have been designed with the help of Harman's Northridge speaker evaluation facility (which I have visited more than once) have been very highly rated on subjective grounds by Stereophile's reviewers. The Revel Ultima Salon2, for example, was our Loudspeaker of the Year for 2008.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is online now  
post #559 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 11:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Well that's a relief. But to be honest, I don't think anyone did believe that you do care.



There is the matter that Sean's blind testing of speakers is carried out almost entirely in mono. I know that Sean strongly feels that a speaker that performs best in mono will do likewise when used as a stereo pair, but that remains to be proven, IMO.


And I know that some people -- often but not always the 'I trust my ears; type -- latch on to that supposed flaw in Sean's work. Seen it before. Seen his rebuttals before too.


Quote:


On the other hand, speaker models that have been designed with the help of Harman's Northridge speaker evaluation facility (which I have visited more than once) have been very highly rated on subjective grounds by Stereophile's reviewers. The Revel Ultima Salon2, for example, was our Loudspeaker of the Year for 2008.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Well, Olive predicts that a properly-designed loudspeaker (by their criteria) will tend to sound better to both average and trained listeners, at least when compared directly. So there's that factor, though I don't know if your reviewers did that. Plus the Revels come front-loaded with a high reputation, are snappy looking , and are expensive...so for Stereophile 'sighted' reviewers, there's those factors too

I think Sean's and Floyd's lesson was more about how arbitrarily the latter factors can overwhelm the former....like when an objectively poor loudspeaker was voted the year's best. Don't recall if that was yours or TAS's call.
krabapple is offline  
post #560 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
krabapple's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: in a state bordered by Kentucky and Maine
Posts: 5,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 154
And btw, JA, given what you failed to quote of my post --

do you agree with me then, that it's not hypocritical to criticize others for citing sighted impressions as proof of sound quality, if one doesn't do so oneself?
krabapple is offline  
post #561 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 12:34 PM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

do you agree with me then, that it's not hypocritical to criticize others for citing sighted impressions as proof of sound quality, if one doesn't do so oneself?

Of course. But that's not what I was discussing. Which was that if you aggressively promote exclusive blind testing for others, it is hypocritical if you don't yourself do all your own listening blind. As AJinFLA doesn't perform blind listening himself, he can't really criticize others who, like him, also don't do blind testing without being a hypocrite.

As Amir has pointed out, almost everyone professionally involved in audio uses a mixture of blind and sighted listening, most often, in my experience, weighted toward the latter.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is online now  
post #562 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 01:52 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Of course. But that's not what I was discussing. Which was that if you aggressively promote exclusive blind testing for others, it is hypocritical if you don't yourself do all your own listening blind. As AJinFLA doesn't perform blind listening himself, he can't really criticize others who, like him, also don't do blind testing without being a hypocrite.

As Amir has pointed out, almost everyone professionally involved in audio uses a mixture of blind and sighted listening, most often, in my experience, weighted toward the latter.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

One last time John.
Amirm claims to HAVE DONE blind tests to support his HDMI and SPDIF claims.
Are we clear on that? He claims to have done them.
I am not asking him to do so...he claims (falsely) to have done so. It's a complete fabrication, to support his subjectivist belief in HDMI audible inferiority and that he can "hear" differences in SPDIF (cabling IIRC).
Because he has no audibility proof to support he subjectivist beliefs, he (childishly) resorted to new wave subjectivist method of supporting woo, lying - fabricating having done "blind" tests as "proof of concept".
His red herring smokescreen to divert attention away from his lies, is to say that I don't blind test my speakers...which you reiterate.
That is pure red herring, because it in no way relates to his lies and fabrications of purported tests.
Furthermore, exactly what am I to blind test my speakers for?
What claim am I to confirm or reject? Give us the specifics of what exactly this smokescreen blind test of my...or say jj's speakers (or anyone else for that matter) is supposed to involve.
How would the results affect amirs fabricated blind tests and claims about HDMI and SPDIF?
What would such a smokescreen test have to do with amirs specious claims about AVR amp/dac "performance"?

