AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects - Page 5

post #121 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Just think of the nature of inserting a switch in the output of anything. An audiophile who believes in fancy cables and such would immediately call foul.

Only if the listener who cries 'foul' can actually show they can detect the presence of said switch in system with either cable under test.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #122 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

What kind of improvement, audible one? Posting those two graphs is not a proof of audible comparison, not to mention the different conditions those two graphs represent. How about actual listening test of those two amps where the listeners used their ears only?

You made the claim of knowing what's inside and it not making the difference. The burden is for you to back your claim. Seems like you can't. Show me a blind test that says the 53 sounds the same as Crown. Show me circuit design. Show me cost data. Show me your qualifications. Are you an amplifier designer? Are you a degreed electrical engineer?

Quote:


You still don't know what's inside of Levinson amps you sell, do you?

Of course I know what is inside them. But I don't entertain illogical posters like you when you want me to do all the work for you.

I did post data from Mark Levinson though. It said they did blind testing. You have some data to counter that?
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Only if the listener who cries 'foul' can actually show they can detect the presence of said switch in system with either cable under test.

And how would he do that? Can he do it sighted and subjectively?
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And how would he do that? Can he do it sighted and subjectively?

Don't be so disingenuous: can it's presence be detected blind or not with any of the DUT? If yes, then it is a limitation. If no, then it is not.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

It said they did blind testing.

They did their own blind testing and found their device was better. Hold the presses; who'd have thunk that could happen?
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Amirm, ing's test methodology is flawed. Sorry. No one rational is claiming all amp MEASURE the same. Nor do we claim they measure the same as a piece of wire. All his 'bypass' test proves is the above.

There was no talk of measurement in his testing. The evaluation was a listening test, done blind. Input and output of the amp were compared. If it sounded different, they declared to color the sound. All but the Byrston at the time were determined to color the input sound.

Have you done such a test? If not, then we have no data to counter his. Claiming it is wrong doesn't make it so.

Quote:


We have a threshold for audibility of distortion. He is comparing two signals of varying levels of distortion, one above our threshold and the other below. Or if using a poor amp for his test, bad and worse audible distortion.

So what are you saying? That the distortion changed the sound of the amp? If so, that is fair game, isn't it? And quite revelation when all the THD numbers are so small.

BTW, there is excellent research and opinion piece by Dr. Geddes in us measuring THD numbers wrong and the weighting must be different than equal as used in current metric. That might explain why despite low THD numbers, there could be audible differences.

Quote:


Is it any wonder that at a minimum doubling the distortion in one signal might raise it above our threshold and thus become audibly distinguishable fro another signal? What is a wonder is that you believe this methodology is in any way revealing of the audible differences in amplifiers used under normal circumstances. ie, with signal passing through only once.

I would be happy with that theory sticking. That is, if I take two amps that are said to both be the same as "wire" by Arny, and we cascade them, all of a sudden they don't act like wire. If one amp has a THD of .01 and the other .02, the sum would be .03. Are we saying that .03 is audible? Or that there is an unknown combination we don't understand?

Quote:


It's like saying cables DO sound different because they CAN sound different. Similarly, proving that amps CAN sound different (what he has done) has zero relevance on the question of whether good ones DO.

I don't follow you. They have tested countless amps. The man is a magazine reviewer and the method used above has been what he uses to evaluate every amplifier. This is not a one-off AES blind test where folks do that and go about their business. Saying that they all must have been poor quality doesn't hold up to reason.

Quote:


Better yet, where are the results of these rigorous dbt's you have conducted? I'd love to see those results and methodology.

I have no more than what Harman has published. Someone post the marketing material for Crown. Thought it was appropriate to post Harman's other marketing material on their audiophile product. We all know that Harman is the one company that takes blind testing seriously. So all else being equal, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. I especially like their differential testing against the emulated amp. For the rest, it is OK to have some element of doubt .
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Don't be so disingenuous: can it's presence be detected blind or not with any of the DUT? If yes, then it is a limitation. If no, then it is not.

Wasn't trying to be disingenuous but I was hoping by making you say it, you would think through the consequences of that statement .

Let's review it then. You are saying that the proof you would accept of the switch making a difference from an audiophile is objective blind testing. Wouldn't that require that they concede the outcome already? That is, you are asking an atheist to swear on a bible that God doesn't exist? .

