or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same - Page 14

post #391 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You heard a difference because there WAS a difference. Your testing methods guaranteed it. Do you really not see that using two sets of speakers, in two different places in the room (as just one example) would invalidate a test designed to show any differences between amplifiers?
Kbarnes, you are yet again missing the picture. I DID hook them up so the Denon and Pioneer switched speakers, and guess what that did to the sound? Nothing. Same sound signature. Your excuses are getting more vague.

I don't know, it has been me vs like 15 people and I seem to be holding my own.

Kbarnes, in your infinite wisdom: How come ABX testing carried out over 20,000 hours with 60 people (and I learned, they often switched people) failed to pick up distortion a guy who did normal listening picked up in less than 10 minutes? If ABX is so effective, and you are basically saying you NEED ABX testing to know the "facts", tell me the facts about the way the ABX method failed. As soon as the guy heard it, suddenly they all did. It was like magic! As I asked, how effective are ABX tests when they failed to find easily discernible DISTORTION? How could you possibly use it to compare components if you cannot pick up something like that, which is quite crucial?

Arny? Kbarnes? Please inform us...stir the excuse pot! I asked for the science, or an INTELLIGENT refute. Not excuses, excuses are made by those who cannot give proper answers.

Your not going to make me go away, when people come into a place and try acting like I do not know what I am doing (talk down to me), I want to see if I am truly looking up to them. So far, I am looking down at you because I have presented facts and arguments completely ignored. Hyperbole, excuses, and the like but other than skewed facts and opinions I am missing the science behind your "answers". Answers made for convenience rather than intelligent conversation.

Be careful when you think you are superior to others, simple facts can override one's ego.
Edited by Ricsim78 - 2/12/13 at 9:26am
post #392 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Okay ABX advocates, here is some good reading material for you!

http://blog.szynalski.com/2009/07/27/should-we-care-about-abx-test-results/

The above is one confused piece of work!

It starts out:

"... ABX tests don’t measure what really matters to us. ABX tests tell us whether we can hear a difference between A and B. What we really want to know, however, is whether A is as good as B."

He goes on to use an automotive example to show that we are interested in more than just SQ when we evaluate audio products.

The problem with his criticism is that the same logic applied to any other listening test reveals the exact same flaw with it. No listening test reveals all aspects of the quality of a piece of audio gear. That is just common sense. But as usual, common sense can be very uncommon in the weirded-out world of audiophilia.

His logical flaw is that he is stigmatizing ABX tests for a flaw that is common to all listening tests.

Unfortunately, this writer would probably get a flunking grade in any high school rehetoric class. In debating class he'd get laughed out of the place. But, among some angst-ridden audiophiles, he may get a listening.

FAIL!
post #393 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Is that really the best you can do? His opinions and comments are one thing, but congrats on missing the point of the entire argument! Where is YOUR supporting evidence? The story he tells of the double blind test you seem to blindly accept as gospel, how come one person detected a problem that 60 "professionals" and 20,000 hours of tests (for heaven sakes, they were doing a test for a codec that was going to be used in the entire UK!), so they did extensive testing and they all MISSED the distortion that was easily picked up by a person not "hampered" by useless tests! How can a test which is "so effective" miss a very important detail like that? Stir the excuse pot and let the excuses come like you have been doing this whole time.

How effective is double blind testing when they all missed something that would have caused many, many problems down the line. And you expect that same test that missed DISTORTION to show you how good a component sounds? Good luck with that! That shows me that ABX tests are ineffective in doing the very thing they supposedly exist for. A woman saw a picture of two houses, one of them on fire. Asked which house she would rather have, she chose the one on fire 14 out of 17 times and claimed to see no difference and she would, "live in either one". Just because you do not perceive something with conscious thought does not always mean there are not differences.

People like you who propagate these ABX tests like to switch your facts and miss entire points out of convenience, but explain to me why your "awesome and final word" ABX tests missed the anomaly that took one guy less than 10 minutes to hear? Pay more attention next time rather than try and go around the issue. If anything, ABX supporters are the biggest hypocrits and I agree with the hack statement because that is truly what it is, a hack used to prove a point. In real world listening, ABX = pure fails.

Your not only missing the whole point, your doing the same thing you are taking issue with the author about. Convenient but your not doing much for what is becoming a weaker cause by the minute. cool.gif

I already told you I missed the "point." Quotes parroting your own unproven opinion and a receiver "test" that makes as much sense as tasting them doesn't explain anything to me, and probably not to a lot of people too smart to engage in this nonsense.

