any suggestions for cables? - Page 25 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #721 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 10:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

So no, this is not just some outlier biased research from Harman as has been said by the vocal members here.

Please link the research. I can't find it, all i can find is the review paper.
xianthax is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #722 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 11:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yeah - perhaps all those studios like Sony, Warner etc can't afford proper 'audiophile' speakers... they probably buy crappy speakers and then use treatments as a 'band aid' to disguise their flaws. That must be how it works. Thanks for enlightening me. Perhaps you ought to send your list of 'properly designed' speakers to the studios - think hw much money they'd save by having speakers that can ignore room modes and reflections!

Recording studios typically have well-designed speakers on hand, from the likes of Genelec, Tannoy, TAD, JBL, and so on.

They also have some clunkers, because sadly most people use poorly-designed speakers (Yamaha NS10, etc.). And some in-between speakers, with good qualities and some bad.

I realize you're just defending what you have, similar to your defense of Audyssey's crappy speakers compensation midrange notch, but what you're neglecting is that your experience - speakers with uneven horizontal coverage improved subjectively by "room treatment" - proves my point exactly: room mutilation is first and foremost a band-aid for poorly-designed loudspeakers. There's nothing wrong with that, if it works for a given situation.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #723 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

***Toole's review piece assembles a selection of work he believes is pertinent, hand waves away effects he believes are immaterial, and declares that there is no need to treat the room.

Not everyone agrees.

True, but look inside the disagreement and generally what you will find is that the major assumption underneath Dr. Toole's "declaration," - speakers with smooth, even off-axis response in the midrange - does not hold.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #724 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 12:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yeah - perhaps all those studios like Sony, Warner etc can't afford proper 'audiophile' speakers... they probably buy crappy speakers and then use treatments as a 'band aid' to disguise their flaws. That must be how it works. Thanks for enlightening me. Perhaps you ought to send your list of 'properly designed' speakers to the studios - think hw much money they'd save by having speakers that can ignore room modes and reflections!

Recording studios typically have well-designed speakers on hand, from the likes of Genelec, Tannoy, TAD, JBL, and so on.

They also have some clunkers, because sadly most people use poorly-designed speakers (Yamaha NS10, etc.). And some in-between speakers, with good qualities and some bad.

I realize you're just defending what you have, similar to your defense of Audyssey's crappy speakers compensation midrange notch, but what you're neglecting is that your experience - speakers with uneven horizontal coverage improved subjectively by "room treatment" - proves my point exactly: room mutilation is first and foremost a band-aid for poorly-designed loudspeakers. There's nothing wrong with that, if it works for a given situation.

 

Yeah. So given that all these editing and mixing rooms have fairly extensive treatments, they must all have fairly poor speakers then? And they apply this 'band aid' to compensate. I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it now. Thanks again.

 

But hang on - another question if I may - I've seen lots of photos of mixing and editing suites that have Genelecs, JBLs etc - and they have room treatments too. I guess the acousticians who designed those rooms didn't read these threads huh? Silly devils.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #725 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 12:58 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,235
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 873 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

WTF are you talking about. Its been known and accepted that first reflections can improve speech intelligibility for decades, since at least the work of Haas in circa 1950.
Then why do you suppose Keith says this in his FAQ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

[URL=]WELCOME TO THE AUDYSSEY MULTEQ FAQ AND 'AUDYSSEY[/URL] 101'!
Poor dialogue intelligibility is often the result of reflections in your room. Does your room look like it may fall into the 'reflective' category? If so consider adding room treatments, drapes, bookshelves etc to try to damp down the reflections. When you clap your hands in the room, does the noise continue to 'ring' for a brief moment? If so then your room is definitely too lively and this may affect dialogue intelligibility. Pay especial attention to the 'first reflections' from your speakers - side walls, floor, ceiling.

He has written an FAQ for everyone new to this field to read. But as you say, what he is stating there and bolded by me, smacks in the face of known science for a long time (see more below). To be fair to him, what he says in the middle of bolded sections is actually correct. If we have too much late reflections, that can reduce dialog intelligibility. But mixing that concept with early reflections as in his last sentence negates any redeeming value that has. Distinguishing early and late reflections is a fundamental concept in acoustics.
Quote:
Toole's review piece assembles a selection of work he believes is pertinent, hand waves away effects he believes are immaterial, and declares that there is no need to treat the room. Not everyone agrees.
Well, the question put to you was to provide links to research that shows Dr. Tool's position is incorrect. You provided a single link which completely supported his point of view. So you have not provided any evidence to back your point of view. Your further characterization of his paper with "hand waves" and such, seems to indicate you have not read what he has written:

1. You claim the paper is a "review" of other work: "Its an review piece combining research done by others into a cohesive position. The cost of reproducing that paper is just the time to read the related publications and form your own interpretation."

Here are obvious references invalidating the claim that they did not conduct fresh research of their own:

"Olive and Toole determined the delays and levels at which a single lateral reflection caused a perceptible change in the size or location of the primary image [32].

The Toole and Olive investigations of the audibility of resonances yielded the interesting fact that repetitions of a sound lowered the detection thresholds for medium- and low-Q resonances within the sound [7].

Olive and Toole appear to have been the first to test this idea [32].

The figure caption in Bech’s paper describes the response criterion as “a change in spatial aspects,” which seems to match the image-shift or image-spreading criterion used by Olive and Toole.

In 2004 Olive took up the challenge and, using subjective and objective data from 70 loudspeakers, developed a model to perform the conversion [61], [62].