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #563 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
stereoeditor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

One last time John.
Amirm claims to HAVE DONE blind tests to support his HDMI and SPDIF claims.
Are we clear on that? He claims to have done them.

Yes. And why do you not believe him? Have you done your own blind testing of the S/PDIF and HDMI datalinks in question? If I remember correctly, the HDMI link had measured levels of jitter that were high enough to have introduced audible degradation.

Quote:


Furthermore, exactly what am I to blind test my speakers for?

To determine their sound quality in comparison with the sound quality of other speakers. If you feel that your sighted listening is sufficient to characterize your own loudspeaker's sound quality, then logically you must allow others the same benefit of the doubt when they also use sighted listening. Not to do so is hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
stereoeditor is online now  
post #564 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post



"We", meaning including yourself?

No.

"we" as meaning excluding yourself.


good one AJ. You have a link to the products you shill. It is a bit more honest than before.

But still one slight problem, now you have a link to your website in all your posts. Wonder if we will see the whinging and hand wringing from those who previously complained abour amir doing so.

Doubt it. see, you are one of *us*, tribal. I mean even dipstick.."for sure he is the village idiot, but he is from OUR village".

It's all about the hypocrisy displayed, and here is but one more in the looong line.

Unreliable, sighted anecdotal reports. Till recently one of the many sticks to beat people with, until of course they suddenly become 'testimonials' eh AJ. Testimonials, don't we bag the **** out of those too??

Not any more. wait, yes we do...crikey this is getting confusing.

Ok, when it involves AJ it is right, when it is from everyone else it is wrong.

Oops, that is still not quite right. Hmm, when it involves whatever AJ is arguing and making himslef right on the net, THEN it is whatever he says, when it is his income then it does not matter.

Phew, no doubt not completely right yet, will need fine tuning along the way, it is new territory after all.

All is not lost for him tho, he can exorcise the sickening crawling he MUST display elsewhere by coming back to his usual haunts and be his usual self. Trouble is, it is bottled up by then.

AJ, still no comment from John about your sound, you know, the soundfiled from your speakers.

Becoming more and more pointed, esp after all the pleading from you for the report.

AJ, I am dumb remember, so please clear up your constant harping about the receiver amp differences you poo poo for me would ya?

It is not THD being discussed, so what lies at the bottom of your doubt?
terry j is offline  
post #565 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What kind of blind test, single blind, double blind or something else?

Double blind.

Quote:


What kind of education, formal, self-taught, real world experience, academic theories or something else?

I have a degree in Electrical Engineering including coursework in signal processing. I have managed development of large array of signal processing algorithms, spanning almost 15 years (out of 30+ years in the industry). This is both in audio and video.

The training was self-taught as is customary in the industry. There is no school you can go to to learn it.

I don't have any extraterritorial experiences as you do so everything is in real world. Some examples: http://www.boliven.com/patents/searc...Majidimehr%22)

Here are two relevant ones in this area:
Post decode watermarking of media
U.S. Application | Pub No. US20050097331 | Filed: 07/09/2004 | Published: 05/05/2005
Assignee(s): Microsoft Corporation | Inventor(s): Amir Majidimehr + 2
Amir Majidimehr...

Method for coding speech and music signals
U.S. Application | Pub No. US20030004711 | Filed: 06/26/2001 | Published: 01/02/2003 Cited: 1 Times
Assignee(s): Microsoft Corporation | Inventor(s): Vladimir Cuperman + 3
Amir Majidimehr...

I have written a number of articles related to signal processing, some of which are published in magazines such as WideScreen Review. You can find copies of some of them here including other highly technical articles: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Library.html. As I noted earlier, I have started writing for WSR again so there will be more to come there.

More background info on me here: http://www.madronadigital.com/about/About.html

And of course, this is beside thousands of technical posts, some of which exist in this very thread despite its lack of technical content otherwise.

Quote:


"We", meaning including yourself?