You can't in fairness ask the other side to prove something to you using methodology they do not accept. This is circular in nature. If they were to accept that testing process for the switch, then without doing further test you could declare that job done.

The above is the reason we are not converging as group on one understanding.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

They did their own blind testing and found their device was better. Hold the presses; who'd have thunk that could happen?

Show me that much from any amplifier company. Heck, show me any of them having any blind testing facility.

I find this conversation very ironic. In order to win a point of view, you all put down the only company that believes in your point of view as it develops its products. Same is true of myself personally. Where would you find friends otherwise if we are the enemy too?
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Wasn't trying to be disingenuous but I was hoping by making you say it, you would think through the consequences of that statement .

From where I sit, you are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Let's review it then. You are saying that the proof you would accept of the switch making a difference from an audiophile is objective blind testing. Wouldn't that require that they concede the outcome already? That is, you are asking an atheist to swear on a bible that God doesn't exist? .

See, it doesn't come down to rationality, but 'belief' because the audiophilic dogma is refusing to be tested.

The argument asking to prove there is no god is classic fallacy of proving the negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You can't in fairness ask the other side to prove something to you using methodology they do not accept. This is circular in nature. If they were to accept that testing process for the switch, then without doing further test you could declare that job done.

The above is the reason we are not converging as group on one understanding.

No, it's simply a matter of those denying that it is a valid methodology, without ever even trying it to show the validity of the argument that the switch is an audible confounder. It is simply a reason not to try the test at all and continue in their existing view.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Show me that much from any amplifier company. Heck, show me any of them having any blind testing facility.

I find this conversation very ironic. In order to win a point of view, you all put down the only company that believes in your point of view as it develops its products. Same is true of myself personally. Where would you find friends otherwise if we are the enemy too?

You claimed it was data as some sort of proof there is an audible difference between the ML and any other competently designed amp. It is not: it is marketing only and I would say the same of any brochure and/or white paper from any company, for any product whether audio or not.

The 'putting down' of ML that you are trying to assert that I said, is incorrect. I simply have seen no evidence that they did any blind testing other than them stating it in advertising material. You would hardly expect them to state that their product was worse than anyone else's, only better, whether they actually performed any testing, or merely stated they did. You obviously believe everyone should take what is written in a brochure as being factual truth.

Given your logic in this regard, you should become a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 2598
6/15/11 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

See, it doesn't come down to rationality, but 'belief' because the audiophilic dogma is refusing to be tested.

I get that. But it is also irrational to try to convince the other side of something, using assumptions that you believe in, but they don't.

As hard as it might be, we have to think through what new things we could do to breakthrough this logjam. I think the amplifier test that Ing created was a fresh new approach. And wasn't it interesting that it proved data to the contrary of what many people in the blind school of thought considered to be the truth? Do we embrace that data? No. It is uncomfortable to hear the blind objective methodology all of a sudden resulted in opposite data we believe in.

If we want the other side to listen to us, we should not resist information because it points to opposite results while constantly demand that the same sort of blind testing be used by the other side.

Quote:


The argument asking to prove there is no god is classic fallacy of proving the negative.

That wasn't the point of the analogy at all. It was to show you the nature of circular arguments. You can't take your assumptions about something being valid, and use it as fact to prove the very point.

Quote:


No, it's simply a matter of those denying that it is a valid methodology, without ever even trying it to show the validity of the argument that the switch is an audible confounder. It is simply a reason not to try the test at all and continue in their existing view.

The methodology is just that: methodology and a tool. It is not data. It becomes data when we know how to appropriately apply it to the situation at hand. The folks you want to convince don't believe in that tool in detecting tiny differences. You could argue they are afraid and be where you are now: only convincing your camp and no one else. Is that the goal here? If so, why?
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

You made the claim of knowing what's inside

When? Quote please.
Quote:


and it not making the difference.

What kind of difference?
Quote:


Of course I know what is inside them.

If you really do, then your attempted assertion that the higher cost of a product directly relates to different (higher quality) parts was misleading and you did that intentionally because... (see following).
Quote:


But I don't entertain illogical posters like you when you want me to do all the work for you.

You are here to shill for the products you sell.
Quote:


It said they did blind testing.