In their examination of the audibility of reflections, Olive and Toole looked at detection thresholds as high frequencies were progressively eliminated from the reflected sounds, as they might be by frequency-selective absorbers.

All of the listening tests in the Olive study were done in the same room, which was equipped for positional substitution of the loudspeakers [56], and where listeners had ample time to adapt to its
personality."


So no, this is not some review of other work. I would say nearly half of the research and listening tests in this area comes from Dr. Toole and his team. Much of it was conducted while he was at the non-profit, National Research Council of Canada. Indeed the original version of the paper was published in the AES journal in 1989 (” The Detection of Reflections in Typical Rooms, SEAN E. OLIVE AND FLOYD E. TOOLE, National Research Council, Division of Physics, Ottawa, Ont. K1A OR6, Canada). All the accusations of bias toward Harman therefore are without substance if one has actually read the research.

The version you post is an update, also published in the peer-reviewed AES journal in 2006. In other words, the conclusions of the original NRC work held even in the face of some 17 years of additional research!

2. There is nothing in the report about "no need to treat the room." The paper explains which reflections have positive characteristics, at what levels, with which signals, and why. And which do not. Where there is no positive contribution, then acoustic material can be used to reduce the level of late reflections as necessary. Obviously where there is good effect, such as side reflections, we should leave them be. The constant repeated advice to use a mirror and such to kill such reflections is ill advised. At best you can say it is a heavily disputed notion. To post it as Keith did in his FAQ and repeated on and on by everyone simply does not reflect consensus of science.

3. You say he waves his hands. There are over 76 research citations in his paper. Let me repeat: 76 citations! Dr. Toole is an AES Fellow of both AES and ASA and past president of AES. His papers in the journal are peer reviewed. The notion that a poster here can use the term "hand waving" to refer to this work and a person with such credentials would make it proper to make any other claim one wants to make!

My only conclusion is that you haven't read this paper any more than you read the other link you provided. Given that, your commentary about its value is neither here, nor there.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #726 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 02:32 PM
Senior Member
 
audiophilesavant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You say he waves his hands. There are over 76 research citations in his paper. Let me repeat: 76 citations!
Just because a research paper has 76 citations does not preclude a fair amount of hand waiving also being present. The logical fallacy you have fallen prey to is known as false dilemma.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #727 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 02:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Then why do you suppose Keith says this in his FAQ?
He has written an FAQ for everyone new to this field to read. But as you say, what he is stating there and bolded by me, smacks in the face of known science for a long time (see more below). To be fair to him, what he says in the middle of bolded sections is actually correct. If we have too much late reflections, that can reduce dialog intelligibility. But mixing that concept with early reflections as in his last sentence negates any redeeming value that has. Distinguishing early and late reflections is a fundamental concept in acoustics.

He's wrong...where exactly did I claim that Audyssey is the gospel of audio knowledge?
Quote:
Well, the question put to you was to provide links to research that shows Dr. Tool's position is incorrect. You provided a single link which completely supported his point of view. So you have not provided any evidence to back your point of view. Your further characterization of his paper with "hand waves" and such, seems to indicate you have not read what he has written:

Couple off hand:

http://www.cns.bu.edu/~shinn/resources/pdfs/2011/2011JASA_Ihlefeld.pdf
http://asadl.org/jasa/resource/1/jasman/v98/i5/p2878_s4?bypassSSO=1

You can find plenty more in 10 minutes...

One the biggest things lacking in his review, and where he is hand waving, is usage of data only pertaining to speech and speech intelligibility in his discussion of source localization. This limits his discussion to pertinent frequencies present in speech and related roll off characteristics of speech intelligibility (which is pretty steep on the high end). e.g. he's ignoring everything under a few hundred hertz and everything over 5-6khz in that discussion. It also allows him to ignore dynamics in music/movies that are perceived different from speech by the brain as well as ignoring the effect on spacial effects intentionally introduction into the source material, e.g. movies often contain intentional reflection and reverberation fields in their source content to create the desired sound environment, in an untreated room these will interact with the room's reverberative characteristics in an often undesirable way.

He addresses this deficiency in section 7 i believe where he basically says "buy more subs and the speakers we've measured to avoid this", that section has a bit of a smell coming from it to many people due to his obvious conflict of interest in that recommendation.
Quote:
1. You claim the paper is a "review" of other work: "Its an review piece combining research done by others into a cohesive position. The cost of reproducing that paper is just the time to read the related publications and form your own interpretation."

I'm not going to argue this with you, it literally contains the word "A Scientific Review" in the title.
Quote:
Here are obvious references invalidating the claim that they did not conduct fresh research of their own:

"Olive and Toole determined the delays and levels at which a single lateral reflection caused a perceptible change in the size or location of the primary image [32].

The Toole and Olive investigations of the audibility of resonances yielded the interesting fact that repetitions of a sound lowered the detection thresholds for medium- and low-Q resonances within the sound [7].

Olive and Toole appear to have been the first to test this idea [32].


That is a strange definition of 'fresh', the paper referenced at [32] was released in 1989. Again, this is a review paper, not fresh data.
Quote:

In 2004 Olive took up the challenge and, using subjective and objective data from 70 loudspeakers, developed a model to perform the conversion [61], [62].

Again, not fresh research done for this paper, its a specific test he's using as a reference. This is how review papers work, they don't contain new data, they interpret other research.
Quote:
So no, this is not some review of other work.

It is, quite literally stated that it is by the author....wtf...
Quote:
The version you post is an update, also published in the peer-reviewed AES journal in 2006. In other words, the conclusions of the original NRC work held even in the face of some 17 years of additional research!