The fact that you ask, even though you have been in countless threads where I not only talk about the technology but even dig into the mathematics of it means that you don't really read these answers. But yes, it does include me. That doesn't mean I know what JJ knows. Nor does it mean he knows what I know. It simply means that I am extremely hands on with the management and technical work that I do. I find it fun, rewarding and critical in proper management of teams that I have the pleasure of working with me.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #566 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
terry j's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

On the other hand, speaker models that have been designed with the help of Harman's Northridge speaker evaluation facility (which I have visited more than once) have been very highly rated on subjective grounds by Stereophile's reviewers.John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Trouble is John, your reviews are for the most part, subjective as WELL as being sighted. The veils lifted blah blah blah is what we odjectivists object to objectively.

I mean, we end up with flowery words

" Wow! What a demo it was!

My initial thought upon entering the Soundfield room was, "Franken-speakers?? What are these doing here?" I soon got my answer - greatly exceeding expectations!
What I saw was a pair of small bookshelf speakers...claimed low-end response extended into the sub-30Hz realm... and without the benefit of an actual measurement, they definitely seemed to be proving it. Just wow. With handmade crossovers seemingly tuned to perfection, the overall response seemed exceedingly smooth from top to bottom ."

"an orchestral piece was playing and the dynamics and bass were energizing the whole room more so than any other demo at the fest. IMHO they put some big time speaker manufacturers to shame."

"they can produce impressive sound levels, they also handled more intimate material with aplomb as well. Some of the most impressive sounding at the show regardless of price"


Anyway, the usual gushing from sighted anecdotal reports John. AND, if *we* are true to our stance held in the past, none of us would take any of that (like for example words written above) as proof of anything other than the gullibility and proof of the srupidity of audiophiles, typical readers of your mag.

Would br fricking laughable and hypocritical of any of us to do so.
terry j is offline  
post #567 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:42 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Yes. And why do you not believe him?

Because he would certainly have trumpeted the results had he really done so and obtained a valid result. Same as any other subjectivist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Have you done your own blind testing of the S/PDIF and HDMI datalinks in question?

Did you take the same logic course as amir? The burden of proof rests squarely on amir. Shame on you John, for such a red herring argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

If I remember correctly, the HDMI link had measured levels of jitter that were high enough to have introduced audible degradation.

Then golden ear amir should have had no problems attaining a positive in his purported blind tests then, yes? That would certainly add some credence to his claims? Have you figured out why he hasn't yet John? Is it going to be the "tone" excuse this time again, or just straight to dancin'??

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

To determine their sound quality in comparison with the sound quality of other speakers.

Could you quote my claim about sound quality of my speakers vs sound quality of X? Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

If you feel that your sighted listening is sufficient to characterize your own loudspeaker's sound quality...

No, measurements are included also. Measurements with known and long ago established audible thresholds. We know JNDs for FR from blind tests.
John, what JNDs do we have for the "10x" distortion claims by amir wrt to HDMI. Can you link them for us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

then logically you must allow others the same benefit of the doubt when they also use sighted listening. Not to do so is hypocritical.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Ok. So when you go visit jj, make damn sure you ask about the blind tests performed on his speakers for "sound quality". Would be highly hypocritical of jj to need blind tests of codecs as proof of concept, but not for his loudspeakers eh? We'll do a follow up on this after your visit, yes?

cheers,

AJ
AJinFLA is offline  
post #568 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 02:46 PM
 
AJinFLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Take a guess
Posts: 1,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

AJ, still no comment from John about your sound, you know, the soundfiled from your speakers.

I've already told you we've(John and I) conspired to keep you in the dark and squirming.
Do you want to know what the bribe was in $$ or Newcastles?
AJinFLA is offline  
post #569 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 03:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by krabapple View Post

Amir is mildly fixated on the fact that I'm not talking about my gear's sound. Having not blind tested it, as a objectivist/rationalist why should I?

