|
|
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote
dave weil wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance. Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables? Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion? If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going... Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested. 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. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote: Don Pearce wrote dave weil wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance. Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables? Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion? If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going... Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested. 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM" wrote: 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. Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing: Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have identified right away. You have been very helpful. Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-) |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM" wrote: 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. Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing: Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have identified right away. You have been very helpful. Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-) You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO membership...??? |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 03:01:15 GMT, "EddieM" wrote: 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. Don Pearce shows his good critical thinking and good humor by writing: Thank you for your review. I will deal with all the points you have identified right away. You have been very helpful. Of course EddieM identified zero actual critical points. ;-) You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO membership...??? It appears to me that this important point might escape notice by members of either group. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Keith G said: You are presumably *explaining* that for the benefit of the RAO membership...??? Actually, Turdborg was reinforcing the universally held perception that he is insane with still more evidence. Would you like fries with that? |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote
EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote dave weil wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance. Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables? Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion? If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going... Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested. 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? As I recall, the last time we had a straight forward discussion and exchanges of ideas pertaining to the subject of audio testing as here, you recklessly circumnavigated the points I raise with total disregard. How can I be assured at this time, 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 confidence? Pearce Consulting |
DBT in audio - a protocol
EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: Don Pearce wrote dave weil wrote: Don Pearce wrote: I don't mind what you do. Please note that I didn't initiate opinions about this - I simply replied to your question. You can accept my reply in good faith, otherwise I will have to ask why you asked the question. Did you just want an argument perhaps? I don't - life is far too short and there are no SET shops within walking distance. Don't you challenge people who claim to hear differences in cables? Don't you demand that they do dbts to "validate" their opinion? If the answer is yes, then, well, you see where this is going... Can you not read, Dave? I didn't come here making claims - I replied to your question. That gives you no right to start demanding proof. So I ask you again. Was the purpose of your question simply to stir up this argument? If so, kindly go away; I'm not interested. 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 |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Yappity-yappity-yap. How can I be helpful Mr. Pearce? The answer can be readily ascertain[sic] from the rest of your post....you can't.So forget it. How did that IQ Tonic work out for you, Terrierborg? |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 19:17:53 GMT, "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? What are the specific aspects of the protocol which are bad? How can they be improved? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce said: So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your "protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they will never bother anybody ever again. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:54:06 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Don Pearce said: So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your "protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they will never bother anybody ever again. Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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 |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce said: So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your "protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they will never bother anybody ever again. Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first? Jeez, Don, that's what got you into trouble in the first place. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote Don Pearce wrote EddieM wrote: 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? You sure resent something it if it don't serve you well. 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? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:20:20 GMT, "EddieM"
wrote: You sure resent something it if it don't serve you well. It didn't serve anybody - including me. 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 d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:05:18 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote: Don Pearce said: So please, what are your ideas to turn my protocol from very, very bad to very, very good? I suggest you dig a hole, fill it halfway with concrete, toss in your "protocols", then top it off with more concrete. This procedure will accomplish two goals: First, it will elevate your "protocols" to the exalted status of "cast in stone". Second, and more important, it will enable them to achieve their optimal status for Normals because they will never bother anybody ever again. Ok, but can I have some fun and games with them first? Jeez, Don, that's what got you into trouble in the first place. I'm sitting here happily watching the latest TV masterpiece from Stephen Poliakoff. I don't have any kind of feeling of being in trouble. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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 ? d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:57:17 GMT, "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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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. Why don't you just give a short answer with at least 2 words in a sentence. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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? Pearce Consulting |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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 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. Pearce Consulting |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:19:01 GMT, "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? 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
wrote in message