You don't seem to understand the role of review papers in journals....
xianthax is offline  
post #728 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 06:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

Just because a research paper has 76 citations does not preclude a fair amount of hand waiving also being present. The logical fallacy you have fallen prey to is known as false dilemma.

Just to add to this. Citing a literature review is generally considered poor form as they are classified as secondary sources. Its sort of the science world's version of citing wikipedia.
xianthax is offline  
post #729 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 07:10 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 xianthax View Post

Just to add to this. Citing a literature review is generally considered poor form as they are classified as secondary sources. Its sort of the science world's version of citing wikipedia.

Not sure I quite get this. You mean in science every experiment has to done anew? There is 'nothing prior' upon which we can build? I know it does not mean this, so I have got something missing. In any case, what would you expect from 'a review of the materials' which I think you yourself emphasised earlier (? not wanting to trawl back so apologies if that is incorrect) EDIT your words were I'm not going to argue this with you, it literally contains the word "A Scientific Review" in the title. It was just above so the trawling was easy!!

Is it true that harmon/toole whomever is saying anywhere 'there is no room for room treatment?' That is not the conclusion surely.

My own understanding (not having really studied it) is that rather what is being challenged is the automatic resort to first reflection treatment. Not quite the same thing at all. ( I haven't really studied it because it does not matter too much to me, but I do enjoy looking at 'why and then how we react'. The human side is far more fascinating then mere audio biggrin.gif)
terry j is offline  
post #730 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 07:44 PM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Not sure I quite get this. You mean in science every experiment has to done anew? There is 'nothing prior' upon which we can build? I know it does not mean this, so I have got something missing. In any case, what would you expect from 'a review of the materials' which I think you yourself emphasised earlier (? not wanting to trawl back so apologies if that is incorrect) EDIT your words were I'm not going to argue this with you, it literally contains the word "A Scientific Review" in the title. It was just above so the trawling was easy!!

Is it true that harmon/toole whomever is saying anywhere 'there is no room for room treatment?' That is not the conclusion surely.

My own understanding (not having really studied it) is that rather what is being challenged is the automatic resort to first reflection treatment. Not quite the same thing at all. ( I haven't really studied it because it does not matter too much to me, but I do enjoy looking at 'why and then how we react'. The human side is far more fascinating then mere audio biggrin.gif)

When it comes to science journals there are two primary types of 'literature':

1) Peer reviewed research:

These are articles that are presenting the findings of direct research. E.g. I conducted a test, this was my setup, this is how I tested, here is my data, and here is my conclusion based on this data. The conclusion is often somewhat loose, its the validity of the data that matters. These are always peer reviewed in any good journal.

2) Literature reviews, AKA review papers, AKA review articles - some entire journals are dedicated to these.

These do not introduce new data. They are 'interpretations' of the current state of science based on evidence from (1). Depending on the journal, they may or may not be peer reviewed. They are summary positions based on data from (1).

Literature from type 1 are primary sources, you aren't expected to recreate their data to cite them. Literature from type 2 are secondary sources, they aren't providing any new data of their own, just attempting to formulate a 'state of the science' interpretation of the data. The best analogy I can use is wikipedia, its a secondary source which is a limited summary of primary sources (in theory anyway). You can build in good faith on literature of type 1, not of type 2 as it is, for all intents and purposes, inference, not hard data.

You'll probably notice that you will not find a source of type 1 for a statement like "You shouldn't treat your home theater room" because a hypothesis like that is FAR too wide in scope to create a scientifically sound study around, there are way too many variables. You can't adequately treat that topic in a single scientific paper.

How much weight a review holds tends to vary of the field of study and journal. For example in the medical field 'literature reviews' are generally the end definitive product due to the need for extremely limited scope in the research papers (and are much more heavily reviewed and scrutinized by peer as a result) . That isn't really true of acoustics in my experience, reviews are more of a "heres my interpretation of the research, what do you guys think?" type of thing. That said I've been out of that world for awhile, I know nothing of AES's treatment of literature reviews and am only co-authored on one ASA article which was years ago and didn't really have much to do with the article (I helped develop and then coded the acoustical model/simulation that was the subject).
xianthax is offline  
post #731 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 08:07 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
Ah, ok. Thank you very much for the time you took.

So a secondary source is susceptible to errors like mistranslation, misunderstandings, accidental omissions of words etc etc. I can well imagine going off the rails by 'blindly' accepting a secondary source as being true without then going and checking the primary source. Covering your arse so to speak.

Basically, a subcategory of 'examine your assumptions'.

appreciate it
terry j is offline  
post #732 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 08:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Ah, ok. Thank you very much for the time you took.

So a secondary source is susceptible to errors like mistranslation, misunderstandings, accidental omissions of words etc etc. I can well imagine going off the rails by 'blindly' accepting a secondary source as being true without then going and checking the primary source. Covering your arse so to speak.

Basically, a subcategory of 'examine your assumptions'.

appreciate it

Basically, yes. Literature reviews tend to 'initiate thought' as much as they define anything. They bring up a possible logical conclusion based on previous research. They also often occur early in the cycle of defining the 'current state of the science'. The author looks at the data and says. "well this seems to indicate X is the way we should be approaching things". Rarely is this the end point, often there are holes in the logic. But, this is valuable, as it often indicates the areas that require additional 'boots on the ground' research to firm things up. If all these holes get filled, you end up with a new 'state of the science', if they don't, well, you don't, and you get a new 'state of the science paper' months or years later attempting to interpret the new data in conjunction with the old. It's really how the 'march of science' works, how people figure out what to target next for research.
xianthax is offline  
post #733 of 873 Old 01-17-2013, 08:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by terry j View Post

Ah, ok. Thank you very much for the time you took.