So did they.
Link

More here.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

You claimed it was data as some sort of proof there is an audible difference between the ML and any other competently designed amp.

"Proof?" Where did I say it was that? Jin posted Crown marketing material saying their amps put sonic attributes ahead of all else. In that sense, me putting forth this data is fair game. And it is data. It talks about how the amp was tested against a model of itself in blind tests. You can claim Harman is lying in making such an assertion but can't claim there is no data here. No data is posters claiming things with not one shred of data point.

Quote:


It is not: it is marketing only and I would say the same of any brochure and/or white paper from any company, for any product whether audio or not.

Give me a link. Let's scrutinize that. What is the brand of your amplifier? Post what they say about their evaluation. You say any company white paper talks about blind and differential testing. Let's see that.

Quote:


The 'putting down' of ML that you are trying to assert that I said, is incorrect. I simply have seen no evidence that they did any blind testing other than them stating it in advertising material.

What are you saying? That a company can claim to have done blind testing and in reality having done none? That a multi-billion dollar company who is at the forefront of blind test and advocacy of the same, would throw all that away by outright lying about having done any differential testing? Of course you are putting them down.

Here is a good test. If what I post had said that they had found all the amps to sound identical, would you have dismissed it just the same? I think not . Really, let's be fair and honest here. I said this was marketing material. I said that it is Ok to have doubt. But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water where this is the *only* company in the high-end that does perform blind testing of their premier products. They deserve kudos not this kind of treatment.

Quote:


You would hardly expect them to state that their product was worse than anyone else's, only better, whether they actually performed any testing, or merely stated they did. You obviously believe everyone should take what is written in a brochure as being factual truth.

It is fine to have a conservative approach to what you read. No one said you shouldn't. But all things are comparative. Claim here was made that blind tests would show most if not all amps to be like a wire. We have a major corporation saying that wasn't the case, admittedly couched in marketing lingo. For the sake of having a forum discussion, it counts for something .

Quote:


Given your logic in this regard, you should become a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.

They don't need my help. When they test a drug, they can measure the impact on a patient. We can't sadly do that with audio. Wish there was a blood test that would tell us if two cables sounded different to you. It would put this forum out of business with much reduced user and traffic and with it, advertising revenue.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diomania View Post

When? Quote please.

Then if you don't know what is inside them, you had no foundation for the claims you made.

Once more, what is your qualifications? Do you have a degree or have amplifier design experience to make the claims you did? No tap dancing please .
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:17pm
Not even River Dancing?
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Then if you don't know what is inside them,

Did I make such claim? Please show me if I did.
Quote:


Once more, what is your qualifications? Do you have a degree or have amplifier design experience to make the claims you did?

Deflect, redirect... 1, 2...
Quote:


No tap dancing please .

What happened to 3 and 4?
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post

BTW, I'll mention that I'm in the process of writing a book about all of this stuff for a major publisher. It will be out around fall, and I'll let the forum know when it's available. This book is not just an audio reference that explains impedance and capacitance etc in layman's terms. It also addresses wire and other perennial debates head on, and resolves them using science, logic, and lots of audio examples.

--Ethan

Excellent, best of luck with that.

If you have any Q's I can answer, just give me a PM. I'd be happy to do so.

Cheers, John
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post


BTW, I'll mention that I'm in the process of writing a book about all of this stuff for a major publisher. It will be out around fall, and I'll let the forum know when it's available. This book is not just an audio reference that explains impedance and capacitance etc in layman's terms. It also addresses wire and other perennial debates head on, and resolves them using science, logic, and lots of audio examples.

--Ethan

Can I get a signed copy?
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 2598
6/15/11 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I am not responsible for anything. I don't have any moderator powers on this forum and have never complained about you or another poster arguing with me. If you can't read that thread, it is your doing and forum management decision. So if anyone is "probably responsible" is yourself and your actions.

Anyway, here is the thread again:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And you have an exhaustive blind study to show that? 'cause I do have a good one for the opposite .

I suspect you don't know Ing. Öhman although you should. OK, so most people here probably never heard of the man if they don't live in Europe. Ing runs the Audio Engineering Society type of group in Sweden and is a speaker designer and magazine review amongst other things.

