|
|
DBT in audio - a protocol
elmir2m wrote EddieM wrote: snip ------------------------------------------------- Let's look at your argument with Mr. Pearce: You said: "Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences between his gear as compared to others during your test ? What did it proved? He answered: That any difference was too small to be audible. I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of it?. My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null "The majority heard no difference" outcome. But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND liked the SET better. Horrors! Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the experiment Ludovic Mirabel. Thank you kindly for your response Dr. Mirabel. Your point is well taken. It is obvious that Mr. Pearce is gearing himself up with his propose audio testing to ridicule and lambast audiophiles accross the sea. Pearce Consulting |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Clyde Slick wrote See, the trick is they will only test what they want to show as no difference. What they want to claim as differnt, they will NOT test. There "excuse" is claiming that one is a subtle difference, but the other is an obvious difference. But maybe the test is so poorly designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences. this is nothing they do not want to see, and do not want others to see. Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of preconceiving that things sound the same. Most excellent points. You have my vote sir. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:00:12 GMT, "EddieM" wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: ScottW wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado, it is very unsound and very, very bad. Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have identified right away. You have been very helpful. How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce? The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post.... you can't. So forget it. ScottW How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond and what is it about my post that you think it would not be possible? And what with this tonic about? The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose to help, oh well. Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to make it good. None. What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? All of it. How can they be improved? I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time. This is your idea of helping, is it? I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being goaded into a reply. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You have to realize that Eddie doesn't understand anything about bias free listening. He doesn't understand why levels should be matched, and he really doesn't believe that there is anything better than sighted listening. As far as he's concerned, them dang tests just makes everything sound the same. What could be better than using one's own ears? Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message oups.com... EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: You sure resent something it if it don't serve you well. It didn't serve anybody - including me. I am sorry that it didn't served you. I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being goaded into a reply. Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences between his gear as compared to others during your test ? What did it proved? That any difference was too small to be audible. QED But isn't your experiment and test protocol suppose to help detect subtle differences ? Are you saying that your test would proved that this experiment will not help detect small differences ? You clearly didn't read it. Neither have you read the several explanations I have given over the course of the thread. Where did the small differences go? How did the experiment prove it was never there? ------------------------------------------------- Let's look at your argument with Mr. Pearce: You said: "Tell me what happen if the subject fail to detect subtle differences between his gear as compared to others during your test ? What did it proved? He answered: That any difference was too small to be audible. I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than Solid State No it is not. There are some very fine tubed amps that sound exactly like SS amps. and that SET tubed amplifiers are the worst of the worst. Not an article of faith, but a fact. From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of it?. It's good enough for one person to find out if there's a difference he/she can hear. You don't really need to a group test for any reason, other than to satisfy you. My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null "The majority heard no difference" outcome. That's the thing you keep missing, some will possibly hear a difference. Some will not, that only shows that some people hear better than others. For the ones who didn't hear a difference, they can stop worrying about spending tons of cash, since they can't hear subtle differences anyway. :-) But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND liked the SET better. That would be a choice they get to make if they hear a difference. Pity they might never get to hear accurate reproduction at home again. Horrors! Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the experiment The thing that should be avoided is your ideas about what makes a valid audio DBT. Pearce Consulting |
DBT in audio - a protocol