So a secondary source is susceptible to errors like mistranslation, misunderstandings, accidental omissions of words etc etc. I can well imagine going off the rails by 'blindly' accepting a secondary source as being true without then going and checking the primary source. Covering your arse so to speak.

Basically, a subcategory of 'examine your assumptions'.

appreciate it

More than that, a literature review and the conclusions presented are heavily influenced by the primary research the review authors decide to include and exclude from the review. This was hinted at earlier.

Bigus is offline  
post #734 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 02:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mtbdudex's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 4,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 264
Does God exist?


Sent from my 32GB iPhone4 using Tapatalk
mtbdudex is online now  
post #735 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 02:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Then why do you suppose Keith says this in his FAQ?
He has written an FAQ for everyone new to this field to read. But as you say, what he is stating there and bolded by me, smacks in the face of known science for a long time (see more below). To be fair to him, what he says in the middle of bolded sections is actually correct. If we have too much late reflections, that can reduce dialog intelligibility. But mixing that concept with early reflections as in his last sentence negates any redeeming value that has. Distinguishing early and late reflections is a fundamental concept in acoustics.

He's wrong...where exactly did I claim that Audyssey is the gospel of audio knowledge?
 

 

I wouldn’t attach much significance to amirm selectively quoting that part of my Audyssey FAQ. He does it every chance he gets even when it is entirely out of context to the discussion at hand. The idea is to discredit me because I wouldn't bow down to all the out of context, half-understood, cut and paste mumbo jumbo he puts into every post. If it doesn't support the notion of selling expensive and usually pointless 'audiophile' nonsense, then amirm isn't interested and he will do anything to further his agenda, including feeble attempts to discredit those who disagree with him. For me, it's water off a duck's back and I only see his posts when someone requotes them, as here.

 

FWIW, the Audyssey FAQ is aimed at newcomers to Audyssey. One of the frequent questions concerns dialogue intelligibility and the usual reasons are poor centre speaker placement, poor setup in a variety of other ways and, yes, reflections - often from a big glass coffee table slap bang between the centre speaker and the MLP. By removing the sources of these reflections dialogue intelligibility is often improved significantly and audibly for those who try it. There's no point quoting Toole etc to guys who didn't know their centre speaker wouldn't work well if pushed back on a deep shelf.

 

Cheers, Keith

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #736 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 05:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,494
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 162 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yeah. So given that all these editing and mixing rooms have fairly extensive treatments, they must all have fairly poor speakers then? And they apply this 'band aid' to compensate. I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it now. Thanks again.

Getting the hang of posting basic logic errors? Good for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

But hang on - another question if I may - I've seen lots of photos of mixing and editing suites that have Genelecs, JBLs etc - and they have room treatments too. I guess the acousticians who designed those rooms didn't read these threads huh? Silly devils.

A recording studio is not a living room. (And I wouldn't want to listen to music for pleasure in most studios. Nor, I suspect, would most other participants here.) Next question?

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
Multichannel music (and video) urban loft living room system 
DS-21 is offline  
post #737 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 06:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
arnyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Posts: 14,382
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 753 Post(s)
Liked: 1167
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


A recording studio is not a living room. (And I wouldn't want to listen to music for pleasure in most studios. Nor, I suspect, would most other participants here.) Next question?

It is true that a recording studio is not a living room and vice versa.

Perhaps being a little pedantic, I should point out that the actual rooms that are used for recording are usually not the same rooms that are used for listening rooms. The rooms that are used for listening rooms are usually the control rooms or the mastering room.

Furthermore, all of the rooms in a recording studio that are used for recording are far from being the same. Different rooms for doing different kinds of work, and all that.

Listening for the purpose of audio production and listening for pleasure can be two very different things. When I am doing production I want to hear what's wrong so I can fix it. When I am listening for pleasure it might be all the same if not all of the imperfections are in my face. Or not.

People's preferences figure highly in these discussions. Some people seem to like micro-imaging while others seem to like a golden fog.

If you think that everybody's preferences are even similar, you need to spend more time in traffic waiting next to a car whose subwoofer is rattling your teeth and his license plate, or sitting behind the guy who loves his stinky cigar and is just upwind. ;-)
arnyk is offline  
post #738 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 07:02 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Yeah. So given that all these editing and mixing rooms have fairly extensive treatments, they must all have fairly poor speakers then? And they apply this 'band aid' to compensate. I think I'm beginning to get the hang of it now. Thanks again.

Getting the hang of posting basic logic errors? Good for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

But hang on - another question if I may - I've seen lots of photos of mixing and editing suites that have Genelecs, JBLs etc - and they have room treatments too. I guess the acousticians who designed those rooms didn't read these threads huh? Silly devils.

A recording studio is not a living room. (And I wouldn't want to listen to music for pleasure in most studios. Nor, I suspect, would most other participants here.) Next question?

 

Fair enough - I'd be very interested to see your FR graphs, waterfalls and ETC graphs showing what you're actually getting in your room. Would you please post them?

 

The reason I mentioned mixing and editing rooms (not recording rooms) is that in those rooms they have to have utmost accuracy and transparency to the source for obvious reasons. My aim is to recreate at home what the mixer or editor heard - your aim may, of course, be entirely different. You may be just after a 'pleasant listening experience' which is not accurate. To this end I have a dedicated room and this negates many of your objections to treatments which are that they 'mutilate' the room. I much prefer to prioritise sound quality over aesthetics, but I can see that this would not be the case for everyone.

