or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 'debunking' Meyer and Moran
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'debunking' Meyer and Moran - Page 7  

post #181 of 469
Quote:



"Loudspeaker and Headphone Handbook

Chapter 13 by Floyd E. Toole and Sean E. Olive"

"With stereo and multichannel being the dominant modes of listening, it may seem heretical even to suggest monophonic tests. However, there is convincing evidence that listeners are more sensitive to some sound-quality aberrations when listening monophonically. The results from interleaved mono and stereo listening tests indicated that listeners awarded similar scores to highly rated loudspeakers, but in stereo they tended to be less offended by problems that elicited strong criticism in mono tests. The consistency of product ratings was also affected; variations in repeated assessments were as much as a factor of two higher in the stereo tests, making all ratings less certain."

Those of us who were audiophiles back in the days when mono was all we had may still remember that speakers that sounded like $#!% in singles sounded brilliant in Stereo.

Adding additional speakers to a room among other things increaaes the probability of adding phase and amplitude ambiguities.
post #182 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Amazing that the duck did all that and AJ still thought he had to draw the picture of it for us to understand what animal it was!

Ignore that AJ is the messenger. I would rather not dither on that but focus on the the message its self.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

"Kick?" In the words of William Macy's character in one of the best movies ever made, Fargo, "the heck do ya mean?"

Who kicked out Ethan? Not us. We simply asked him not to go and corner members at large over and over and over again, over the same old issues that create nothing but tension.

He was welcome to continue to run his own dedicated forum, declaring anything he wanted, with us standing guard if anyone as much as looked at him the wrong way.

Kicked as in 'Kicked off the bus'. I understand that it wasn't an overt action. But reading between the lines lets me know what I personally believe I need to know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And of course, any time he wanted to take out his aggressions and set the world right, he could come to this forum or others like it and have all the fist fights he wanted to have, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

And oh, as has has done precisely thousands of times here (I googled it), promote his company web site and product. All on our nickel, paying for the forum software and the infrastructure/manpower to run it.

Oh, PUHLEEZ.... Aren't you the saint. Any forum is only worth the value of it's contributing members. Without them you have zero value.

BTW, we write database driven applications for a living (VB.net, Jquery/PHP etc...) I have a very good guess that you could run WBF on a $40-$60/Month VPS without it breaking a sweat. And if you are not, you should be



Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

But no, WBF is not for everyone. If Ethan puts more value on fighting the other side than disseminating information as we begged him to do in his forum, then that is not the place for him. Same for anyone else who is more interested in arguing than having a fun chat with like minded people.

Fair enough, I am only going by what went down in the linked thread at the beginning of this thread.

Ethan was asking tough questions and not putting up with any obfuscation.

Just my take on it.
post #183 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

So what you are saying is that if we do not question an audiophile that has never done a real controlled listening test and does not have any measurements then we are more then welcome to enjoy WBF??

No. We said that *our experts* such as Ethan who have more privileges than normal users by far, after creating fight after fight over a one year period, should cut it back for a while and post in their own forum. Normal users can do so as they wish, as long as they are cordial. Nothing I have said applies to you or any other member on the forum.

Quote:
That would not give me much enjoyment to read inaccurate opinion that is allowed while that same site censoring anyone that corrects inaccuracy.

Indeed. We are strongly in favor of both points of views. And have lost far more members on the subjective side of the house than objective because we encourage both points of views.

Quote:
Ethan puts value on correcting inaccurate opinions. I think its very important to do that because those inaccurate opinions posted everywhere are the BIGGEST reason there is still so much confusion in the audioworld.

It is important. It is also important to not rehash the exact point of view over and over again with the same few individuals. It gets boring and argumentative. Once was OK. Twice was fine. Ten times was tolerable. But every other day? Our workload as moderators had become huge with Ethan complaining about members, and members complaining about him.

I admire Ethan for the work he had done on objectivity. The sample audio tests he has are nice as are his tutorials. If he just focused on bringing data to the forum, he would still be there. But when his net contributions and focus became arguing with people, the value was lost and decision much simpler.