oups.com... 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. Set amps are the result of a well-studied attempt to do just about everything wrong when it comes to building an amplifier. From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference". Stereophile magazine has provided information about how SET amplifiers vary their frequency response with loudspeaker load. In contrast, the frequency response of a good SS amplifier varies only slightly with a loudspeaker load, again accordiing to Stereophile measurements. As a rule, a SET amp's frequency response variations with a loudspeaker load fall well outside the range of variations that are audible. Hearing the difference between a SET amp with a loudspeaker load and the proverbial straight wire should be quite easy. This contrasts with good SS amps that are difficult or impossible to distinguish from a straight wire, even with fairly taxing loudspeaker loads. 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?. This would have been demonstrated years ago, but for the fact that nobody with a brain would buy a SET amp, and it takes a fairly good brain to organize a good DBT. My guess is that if he ever takes up the bet he will get another null "The majority heard no difference" outcome. Put a worthy bet in escrow and send me a SET amp. I'll set up a straight-wire bypass test with a loudspeaker-like load and post the results on www.pacbx.com . People can listen and reach their own conclusions. But there is another terrifying scenario: They heard the differnce AND liked the SET better. Horrors! It takes a pretty blinkered mind to want an amplifier that clearly and audibly colors every sound passing through it. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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 Ludovic Mirabel. See, the trick is they will only test what they eant 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 eothing 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. -- 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 ... 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. I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could eliminate that bias. A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences, when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences, one can't force him to percieve soemtning he believes des not exist. You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B, but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a difference, test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no difference. -- 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 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. 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? 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. But maybe the test is so poorly designed that it even obfuscates obvious differences. Maybe there's a communist under every bed! ;-) 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. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"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? -- 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 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message .. . "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 Unlikely 2) bias that thngs will sound different Very attractive to the listener's ego. 3) bias that things will sound the same. Very ego-shattering. The test does not eliminate the third item. The only alternative is sighted tests, which do nothing to eliminate any kind of bias. I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could eliminate that bias. The bias that all things will sound the same is largely a myth. Listeners who believe that they will be able to hear a difference are easy to find. If nothing else, you can use a sighted evaluation to bias people towards thinking that there *is* a difference. A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences, when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences, one can't force him to perceive something he believes does not exist. You can't force anybody to do anything without resorting to duress. However sighted evaluations are a great tool for reinforcing the idea that a difference exists. Note that every ABX test trial has a sighted evaluation built into it. You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B, but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a difference,test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no difference. Thats one way of spinning the fact that forcing people to make a choice encourages them to hear differences into a misapprehension. |
DBT in audio - a protocol
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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... 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. Set amps are the result of a well-studied attempt to do just about everything wrong when it comes to building an amplifier. From "good" to "very. very bad" there should be an "audible difference". Stereophile magazine has provided information about how SET amplifiers vary their frequency response with loudspeaker load. In contrast, the frequency response of a good SS amplifier varies only slightly with a loudspeaker load, again accordiing to Stereophile measurements. As a rule, a SET amp's frequency response variations with a loudspeaker load fall well outside the range of variations that are audible. Hearing the difference between a SET amp with a loudspeaker load and the proverbial straight wire should be quite easy. This contrasts with good SS amps that are difficult or impossible to distinguish from a straight wire, even with fairly taxing loudspeaker loads. 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?. This would have been demonstrated years ago, but for the fact that nobody with a brain would buy a SET amp, Hey! Arny, ya crazy bugger - go scrute my Jerichos and count the SETs! :-) http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Jericho-1.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Jericho-2.JPG http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Jericho-3.JPG (Clue: There's more than 2 and less than 4 of them!! ;-) How's it sounding (the Jerichos are 20 minutes old) you ask....??? Guess.... :-))) |
DBT in audio - a protocol
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message . .. "Clyde Slick" wrote in message .. . There are three possibilities for the preconceived bias state of the listener. 1) no bias Unlikely Probably not predominate, but fairly likely. Its comparable to religion. Both believers and atheists are vocal, agnostics are quiet, but they are there. 2) bias that thngs will sound different Very attractive to the listener's ego. 3) bias that things will sound the same. Very ego-shattering. Just as attractive to the listener's ego, if that's waht his bias is. I don't know why your biases should shatter your ego. The test does not eliminate the third item. The only alternative is sighted tests, which do nothing to eliminate any kind of bias. if one would begin by recognizing the need for 'test' at all. I would consider sighted lstenenig a comparison, not a test. I don't thnk think that it is possible that any test could eliminate that bias. The bias that all things will sound the same is largely a myth. Listeners who believe that they will be able to hear a difference are easy to find. If nothing else, you can use a sighted evaluation to bias people towards thinking that there *is* a difference. Its not a myth at all. Not unless subscription renewals to the hive are reaching an all time low. Undergoing a sighted evaluation won't 'steer' people to a bias that there is a difference. A test that asks the subject to discriminate differences, when the listener preconcieves that there are no differences, one can't force him to perceive something he believes does not exist. You can't force anybody to do anything without resorting to duress. However sighted evaluations are a great tool for reinforcing the idea that a difference exists. Note that every ABX test trial has a sighted evaluation built into it. Someolne who is preconceivd to hear no difference, will continue to hear no difference no matter what. The test results for those who hear no differences can contain three types of respondents. 1) those who cannot hear a difference that is there (that others can hear) because their hearing is not acute. (bad hearing) 2) those who cannot hear adifference because there is no difference that any others can hear either. (no audble difference for everyone) 3) those who cannnot hear a difference because they don't want to hear a difference (listener bias) You try to overcome this by forcing the respondent to answer A or B, but that presents another problem, that the unbiased, or biased towards a difference,test subject is not permitted to answer honestly, that he perceives no difference. Thats one way of spinning the fact that forcing people to make a choice encourages them to hear differences into a misapprehension. Well, you would be the first to admit that there are cases where one cannot hear a difference. Those instances canot be reported honestly. -- 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 10:12:59 -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. -- 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 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
Don Pearce wrote
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? 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. 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 ? 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. In a related scene, during my recent discussion with McKelvy [NYOB] about his own version of DBT, he recently said that: " Using only one's ears is what a DBT is all about, allowing the listener to focus their *unaltered* perception on sound alone." http://tinyurl.com/d37rp SO, I ask him: What does the word "blind" in the context of DBT cognitively and visually requires to ensure that perception remain unchanged ? Unfotunately, after I ask him that, he completely disappeared from the scenery. Do you think you can help us out in this particular part ? Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
DBT in audio - a protocol
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:54:23 GMT, "EddieM"
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. 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. 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. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:02 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