duh-Mikey, whipped in his political "debates", retreats to his Temple of Moronism. You have to realize that Eddie doesn't understand anything about bias free listening. He doesn't understand why levels should be matched, and he really doesn't believe that there is anything better than sighted listening. Let it be known (again) that the same is true for you, Mickey. You have NEVER participated in ANY "blind" auditions, or "tests", or "trials". You have ZERO knowledge and experience of anything other than "sighted listening". All you have that Normals don't have is your blind faith. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote They disappeared along with the visual stimulus which produced them. They were there - they existed in the visual domain. Once that was removed, they disappeared as well. [Ok... we're back...] Just in case you didn't get the joke below, what you said above is a non-sequitur. You can fool some of the folks some of the time with your audiophoolery Mr. Pearce, but the Buck stops a Rao. Are you stating that if audiophiles detect small difference in a sighted listening that this difference tend to disappear if they close their eyes, or if they decide to look the other way such as focusing on the wall ? Are you trolling? You know perfectly well that this is not what is meant by sighted vs. unsighted. Why did you, yet again, recklessly circumnavigated ( with total disregard!) the points I raise pertaining to the issue of perception which I pasted from a discussion I recently had with McKelvy ? How can I really, really be assured Mr. Pearce, that should I pay attention and heedfully reflect upon your testing protocol that you'll be responding in kind to issues I raise with your utmost confidence? Mr. Pearce, is this why you keep the components under test hidden from the view of the test subject in your propose Double Blind testing because in this case, the small differences will disappear in the absence of visual stimulus ? C'mon now. OK - I've now had enough of you and your stupidity. No more replies. So where did the small differences go, Mr. Pearce? If the small differences exist only in the visual domain, how does your propose audio testing methodology prove that the small differences do not exist ? WHAT you're saying thus far is that your propose Double Blind testing will produce valid proof that the small differences present in the visual domain do not exist because your test will be able to provide results as valid proof that when the components are hidden from view, the small differences does not exist. Mr. Pearce, do you realize how ridiculous this is ? Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
nyob123 wrote Don Pearce wrote Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You have to realize that Eddie doesn't understand anything about bias free listening. He doesn't understand why levels should be matched, As I repeatedly said to you before, it's not why, but rather, if whether there is an untoward effect to the unit itself when the level is change from mfr.'s setting and, the affect to the test subjects themselves when the level is change from the way they percieve the unit's sound overall. and he really doesn't believe that there is anything better than sighted listening. As far as he's concerned, them dang tests just makes everything sound the same. What could be better than using one's own ears? Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. The above from you is an opinion you get to have. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
EddieM wrote: nyob123 wrote Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. The above from you is an opinion you get to have. Of course you could prove him wrong. ScottW |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message .. . wrote in message oups.com... He answered: That any difference was too small to be audible. I have a suggestion for him to prove his point without fail. It is an article of faith in the chapel that tubed amplifiers are worse than Solid State and that SET tubed amplifiers are the worst of the worst. From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference". If the "test" with his improved protocol fails to make a decent-sized average audio buyers panel hear that difference with statistical validity then what is the point of it?. My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null "The majority heard no difference" outcome. But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND liked the SET better. Horrors! Two excellent reason to continue spouting speculation and avoid the experiment See, the trick is they will only test what they want to show as no difference. Paranoia runs deep. In fact its a lot more ego-satisfying for a listener to say that he does hear a difference. Not really, some egos are satisfied by saying there are none. Just depends on the person. What they want to claim as different, they will NOT test. If SET amps grew on trees we would have tested them long ago. But, who in their right mind wants to pay money for such an intentional POS as a SET? What SET manufacturer wants to sponsor a DBT of their product? SET's are not the issue. There "excuse" is claiming that one is a subtle difference, but the other is an obvious difference. It's not an excuse, its already documented. no its not, its just set by definiton. by definitioin, what fails the test is subtle, what passes the test is obvious. But maybe the test is so poorly designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences. Maybe there's a communist under every bed! ;-) In Cuba, that's likely. where there 'are' differences, they are ovfuscated. this is nothing they do not want to see, and do not want others to see. Double negatives, anybody? Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of preconceiving that things sound the same. A paranoid myth that the high end audio wants to use to pull the wool over people's eyes with. you earlier admitted that the bias of no difference cannot be compelled to be removed. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. It takes a pretty blinkered mind to want an amplifier that clearly and audibly colors every sound passing through it. That's why we don't like most ss. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:07:13 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? How can they be improved? The specific aspect that it is bad? Well, this: There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the listener. 