Quote:
I do think its unethical for you to post anything about WBF on here since its pretty much promotion for a competitor but that is just my opinion.

Then please don't ask me about it. You all keep doing that. How many times have I addressed Ethan's situation and you all keep twisting the words differently and make another accusation? Don't like WBF? Don't come there. Don't want me to talk about it? Don't bring out incorrect things. You say you want Ethan to correct people's inaccurate statements on WBF. And in the next breath you prefer that I don't do that here?

Once more, this entire thread is about a discussion which started on WBF but instantly became about the forum and its members by Arny's post. Even when I attempt to discuss the technical topic OP created, you all can't focus on that, and much rather make this thread personal and talk about me. Is this what I am supposed to want to import to WBF?

You know how to reach me via PM. Send me your comments that way regarding WBF and let's discuss the technical topic in the public thread. That is the way to not discuss the other forum.
post #184 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Oh, PUHLEEZ.... Aren't you the saint. Any forum is only worth the value of it's contributing members. Without them you have zero value.

Absolutely. And if we let Ethan drive more members out of the forum than he had already done, we would be sitting there looking at each other. Keep in mind that our forum is not a commercial venture. We have no advertisers or sponsors. We created it as a labor of love and a fun place to have discussions with people who love everything great in life (not just audio).

Quote:
BTW, we write database driven applications for a living (VB.net, Jquery/PHP etc...) I have a very good guess that you could run WBF on a $40-$60/Month VPS without it breaking a sweat. And if you are not, you should be

Without breaking a sweat? The forum is not an automaton that runs by itself. The four of us are non-stop working on keeping spammers out, watching threads to make sure they don't get out of hand, contributing to threads across the board and generally making the place a great one for people to come and enjoy. If Steve and I were not semi-retired, and could not spend the time we are on it, it would never happen. It is 10X work that you can possibly imagine.
post #185 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Those of us who were audiophiles back in the days when mono was all we had may still remember that speakers that sounded like $#!% in singles sounded brilliant in Stereo.

How the heck is this related to the topic of ABX testing with one or two speakers?
post #186 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Then please don't ask me about it. You all keep doing that....

Fair enough, that was a good point!
post #187 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

John has . . . admitted that his choice of component (amplifier) is completely unrelated to sound/(his)ears (and instead, "other" factors, like long term viewing).

I have admitted no such thing, AJ. This is twice now that I have caught you misrepresenting on this forum what I have written. Please distinguish between what I have written and what you interpret and project.

Excuse me John?
Do I need to quote you directly, saying you could not distinguish the Quad from the tube amp when judging solely by sound, using your ears (the blind test conditions)?
That your "dissatisfaction" with the Quad began (or should I say continued?) only after long term viewing and knowing, neither of which affect the soundwaves within the soundfield, that impinge upon your ears.

As I said, there are 2 facts involved in the story of this 30 year-old event that krabapple introduced into the HDMI thread:

1) The result of a formal blind test in which I participated as a listener in 1979 appeared to indicate that I could not differentiate between a Quad 405 and two more expensive "audiophile-approved" amplifiers.

And

2) _Very_ long-term listening (2 years, not the couple of weeks described by krabapple) to the Quad amplifier (which was operating within its design parameters) left me dissatisfied with its performance.

There are two hypotheses that explain these two facts:

1) The blind test suffered from some unexpected problem in its design or execution that prevented listeners from identifying a difference that should actually have been audible.

Or

2) My dissatisfaction was due to something other than the Quad's sound quality.

You have pronounced repeatedly that hypothesis 2 is correct and that I have "admitted" that that is the case. But I have actually written that hypothesis _1_ was what I believed to be the explanation. As you have no knowledge of the blind test's design and conditions, your posts on this subject imply that you believe that because the test was blind is _in itself_ sufficient reason to choose hypothesis 2. But as you have no information about the test, this is therefore a matter of unsupported belief for you, and I see no point in debating matters of belief.