You really don't understand the implication of saying a test is wrong because the results don't match what you already "know" to be true? Or that conducting a sighted version of a blind test is not the same test? Or that a study about a supposed subliminal effect of a visual stimulus offers no link whatsoever to audio beyond someone speculating that it could be similar?

You keep repeating that no one has given you evidence, but they have. There are links to tests throughout this thread. (You even reference Harley quoting one. Hint: One person doing sighted what 60 people failed to do blind points toward the 60 as the more accurate description of listening.) You meanwhile, have offered no evidence beyond your test. The fact that someone else (you or Harley's guy) "proves" something in a different test does not refute the arguments put to you.

And just to clarify my position: I'm the guy KBarnes wrote about. I don't know too much about this stuff (don't care too much about it, either), and look to this site for information and advice. I don't have any kind of dog in this fight. I do have an interest in knowing why people believe the things they do. And I have too much time on my hands.

I know how to read, and have read a whole lot of discussions on this and similar topics over the past couple years, and I'll tell you one thing: The "people like you who propagate these ABX tests" (incidentally, I haven't propagated anything) have offered evidence to support their position. The other side offers nothing beyond regurgitated opinion or "proof by authority."

When people tell you that sighted, level unmatched tests present a poor basis for comparison, you (and others) offer pretend "tests" which are . . . sighted and level unmatched. Then you wonder why those people don't accept your "proof."

Carry on.
post #394 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

That article was something...I'm from a science background with some understanding of statistics and DBT were always the best in my grad school experiments at scripps. I don't see how the fundamental concepts of a DBT don't relate to a DBT for audio?

While 1 guy was able to tell the difference, 60 others couldn't. Not bad once again, it's just like loseless vs lossy biggrin.gif The article doesn't state the background of the 60 experts which is very important if it was a scientific paper. I'll look up on it later.

Frankly, I'm not quite ready to accept that anecdote as entirely true, mostly because every time I've seen this story, it's been the same exact quote. Search "Locanthi Swedish Radio" on Google and you'll see what I mean. It's like nobody is allowed to paraphrase or provide independent verification of this. It looks like this could be a combination of appeal to authority and circular source references, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's not.

Is there a press release from Swedish radio or perhaps an article by Mr. Locanthi regarding this matter? It interests me.
post #395 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You heard a difference because there WAS a difference. Your testing methods guaranteed it. Do you really not see that using two sets of speakers, in two different places in the room (as just one example) would invalidate a test designed to show any differences between amplifiers?
Kbarnes, you are yet again missing the picture. I DID hook them up so the Denon and Pioneer switched speakers, and guess what that did to the sound? Nothing. Same sound signature.

Trouble is, I anticpated this many posts ago. In post 304 to be exact:

"Exactly what an informed person expects given all of the points that are marked FAIL above."

IOW any of the points marked fail are sufficient to explain the results you obtained. Addressing just one of them is insufficient.

I said that exactly in post 306:

"Any of the 3 sure errors are capable of invalidating a comparison of two AVRs."

So my friend, you are at least a day late and several dollars short!
Quote:
I don't know, it has been me vs like 15 people and I seem to be holding my own.

As they say, Love is blind. In this case it appears to be self-love. ;-)

You may think you are holding your own, but that might be because you can't hear everybody laughing at the ludicrous logic and numerous technical errors in your posts.
post #396 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOOM ZOOM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Yes, but if you are an audio salesman/woman you NEED to push the $125 HDMI cable, because even if you are "non-commission", you still want to be the best salesman/woman on the floor! At least the expensive cables "look" better rolleyes.gif







Zoom Zoom

I agree 100%. Now how about the person who buys that $125 cable, You can bet your last dollar that they will be praising the sound of their $125 cable. And all the science and tests in the world will not change their mind. The human brain is wired for emotional satisfaction first, before science.



even in your statement you acknowledge the emotional satisfaction of being a sales person. "being the best on the floor."

IMO Bruce
First off, I would never buy a cable for $125.00. I buy the cheap but good ones like you find on Amazon and they have never let me down. I also know you can buy a $1000 cable and thanks to most cables being able to carry more "signal" than is needed in most cases, there would be no change in quality.

For the rest, I have never had a sales job but I have friends, my mom, and others that have. There is always pressure to sell things and a lot of quotas to fill. For example, the famous electronics store (blue with yellow signs) the workers are "non-commission" but they will be called in the office if they make no sales. What I stated is fact and observation.