1) no bias 2) bias that thngs will sound different 3) bias that things will sound the same. The test does not eliminate the third item. There is no possibility of the third term existing. This test has been designed specifically for subjects who claim to be able to hear the difference between items. There will thus always be bias number two present, which the test is designed to circumvent. For the first term - no bias - it is highly unlikely that such a person would be interested in stepping up to the test. hmm, such a person might be more curious than one ensconced with a bias, one way or the other. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:57:49 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. For different reasons, I agree with you, I think the differences would reappear (not that they are illusions). At any rate, even if they were illusions, I would still select the components that provided these "illusions', as long as they were preferable, and the price was right. How could the differences appear and disappear if they are not illusory? The right price would, of course be no charge, since you get equally good sounding freebies with most kit. even if it were illusory, if it were more pleasing, I would go for it, price being right. Why go with something you percieve as being inferior, one can't be happy with that. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:56:22 -0500, "Clyde Slick"
wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:57:49 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message . .. Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. For different reasons, I agree with you, I think the differences would reappear (not that they are illusions). At any rate, even if they were illusions, I would still select the components that provided these "illusions', as long as they were preferable, and the price was right. How could the differences appear and disappear if they are not illusory? The right price would, of course be no charge, since you get equally good sounding freebies with most kit. even if it were illusory, if it were more pleasing, I would go for it, price being right. Why go with something you percieve as being inferior, one can't be happy with that. Amazing the amount of back-pedalling going on around here right now. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:30:24 GMT, wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:00:12 GMT, "EddieM" wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: ScottW wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com Mr. Pearce, I had a quick look at the protocol for your propose Double Blind audio testing. Quite frankly and without further ado, it is very unsound and very, very bad. Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have identified right away. You have been very helpful. How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce? The answer can be readily ascertain from the rest of your post.... you can't. So forget it. ScottW How are you able to ascertain this if he hasn't respond and what is it about my post that you think it would not be possible? And what with this tonic about? The plain fact of the matter is that Mr. Pearce has been talkin on this thread over at uk.rec. since, but not here. How am I suppose to help, oh well. Well, I wouldn't want to see you upset, Eddie. So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? There's nothing in your protocol that can possibly be done to make it good. None. What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? All of it. How can they be improved? I'm sorry to be somewhat blatant with you Mr. Pearce, but every time you ask your subject to sit down, aware, taking your test and consciously follow your protocol, you're ****ed most of the time. This is your idea of helping, is it? I was right first time. Sorry I wasted everybody's time by being goaded into a reply. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com You have to realize that Eddie doesn't understand anything about bias free listening. He doesn't understand why levels should be matched, and he really doesn't believe that there is anything better than sighted listening. As far as he's concerned, them dang tests just makes everything sound the same. What could be better than using one's own ears? Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. So I've found. I've dealt with the matter permanently now, though. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Amazing the amount of back-pedalling going on around here right now. Only if you were mislead into thinking that you were dealing with reasonable people, Don. ;-) |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... Of course, the other major flaw is that it does not remove the bias of preconceiving that things sound the same. A paranoid myth that the high end audio wants to use to pull the wool over people's eyes with. you earlier admitted that the bias of no difference cannot be compelled to be removed. That's wrong. Try again! |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... duh-Mikey, whipped in his political "debates", retreats to his Temple of Moronism. You have to realize that Eddie doesn't understand anything about bias free listening. He doesn't understand why levels should be matched, and he really doesn't believe that there is anything better than sighted listening. Let it be known (again) that the same is true for you, Mickey. You have NEVER participated in ANY "blind" auditions, or "tests", or "trials". No relevance to knowing that such tests are usefula and valid, not to mention the standard for research into subtle difference. I mentioned before that I have compared speaker cable blind and there was no difference when doing so. It was that experience that convinced me of the validity of such tests. You have ZERO knowledge and experience of anything other than "sighted listening". See above. All you have that Normals don't have is your blind faith. Wrong again, but keep up the bull****, it's what you are best at. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:56:22 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:57:49 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message . .. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:12:59 -0500, "Clyde Slick" wrote: "Don Pearce" wrote in message .. . Of course. My test has nothing to do with the majority. My test is for the very few who claim they can reliably - and we usually get claims like "night and day" - hear the difference between two items; I used interconnects for my example. The test is designed to establish whether they can in reality hear the difference, or if their knowledge of what is connected overrides the audible cues. I(f they can really *hear* a difference, they will continue to do so even unsighted. My test goes out of its way to make sure they have every advantage that can be given to them in making their choice - apart of course from actually knowing what is connected. After you concluded your tests, did you ever do this? Advise the subjects of thier results, i.e., that they could not hear the sighted differences when tested blind. Retest the subjects sighted. Find out if the knowledge of the test results affected their sighted judgements. Didi the preeived differences reappear when sighted again, or not? If only I'd had the opportunity. Nobody has yet taken the test (rather a couple of people have, and predictably crashed and burned, but I was not involved). I suspect, though that the differences might well reappear - illusions are fun in that they work even when you have seen through them. For different reasons, I agree with you, I think the differences would reappear (not that they are illusions). At any rate, even if they were illusions, I would still select the components that provided these "illusions', as long as they were preferable, and the price was right. How could the differences appear and disappear if they are not illusory? The right price would, of course be no charge, since you get equally good sounding freebies with most kit. even if it were illusory, if it were more pleasing, I would go for it, price being right. Why go with something you percieve as being inferior, one can't be happy with that. Amazing the amount of back-pedalling going on around here right now. I've said that all along, been saying it for years. .. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, That is how we always listen to music at home. The DBT is not real world conditions. I listen sighted, so I want to listen to what I prefer when comparing in the sighted mode. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
nyob123 wrote: I mentioned before that I have compared speaker cable blind and there was no difference when doing so. It was that experience that convinced me of the validity of such tests. It is not your experience that should convince whether the test is valid or not, Bozo. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
ScottW wrote EddieM wrote: nyob123 wrote Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. The above from you is an opinion you get to have. Of course you could prove him wrong. ScottW How the **** am I suppose to prove that these two cowards i.e. Pearce and McKelvy to be wrong if all these two ****in assholes wants to do is run away with their tail in-tuck. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"EddieM" wrote in message ... ScottW wrote EddieM wrote: nyob123 wrote Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. The above from you is an opinion you get to have. Of course you could prove him wrong. ScottW How the **** am I suppose to prove that these two cowards i.e. Pearce and McKelvy to be wrong if all these two ****in assholes wants to do is run away with their tail in-tuck. By providing some helpful input instead of looking like a squid ****ing ink in fear. ScottW |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. That is how we always listen to music at home. So what? The DBT is not real world conditions. If you want to take that viewpoint, then no listening test done at a stereo show or dealer is valid either. I listen sighted, so I want to listen to what I prefer when comparing in the sighted mode. IOW Art, you only want to take a test if the right answer is presented to you in an obvious way. This then isn't about reinforcing preferences, its about reinforcing biases. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
ScottW wrote EddieM wrote ScottW wrote EddieM wrote: nyob123 wrote Asking him for help is not likely to get you any results that could be helpful. The above from you is an opinion you get to have. Of course you could prove him wrong. ScottW How the **** am I suppose to prove that these two cowards i.e. Pearce and McKelvy to be wrong if all these two ****in assholes wants to do is run away with their tail in-tuck. By providing some helpful input I been doin that all along, are you blind ? instead of looking like a squid ****ing ink in fear. What do you mean by that ? ScottW |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. That is how we always listen to music at home. So what? You would say that! The DBT is not real world conditions. If you want to take that viewpoint, then no listening test done at a stereo show or dealer is valid either. Well, I don't do tests there, I do comparisons. And I would use the term valid a little differently than you, I am not using it in the scientific senses, because it is not about science, nor about scientific tests. But, yes, such comparisons are of limited use. I listen sighted, so I want to listen to what I prefer when comparing in the sighted mode. IOW Art, you only want to take a test if the right answer is presented to you in an obvious way. No, not the 'right' is the answer that applies to my perceptions when I am listening casually, for enjoyment, sighted, wahtever that answer might be, obvious or not This then isn't about reinforcing preferences, its about reinforcing biases. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. That is how we always listen to music at home. So what? You would say that! The DBT is not real world conditions. If you want to take that viewpoint, then no listening test done at a stereo show or dealer is valid either. Well, I don't do tests there, I do comparisons. And I would use the term valid a little differently than you, I am not using it in the scientific senses, because it is not about science, nor about scientific tests. But, yes, such comparisons are of limited use. I listen sighted, so I want to listen to what I prefer when comparing in the sighted mode. IOW Art, you only want to take a test if the right answer is presented to you in an obvious way. No, not the 'right' is the answer that applies to my perceptions when I am listening casually, for enjoyment, sighted, wahtever that answer might be, obvious or not This then isn't about reinforcing preferences, its about reinforcing biases. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and training. He "removes sighted bias"- . In the process he introduces a supposedly universally applicable method which he never bothered to properly research and validate in the proper scientific experimental way, the glory of Western science, described centuries ago by such as Roger Bacon. And we know why- it could never be validated because it is an inappropriate caricature of the legitimate medical therapy research method of DBT. DBT works in medicine because the effects of proposed treatment or lack of effect can be *seen* and *measured*. The ABX/DBT routines depend on yes/no questionnaire. Since a few will always have more discernment than most the outcome is always bound to be "I hear no difference"- null, negative. Krueger would not have an inkling of what we're talking about. He said once that "prolonged listening is a waste of time". His "music" is "castanets", FM station on his car radio and the wallpaper noise in his local supermarket. And he is not alone. Ludovic Mirabel -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. That is how we always listen to music at home. So what? You would say that! The DBT is not real world conditions. If you want to take that viewpoint, then no listening test done at a stereo show or dealer is valid either. Well, I don't do tests there, I do comparisons. And I would use the term valid a little differently than you, I am not using it in the scientific senses, because it is not about science, nor about scientific tests. But, yes, such comparisons are of limited use. I listen sighted, so I want to listen to what I prefer when comparing in the sighted mode. IOW Art, you only want to take a test if the right answer is presented to you in an obvious way. No, not the 'right' is the answer that applies to my perceptions when I am listening casually, for enjoyment, sighted, wahtever that answer might be, obvious or not This then isn't about reinforcing preferences, its about reinforcing biases. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and training. He "removes sighted bias"- . In the process he introduces a supposedly universally applicable method which he never bothered to properly research and validate in the proper scientific experimental way, the glory of Western science, described centuries ago by such as Roger Bacon. And we know why- it could never be validated because it is an inappropriate caricature of the legitimate medical therapy research method of DBT. DBT works in medicine because the effects of proposed treatment or lack of effect can be *seen* and *measured*. The ABX/DBT routines depend on yes/no questionnaire. Since a few will always have more discernment than most the outcome is always bound to be "I hear no difference"- null, negative. Krueger would not have an inkling of what we're talking about. He said once that "prolonged listening is a waste of time". His "music" is "castanets", FM station on his car radio and the wallpaper noise in his local supermarket. And he is not alone. Ludovic Mirabel -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. We've got another live one who thinks that all sighted evaluations should not be questioned on the grounds that sighted identification of the unit under test is a relevant uncontrolled variable. :-( |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message oups.com... Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and training. Good think. Reality really bites for dreamers like Art. He "removes sighted bias"- . In the process he introduces a supposedly universally applicable method "Universally applicable method"??? Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't - but Mirabel did. which he never bothered to properly research Lofty-sounding words, but totally empty since they lack even a hint of how that might be properly done. and validate in the proper scientific experimental way, the glory of Western science, described centuries ago by such as Roger Bacon. Lofty-sounding words, but totally empty since they lack even a hint of how that might be properly done. And we know why- it could never be validated because it is an inappropriate caricature of the legitimate medical therapy research method of DBT. IOW, Mirabel is exactly guilty of what he falsly accuses me of, since there's no evidence that he has any support for these claims at all. DBT works in medicine because the effects of proposed treatment or lack of effect can be *seen* and *measured*. Oh, I get it - amplifiers and their technical performance cannot be seen or heard.LOL! The ABX/DBT routines depend on yes/no questionnaire. Mirabel finally gets his first fact right. Huzzah! Since a few will always have more discernment than most the outcome is always bound to be "I hear no difference"- null, negative. Absolutely and totally untrue. Krueger would not have an inkling of what we're talking about. I'm doing a pretty fair job of deconstructing it, regardless! ;-) He said once that "prolonged listening is a waste of time". Under some circumstances it is. Sue me for knowing when it is, and when it isn't. His "music" is "castanets", Actually, a wide range of music and musical sounds, depending on what works best for hearing differences. FM station on his car radio Shows how out-to-lunch and inobservant Mirabel is. Hint: most of what I listen to in my car is recordings of live perforamnces that I recorded. and the wallpaper noise in his local supermarket. wallpaper noise???? Is Mirabel talking about "elevator music"??? Here's a much-needed hint Mirabel - my supermarket has only one floor a ground floor and therefore there is no elevator! ;-) And he is not alone. Mirabel ought to educate Middius who keeps saying that I have a lonely life. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote: FM station on his car radio Shows how out-to-lunch and inobservant Mirabel is. Hint: most of what I listen to in my car is recordings of live perforamnces that I recorded. One would think that you'd rather listen to decent music. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and training. Good think. Reality really bites for dreamers like Art. I have no intent of convincing you of anything. I'm just here to tell the rest of the world you're a volcano of ****. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 20:26:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" wrote: FM station on his car radio Shows how out-to-lunch and inobservant Mirabel is. Hint: most of what I listen to in my car is recordings of live perforamnces that I recorded. One would think that you'd rather listen to decent music. "At least" it overpowers the road noise. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and training. Good think. Reality really bites for dreamers like Art. He "removes sighted bias"- . In the process he introduces a supposedly universally applicable method "Universally applicable method"??? Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't - but Mirabel did. which he never bothered to properly research Lofty-sounding words, but totally empty since they lack even a hint of how that might be properly done. and validate in the proper scientific experimental way, the glory of Western science, described centuries ago by such as Roger Bacon. Lofty-sounding words, but totally empty since they lack even a hint of how that might be properly done. And we know why- it could never be validated because it is an inappropriate caricature of the legitimate medical therapy research method of DBT. IOW, Mirabel is exactly guilty of what he falsly accuses me of, since there's no evidence that he has any support for these claims at all. DBT works in medicine because the effects of proposed treatment or lack of effect can be *seen* and *measured*. Oh, I get it - amplifiers and their technical performance cannot be seen or heard.LOL! The ABX/DBT routines depend on yes/no questionnaire. Mirabel finally gets his first fact right. Huzzah! Since a few will always have more discernment than most the outcome is always bound to be "I hear no difference"- null, negative. Absolutely and totally untrue. Krueger would not have an inkling of what we're talking about. I'm doing a pretty fair job of deconstructing it, regardless! ;-) He said once that "prolonged listening is a waste of time". Under some circumstances it is. Sue me for knowing when it is, and when it isn't. His "music" is "castanets", Actually, a wide range of music and musical sounds, depending on what works best for hearing differences. FM station on his car radio Shows how out-to-lunch and inobservant Mirabel is. Hint: most of what I listen to in my car is recordings of live perforamnces that I recorded. and the wallpaper noise in his local supermarket. wallpaper noise???? Is Mirabel talking about "elevator music"??? Here's a much-needed hint Mirabel - my supermarket has only one floor a ground floor and therefore there is no elevator! ;-) And he is not alone. Mirabel ought to educate Middius who keeps saying that I have a lonely life. __________________________________________________ __ I said: Dear Mr. Slick, you'll never convince our ABX inventor that his "test" is meaningless in the real world of millions of individual audio consumers of different age, gender, musical preferences (from car-boom superwoofer to chamber music), experience and .training. Arny answered: ""Good think. Reality really bites for dreamers like Art. He "removes sighted bias"- . In the process he introduces a supposedly universally applicable method ""Universally applicable method"??? Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't - but Mirabel did. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. We've got another live one who thinks that all sighted evaluations should not be questioned on the grounds that sighted identification of the unit under test is a relevant uncontrolled variable. :-( Your fantasies about what *I* believe are neither true nor good entertainment.. If you allow I'd rather speak for myself. I believe that: 1) My judgment about the relative qualities of and differences between audio components is preferable to yours, sighted, blinded or ABXed. No doubt you believe the reverse. And that is exactly how it should be. 2) I believe that getting blinded when comparing is a good idea: it helps concentration and deals with one MINOR facet of a thousand possible biases tied to a thousand personality characteristics. 3) Knowing that Joe whose taste and preferences I despise compared something in audio blinded while Tom, whose taste I respect, saw what he compared will not make me prefer Joe's choices. 4) I'm inclined to think that memorising A, then B and then comparing both with X is an impossible task for many people. It is for me. I may be wrong. Who knows?. No decent research work was reported to show that this method *works* ( ie. helps most audio consumers to recognise differences between comparable audio components) . And as years have been passing by it is less and less likely that this basic job will ever be done. 5) I'm also inclined to think that a "test" for component differences/preferences that works for all and one of millions of different brains is a pipe-dream 6) That does not diminish my respect for your ingenuity. Your ABX may be a valuable training method in *paying attention* . It certainly does no physical harm to its practitioners. Whether it is a good idea to make them think that if the can not hear something it does not exist for anyone is another matter. Ludovic Mirabel |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message