But because _you_ believe hypothesis 2 to be the correct explanation does _not_ mean that _I_ share that belief, as you keep insisting. In fact, I hold strongly that hypothesis 1 was correct, that that specific blind test was incapable of detecting amplifier problems that actually were audible.

Please don't keep putting your words in my mouth. Your posts illustrate an example of what I call the "intelligent man" fallacy in debate, which goes as follows:

Proposition 1: "I am an intelligent man."

Proposition 2: "My opponent also appears to be an intelligent man."

Proposition 3: "I hold certain opinions to be true."

Proposition 4: "My opponent holds that the opposite to those opinions is true."

Conclusion: "As my opponent is intelligent, he must actually agree in private that my opinions are true. But as he doesn't agree in public, he must therefore be dishonest."

Not only can this way of thinking be seen in your posts, AJ, but it can also be seen in postings in this thread from both Ethan Winer and Arny Krueger. But it is a dishonest debating technique.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
post #188 of 469
The way I look at it is that 30 years is an awful long time to remember particular details. As much time as I might have spent with a particular woman three or more decades ago, I'd be a liar if I could say for sure the points sat way up high.
post #189 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

How the heck is this related to the topic of ABX testing with one or two speakers?

It is support for the idea that using more and more speakers in a listening test for a specific audible flaw may cloud the results.

When you have only one speaker in s system, its flaws and the flaws in its source material seem to be more obvious. We noticed that when we went from mono to stereo. Flaws that we couldn't get away with in a mono system would not seem to be so obvious in a stereo system. In fact very limited-capability speakers that sounded brilliant in a stereo system would be far more obviously flawed in a mono system.
post #190 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post


Please don't keep putting your words in my mouth. Your posts illustrate an example of what I call the "intelligent man" fallacy in debate, which goes as follows:

Proposition 1: "I am an intelligent man."

Proposition 2: "My opponent also appears to be an intelligent man."

Proposition 3: "I hold certain opinions to be true."

Proposition 4: "My opponent holds that the opposite to those opinions is true."

Conclusion: "As my opponent is intelligent, he must actually agree in private that my opinions are true. But as he doesn't agree in public, he must therefore be dishonest."

Where the intelligent man proposition as stated breaks down is when you move away from radical subjectivism and into science and technology.
In radical subjectivism, everything is about individual perception and opinions. In the extreme case we have solipsism, where people think that since they perceive things in a certain way, or hold a certain opinion, that must be the way things are.

In science and technology we seek to eliminate or carefully manage individual perceptions and rather attempt to discern knowledge that is reliable and global.

So then we restate the intelligent man syllogism as follows:

Proposition 1: "I am an intelligent and well-informed and I know and believe certain reliable and global principles and facts.

Proposition 2: "My opponent also appears to be intelligent and well-informed and is involved in similar endeavors as I am. Therefore he should know and believe most if not all of the same reliable and global principles and facts that I do.

Proposition 3: "There are reliable and global facts and principles that are well-known and generally accepted about this issue.

Proposition 4: "My opponent denies by his words and or deeds, these very same reliable and global facts and principles.

Conclusion: "As my opponent asserts and is by many accounts intelligent, dilligent and well informed, he must actually agree in private with these global and reliable facts and principles. But, as he willfully contradicts them in public in word and or in deed, he must therefore be dishonest."

Now we all agree that all facts and principles of science are in fact provisional, and are reliable and global in only provisional ways, until more relevant and accurate facts and principles are discovered. However, many facts and principles related to audio have been generally-agreed upon for decades and decades.

Furthermore, when our understandings of Science improves and we update our knowledge about these sort of things, the changes are often relatively minor or even trivial for practical things. For example Relativity added some adjustment factors to Newton's laws of motion which were about 400 years old at the time. But for most of the things we do here on earth with physical objects like buildings and vehicles, the relativistic adjustments to Newton's laws of motion are trivial.
post #191 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The way I look at it is that 30 years is an awful long time to remember particular details. As much time as I might have spent with a particular woman three or more decades ago, I'd be a liar if I could say for sure the points sat way up high.