No one here is the best on the floor and I am not trying to be. When I came in here, I saw more than 1 person trying to belittle everyone. Being the best is not when you have to come in and "show" or tell everyone you are. A truly knowledgeable person does their best to help others, not belittle them.
post #397 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by runnin' View Post


Before you start any new threads, Arnie, there is this little matter. You have absolutely no proof here,

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've illustrated many of my comments with articles from peer-reviewed technical journals that I have properly cited either directly or indirectly.

Perhaps you are unaware of what it means to cite from peer-reviewed technical journals. So be it!

BTW, here's the master-cite:

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=3839

High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator

A system for the practical implementation of double-blind audibility tests is described. The controller is a self-contained unit, designed to provide setup and operational convenience while giving the user maximum sensitivity to detect differences. Standards for response matching and other controls are suggested as well as statistical methods of evaluating data. Test results to date are summarized.

Author: Clark, David
Affiliation: ABX Company, Troy, MI
JAES Volume 30 Issue 5 pp. 330-338; May 1982

Still valid and relevant after all these years...
post #398 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Frankly, I'm not quite ready to accept that anecdote as entirely true, mostly because every time I've seen this story, it's been the same exact quote. Search "Locanthi Swedish Radio" on Google and you'll see what I mean. It's like nobody is allowed to paraphrase or provide independent verification of this. It looks like this could be a combination of appeal to authority and circular source references, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's not.

Is there a press release from Swedish radio or perhaps an article by Mr. Locanthi regarding this matter? It interests me.
I found it, you just have to search properly. The problem is the article is $10. I will find it, when I have time later.
post #399 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've illustrated many of my comments with articles from peer-reviewed technical journals that I have properly cited either directly or indirectly.

Perhaps you are unware of what it means to cite from peer-reviewed technical journals. So be it!
Why you dodging my challenge? I asked for the science and you are the one who is a day late and a few dollars short here. Instead of trying to belittle more people, teach us o'wise one. We are waiting for your advanced expertise!

Your coming up short Arnold.
post #400 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Trouble is, I anticpated this many posts ago. In post 304 to be exact:

"Exactly what an informed person expects given all of the points that are marked FAIL above."

IOW any of the points marked fail are sufficient to explain the results you obtained. Addressing just one of them is insufficient.

I said that exactly in post 306:

"Any of the 3 sure errors are capable of invalidating a comparison of two AVRs."

So my friend, you are at least a day late and several dollars short!
As they say, Love is blind. In this case it appears to be self-love. ;-)

You may think you are holding your own, but that might be because you can't hear everybody laughing at the ludicrous logic and numerous technical errors in your posts.
Actually, I am laughing at you and I am not the only one! My PM box has more than 1 person thanking me. I am putting you in your place and you have produced more errors in your logic than anyone here. Your cradle is the one being rocked, ego is preventing you from seeing it.
post #401 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pokekevin View Post

That article was something...I'm from a science background with some understanding of statistics and DBT were always the best in my grad school experiments at scripps. I don't see how the fundamental concepts of a DBT don't relate to a DBT for audio?

While 1 guy was able to tell the difference, 60 others couldn't. Not bad once again, it's just like loseless vs lossy biggrin.gif The article doesn't state the background of the 60 experts which is very important if it was a scientific paper. I'll look up on it later.

Frankly, I'm not quite ready to accept that anecdote as entirely true, mostly because every time I've seen this story, it's been the same exact quote. Search "Locanthi Swedish Radio" on Google and you'll see what I mean. It's like nobody is allowed to paraphrase or provide independent verification of this. It looks like this could be a combination of appeal to authority and circular source references, but I'm willing to entertain the notion that it's not.

Is there a press release from Swedish radio or perhaps an article by Mr. Locanthi regarding this matter? It interests me.

BTW, the comparison methodology used in the Swedish Radio tests was not ABX. The anecdote is therefore irrelevant to a discussion of ABX. ABX did exist and was well-known at the time. They just chose a different methodology.
post #402 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I have no idea what you are talking about. I've illustrated many of my comments with articles from peer-reviewed technical journals that I have properly cited either directly or indirectly.

Perhaps you are unware of what it means to cite from peer-reviewed technical journals. So be it!
Why you dodging my challenge? I asked for the science and you are the one who is a day late and a few dollars short here. Instead of trying to belittle more people, teach us o'wise one. We are waiting for your advanced expertise!

