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.