Originally Posted by krabapple
Oh dear, be still my heart. Don't promise what you cannot deliver, Amir.
I delivered Steven. I showed how many tests I have passed on this forum. The very tests we demand as proof of audibility. What is the end results. Even more angst on your behalf. It reasons that folks should never take your requests for such evidence seriously. The technique was used as a debating tactic in the past hoping the poster couldn't go and run any double blind tests or was afraid of sharing the same. Now we have proof of that in the way you and the rest of you react to said data.
You 'industry' cheerleaders are constantly eliding an important point from a *consumer* (not academic) viewpoint: just how does a positive research result from a DBT involving trained listeners and maximally revealing conditions (i.e., exactly what you *want* for a *research* protocol) map to a claim someone reads on, say, computeraudiophile, or Neil Young's press releases for Pono, or Stereophile, about how the soundstage 'bloomed', the bass got 'tighter' and 'faster', the 'veil was lifted', as soon as the cables were switched, or as soon as the format was changed from REdbook to hi rez, or as soon as amp B was switched to amp B, or even as soon as loudspeaker A was compared to B. Not after careful listening for a tell, not after 'training' -- but right away.
I don't slash my wrist when someone says something in the Internet if that is what you are asking. I don't go to those forums. Or read what Neil Young has to say. Why would you go there and suffer this way? And which one of them have you endeared by your conduct? If you were the least bit effective those forums wouldn't exist. But exist they are and thriving. This means that your approach is dead wrong. Being mean and nasty, not having proper credentials to espouse what audio "science is," lacking personal experience in both listening tests and measurements, posting mostly information-free, is not working.
Lack of common sense is not noticed either. Do I look like one of the people on those forums? I don't, right? Yet you seem to have serious beef with me too. I constantly share technical references, measurements, listening test results, etc. I should be the perfect model of how you want people to behave. But no. You are more upset at me it seems than many others.
So no matter which way one looks, your mission is a personal one unrelated to what the merit of the topic itself. You want self-satisfaction of being a forum expert which is fine but you need to dress better for the occasion. Look not to what others could do to change, but what you can do different. Start running blind tests. Share them here. Buy the papers in questions. Allow, just for a moment, for technical explanation from people you don't like to sink in. It is just possible that they know more than you in these topics.
Back to your point anyway, if someone is not trying to convince me of something, I could care less what they are discussing among themselves. I don't measure my worth in how many people I walked across the crosswalk thinking they are blind when they can see for themselves. If they walk in front of the car, that is their doing. If they ask me to walk in front of a car, then I will roll up my sleeves to tell them different
That is why I don't go to those forums or care what they have to say. The Neil Young Pono thing is really beyond believable to me. I think they have their head screwed up wrong and will go out of business soon enough. Why on earth do you choose to worry or waste forum bandwidth on it? I mean when was the last time you ran into someone who said they are going to buy one? Why the angst and worry?
Again, think of what you could do different. Neil Young and crew will continue doing what they want. They have not heard of you, nor care what you have to say about it.
Does the mere fact that A and B *can*, under certain conditions, be distinguished, mean that we can or should take claims from sighted evaluations of A and B -- which are THE NORM in audio reporting and reviewing -- at face value, and if so, when?
No, it is the opposite. You, Steven, need to incorporate that into your audio lingo moving forward. Don't go posting on Hydrogenaudio that there is a "train wreck" on AVS Forum because we dared to run the double blind tests presented to us and managed to pass them. Or that an award-winning paper by Stuart et al showed there can be a fidelity loss in conversion of high resolution audio to CD specs. These are opportunities to learn and self-examination of your audio understanding. It is opportunity to think about who led you to the conclusions that these data points invalidate. I can tell you it was not me. Yet you go on and argue with me, and continue to support the people and views that led you astray.
"We' (meaning me, Arny, Peter Aczel, etc., name your notorious 'objectivist', but apparently not you, though you claim to be a well-informed 'objectivist')) already knew that amps *can* be distinguished under some conditions.
I don't care what you knew. I care that none of you, including Arny himself would present the very data you have. That you believe when Arny says he has no copy of that article. I would not put myself in his camp in a million years as you are, lest you want some of what I just said about him to rub on you.
That aside, if you know that, you need to mean it. When someone says they compared two amps and the sounded different, your reaction shouldn't be to go and hang them in a public square. Your conduct needs to reflect what you say you know and it does not in any form or fashion.
That Redbook and hi rez *can* be distinguished under some conditions. That even the best mp3s *can* be distinguished from lossless under some conditions. That even *cables* *can* be distinguished under some conditions. There is no magic, no new science, involved. The 'conditions' of course, are the key.
They are amazing revelations in light of the personal you all have on these forums. Because if that is true, then when anecdotal reports of the same are made here, the few of you would not gang beat the poster.
Are those conditions likely to be encountered by listeners?
I don't know and I don't care. What I care is you objecting to me expressing the very same conclusions above. That you do it with such fervor that shows that you are giving lip service to these words as a debating tactic.
You don't even listen when the logic is not technical. How many times have I explained that me downloading high-resolution masters has no impact on you. There is nothing but goodness from more choices in content delivery to us. This alone should have made you take my side. But no, you are going to oppose this on principal. "How dare you talk about something better than the CD?" It is as if you are getting patent royalties from CD format.
*THAT* is the 'real world' problem, Amir. *THAT* would be important stuff to Joe Audio. Joe Audio wants to know what he should worry about, what he should spend his money on, how he should prioritize. Address*those* questions...or hey, maybe stop posting.
No, you are the problem here and now Steven. I am explaining the science of audio. I am providing copious references and back up. I am providing informed opinion. I am practicing objectivism in the best way possible. That this doesn't sit well with you is a problem we can solve by you changing. What someone random Joe thinks is neither here, nor there. It is just a misdirection to change the topic of you disagreeing with the very bible you say you read every night before going to bed.
Sean Olive uses DBT to address concerns that would be of considerable consumer value: determining what and how audible parameters affect listener preference for loudspeakers. It addresses a measurably and subjectively large problem. Bob Stuart, not so much. The effects he is studying are *tiny* in both dimensions. Moving to hi rez is not going to end the loudness wars or improve acoustics at home --the 'large problems' that Joe Audio actually faces.
There you go. Just like I said above. ignoring the most common sense aspects of this topic.
That aside, what should we outlaw from audio research Steven? Should AES change its charter and only accept speaker papers? Do you think no one should research skin rash and only the only medical research should be for cancer?
Last and certainly least, your amusing and subtly talented amigo jkeny seems to think that demonstrating a difference in a DBT means the difference was thus truly heard by anyone who ever claimed to hear one, or ever will. He seems to think that no one has ever 'learned' or 'trained' themselves to detect a'tell *during* an ABX, after which their score (performance) improves. You know that these things are not true. You might want to educate him.
jkeny and I disagree on many audio topics and have had pretty heated arguments. On this topic though, he has my utmost respect. A guy who doesn't believe in such methodology, puts aside his personal opinion and bias and runs the test.
You on the other hand claim to care and value double blind ABX tests. Here we have Arny, the "ABX man himself" creating a test and what do you do? Won't run and report it? How can you continue to post with a straight face Steven? You can keep trying to change the topic to other people but I post what I am posting because *you* need to learn and change. Don't worry about others. You are in the hot seat. And the seat has never been hotter....