Your coming up short Arnold.

It is not my job to do your research for you.

It is my job to show that your research has serious problems, which the many critical comments that you have left unanswered shows that you are incapable of properly responding to.
post #403 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

BTW, the comparison methodology used in the Swedish Radio tests was not ABX. The anecdote is therefore irrelevant to a discussion of ABX. ABX did exist and was well-known at the time. They just chose a different methodology.

Ah hahaha! That's funny!
post #404 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post


No one here is the best on the floor and I am not trying to be. When I came in here, I saw more than 1 person trying to belittle everyone. Being the best is not when you have to come in and "show" or tell everyone you are. A truly knowledgeable person does their best to help others, not belittle them.

I have gotten a lot of knowledge my self from AVS, some times you have to look past comments that seem to be bellittleing. Music is a passion that tends to bring out emotions when there is a differance in opinion...

My best to every one.smile.gif
Edited by ZOOM ZOOM - 2/12/13 at 10:05am
post #405 of 540
Educate me please. What does a preamp do that would alter the sound between two different receivers.
post #406 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post


Kbarnes, in your infinite wisdom: How come ABX testing carried out over 20,000 hours with 60 people (and I learned, they often switched people) failed to pick up distortion a guy who did normal listening picked up in less than 10 minutes? If ABX is so effective, and you are basically saying you NEED ABX testing to know the "facts", tell me the facts about the way the ABX method failed. As soon as the guy heard it, suddenly they all did. It was like magic! As I asked, how effective are ABX tests when they failed to find easily discernible DISTORTION? How could you possibly use it to compare components if you cannot pick up something like that, which is quite crucial?

The above is an example of yet another serious mistake by you-know-who. The Swedish radiio tests did not involve ABX testing.

The probable source of this misunderstanding that was promulgated by Robert Harley himself. He writes:

"not believe that one simple protocol—double-blind or A/B or ABX—is the answer to all kinds of measurement problems."

Notice that he conflates or confuses "double-blind or A/B or ABX". They are in fact 3 different things. The first and the second are actually not even the same kind of thing.

Please let me clear this up.

ABX is one of many, many different kinds of double-blind test. Different kinds of tests have different goals and their outcomes have different meanings. All ABX tests are double-blind but not all double blind tests are ABX. All A/B tests are not ABX tests but all ABX tests include A/B tests.

Beyond that please let me point out that there is no single answer to all kinds of measurement problems. ABX can't be an answer to any measurement problem because it is a subjective test and not a test that involves audio measurements.

I hope that just the total and complete confusion that I find in one of the many incorrect things that Robert Harley has written about ABX gives the reader an inkling of what an incredible source of misinformation, confusion, and disinformation that he is. IMO the reason for this is pretty obvious - the outcome of any kind of reasonable reliable listening test can be reasonably expected to demolish his business model.
post #407 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Educate me please. What does a preamp do that would alter the sound between two different receivers.

It could possibly add noise and distortion that would alter any sound passing through it. There are easy ways to confirm or deny this, but until they are done reliably, we just don't know.
post #408 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

BTW, the comparison methodology used in the Swedish Radio tests was not ABX. The anecdote is therefore irrelevant to a discussion of ABX. ABX did exist and was well-known at the time. They just chose a different methodology.

Ah hahaha! That's funny!

I can't find a direct quote, but what I have found says that the Swedes followed ITU procedures. AFAIK the most relevant ITU procedure would be ITU BS 1116-1 which I have cited and linked to the full text of in this thread several times. The listening test methodology recommended in ITU BS 1116-1 is called "ABC/hr" which is a completely different test than ABX and has a different goal than detection of audible differences with maximum sensitivity.

Harley has missed the point of the test and he is conveying the impression that the test was different from what it actually was.

As far as Harley seems to be mentally from understanding DBTs, he probably thinks that ABX and ABC/hr are the same thing! ;-) Clearly other people posting on this thread were completely taken in by this mess.
post #409 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As far as Harley seems to be mentally from understanding DBTs, he probably thinks that ABX and ABC/hr are the same thing! ;-) Clearly other people posting on this thread were completely taken in by this mess.

