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