In article , Signal
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:


[snip details for brevity]


Ernesto is absolutely correct. The methodology of component
comparison using this kind of "DBTs"- as published in the 1980's
audio mags etc- is way below the quality of the worst of any
published psychiatric and psychotherapeutic results- and that is
saying a lot, believe me. "

The problem with what you said is that you are taking one specific type
of DBT in one field and then simply assuming that this means that
problems of the same kind must arise with a *variety* of types of test,
carried out for a different purpose, in a quite different field. That
is a rather dubious attempt to argue by analogy.

No assumption! The problem Ludovic outlined is indisputably a
fundamental concern to any 'subjective response only' test, for any
field of research, where the mission is to isolate & remove subjective
bias and self deception.

I am afraid you are simply trying to back up one set of assertions with
more assertions. None of the above is evidence. It is simply you stating
your ideas and beliefs whey you assert "No assumption". Nor have you yet
established in detail how this might *specifically* apply to the various
*audio* tests case-by-case.

The trials I have read about often do seem "conclusive" in a quite
clear sense. In many cases they give results which allow us to
conclude that under the conditions of the test, those involved were
unable to show they could tell one item/arrangement from another
used in the comparisons.

For sure, "under the conditions of the test", which often leaves a
lot to be desired.

Again, you'd need to be specific in the relevant cases - i.e. for such
audio experiments, and to give evidence for your argument. Not just
make assertions and cast doubts as 'possible'. :-)

Jim, I'm not merely making assertions, I assume you are already aware
that *many* of the audio related DBT experiments performed to date
(relating to hifi issues at least) are NOT of a scientific calibre.


I am afraid you are still just making assertions. Please be specific, and
note that it isn't enough to dismiss some tests when there are a variety of
them.

If you wish, David Carlstroms site reveals some of the more pitiful
examples. Thankfully he does concedes "It does remain possible a
difference may be substantiated with further testing."

http://www.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_data.htm

Actually, I keep asking for *your* evidence and reasoning. And you keep
giving me quotes, etc, from others which are often themselves a series of
assertions, not evidence. However when I get a chance I will look at the
above to see what actual evidence it is based upon.



Right, well when the funding cheque arrives in the post! You may not
be surprised to learn I don't have the resources to perform a large
scale laboratory grade trial!

You don't necessarily need to. It is quite possible to run a valid
comparison simply using a switchbox or someone to change leads, etc.

This blasé approach is what gets a lot of DBT 'supporters' into trouble.

Another sweeping assertion, I am afraid, again on the basis of focussing
on what looks to me like a cartoon version of a more complex reality.


I think you need to get up to speed, because the latter of the two
examples you have given is problematic, and the former causes grave
concerns for many.

More assertions. :-)

Some simple gear like an rms voltmeter or scope (probably using a
soundcard and computer for these) would suffice for many types of test.
Depends what hypothesis you wish to probe. The idea that this is all
has to be vastly complex and costly is wrong. What you do need, is to
understand the most likely confusing factors, how to design and run a
comparison, and the time and patience to do so and analyse the results.

No that's what *you* need to do, since you grossly underestimate the
intricacies involved.

Afraid I have lost count of how many times I have asked you to detail
these *specific* "intricacies" in the actual audio tests. So far, I
am afraid I have only seen assertions of your own, or quoted assertions
by others.

I think we should at this point agree to differ, because you are clearly
of the 'see no evil, hear no evil' - fingers in ear 'la, la, la'
approach. ;-)

Actually, my main interest was to get you to give the specific details
which *you* regard as supporting your views. By evidence I don't mean the
opinions of others, nor your beliefs, not the ideas of others in other
fields which may or may not be relevant.

If I were as you described I probably would have saved a lot of time and
effort and not bothered to try and discuss these matters with you. :-)

However you have various sweeping assertions about the tests you refer to as
'DBT' in audio, so I have been trying to establish what *evidence* base you
have. I confess I am dissapointed by much of your response, since you seem
to repeatly make assertions as if that in itself made them reliable. I
intend to read some of the references you've given when I get a chance.
But given the way you have decided to produce a cartoon view of my
own position I suppose you are right and we should stop as I would
be wasting both of our times to try any further.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html