Hey, I am often busy and don't have time to read past the first two letters, either, Ar...thur?
post #410 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

You heard a difference because there WAS a difference. Your testing methods guaranteed it. Do you really not see that using two sets of speakers, in two different places in the room (as just one example) would invalidate a test designed to show any differences between amplifiers?
Kbarnes, you are yet again missing the picture. I DID hook them up so the Denon and Pioneer switched speakers, and guess what that did to the sound? Nothing. Same sound signature. Your excuses are getting more vague.

I don't know, it has been me vs like 15 people and I seem to be holding my own.

Kbarnes, in your infinite wisdom: How come ABX testing carried out over 20,000 hours with 60 people (and I learned, they often switched people) failed to pick up distortion a guy who did normal listening picked up in less than 10 minutes? If ABX is so effective, and you are basically saying you NEED ABX testing to know the "facts", tell me the facts about the way the ABX method failed. As soon as the guy heard it, suddenly they all did. It was like magic! As I asked, how effective are ABX tests when they failed to find easily discernible DISTORTION? How could you possibly use it to compare components if you cannot pick up something like that, which is quite crucial?

Arny? Kbarnes? Please inform us...stir the excuse pot! I asked for the science, or an INTELLIGENT refute. Not excuses, excuses are made by those who cannot give proper answers.

Your not going to make me go away, when people come into a place and try acting like I do not know what I am doing (talk down to me), I want to see if I am truly looking up to them. So far, I am looking down at you because I have presented facts and arguments completely ignored. Hyperbole, excuses, and the like but other than skewed facts and opinions I am missing the science behind your "answers". Answers made for convenience rather than intelligent conversation.

Be careful when you think you are superior to others, simple facts can override one's ego.

Be careful yourself!

The tests you are writing about did not involve ABX tests.


FAIL!
post #411 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

 
Either way a canary or two is sacrificed when Keith switches equipment. smile.gif

 

eek.gif :)

post #412 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
I don't know, it has been me vs like 15 people and I seem to be holding my own.

As they say, Love is blind. In this case it appears to be self-love. ;-)

You may think you are holding your own, but that might be because you can't hear everybody laughing at the ludicrous logic and numerous technical errors in your posts.

 

He's definitely "holding his own" I think wink.gif

post #413 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MUDCAT45 View Post

IMO there are some faults in ABX testing. 1. There is some mental pressure (stress) for participants as there is for most any testing. 

But there is no 'stress' involved when taking the 'audiophile' kind of test that just involves listening??  If being tested induces stress which is then able to invalidate the results, this will presumably apply to ANY kind of test. If that is so, then no tests of any sort will ever produce a reliable result. That does seem to me to be stretching credulity somewhat.

I find sighted evaluations far more stressful than blind tests because in a blind test I don't have to try to be unbiased. I can just listen. The results will be unbiased no matter how little or how much I try to be unbiased.
post #414 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Quote:
Quote:
I don't know, it has been me vs like 15 people and I seem to be holding my own.


As they say, Love is blind. In this case it appears to be self-love. ;-)


You may think you are holding your own, but that might be because you can't hear everybody laughing at the ludicrous logic and numerous technical errors in your posts.

He's definitely "holding his own" I think wink.gif

I guess the question is "... holding his own... ...what?" ;-)
post #415 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I guess the question is "... holding his own... ...what?" ;-)

Some questions don't need to be asked or answered! eek.gif
post #416 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

As far as Harley seems to be mentally from understanding DBTs, he probably thinks that ABX and ABC/hr are the same thing! ;-) Clearly other people posting on this thread were completely taken in by this mess.

Hey, I am often busy and don't have time to read past the first two letters, either, Ar...thur?

Well, OK.

BTW if you ever get around to reading the letters related to Harley's article at http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1, you might want to read mine. Hmm, can't find it? Neither can I. But I did write one. I even say it posted after I wrote it. I wonder if there was any editing of particularly troubling letters ever going on there? ;-)

Also notice that the link to the original article appears to be broken.
post #417 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I guess the question is "... holding his own... ...what?" ;-)

Some questions don't need to be asked or answered! eek.gif

TMI! ;-)
post #418 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricsim78 View Post

 
Kbarnes, in your infinite wisdom: How come ABX testing carried out over 20,000 hours with 60 people (and I learned, they often switched people) failed to pick up distortion a guy who did normal listening picked up in less than 10 minutes? If ABX is so effective, and you are basically saying you NEED ABX testing to know the "facts", tell me the facts about the way the ABX method failed. As soon as the guy heard it, suddenly they all did. It was like magic! As I asked, how effective are ABX tests when they failed to find easily discernible DISTORTION? How could you possibly use it to compare components if you cannot pick up something like that, which is quite crucial?