At my age, one has had two (2) 30 year periods to forget particular details. It is interesting (at least to me) what I remember and what I don't. I still remember the details of a day when I was 3 years old and broke my leg. I don't remember more than one or two digits of the combination locks that I have owned, and even some telephone numbers have faded.

As far as the physical properties of my female companion of 30 years ago, well I had been married to her for 15 years back then, and we are still together. Therefore discretion applies to the finer *points*. ;-)
post #192 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

The way I look at it is that 30 years is an awful long time to remember particular details.

I am not arguing the details of what happened 30 years ago, merely pointing out that AJ's repeated statements that I agree with his interpretation of what happened are incorrect. Had he said something along the lines of "I think that..." or "I interpret that..." I would have no problem as it would have been clear that he was offering _his_ opinion on what these events mean, something he is completely entitled to do. But the fact of the matter is that I do not agree with AJ's interpretation and it is a nasty little trick of what Arny Krueger terms "the debating trade" for AJ to keep making the assertion that I do so agree with him.

And yes, while 30 years is a long time, I am also a professional writer and I keep a record of what I have written, even back then.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
post #193 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Absolutely. And if we let Ethan drive more members out of the forum than he had already done, we would be sitting there looking at each other. Keep in mind that our forum is not a commercial venture. We have no advertisers or sponsors. We created it as a labor of love and a fun place to have discussions with people who love everything great in life (not just audio).

Sorry, but 1000 people that are wrong, at the end of the day, are still wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Without breaking a sweat? The forum is not an automaton that runs by itself. The four of us are non-stop working on keeping spammers out, watching threads to make sure they don't get out of hand, contributing to threads across the board and generally making the place a great one for people to come and enjoy. If Steve and I were not semi-retired, and could not spend the time we are on it, it would never happen. It is 10X work that you can possibly imagine.

I'm a mod at AH... I know what it takes to setup vbulletin and the like. If the spam agent is setup correctly to begin with and maintained it's fairly easy. Volunteer mod's take care of the rest.

Sorry, but no one, even Mr Winer should lower the shades on his integrity just because a multitude of people don't like the light.
post #194 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Please don't insult me with your claims to be able to read minds, Ethan.

John, there are only two possible reasons you continue to give credibility to obvious BS like demagnetizing vinyl and CDs: Either you know it's BS but you'd rather serve your magazine dishonestly, or you really are so clueless you don't understand why it's BS. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I was being too generous.

--Ethan
post #195 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

The true story could be that person or persons unknown belittled John for his choice of the Quad, and he eventually knuckled under to peer pressure.

More mind reading :-)

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
post #196 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

The result of a formal blind test in which I participated as a listener in 1979 appeared to indicate that I could not differentiate between a Quad 405 and two more expensive "audiophile-approved" amplifiers.

Well, let's do another test now. NYC is an easy drive for me. Who else would like to attend? John, are you willing to put your money (reputation) where your mouth is? Hell, I'd like to see you pick out my $150 Pioneer receiver from a $15,000 boutique amplifier. But the amp has to be competent. No fair using some lo-fi toob crap having high distortion that anyone could distinguish from a good amp.

Quote:


it can also be seen in postings in this thread from both Ethan Winer and Arny Krueger. But it is a dishonest debating technique.

Pot, meet kettle.

--Ethan
post #197 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Please don't insult me with your claims to be able to read minds, Ethan.

John, there are only two possible reasons you continue to give credibility to obvious BS like demagnetizing vinyl and CDs...

In the case of "demagnetizing" CDs, I have not written one word on this. In the case of "demagnetizing" LPs, I honestly and correctly described an inadvertent blind test to which I was subjected and the results of that test are not at odds with what has been written on this forum. That is why in every mention I have made of this subject, I have put the word "demagnetizing" in scare quotes.

Quote:


Either you know it's BS but you'd rather serve your magazine dishonestly, or you really are so clueless you don't understand why it's BS. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Thus you drag out the fallacious "Intelligent Man" debating trade trick I mentioned a few postings back. :-)

Quote:


Maybe I was being too generous.