 

I'll look forward to your graphs - I am genuinely interested in how you are dealing with modal issues and issues caused by reflections if you have no treatments in your room.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #739 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 07:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


A recording studio is not a living room. (And I wouldn't want to listen to music for pleasure in most studios. Nor, I suspect, would most other participants here.) Next question?

It is true that a recording studio is not a living room and vice versa.

Perhaps being a little pedantic, I should point out that the actual rooms that are used for recording are usually not the same rooms that are used for listening rooms. The rooms that are used for listening rooms are usually the control rooms or the mastering room.

Furthermore, all of the rooms in a recording studio that are used for recording are far from being the same. Different rooms for doing different kinds of work, and all that.

Listening for the purpose of audio production and listening for pleasure can be two very different things. When I am doing production I want to hear what's wrong so I can fix it. When I am listening for pleasure it might be all the same if not all of the imperfections are in my face. Or not.

People's preferences figure highly in these discussions. Some people seem to like micro-imaging while others seem to like a golden fog.

If you think that everybody's preferences are even similar, you need to spend more time in traffic waiting next to a car whose subwoofer is rattling your teeth and his license plate, or sitting behind the guy who loves his stinky cigar and is just upwind. ;-)

 

Being even more pedantic, it was DS-21 who made the remark about recording studios not being living rooms etc, not me ;)

 

Incidentally I don't think it is pedantic to make the distinction between a room used for recording and a room used for listening. The former is entirely based on preference - it could be a bathroom if that was the sound the recording engineer and the artist were looking for. A room used for listening is an entirely different animal. I know you know this Arny, and I think DS-21 was just lumping it all into one 'recording studio' definition, but there have been threads in the past that have gone on for page after page with allegedly knowledgeable contributors posting endlessly about reflections and failing to understand this fundamental difference. Or indeed, even knowing what the E in ETC stands for ;)

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #740 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 09:21 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,235
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 873 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

Just to add to this. Citing a literature review is generally considered poor form as they are classified as secondary sources. Its sort of the science world's version of citing wikipedia.
You are many pages late with that comment. This from page 11:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnarus View Post

Nobody claims that all amps sound the same under all conditions. In particular, one of the specific conditions of the "amps generally sound the same" claim is that the amps are operating within their power capabilities. Here's Tom Nousaine's conclusion from his The Great Debate AES paper (emphasis added):

That paper is indeed a "literature review." Here is the relevant part:

"This paper simply presents a compilation of the twenty two blind and double blind listening tests of power amplifiers for which numerical results have been published."

The paper is very short, nothing like the comprehensive Dr. Toole paper, yet it was put forward while we were arguing with the other side about amplifiers. No protests were registered. No cries of it being equiv. to Wikipedia mentioned. Do you really want to take out this kind of evidence from our future arguments on amplifiers? I would think not. Claiming that anyone can do what some of these experts assumes three things:

1) The members here have access to all the literature. I have seen next to no evidence that anyone here has subscriptions and access to the actual journal papers. The only thing folks put forward are public version of the few that are available that way. Indeed, this is a major reason why people are so in the dark as to actual understanding of science in this area. It is a fortunate thing then that someone like Dr. Toole reviews the latest science for us and unlike vast majority of such researchers, puts his articles in public domain for us to read. And importantly, he himself is the researcher in a ton of data he brings into that paper so can share insight that no one else can do.

2) That members here have sufficient knowledge to understand such research. These papers are written for peers in the industry. With rare exceptions, they are not designed for people who have no degree or professional experience in the field to understand. I have read just about all the references in these papers and I can tell you first hand that it takes an investment of hundreds of hours and a lot of knowledge, plus personal contact per below with industry researchers to appreciate what is being conveyed. You can’t trivialize these things to casual one-pagers on Wikipedia.

3) That members here spend time with others in the industry/researchers to better their understanding of what they are reading. I know for me personally, until I sat through double blind tests myself and spent considerable amount of time with some of these researchers, I simply would not have the knowledge I have now. It took a lot to unlearn the 1970s acoustic folklore being constantly beaten into our brains here. Maybe you are a lot smarter than me and can do it by just reading a paper or two online in which case, I hope you demonstrate that with technical points rather than these meta-arguments.

So no, it is not a valid argument to tell members to dismiss such articles, even if they were the mischaracterization that you say it is. We all benefit from reading such work. Remember, the AES Journal review committee thought this paper had probative value to their membership in the academia and industry. Surely then it is of value to hobbyists here.

All this aside, nobody here was discussing the Dr. Toole's paper anyway. You introduced it into the thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1439769/any-suggestions-for-cables/690#post_22839482.

What we were discussing is in the early pages of this thread and the pages just before you came into the thread. Start with Page 6 where you see me citing pages and pages of original research, including double blind tests, measurements, and explanation of science. None of that has been sufficient to get the vocal acoustic subjectivist camp to change their view one ounce. That has been relevant to the topic of the thread as the first few pages was complaints about why the people who believe in differences between cables and such, don’t listen to such evidence. But here we are, when our turn is to be a subjectivist, we act just the same way. The problem is one of human nature not wanting to change our point of view in public than whether some evidence put forward has value or not.

Since you are an expert in evidentiary value of member posts, how do you feel about this argument made just a couple of days ago in a parallel thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Again, in the end this is a matter of preference. But I've sold reflection absorbers to many thousands of customers with a full money-back guarantee, and I can count the number of returns due to "I didn't like the change" on one hand.

Can someone selling fancy cable say he has sold thousands of them with money back guarantee and hence they must be effective because he has had few returns? Or this is another one-way rule where we can make these arguments but others cannot? Which data point is more valuable? Posts like the above from someone selling acoustic products or the paper from Dr. Toole?