 

 

LOL!  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Arny has already answered this so I have nothing to add.

 

As an aside, and please don't take this the wrong way, but your amazingly stubborn attempts at denying so much evidence which is being put to you is starting to make you look foolish.

post #419 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Well, OK.

BTW if you ever get around to reading the letters related to Harley's article at http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1, you might want to read mine. Hmm, can't find it? Neither can I. But I did write one. I even say it posted after I wrote it. I wonder if there was any editing of particularly troubling letters ever going on there? ;-)

Also notice that the link to the original article appears to be broken.

You mean this?
Quote:
Arnold B. Krueger (not verified) -- Sun, 05/03/2009 - 04:31
"No matter what imagined or real flaws there are to controlled testing methodologies, I am here to tell you that the flaws in uncontrolled (sighted) listening tests are, not several times, not dozens of times, but thousands of times larger in magnitude. People who do not grasp this simply do not understand the human mind. The imagination will so overwhelm the content of the nerve impulses travelling from the sense organs to the brain, that all conclusions drawn from such uncontrolled listening have zero value. Zero. I am sorry. Sadly for us all, the conscious mind makes it its business to convince us that the conclusions it draws after the imagination has done its work are not perceptions, but Reality."

Pedantically speaking, the difference beetween invalid and even a little bit valid is the same as the comparison between zero and any non-zero number. The difference is an irrational number. Seems fitting since basing *anything* on inherently grotesquely-flawed evidence in the face of well-formed evidence is irrational. In fact a Single Presentation evaluation fails to conform to the definition of a test, since there is no immediate reliable reference.
I think that it is very telling that Harley's 5/28/2008 editorial is based on a single test that was done almost 20 years ago.
Nobody knows how many DBTs have been done since the early 1990s, but the number is probably up in the 100's of thousands. A great many of them were related to the development of perceptual coders, so they had positive outcomes. Yet so many highly visible DBT critics like Fremer, Atkinson, and Harley keep on about maybe 5 DBTs that happened way back when.
It's also very telling that Harley descended into name-calling directed towards people who that he disagrees with.

Nope, couldn't find it. ;-)
post #420 of 540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JD in NJ View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

Well, OK.

BTW if you ever get around to reading the letters related to Harley's article at http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1, you might want to read mine. Hmm, can't find it? Neither can I. But I did write one. I even say it posted after I wrote it. I wonder if there was any editing of particularly troubling letters ever going on there? ;-)

Also notice that the link to the original article appears to be broken.

You mean this?
Quote:
Arnold B. Krueger (not verified) -- Sun, 05/03/2009 - 04:31
"No matter what imagined or real flaws there are to controlled testing methodologies, I am here to tell you that the flaws in uncontrolled (sighted) listening tests are, not several times, not dozens of times, but thousands of times larger in magnitude. People who do not grasp this simply do not understand the human mind. The imagination will so overwhelm the content of the nerve impulses travelling from the sense organs to the brain, that all conclusions drawn from such uncontrolled listening have zero value. Zero. I am sorry. Sadly for us all, the conscious mind makes it its business to convince us that the conclusions it draws after the imagination has done its work are not perceptions, but Reality."

Pedantically speaking, the difference beetween invalid and even a little bit valid is the same as the comparison between zero and any non-zero number. The difference is an irrational number. Seems fitting since basing *anything* on inherently grotesquely-flawed evidence in the face of well-formed evidence is irrational. In fact a Single Presentation evaluation fails to conform to the definition of a test, since there is no immediate reliable reference.
I think that it is very telling that Harley's 5/28/2008 editorial is based on a single test that was done almost 20 years ago.
Nobody knows how many DBTs have been done since the early 1990s, but the number is probably up in the 100's of thousands. A great many of them were related to the development of perceptual coders, so they had positive outcomes. Yet so many highly visible DBT critics like Fremer, Atkinson, and Harley keep on about maybe 5 DBTs that happened way back when.
It's also very telling that Harley descended into name-calling directed towards people who that he disagrees with.

Nope, couldn't find it. ;-)

Good job!

BTW can you make this link work - its on every page of Harley's 2008 article:

http://www.avguide.com/news/2008/05/28/the-role-of-critical-listening-in-evaluating-audio-equipment-quality/.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Receivers, Amps, and Processors
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Receivers, Amps, and Processors › Count 1 more for all receivers sound the same