You just had to add that little sting, eh Ethan.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
post #198 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Demag thing may very well be a scam but you don't get to resolve that by calling JA clueless or dishonest. You say you are respectful. But you really aren't in the true sense of the word.

Well, he's either clueless or a liar. Take your pick.

Look Amir, I am respectful, but at some point enough is enough. JA has lied about me, and to me, repeatedly. He is so hostile that more than a year after banning me from his forum for my views, he still has a permanent sticky in his forum indicting my company. This is still there:

"After a lot of careful thought and debate, we have banned Michigan J. Frog and RealTraps"

That sticky used to show on the forum home page until I complained to the magazine's corporate parent.

JA allowed "Frog" and Steve Sammet and Ken Hotte and others to insult me and attack me mercilessly for years. Even after I proved beyond all doubt that Ted Denney faked the data for his BS saki cup ART "bass traps," JA sided with Ted and banned me. That one act tells all. So again, JA is either a liar or incompetent. Your choice.

--Ethan
post #199 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

Well, let's do another test now. NYC is an easy drive for me. Who else would like to attend? John, are you willing to put your money (reputation) where your mouth is? Hell, I'd like to see you pick out my $150 Pioneer receiver from a $15,000 boutique amplifier

Try offering some burned in vs non-burned in cables. I've tried it twice with rousing success for the the objectivist crowd:

Once here

And

Once here

You don't have to drive anywhere and since you are only advocating for ears on assessment in any form the assessor would like. The test itself can't be called into question (flawed) since you aren't conducting the test.
post #200 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Sorry, but 1000 people that are wrong, at the end of the day, are still wrong.

IME most people who are audiophile consumers are pretty laid back about these *earth-shaking* audio issues that some of us like to banter back and forth about.

It seems like most of the heavy breathing comes from people who are either in the trade as it were, or want to be. Back in the days when rec.audio.opion was active and vibrant, most of the serios malefactors were either dealers or employees of dealers.

Just guessing here but I suspect that the issue at most forums that seek to limit the posting by people like Ethan is not thousands of regular audiophile consumers but rather a few people who are "in the business".
post #201 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

He is so hostile that more than a year after banning me from his forum for my views, he still has a permanent sticky in his forum indicting my company. This is still there:

"After a lot of careful thought and debate, we have banned Michigan J. Frog and RealTraps"


In the >5 years that the Stereophile forum has been in operation, we have only banned 3 people and in each case we posted an announcement, as we did with Ethan.

The reason Ethan was banned was similar to what Amir has described with What Best: Along with breaking and arguing with the moderators about the forum rules, which included Ethan being required to identify himself as a manufacturer and not attack competing manufacturers, he repeatedly confronted other posters to the point that dealing with the complaints was more effort than we could afford and the flame level was so high that people were being driven away. Ultimately we had no choice but to ban both Ethan and his main protagonist.

Ethan then took his arguments with me into "meat space," setting the cybercrime division of the Connecticut police department on to me and telling Stereophile's publisher that he would cancel RealTraps advertising unless the ban was lifted and the notice of the ban deleted. I wouldn't agree to either condition so Ethan canceled his company's advertising. So it goes.

Quote:


That sticky used to show on the forum home page until I complained to the magazine's corporate parent.

It was not a sticky but merely remained on the forum's home page until another announcement was posted. Your complaints to Stereophile's "corporate parent" had no effect, Ethan, the posting of your ban remaining in place for many months after you complained.

And yes, I am aware of the AVS Forum rule not allowing comments on other forums. But I feel that falsehoods should not be allowed to go unchallenged.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
post #202 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

Ethan then took his arguments with me into "meat space," setting the cybercrime division of the Connecticut police department on to me and telling Stereophile's publisher that he would cancel RealTraps advertising unless the ban was lifted and the notice of the ban deleted. I wouldn't agree to either condition so Ethan canceled his company's advertising. So it goes.



