Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 10:59 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
Testing in all its permutations and combinations:

ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.

After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
act upon the admission.

And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
exists.

So the number of numbers, angels, THD, IMD or decibels as might be
dancing on the head of that pin, blind or sighted, is meaningless in
the face of an honest listener. Less than honest listeners will be
snookered or convince themselves of their righteousness in direct
proportion to their dishonesty. 'Twas ever thus. All the "industry"
does is provide opportunities. No more.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:43 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Peter Wieck" wrote in message

ups.com...

The problem with extreme views and closely held beliefs is that they
may as well be religion. On a religious level, no arguments are valid
as they necessarily debate closely held beliefs based on extreme
views. As conversion ain't gonna happen nohow, nothing gonna change
other than the expenditure of vast amounts of hot air, blather and
general idiocy.

The "Here we go again" thread was based on a published falsification of what
is to those of us who are reasonably well-informed, a well-established fact.
As a property manager, concepts like dynamic range and information theory
may seem to be so abstract to you, that anything related to them is just
someone's opinion. That's your problem if you keep your head in the sand
and refuse to learn.

Fact is, dynamic range and information theory are about as basic and
generally accepted in the science and art of audio as compound interest and
present value are to property management. I suspect you know your business
well enough to know when someone is handing you smoke when they present the
results of those kinds of analysis. So it is with many of us and audio.

As far as the impact of all these seemingly endless arguments about audio
goes, they do have consequences. Ten years ago very few people here would
recognize that the Krakow article is a POS. Today, it is a relatively easy
target. Note that Atkinson won't weigh in on its accuracy, probably because
he's afraid to look bad by criticizing a colleague of sorts in public, no
matter how wrong John knows that Gary really is. John knows, or I've vastly
overestimated his intelligence.

God Help You Arnie! For ENTIRELY Missing The Point....

Those who accept science as their sole and only means of viewing the
world will inevitably abrade those who choose (and value) other means
and vice-versa. This happens most especially when the one camp
*demands* that the other camp convert, claims that their means-and-
methods are not only paramount but singular, and then denegrates all
other necessarily-wrong beliefs. That would be you. Though that
condition is certainly not limited to you.

This is what I ask of everyone who offers these lofty pseudo-sociological
arguments (adjusted to suit the rhetoric you've used):

Are there *any* 'means' that you consider 'abradable', in *any* situation? Or do you accept
every 'means' as being equally good in every situation?

I would suggest the answer to the latter is no, from your posts on, say, rec.audio.high-end,
which leads me to think that you believe that some things really are more likely to be true,
than some other things.



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 9:57 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

As I suspected Peter, you hold facts and fantasy as having equal value.

Fanatics, even fanatics aligned to one's own beliefs
remain fanatics. Dangerous, poisonous, unhappy, pitiable,
contemptible.

Especially true for people who see fanatics under many beds and wish to seek
them out and destory them.

No, I have long-since removed the legs from my bed so as to preclude
monsters and fanatics. I would also change that "destroy" to "expose".
Fruits, nuts, fanatics and clowns are best kept in the open where they
may be alternately amusing or object lessons as the case merits.

As to "facts" and "fantasy", whose would they be? That is the problem
with closely held beliefs and those who hold them.

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?



___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Why "accuracy"?
 

In rec.audio.tech Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:59 am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:


OK.... you may as well have my *opinion* on Blind Testing vs. Sighted
Testing in all its permutations and combinations:

ANY testing under other-than-home-conditions is equally valid inasmuch
as it serves only to separate the wheat from the chaff such that a
given item makes it 'home'. A very crude screen as it were.

After which ultimate satisfaction (or not) depends on much longer term
testing with the intervals being from hours to weeks. Only then will
subtle influences become sufficiently manifest for a listener to form
a considered opinion. And said listener must have the constitutional
fortitude to admit to a possibly-wrong short-term decision... and then
act upon the admission.


Actually, said listener 'must' (is that a closely held belief?) also have the
the constitutional fortitude to admit the possibility of being wrong even
after the long term...especially when the evaluations remain wholly sighted.

And at the end of whatever process is chosen, the listener can state
with personal comfort that he/she likes what is heard... that is
entirely enough. Whatever claptrap surrounds, leads up to, colors or
influences that final decision is meaningless if the final comfort
exists.