Ing is an extreme advocate of blind testing and does all of his magazine reviews that way. His web site is full of articles on the necessity of removing listener bias. His writing is in Swedish which is very worthwhile to search and read using a translation engine. Fortunately there is one article that is translated by Bryston into English for reasons which will become clear in a moment.

What he has done is that he has built a simulated load for a speaker including its cross-over and such. Others have done the same. But he goes one step further: he has built a divider in there, letting him back out all of the amplifier gain. In other words, he brings the level back down as if the amp was never there. But of course, it is still there, doing its thing as it always has. He just throws out most of its output and preserves a small sampling for taste.

Ing then takes that much reduced output, and feeds it to a selector switch together with the original source. He then amplifies that normally as if they were two normal sources. They then perform both blind and non-blind listening tests to see what coloration the amp may be adding. If an amp is like a piece of wire, then it would sound identical to its input. Otherwise, you will hear a difference. He calls this the Bypass Test. As you see below, they find such coloration in every amp they have tested, sans this one Byrston: http://bryston.com/pdfs/07/Swedish14BSSTReview.pdf

Here are some key quotes:

"The outcome of the second Bypass Test became different from ever before. To explain how, I have to start with explaining the normal procedure, and results: A “normal” Bypass-listening test typically involves 3 to 6 listeners, listening to the two alternative signals, B (Before = bypassed) and A (After = the test object is inserted into the signal path).

This is first done openly, i.e. all listeners knows which is B (before object) and A (after object), and that open listening is often done for a longer period of time. During this listening, people are allowed to talk to each other about what they hear or think they hear. Thus, it’s possible to “learn from each other”, and vague characteristics that take a long time to identify for one listener, typically get identified very fast, due to the cross communication of experiences.

When the blind ”verifying listening” thereafter takes place, it is still an option to talk to the other listeners, but of course it is difficult to draw any conclusions since it is no longer known which one is B or A. To sum it up, normally there are lots of views, ideas and opinions regarding the character of the tested amplifier after the open listening. That was not the case this time.

We were sitting in open listening for well over one hour, and no one mentioned a single word about any differences they either imagined or heard. Actually, that’s the first time ever something like that has happened. ...This is the first time that none of the listeners even believed that there was any audible difference what so ever between input and output of the amplifier."

Your turn.
-------------------------------------------------------

And your response to it after quoting part of above:

I see little or no connection between the above post and what you claimed, Amir.

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by amir View Post

I have conducted dozens of DBTs and none of that counts for anything in your book.

If I can get three (3) strikes against you then will be out of the discussion, Amir.

Strike (1) The test you quoted was done by someone else besides you Amir, unless you also go under the name "Ing. Öhman".

Strike (2) As I read it, only one amplfiier was tested, not "dozens".

Strike (3) The alleged Ing. Ohman listening test of justone amplifier was stated to be blind. I can find no claims that it was double-blind. Therefore it was not a DBT.

That puts you out of the game, Amir. 3 strikes and you are out!

Ever since Clever Hans the so-called "Talking Horse" was unmasked for the no-trick pony that he really was, Blind tests have been permanently excluded from serious investigations were they possible at all.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 2598
6/15/11 at 3:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

And given an experiment we can evaluate vs a secret one by Arny and the statement "trust me".....who is to say we would not find more flaws with it?

Amir, do you take medications?
This is almost too surreal, coming from the guy who concocted the stories about having done/possessing blind test data for HDMI, SPDIF cables, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have blind tested myself though and found small difference.

And given an experiment we can evaluate vs a secret one by Arny and the statement "trust me".....who is to say we would not find more flaws with it?

Amir, read those two statements above, tell me if you find anything a bit odd. Seriously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have not blind tested amplifiers.

Why not just make up a story that you have, like with HDMI and SPDIF?
Who is going to verify any of them?

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

I have however found them in bass performance to be differentiated in amount of power they convey.

Power? You mean a measurable parameter? Ok, so where is the "data" to support your subjective observations??
I didn't see any such thing in the ML ad you placed earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

This is not an audiophile observation. I am not talking about vague things you can't decisively feel.

Clearly not only is it an audiophile observation, but also an audiophile self assessment skills and awareness example.