John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

That seems extreme to me.
post #203 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I wasn't giving you science lessons. I was showing you that Arny disrupts threads with constant challenges of the other side. You want to tell me that you learn about forum dynamics like that from the people above, by all means, confuse the topic that way.

Challenges are disruptive?

Quote:


I used to have real conversations with you Bob. You know, about science of audio and blind testing. Now it is all this non-sense you throw at me....

I always enjoy real conversations, but I'm afraid your signal-to-noise ratio has been in decline, Amir.
post #204 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

In the case of "demagnetizing" LPs, I honestly and correctly described an inadvertent blind test to which I was subjected and the results of that test are not at odds with what has been written on this forum.

For those not familiar with this so-called "inadvertent blind test", it is described in this Stereophile blog.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Mejias View Post

There is a difference and it is obvious and it is immediate. The applause at the very beginning of the LP sounds more like real applause, more like pairs of human hands coming together to make sound, and less like Styrofoam or static. JA walks into the room and announces, "There's more bass, too!" I'm not sure that JA's even aware of what we've changed. It sounds as though we've listened to two different pressings of the same album.

LOL! They also added two LP demagnetizers to their Recommended Components List: the Furutech, which cost $1800 in 2007, but now costs $2448 thanks in part to Stereophile's hype, and the Acoustic Revive, which went for $1975 in 2007.

Pretty clear message to the advertisers - Stereophile won't criticize snake oil products, indeed they will hype them above and beyond the call. They will also relentlessly attack those who criticize such products, even banning such people from their forums if need be. So advertisers can feel free to advertise such products with full protection and support from Stereophile.
post #205 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Lee (QSC) View Post

Challenges are disruptive?

Challenges are disruptive to the sales process. ;-)

Challenges are disrupitve when one is making technical mistakes by the boatload.

Yes, I think that Amir has good reason to dislike *challenges*. ;-)
post #206 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Challenges are disruptive to the sales process. ;-)

But he's not "in sales". He only sells stuff. Important distinction!
post #207 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by rock_bottom View Post

But he's not "in sales". He only sells stuff. Important distinction!

I guess the moral of this story is that if you banter enogh with certain people, you learn how to mangle logic and reason like they do! ;-)
post #208 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

1) The result of a formal blind test in which I participated as a listener in 1979 appeared to indicate that I could not differentiate between a Quad 405 and two more expensive "audiophile-approved" amplifiers.

Right. That is your explanation John.
Now here is some additional really real world facts unmentioned: Unless particular test was poorly executed, the only judge of the amplifiers "sound", were the soundwaves within the soundfield impinging upon your ears. That's what a blind (audio) test is John. Sound reaching the ears only.
What happens with the brains post processing of the signal after that is another matter entirely, but in the blind test, the post processing is based only on soundwaves reaching the ear. The "other" factors that affect/change the post processing are controlled.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

the conclusion I drew was that the null results of any specific blind test are not transportable, that all they indicate is that under the specific circumstances of that test, the listeners could not discern any audible difference.
I had no reason to believe another blind test would produce results that were any different from the original. All I was doing was choosing an amplifier to purchase to use in my system, like any audiophlle. The null results for the original blind test convinced me that I would be wasting my money on an amplifier more expensive than the Quad 405, so I purchased a Quad.

IOW, you are not faulting the particular test you underwent, but rather all blind testing you would undergo for amplifiers, is what you hypothesize:

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

1) The (all) blind test suffered from some unexpected problem in its design or execution that prevented listeners from identifying a difference that should actually have been audible.

I have actually written that hypothesis _1_ was what I believed to be the explanation.

Notice how there is an assumed audible "difference" that the blind test is masking. Audible - which by definition must involve soundwaves/stimuli to the organs of hearing. Not "imagination"/brain process functions that do not involve soundwaves/stimuli to the organs of hearing.
So what is your explanation for the masking and why you prefer the contrived hypothesis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

After two years of using the Quad - with a case of cognitive dissonance, it really takes time for the dissonance to be recognized - I concluded that regardless of the results of the blind test, I really didn't like the sound of my system with my Quad. That dissatisfaction was real. so if I undertook another blind test and achieved the same null result as I expected, I would still be left with that dissatisfaction.