oups.com I believe that: 1) My judgment about the relative qualities of and differences between audio components is preferable to yours, sighted, blinded or ABXed. No doubt you believe the reverse. And that is exactly how it should be. Finally, evidence that you can discern even one thing that is excruciatingly obvious, Mirabel. 2) I believe that getting blinded when comparing is a good idea: it helps concentration and deals with one MINOR facet of a thousand possible biases tied to a thousand personality characteristics. From the word "Minor" I see that it didn't take long for you to veer off course again, did it? Sad. 3) Knowing that Joe whose taste and preferences I despise compared something in audio blinded while Tom, whose taste I respect, saw what he compared will not make me prefer Joe's choices. Shows that Mirabel and get the idea that a good comparison involves an absolute standard such as the proverbial straight wire in audio. 4) I'm inclined to think that memorising A, then B and then comparing both with X is an impossible task for many people. Mirabel, perceiving your cluelessness about audio takes only a slight inclination towards audio. It is for me. That's probably due to of your obvious paranoid hysteria related to the possibility of learning something about audio that might make you uncomfortable, Mirable. I may be wrong. "May"??? LOL!~ Who knows?. No decent research work was reported to show that this method *works* ( ie. helps most audio consumers to recognise differences between comparable audio components) . If you elevate the standards for "decent research" to impractical levels then at least you can tell yourself that you are right. And as years have been passing by it is less and less likely that this basic job will ever be done. Something about people's lack of enthusiasm for proving something that obvious. 5) I'm also inclined to think that a "test" for component differences/preferences that works for all and one of millions of different brains is a pipe-dream Tests like this seemed to work well enough for perceptual coding techniques such as AAC and MP3. If you haven't noticed zillions of consumers are fine with good implemenations of them. 6) That does not diminish my respect for your ingenuity. Your ABX may be a valuable training method in *paying attention* . It certainly does no physical harm to its practitioners. Whether it is a good idea to make them think that if the can not hear something it does not exist for anyone is another matter. Surely you meant to write: Whether it is a good idea to make them think that they can not hear something that does not exist for anyone is another matter. Which reveals much about how bogus your basic philosophy is, Dr. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Arny Krueger wrote: wrote in message oups.com I believe that: 1) My judgment about the relative qualities of and differences between audio components is preferable to yours, sighted, blinded or ABXed. No doubt you believe the reverse. And that is exactly how it should be. Finally, evidence that you can discern even one thing that is excruciatingly obvious, Mirabel. 2) I believe that getting blinded when comparing is a good idea: it helps concentration and deals with one MINOR facet of a thousand possible biases tied to a thousand personality characteristics. From the word "Minor" I see that it didn't take long for you to veer off course again, did it? Sad. 3) Knowing that Joe whose taste and preferences I despise compared something in audio blinded while Tom, whose taste I respect, saw what he compared will not make me prefer Joe's choices. Shows that Mirabel and get the idea that a good comparison involves an absolute standard such as the proverbial straight wire in audio. 4) I'm inclined to think that memorising A, then B and then comparing both with X is an impossible task for many people. Mirabel, perceiving your cluelessness about audio takes only a slight inclination towards audio. It is for me. That's probably due to of your obvious paranoid hysteria related to the possibility of learning something about audio that might make you uncomfortable, Mirable. I may be wrong. "May"??? LOL!~ Who knows?. No decent research work was reported to show that this method *works* ( ie. helps most audio consumers to recognise differences between comparable audio components) . If you elevate the standards for "decent research" to impractical levels then at least you can tell yourself that you are right. And as years have been passing by it is less and less likely that this basic job will ever be done. Something about people's lack of enthusiasm for proving something that obvious. 5) I'm also inclined to think that a "test" for component differences/preferences that works for all and one of millions of different brains is a pipe-dream Tests like this seemed to work well enough for perceptual coding techniques such as AAC and MP3. If you haven't noticed zillions of consumers are fine with good implemenations of them. 6) That does not diminish my respect for your ingenuity. Your ABX may be a valuable training method in *paying attention* . It certainly does no physical harm to its practitioners. Whether it is a good idea to make them think that if the can not hear something it does not exist for anyone is another matter. Surely you meant to write: Whether it is a good idea to make them think that they can not hear something that does not exist for anyone is another matter. Which reveals much about how bogus your basic philosophy is, Dr. Krueger, you will not succeed in sidetracking your lack of evidence that your test is worth a penny for showing differences between audio components by: 1) hoping that I'll begin to exchange with you niceties about "paranoid hysteria". It does sound sort of desperate, almost paranoid, almost hysterical doesn't it.? 2) flying off at a tangent into gossip about. "perceptual coding techniques" such as AAC and MP3". I don't care and I don't want to know abt. these or the craters on Jupiter. This is about audio components. *You* can have MP3. You deserve each other. 