I hope the message is clear and you can join me in having a technical discussion than these arguments.

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #741 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 09:55 AM
Senior Member
 
audiophilesavant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 453
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Which data point is more valuable? Posts like the above from someone selling acoustic products or the paper from Dr. Toole?

Dr. Toole sells loudspeakers and room correction systems, as do you.
audiophilesavant is offline  
post #742 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 10:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


1) The members here have access to all the literature. I have seen next to no evidence that anyone here has subscriptions and access to the actual journal papers. The only thing folks put forward are public version of the few that are available that way. Indeed, this is a major reason why people are so in the dark as to actual understanding of science in this area. It is a fortunate thing then that someone like Dr. Toole reviews the latest science for us and unlike vast majority of such researchers, puts his articles in public domain for us to read. And importantly, he himself is the researcher in a ton of data he brings into that paper so can share insight that no one else can do.

So you agree that its a review paper now?
Quote:

2) That members here have sufficient knowledge to understand such research. These papers are written for peers in the industry. With rare exceptions, they are not designed for people who have no degree or professional experience in the field to understand. I have read just about all the references in these papers and I can tell you first hand that it takes an investment of hundreds of hours and a lot of knowledge, plus personal contact per below with industry researchers to appreciate what is being conveyed. You can’t trivialize these things to casual one-pagers on Wikipedia.

Don't lecture me on understanding the process. You didn't even know the difference between a research article and a review article...
Quote:

So no, it is not a valid argument to tell members to dismiss such articles, even if they were the mischaracterization that you say it is. We all benefit from reading such work. Remember, the AES Journal review committee thought this paper had probative value to their membership in the academia and industry. Surely then it is of value to hobbyists here.

I'm not telling anyone to dismiss any article. I'm telling you specifically that you can not treat a review article as scientific fact. The process does not work that way.
Quote:

All this aside, nobody here was discussing the Dr. Toole's paper anyway. You introduced it into the thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1439769/any-suggestions-for-cables/690#post_22839482.

Excellent attempt at a turn around. There were several mentions of 'the harmon/toole research into reflections'. I searched and found that article assuming it was the topic of discussion. Was it not? I asked.
Quote:

What we were discussing is in the early pages of this thread and the pages just before you came into the thread. Start with Page 6 where you see me citing pages and pages of original research, including double blind tests, measurements, and explanation of science. None of that has been sufficient to get the vocal acoustic subjectivist camp to change their view one ounce. That has been relevant to the topic of the thread as the first few pages was complaints about why the people who believe in differences between cables and such, don’t listen to such evidence. But here we are, when our turn is to be a subjectivist, we act just the same way. The problem is one of human nature not wanting to change our point of view in public than whether some evidence put forward has value or not.

Not taking a review article as fact isn't being a subjectivist, its being a scientist.
xianthax is offline  
post #743 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 01:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rnrgagne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Posts like the above from someone selling acoustic products or the paper from Dr. Toole?

Frankly, your personal vendetta against Ethan only serves to discredit anything valid you might have to say. It's bordering on infantile how you twist anything to get to back to that.

You can't possibly compare acoustic treaments and cables, and there's a very simple reason; you put a chair and a rug in an empty room and it's room treatment, it has an audible effect...

Given no two rooms in the real world are alike, any exersize to determine preference would be largely irrelevant in the big picture, but audibility is simply not in question.

8ft of cable is 8ft of cable, and it won't change its' acoustic properties by being in a different room.
rnrgagne is offline  
post #744 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 03:11 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


1) The members here have access to all the literature. I have seen next to no evidence that anyone here has subscriptions and access to the actual journal papers. The only thing folks put forward are public version of the few that are available that way. Indeed, this is a major reason why people are so in the dark as to actual understanding of science in this area. It is a fortunate thing then that someone like Dr. Toole reviews the latest science for us and unlike vast majority of such researchers, puts his articles in public domain for us to read. And importantly, he himself is the researcher in a ton of data he brings into that paper so can share insight that no one else can do.

So you agree that its a review paper now?
Quote:

2) That members here have sufficient knowledge to understand such research. These papers are written for peers in the industry. With rare exceptions, they are not designed for people who have no degree or professional experience in the field to understand. I have read just about all the references in these papers and I can tell you first hand that it takes an investment of hundreds of hours and a lot of knowledge, plus personal contact per below with industry researchers to appreciate what is being conveyed. You can’t trivialize these things to casual one-pagers on Wikipedia.

Don't lecture me on understanding the process. You didn't even know the difference between a research article and a review article...
Quote:

So no, it is not a valid argument to tell members to dismiss such articles, even if they were the mischaracterization that you say it is. We all benefit from reading such work. Remember, the AES Journal review committee thought this paper had probative value to their membership in the academia and industry. Surely then it is of value to hobbyists here.

I'm not telling anyone to dismiss any article. I'm telling you specifically that you can not treat a review article as scientific fact. The process does not work that way.
Quote:

All this aside, nobody here was discussing the Dr. Toole's paper anyway. You introduced it into the thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1439769/any-suggestions-for-cables/690#post_22839482.

Excellent attempt at a turn around. There were several mentions of 'the harmon/toole research into reflections'. I searched and found that article assuming it was the topic of discussion. Was it not? I asked.
Quote:

What we were discussing is in the early pages of this thread and the pages just before you came into the thread. Start with Page 6 where you see me citing pages and pages of original research, including double blind tests, measurements, and explanation of science. None of that has been sufficient to get the vocal acoustic subjectivist camp to change their view one ounce. That has been relevant to the topic of the thread as the first few pages was complaints about why the people who believe in differences between cables and such, don’t listen to such evidence. But here we are, when our turn is to be a subjectivist, we act just the same way. The problem is one of human nature not wanting to change our point of view in public than whether some evidence put forward has value or not.