Crazy stuff Amir, I love it .

cheers,

AJ

p.s. I am a bit concerned that the protracted absence of our friend Dunny under means that the pressure is building....and the next release of sewer talk is going to be an epic.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 2598
6/15/11 at 3:25pm
I am so excited that we may still hear from ChadnLiz about the methods used to selectively BOOST a signal with a straight piece of wire. All the back and forth about amps may be null and void. All we will need is a wire. It sure will make assembling a system easier.
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 2598
6/15/11 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

I am so excited that we may still hear from ChadnLiz about the methods used to selectively BOOST a signal with a straight piece of wire.

Or how electrons possess the artificial intelligence required to know when they are in the recording studio or the home reproduction system?

"Guys, guys, we're in the studio signal path with dirt cheap Mogami cables, commodity parts and boatloads of EQ, everybody simmer down and let's keep this thing pristine".
"Ok Guys, were in the playback system now, cheap cables, commodity parts and single EQ signal path...lets get crazy and wreck the place, woohooo!!!!"

cheers,

AJ

p.s. audiophile disorder is some fascinating stuff indeed
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 2598
6/15/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gizmologist View Post

I am so excited that we may still hear from ChadnLiz about the methods used to selectively BOOST a signal with a straight piece of wire. All the back and forth about amps may be null and void. All we will need is a wire. It sure will make assembling a system easier.

He was lit up something fierce at the same time in this thread and I haven't seen him around since:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1339967
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 2598
6/15/11 at 3:46pm
^^^

yup... rightfully so, i might add...
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 2598
6/15/11 at 5:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Amir, do you take medications?

I do. But clearly a fraction of you .

Quote:


Amir, read those two statements above, tell me if you find anything a bit odd. Seriously.

I offer one better. Let's see if anyone else has comprehension problem you have there and I will respond to them.

Quote:


Why not just make up a story that you have, like with HDMI and SPDIF?

More comprehension problems .

Quote:


Power? You mean a measurable parameter? Ok, so where is the "data" to support your subjective observations??
I didn't see any such thing in the ML ad you placed earlier.

All hashed out in this forum at length. Not interested in digging them up just because you ask. But yes, objective data backs it just the same. And available in the links I already provided .

Quote:


p.s. I am a bit concerned that the protracted absence of our friend Dunny under means that the pressure is building....and the next release of sewer talk is going to be an epic.

Who the heck is Dunny?
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 2598
6/15/11 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I see little or no connection between the above post and what you claimed, Amir.

Happy to refresh your memory. This is what started it:

--------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

To make a credible claim here Amir, you would have to have done as many DBTs of pro amps as I did before I said what I said, and then have signficiantly different outcomes. I guarantee you that I've tested 5 different pro audio amps. Then there are at least 5 other consumer power amps that I've done DBTs of.

I don't know your hearing ability or testing fixture/methodology. In absence of that, what you just said is just a a claim as I mentioned. I have conducted dozens of DBTs and none of that counts for anything in your book. In that sense, your expectation that I have to take your word for it is not logical.

This is especially so since i have independent blind testing data of amps points to most majority of them failing the so called "wire test." I have shown that to you before. That you consider your own data more valid is fine but not something I am going to rely on.

---------------------
So to summarize:
* You claimed to have done blind tests but wanted me to take your word for it.
* I said I had done many blind tests and since you don't accept them, I won't accept yours. I did NOT tell you I had run blind amplifier tests. Indeed, I have said that I have not.
* I said that I have shared *independent* blind testing of amps with you before. You said later that never happened. I quoted it here and the fact that not only had you seen it, but replied to it.

Quote:


Strike (1) The test you quoted was done by someone else besides you Amir, unless you also go under the name "Ing. Öhman".

Per above, I never said the test was done by me. The fact that it was done by the head of Swedish Audio Engineering Society should add credibility to it but apparently not.

Quote:


Strike (2) As I read it, only one amplfiier was tested, not "dozens".

That was the one report in English. Two-minute search would show you others: http://www.sonicdesign.se/amptest.htm

"This method to test amplifiers is very effective. Of the vast number of amplifiers tested by me over the years, it has been easy enough to hear colorations from 9 out of 10 amplifiers, and then, the majority have been amplifiers of well repute. This has led me to present viewpoints where not only the magnitude but also the character of the coloration is taken into account.

Vast number >> One.