Unless and until said listener declaims on a public forum that X sounds
better/worse/different than Y because of Z. Then that becomes a claim
of causes and effects.


___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 2:58 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

Of course I have closely held beliefs. And I can be rather single
minded in my pursuit of them. But they are entirely and only mine, not
to be foisted upon others as Holy Writ. I am glad to express my
beliefs, again as mine alone. And even give what evidence I have to
support them. And I think no less of someone who might vehemently
disagree with me as long as they are not espousing said disagreement,
again, as Holy Writ.

Opinionated individuals who act on their opinions despite Writ,
Received Wisdom and Rumors to the Contrary are responsible for much
progress in this world. Individuals who espouse Holy Writ are
responsible for much pain in this world. I claim neither aptitude, but
I try not to espouse Writ... other than in humor... such as "Common
Sense Isn't" and similar aphorisms.

And on more than a few occasions, I have to re-arrange my beliefs
based on new, additional, or better information. As it applies to
Audio and audio equipment, I very much enjoy learning about new (to
me) ways of doing things. Much of what I learn fails when actually put
to the test, but does not make the test any less enjoyable. And those
few things that really do make me perk up and take notice are well
worth the failures. And I am perfectly able to hold two (by the
standards of many) mutually exclusive opinions in my mind at exactly
the same time: Tube Equipment can sound very nice. Solid-State
Equipment can sound very nice. I own both in small quantity.

I also have equipment that I can differentiate blind with a bad cold
and dual ear-infections, that I also like but for different reasons.
And I would be the first to admit that sighted testing has problems as
does blind testing. Neither is entirely satisfactory as neither can
account for the effects of long-term listening in the "home" or
whatever is the final target environment.

This ain't nohow religion. It is a hobby to be enjoyed. I choose to do
it from the perspective of a bottom-feeder hunting crumbs and bits,
restoring cast-off crumbs and bits, or even finding the occasional
flawed gem and working around the flaw. So, the Scott LK-150 that I
came across by pure blind luck (thank you Keith!) will be pried from
my cold dead fingers, as will the Revox A720. The fancy interconnects
that I got as part of an auction Box-Lot (Kimber) for $5.00 did
nothing for me, nor for what I can hear. So, they went away in trade
for something that did. But Kimber has its place in the Choir, even if
I do not sing to that tune. Others do, so they should have the
opportunity.

In the words of Pogo (first, Howland Owl, now Pogo): We live in a
country where a man is free - even to make an idiot of himself.

But if one suggests that I *must* sing to a certain tune, or my not
singing to that tune makes me wrong... that raises my ire.

Full, free, pointed and vigorous debate is worthwhile. Opposing points
of view are necessary for any progress of any nature. If we all agreed
on everything the world would be Vanilla with all the consequential
dullness. Striking sparks while debating can be, mostly is, a
necessary and good result on any issue of substance. But a level of
mutual respect for those in the fray is also required. And ultimately
a failure to convert the other side must be accepted... without losing
respect.

Let me put it in context when it comes to Mr. Krueger in particular:
It is not that I necessarily disagree with anything or everything he
has to write. I do disagree with what I perceive as his pontifical
fanaticism in presenting it. "My" fanatics are just as dangerous,
poisonous, pitiable and contemptible as "your" fanatics.

As to "cause and effect"... how would you perceive these statements
that I have made as a claim on more than a few occasions:

a) I find that the Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751 blows the socks off of even
smooth-plate Telefunken 12AX7s.
b) I have found that replacing low-value electrolytic caps (2uF or
less) in most audio circuits with film caps improves the sound, both
in solid-state and tube circuits.

They are based on my experiences and experiments. No more.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message
...


And again: do you have any 'closely held' beliefs, in any sphere? Or have
you simply defined
'closely held belief' as, 'whatever I don't think is true'?

I admit it, I have a long list of closely-held beliefs. For example I
believe that there is a moon that circulates around the earth about every 28
days.

I'll even go far as to admit that I believe that several US astronauts
walked around on the surface of that moon, err many moons ago. ;-)

I get this impression that Peter thinks that believing in stuff like
Information Theory is some kind of leap of faith.

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise. No leap of faith required there.

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed. I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

If irony killed! - Read on!

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise.

Wrong. Definately not about understandability. That's called articulation.
Information theory is far, far general than that.

No leap of faith required there.

Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas about
Information Theory!

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed.

Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
signal which is exactly about validity and quality.

I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

Why "accuracy"?
 

On Sep 6, 4:43 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

Mpfffffffff... KEERIST on a CRUTCH.

Lemme see:

The sky is up. If transferred and understood at the other end is
clear.

All cats are blue. If transferred and understood at the other end is
also clear.

But the latter statement is also false. Invalid. Of poor quality. Also
unimportant.

Does that clarify? Transferring data accurately through/over/despite
noise is one thing. That the data is worth the effort is entirely
else.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Why "accuracy"?
 

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 16:43:41 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:


"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Sep 6, 4:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I suspect that if your knowledge of electronics and physics is typical
of
highly intelligent but non-audio/IT/communications professional, stuff
like
Information Theory *is* a leap of faith.

Mpfffff..... Good KEERist...

If irony killed! - Read on!

It seems to me you're more interested in browbeating to 'win' rather
than understanding and illumination.

You mean like you're doing, Flipper?

Information Theory speaks to the understandability and clarity of the
message over noise.

Wrong.

Depends on what he meant.

If he meant something other than the clear meaning of the words, yes.

Definately not about understandability.

If he meant the ability of a decoder to recover ('understand')
transmitted information then he's essentially correct.

Pretzel logic noted. Intent is obvious - browbeat and humiliate.

That's called articulation.

If by "articulation" you're referring to speech recognition then
you're talking about a subjective 'decoder' (I.E. a human listener)
that uses a host of non random predictive processes in deciphering the
'meaning' and that's a 'content' different than simply the 'raw
information' transmitted.

Doooh!

Information theory would deal with that as entropy, mutual
information, self information, et al, but it's a moot point because
all of the discussion in here about bandwidth and S/N ratios presume
raw random bits, which may not be 100% applicable with a
'predictive/subjective decoder' (I.E. human perception)..

Wrong again flipper - the proper terms are bandwidth and dynamic range.
It's a common mistake to confuse dynamic range and SNR, but they are indeed
distinct.

Information theory is far, far general than that.

Not sure how you're defining 'general' nor whether that's 'good or
bad' to the purpose of a specific process: 'music' reproduction that
will be perceived by a 'human'.

Your lack of assuredness no doubt comes from lack of knowlege, Flipper.
You're over your head.

No leap of faith required there.

Peter, it would take a leap of (misplaced) faith to accept your ideas
about
Information Theory!

Then why don't you try some illumination rather than ad hominems?

There was no personal attack, rather a criticism of wrong-headed ideas. Do
try to understand the meanings of the words you use, Flipper.

Speaking of which, you 'talk' a lot about information theory but I
can't recall seeing any illumination as to which equations you're
using or how you arrive at the conclusions made.

I feel no need to rewrite standard texts.

For example, you once made a comparison with a 10dB difference and
said something like that being an order of magnitude bandwidth
difference but if you're using the standard Shannon channel capacity
equation (presuming white Gaussian noise ) then I don't think your
math adds up. Could be wrong, of course, because you never say how you
get there.

I'm afraid that I have no recollection of what you are talking about here.
Do try to find a quote, if you want me to defend something that I actually
wrote.

It says nothing at all about the validity and/or quality and/or
importance of the message conveyed.

Wrong again. Information Theory includes the concept of the entropy of the
signal which is exactly about validity and quality.

Shannon entropy is about the randomness of the information bits. I.E.
If the information is perfectly predicable then the entropy is 0
because you don't really need to transmit anything. It's 'uncertainty'
is 0.

Doooh!

That says nothing about any self information, however. For example

SOS(pause)SOS(pause)SOS
and
BOB(pause)BOB(pause)BOB

have the same entropy but a subjective decoder (I.E. human) interprets
them differently.

And your point is?

This gets back to the earlier comment about the 'specific process'
(and your "far, far general") because both have exactly the same
SN/bandwidth requirements but result in different 'perceptions'.

Note the repeated confusion of SNR and dynamic range.

I believe my difficulties are with
the quality of the message at hand, not its clarity. You are the one
leaping in this case, but to conclusions, not faith.

Thanks for proving my point Peter - your understanding of Information
Theory
is such that it would take a leap of faith to rely on it. And BTW, I'm
not
being mean or evasive, you just plain blew it.

As did you, Flipper. You're not going to get my head today, no matter how
hard you try.