Not taking a review article as fact isn't being a subjectivist, its being a scientist.

 

Great post. Now expect the campaign to discredit you at every opportunity to start.

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #745 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 03:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
kbarnes701's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Main Listening Positon
Posts: 18,691
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1901 Post(s)
Liked: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Posts like the above from someone selling acoustic products or the paper from Dr. Toole?

Frankly, your personal vendetta against Ethan only serves to discredit anything valid you might have to say. It's bordering on infantile how you twist anything to get to back to that.

You can't possibly compare acoustic treaments and cables, and there's a very simple reason; you put a chair and a rug in an empty room and it's room treatment, it has an audible effect...

Given no two rooms in the real world are alike, any exersize to determine preference would be largely irrelevant in the big picture, but audibility is simply not in question.

8ft of cable is 8ft of cable, and it won't change its' acoustic properties by being in a different room.

 

So true. However, if people start to believe that 8ft of cable really IS 8 ft of cable, as it surely is, it becomes very difficult to convince them to part with hundreds, or even thousands of dollars on so-called 'exotic' equipment. This is why the concept has to be defended so vigorously, albeit so pointlessly. 

 

More or less every post I have ever seen from Ethan has been helpful - he even helps people design and make their own treatments...

kbarnes701 is offline  
post #746 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 04:28 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,235
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 873 Post(s)
Liked: 518
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

So you agree that its a review paper now?
No, my answer is no different than I gave you before. Let me remind you how you described the paper and what I originally responded to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by xianthax View Post

Its an review piece combining research done by others into a cohesive position. The cost of reproducing that paper is just the time to read the related publications and form your own interpretation.
Emphasis mine. And this is Wikipedia since you brought up that source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article

"Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2]"

Again, emphasis mine. So both of you are consistent in saying the term fits when it is work of others being reviewed. As I have explained multiple times, this is not the nature of this report. Dr. Toole is the original researcher for a lot of the data in the paper. He is not merely reviewing the work of "others."

Meta-analysis and review papers do have value in science. What people worry about is the potential for the person writing them not understanding the quality/nature of previous work and therefore, rely on faulty data to produce faulty conclusions. This can happen if the person is inexperienced such a grad student. I think that is the angle you are going after in putting Dr. Toole’s paper. But the argumet simply does not hold water here. As I said, Dr. Toole is sharing the results of his own research and bringing in significant other work to show that the messages there directionally point to the same things. He is well positioned to do that given his 40 year career as a researcher and pioneer in objective evaluation of audio/acoustics. The review committee for AES Journal looked his paper and agreed that it was not just a rehash of previous work by others that anyone could do as you imply here.

Of course, that doesn’t make his conclusions automatically right. You should pursue and read the research points both from his team and that of others – exactly what I have done despite my respect for him. And the reason I routinely cite other major researchers in this regard just the same.
Quote:
I'm not telling anyone to dismiss any article. I'm telling you specifically that you can not treat a review article as scientific fact. The process does not work that way.
I hear you. I hope you hear me when I repeat again that you introduced the paper into the thread and now demanding someone to prove to you why! wink.gifbiggrin.gif
Quote:
Not taking a review article as fact isn't being a subjectivist, its being a scientist.
I define a subjectivist by what I have been taught here. I am told that they are the ones who don’t accept listening tests and explanation of science. When someone keeps arguing on principal that a peer review published article by a major industry researcher with impeccable credentials is as good as Wikipedia, and that any random Joe here can go and accomplish the same, I say they fit the definition. That is, they know the science is not on their side so they start to make excuses for why they should not accept it. If you don’t agree, that is OK. I am pretty sure the subjectivists here don’t agree with the characterization that I just described on them either! biggrin.gif

Shall we discuss audio now?

Amir
Retired Technology Insider
Founder, Madrona Digital
"Insist on Quality Engineering"
amirm is offline  
post #747 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 05:02 PM
Advanced Member
 
xianthax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 513
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

No, my answer is no different than I gave you before. Let me remind you how you described the paper and what I originally responded to:
Emphasis mine. And this is Wikipedia since you brought up that source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Review_article

"Review articles are an attempt to summarize the current state of understanding on a topic.[1] They analyze or discuss research previously published by others, rather than reporting new experimental results.[2]"

Again, emphasis mine. So both of you are consistent in saying the term fits when it is work of others being reviewed. As I have explained multiple times, this is not the nature of this report.

Please be more pedantic.
Quote:

Dr. Toole is the original researcher for a lot of the data in the paper. He is not merely reviewing the work of "others."

He cited 76 papers in the article, he authored 4 of them, you do the math.
Quote:
Meta-analysis and review papers do have value in science. What people worry about is the potential for the person writing them not understanding the quality/nature of previous work and therefore, rely on faulty data to produce faulty conclusions. This can happen if the person is inexperienced such a grad student. I think that is the angle you are going after in putting Dr. Toole’s paper. But the argumet simply does not hold water here. As I said, Dr. Toole is sharing the results of his own research and bringing in significant other work to show that the messages there directionally point to the same things. He is well positioned to do that given his 40 year career as a researcher and pioneer in objective evaluation of audio/acoustics. The review committee for AES Journal looked his paper and agreed that it was not just a rehash of previous work by others that anyone could do as you imply here.