Quote:


Strike (3) The alleged Ing. Ohman listening test of justone amplifier was stated to be blind. I can find no claims that it was double-blind. Therefore it was not a DBT.

What is "alleged?" You are doubting such clear documentation that such tests occurred? Putting aside that I didn't say it was double blind at the start (see the top of this post), looks like you are not appreciating the nature of this test. Let's review what was said:

"When the blind ”verifying listening” thereafter takes place, it is still an option to talk to the other listeners, but of course it is difficult to draw any conclusions since it is no longer known which one is B or A. "

You want to explain how they are confusing themselves and biasing the results, be my guest. But then let's be sure nobody ever on this forum asks anyone to go and run a test on themselves.

Quote:


That puts you out of the game, Amir. 3 strikes and you are out!

Boy, wouldn't that be nice. Having time to do something constructive than dealing with this information-free back and forth...

Quote:


Ever since Clever Hans the so-called "Talking Horse" was unmasked for the no-trick pony that he really was, Blind tests have been permanently excluded from serious investigations were they possible at all.

And here we are, talking and reviewing blind tests, and the blind test advocate is the one wants to see none of it because it doesn't agree with his presupposed assumptions of what the outcome must be.....
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 2598
6/15/11 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

The fact that it was done by the head of Swedish Audio Engineering Society should add credibility to it but apparently not.

It's more of an audio club that meets in one of the member's basements.
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 2598
6/15/11 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

It's more of an audio club that meets in one of the member's basements.

Does that *reduce* the validity of the results?

If so, why then do we see the constant referral to the matrix tests?
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 2598
6/15/11 at 8:43pm
Amir has been nothing like disingenuous with his time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

Don't be so disingenuous: can it's presence be detected blind or not with any of the DUT? If yes, then it is a limitation. If no, then it is not.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 2598
6/15/11 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiophilesavant View Post

It's more of an audio club that meets in one of the member's basements.

I don't know why Terry is picking on you. We should only listen to groups who hold their meetings at the Four Seasons hotel and dine on Caviar.

Fortunately, these guy seem to afford more than the basement. Here is the agenda and meeting location for the last one:

"Music Psychology: How we perceive and react to music

2011-05-18

LTS Umeå convenes meeting on music psychology. Lecturers are Alf Gabrielsson professor emeritus of psychology at Uppsala.

The production will be based on material from his book "Strong musical experiences"

The lecture is addressed to musicians, engineers and listeners.

This meeting is a collaboration between the Audio Engineering Society Umeå, Norlandsoperan and Study Association was formed


Location: Café Östra Station Rådhusgatan 2C, Umeå
Date: May 18, 2011
Time: 19:00 to 22:00"

And another:
"Study visits to Swedish Radio

2011-04-19

LTS Stockholm invites you to a study visit to Swedish Radio.

We learn how the migration takes place, namely the transfer of old radio shows (which may be on the treadmill / DAT / CD / cassette) to digital media. How do you do? What do you think? What is archival? Come with your questions!

We may also visit the gramophone archive.

The meeting will take place on Tuesday 19 April. We meet in the foyer of the Swedish Radio, Oxenstiernsgatan 20, last at. 17:55 . It's fine to sit down and wait just inside the spinning door. Do not port the phone!"

Don't know about you but they could meet in the closet and I would want to listen and discuss what they did.

As I noted to Arny, you all seem to be advocates of an outcome, not objectivity and data. Nothing is right unless it agrees with you. You put down anyone if they dare saying they achieved something different than you thought.

No better example than you here. When discussing audibility of high res audio, did you question where the Boston Audio Society held its meetings? Nope. It said they had done ABX test and foud no difference that was good enough for you to run with it.

But boy, have a true engineer who runs an engineering society come up with opposite outcome, and the damnations start. Arny calls their work "alleged" and you chastise them for not having enough money to meet in a fancy place (putting aside that there is no information on their site about meeting in a basement). If they don't have a million dollar facility to run tests, they must not be good enough. Ironic because Harman does have a million dollar facility but that's not good either.

I have to run to make a donation to LTS (Swedish Audio Society) so that they can upgrade to hot dogs from bread and water.....
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Audio theory, Setup and Chat

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Audio theory, Setup and Chat › Seeking education about those ultra-expensive interconnects