Notice how you misrepresent reality? Sound? Not looks, not knowledge, not all the "other" factors....but sound. Do you now get to redefine "sound" as you see fit? Or does "sound" mean soundwaves within a soundfield?
The dissatisfaction may have been real, but why do you neglect or dismiss the possibility (reality) that it had nothing to do with the sound....and everything to do with the "other" factors, such as looks, price, street rep and imagination?
What evidence from physical reality, do you have that it was the soundwaves within the soundfield that made you dissatisfied with the Quad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

2) My dissatisfaction was due to something other than the Quad's sound quality.

You have pronounced repeatedly that hypothesis 2 is correct and that I have "admitted" that that is the case. But I have actually written that hypothesis _1_ was what I believed to be the explanation. As you have no knowledge of the blind test's design and conditions, your posts on this subject imply that you believe that because the test was blind is _in itself_ sufficient reason to choose hypothesis 2. But as you have no information about the test, this is therefore a matter of unsupported belief for you, and I see no point in debating matters of belief.

But because _you_ believe hypothesis 2 to be the correct explanation does _not_ mean that _I_ share that belief, as you keep insisting. In fact, I hold strongly that hypothesis 1 was correct, that that specific blind test was incapable of detecting amplifier problems that actually were audible.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quite simple John. I dismiss #1 based on the zero evidence that "sound" differences are missed in all blind audio(phile) tests you are likely to undergo....and accept #2 based on the real world definition of "sound" and the fact that you neglect all the "other" factors that affect what you are referring to as "sound", in "long term", casual, uncontrolled "listening" (viewing/knowing/etc).

cheers,

AJ
post #209 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinjuku View Post

Try offering some burned in vs non-burned in cables. I've tried it twice with rousing success for the the objectivist crowd:

Once here

And

Once here

You don't have to drive anywhere and since you are only advocating for ears on assessment in any form the assessor would like the test itself can't be called into question (flawed) since you aren't conducting the test.

Good god, those threads are hilarious! Reading through them is like watching Copernicus wander through a conference of astrologers.
post #210 of 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by stereoeditor View Post

In the >5 years that the Stereophile forum has been in operation, we have only banned 3 people and in each case we posted an announcement, as we did with Ethan.

A banning announcement should have a shelf life equal to the time forum regulars will wonder why someone no longer posts. That you continue to keep that announcement active today just shows your unreasonable hostility to me.

Quote:


which included Ethan being required to identify himself as a manufacturer and not attack competing manufacturers

I have debunked that lie so many times I'm surprised you still post it. At the time I was banned I had been including my company name in my posts for several months. I could list a dozen of your lies, but it's not worth the effort. How about just a few:

* You insist that you don't know who Frog is, but you're certain he's not in the business. How is that possible?

* You claim I was banned for attacking others in the industry, but overlook the hundreds of posts by Steve Sammet and Ken Hotte attacking me.

* At one point you wrote in your forum that I argued against the use of dither in my AES Audio Myths workshop. You even claimed that you're a professional journalist and you took accurate notes. So I posted THIS video proving I said no such thing. Yet you never acknowledged your mistake or apologized to me.

Quote:


Ethan then took his arguments with me into "meat space," setting the cybercrime division of the Connecticut police department on to me

Again you mislead. Your pal Frog violated Federal International law by launching several Denial Of Service attacks on my personal and company web sites. That's a federal crime. Since you know who Frog is, or could easily ask Ken Hotte, I told that to the local police and also to the FBI. Your failure to cooperate is a tacit agreement with Frog's criminal behavior.

This has gone on long enough John. I've made my point, and shown you to be either a liar, or incompetent with audio, or both. You can continue this if you want, but I don't see how it can help you.

--Ethan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat
This thread is locked  
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › 'debunking' Meyer and Moran