No one is saying they don't have value, I've now stated that a half dozen times. I have not a single time stated it was a rehash of previous work. You continue to speak as though you have a clue how the scientific literature process works yet still appear to not understand the role of review literature.
Quote:
Of course, that doesn’t make his conclusions automatically right. You should pursue and read the research points both from his team and that of others – exactly what I have done despite my respect for him. And the reason I routinely cite other major researchers in this regard just the same.

Do you really not remember how you found yourself in this argument? People were disagreeing with his conclusions and you run in arguing people were being unscientific subjectivists for doing so. Now we should read the related material and determine our own conclusions? Which is it? You seem to be taking a stance of "go read related work and draw your own conclusion, but if you don't agree with my conclusion, your an evil subjectivist". Not a very scientific stance.
Quote:
I hear you. I hope you hear me when I repeat again that you introduced the paper into the thread and now demanding someone to prove to you why! wink.gifbiggrin.gif

Again, I provided the link, there was chatter prior to that regarding the findings of Harmon and Toole, I posted the link and asked if it was the paper being referenced. I certainly did not bring up the topic.
Quote:
I define a subjectivist by what I have been taught here. I am told that they are the ones who don’t accept listening tests and explanation of science. When someone keeps arguing on principal that a peer review published article by a major
industry researcher with impeccable credentials is as good as Wikipedia,

I did not compare his paper to wikipedia, I used wikipedia as an example of primary vs secondary sources and compared those to research and review papers en-mass. Specifically I compared citing a review paper to citing wikipedia, I don't know how strict your professors were, but citing a review paper was grounds a major **** fit in my college.
Quote:
and that any random Joe here can go and accomplish the same, I say they fit the definition. That is, they know the science is not on their side so they start to make excuses for why they should not accept it. If you don’t agree, that is OK. I am pretty sure the subjectivists here don’t agree with the characterization that I just described on them either! biggrin.gif

And its words like these that are a detriment to science. How dare us mear mortals question a review paper...seriously? Should we take all review papers as gospel then? You still seem to live in this world where a review paper is definitive fact. It does not work like that...
xianthax is offline  
post #748 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 05:09 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 kbarnes701 View Post

Great post. Now expect the campaign to discredit you at every opportunity to start.

Ahh, you gotta love the example that comes along and makes concrete the earlier abstract discussion. A healthy does of irony and hypocrisy thrown in as well just makes it all more...forum like...

what was it we were discussing about secondary sources? and how relying on secondary sources means that necessarily you are also relying on that persons selective criteria (and often more telling) what get;s ignored in that process

Here we have a monkey on the sidelines, unwilling to actually engage but just dumbly quoting someone who would engage with a dumb yeee harrrgh. That (he tells us) he has amir on ignore means that he is relying on secondary source that are subject to all the problems identified. That he has amir on ignore (yeah right, he's ignoring amir roooolll eyes) yet yee harrging at all the (what he thinks) are 'killer blows' based on secondary reports is hilarious when you look at it.

Yet he has not even got what it takes to answer or address anything directed towards him. Still waiting on response to points I have asked him.

I heard something fascinating on the radio yesterday. Some of you americans may already know this (??) but it was quite surprising to me.

It's all to do with groups and how they form and act. You know, things like .'my enemy's enemy is my friend' or the variations thereof. All very clear in this thread and others like it.

Anyway, it was referring to the quote of 'My country right or wrong' which I think would be reasonably well known.

Dunno bout you, but in many ways that was for me a telling phrase of the blindness we can all display in human groups. Of course substitute country with group, cause, urge whatever and it can start to illustrate the mob mentality and how dumb we can be collectively.

In other words, not a very pretty trait. Applicable here, those dumb subjectivists simply deny the evidence of science so let's put the boot in. You know. WE can ignore anything uncomfortable.

'My cause, right or wrong'.


But here is the fascinating part. That quote was from some US senator from years ago, and what he actually said was (paraphrased, heard it with some difficulty on the radio yesterday)

"My country right or wrong.

When it is wrong we fix and correct it.

When it is right we laud and applaud it.

My country right or wrong"

As I said, not word perfect by any means but I hope you find the actual quote rather interesting especially in light of what the shortened, edited and selective quote gives across to us,

You know, secondary sources that have been corrupted, innocently or not.

Have I ever said what I find fascinating is human behaviour?? biggrin.gif
terry j is offline  
post #749 of 873 Old 01-18-2013, 05:16 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 xianthax View Post

People were disagreeing with his conclusions

It's a long thread, you could be perfectly right. However I don't quite have that recall. It seemed to me there was a bit of a "huh, what are you talking about??' going on (as I say, could be completely wrong here) I seem to have the idea you posted the link to clear some of that 'huh?' up???

The only point I guess I am making is that (for me at least) there is NO problem with someone disagreeing with anything as long as (mostly) they have some sort of idea why!!

I did not get any concept from kbarnes that he had any real reason for rejecting it other than 'I reject it'. That he has not answered many queries on that question does not help clear it up, he may for all I know have perfectly valid reasons. We just have yet to hear them.
Quote:
How dare us mear mortals question a review paper...seriously?...

Of course we can. It would be good tho if these questionings were of the same quality that we would demand of the subjectivist when they question cables.
terry j is offline  
post #750 of 873 Old 01-19-2013, 07:54 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
kbarnes701, as I've said before,
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

At least couple forum members openly support him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Having a guy named TerryJ parroting the same failed arguments as a certain well-known poster is old news around here. It all becomes clear if you check out other forums where they both post.
diomania is offline  
Reply Audio theory, Setup and Chat

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