I tell you why with a clear example. Someone challenged John to post a picture of his listening room in the other thread which he did without hesitation. You then proceeded to complain that he had done this wrong, and that wrong. So I ask to see a picture of your room. Surely if you were that much of an expert in acoustics, your room would be a model of perfection. What do you do? Refuse to provide one: http://test.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...postcount=2440

Any reasonable person would assume that what you want for others, you don't want for yourself.

Back to your new excuse above, did the manufacturer who built you said equipment blind test it?

Quote:


If someone else does blathers on about the 'sighted' sound of their gear, absent any other data, I typically consider it useless information, hopelessly compromised, and will treat it as such in any replies.

That shows lack of experience. If someone told me that they were hearing pre-echo in a transient on compressed music, I would give that observation high confidence because they are precisely defining the type of distortion that could be there. I am sure if two people at Harman were talking about their observations about the speaker under test in sighted evaluation, the other guy would not dismiss it either. Vast majority of our work gets done with sighted experiences and such data is valid as long there is a body of experience and trust involved in what the person is saying.

So you can't paint with a broad brush here on principal. Doing so means going against how the entire industry works.

Of course, if random poster waxed poetic about something without any technical experience, sure. But the few of us arguing against you in this thread are not in that bunch. Yet you keep carrying that flag and argument with you.

Quote:


I can talk about how my gear measures or works, based on tests I or others have done. I can talk about the features it offers, and how those are supposed to affect the sound. I can talk about 'Audio Theory' and work being done on the edges that can be expected to have effects that are typically audible (e.g., room correction). That's the stuff for me.

Or I can say whether I *LIKE* the sound or not, though I'm always happy (and often careful) to acknowledge it could be grossly affected by bias, especially when the difference is likely to be 'subtle'.

And what version of these conversations have you had with me Krab? Examine the last few posts talking about MP3. Was there ever some poetic talk about how something sounds or hardcore examination of what the technology does?

BTW, you are mistaken once more about your subjective analysis. Trained listeners are not fooled routinely by "gross" amount of bias. Substantial use of trained listeners is in *sighted* tests, not double blind. We only do that once in a while to make sure we are not missing something. So once more, you confuse the issue of arguing with the typical audiophile with the present company.

Quote:


Bottom line, I don't give a rat's ass what you or AJ or Amir or anyone thinks their speakers (or other gear) sound like, 'sighted', as a data point. Nor do I think anyone *should* care...except when Sean Olive is studying how sighted bias probably determined , say, a high-end magazine's choice of "Loudspeaker of the Year'.

I don't think anyone cares what any of us think of anything really. What they value is whether we can impart some knowledge they can use to shape their purchases and enjoyment of this hobby. You said what your beef is with me. I tell you that is my beef in that collectively your posts are essentially information free. You forever complain about sighted tests and that is it. You also complain about anyone saying you are wrong. And then you repeat over and over as you do here. Let's have a show of hands of who has not heard that from you? I see no hands.

Look at what we went through on technical side. On every post you said you had to go and get someone to come and explain it to me. Why do we need your "contributions" that way? What are you doing to advance everyone's learning?

It has to be that you are not here for that purpose but to spread the religion. Ask people to believe or else. That is why I call you what I call you: militant objectivists. You want to argue your way there, rather than provide data.

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #570 of 747 Old 08-29-2011, 03:50 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 17,824
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 543 Post(s)
Liked: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Because he would certainly have trumpeted the results had he really done so and obtained a valid result. Same as any other subjectivist.

As a newly minted subjectivists and one intent on selling products to them, I would think you would cut back on the rhetoric AJ against them. BTW, can you tell us your real name? Surely your customers are not buying a product from a masked man.

As to me disclosing more tests results to you, earlier in this thread you claimed I was not a trained listener by challenging me to show you my certificate. I linked you to an AVS thread where I passed a difficult double blind test where I even scored better than ideal. Did you concede that I am trained and can hear small artifacts in digital systems that even professionals in the business couldn't hear?

Amir
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
Reply 2 Channel Audio

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off