|
|
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 08:47 AM. |
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