3) emitting a lovely scientific assertion: "This is obvious". As obvious as the flatness of the earth? I suggest you ponder what a real researcher Sean Olive said to your clown-prince last November: " I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" " And he did not use ABXing in his loudspeaker comparison test. Why don't you do just that and show the world that your panel does at least as well as his?. Just a little bit of *evidence* would do you no harm. You know; just a slight addition to "obvioussness" to convince other than yourself. No hypothesis stays controversial for decades once there is evidence. Like evidence for instance that the earth is not flat that they taught you at school. Very little controversy about that Ludovic Mirabel : |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message oups.com... Krueger, you will not succeed in sidetracking your lack of evidence that your test is worth a penny for showing differences between audio components by: 1) hoping that I'll begin to exchange with you niceties about "paranoid hysteria". It does sound sort of desperate, almost paranoid, almost hysterical doesn't it.? 2) flying off at a tangent into gossip about. "perceptual coding techniques" such as AAC and MP3". I don't care and I don't want to know abt. these or the craters on Jupiter. This is about audio components. *You* can have MP3. You deserve each other. 3) emitting a lovely scientific assertion: "This is obvious". As obvious as the flatness of the earth? I suggest you ponder what a real researcher Sean Olive said to your clown-prince last November: " I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" " And he did not use ABXing in his loudspeaker comparison test. He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was preference. Which one sounded better and why? This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound different. The illogic of your argument is too obvious and makes your credibility suspect. ScottW |
DBT in audio - a protocol
ScottW wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Krueger, you will not succeed in sidetracking your lack of evidence that your test is worth a penny for showing differences between audio components by: 1) hoping that I'll begin to exchange with you niceties about "paranoid hysteria". It does sound sort of desperate, almost paranoid, almost hysterical doesn't it.? 2) flying off at a tangent into gossip about. "perceptual coding techniques" such as AAC and MP3". I don't care and I don't want to know abt. these or the craters on Jupiter. This is about audio components. *You* can have MP3. You deserve each other. 3) emitting a lovely scientific assertion: "This is obvious". As obvious as the flatness of the earth? I suggest you ponder what a real researcher Sean Olive said to your clown-prince last November: " I rarely ask listeners the question "Is A different than B"?" In most cases, the differences between the loudspeakers under test are measurable (both objective and subjective)and therefore the more interesting question for me is "Which speaker do they prefer, by how much, and why?" " And he did not use ABXing in his loudspeaker comparison test. He said why Ludovic. Whether they sound different or not was not in question. So the obvious next question which he had moved on to...was preference. Which one sounded better and why? This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound different. The illogic of your argument is too obvious and makes your credibility suspect. ScottW Hi Scott W. RAO's own logician. Long time no see but I knew you'd be lurking in the undergrowth waiting to pounce at my "suspect credibility" Sean Olive called his paper: "Differences in *performance* and *preference* of trained versus untrained listeners in loudspeaker tests: a case study" (JAES,vol. 51,#9, 2003) In the preamble he says::" Significant differences in performance, expressed in terms of magnitude of the loudspeaker F statistic F1, wre found among different categories of listeners..... *Performance* differences aside loudspeaker loudspeaker *preferences* were generally consistent across all categories of listeners..." On pages 818,.819 you'll find graphs showing differences in performance ranging up to 27 times better between different groups. On page 814 a graph showing very slight differences in preference (I like, I don't like) between the same groups. Have you found your way to the San Diego Public Library yet? Next time before rushing gleefully into print you' might read your source. You won't make me look for the paper, then type and type and above all you'll not show yourself once again for what you a a nuisance, yapping at people's heels a miniature Scott terrier whose sole input into the discussion is clumsy showing off perennially missing the target. Ludovic Mirabel |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:RuDBf.56528$0G.33920@dukeread10 This has no bearing on the validity of ABX to determine if things sound different. Good point. The illogic of your argument is too obvious and makes your credibility suspect. I didn't know that Ludo had any credibility left to suspect. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
|
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message ups.com... Clyde Slick wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Clyde Slick" wrote in message ... I've said that all along, been saying it for years. It's a red herring all along, its been a red herring for years. Red hering? Its the essence of the issue. Preference... waht makes one more satisfied when listening to music. That is the one basic and underlying flaw of DBT and objectivism, it ignores preferences under sighted conditions, Not at all. Preferences under sighted conditions are fine, if there is any reliably perceptible difference to base those preference son. NO, the preference is based upon perceptions when sighted, based upon differences perceived when sighed. The 'no difference' result during the test become moot, after the test is over, and the perceptioms of difference return. We've got another live one who thinks that all sighted evaluations should not be questioned on the grounds that sighted identification of the unit under test is a relevant uncontrolled variable. :-( The "test" being only for the purposes of that particular person determining his preference , for making his own particular consumer decision. I am not applying this to research, the topic at hand is individual preference. Sorry, no debating trade points for you today. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk