|   What does make a person a yeasayer? | Tony_Montana
Sep 6, 2003 10:55 PM | | Or naysayer for that matter?
Is it:
#1. Money
#2. Knowledge, or lack of.
#3. Perceptions
#4. Kind of equipments one own
#5. Experience
#6. Guiltily
#7. Following other people's advice blindly
#8. Age
#9. Hearing capability
From what I have seen, my vote have to go to number 4, with #7 not too far behind :) |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | mtrycrafts
Sep 7, 2003 12:01 AM | | What is # 6? Gullibility? If so, that is my choice for the yeasayers only. #7 follows with #7 followed by #2, lack of knowledge. But faulty perception, or accepting what they think they hear is a combination or a product of #2, #7, and #6. |
| I see where | mtrycrafts
Sep 7, 2003 12:03 AM | | you received an input from dado4 at AA expousing his bogus, illogic about DBT. |
| He lost me after..... | Tony_Montana
Sep 7, 2003 2:51 PM | | ....after he said that variables such as room temperature, humidity, one's clothing, the length of his/her hair, etc... can effect listening and ability to aurally detect.
Where you surprise of that response?
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/prophead/messages/6048.html |
| He lost me after..... | mtrycrafts
Sep 7, 2003 11:41 PM | | Of course not. Clark is a yes man.
I guess dado4 never been to a real research center such as in Canada, NRC or at Harman, or where JJ worked, world renowned. Too bad JJ is not around to take them apart. But then he was not into that much. Naw, a bunch of wannabees and has beens. |
| The stupidity of extremism ... | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 8, 2003 9:43 PM | | ... doesn't necessarily extend to the entire person. Many extremists, particularly the more outspoken ones, are literate and well educated. This in no way reduces the stupidity of their extremism. The gaps in the guys logic may be what caused you to get lost. His facts are non sequitor. If you just see such things for the holes they are you may find them less confusing. Remember that extremists have no interest in logic unless it serves their purpose, and many are quite adept at twisting logic or glossing over gaping holes in their thinking and arguments. It is probably best to simply ignore such people, as they will carry their ignorance to the grave, and drag along anyone they can convince to follow.
R.O. |
| This is so absurd it deserves a response. | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 6:20 AM | | "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." That was said by Barry Goldwater in 1964.
The founders of the United States of America were extremests. So was Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, Jesus Christ, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, Galileo, and all other revolutionary thinkers. Their views and countless others were at one time or another considered radical to the point of being extreme. Of course so were Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx, Mao Tse Tung, and many other monsters.
It is absurd to condemn extremism until you understand what the extreme views are and determine whether or not they are valid.
RO, you are smart enough to know better. |
| Extremism is not desirable in any type or form. | Tony_Montana
Sep 9, 2003 4:28 PM | | I don't believe most of people you mentioned were extremist (except my be Karl Marx, Hitler or Mao Tse Tung). Most of them were definitely against the statue quote, but were not extremist. At least time proved that :) |
| Au Contraire, in their day, these were heretics | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 5:38 PM | | And they would have been burned at the stake by the powers that be if it could have been done. And many of them knew it.
Do you want to hear why one by one? OK then;
The founders of the United States of America didn't just revolt against England, they revolte against the notion of the devine right of kings and nobility. They had the audacity to say for the first time since Rome that free men could govern themselves. They challenged the most basic premise of European governance and civilization. The only reason they got help from the French was because America was far away and it was to the French advantage to challenge England. The American patriots knew if they lost, they would be executed. Don't forget the famous quote "We all hang together or we shall surely hang separately."
Albert Einstein overthrew the basic understanding of the universe that had been established for hundreds of years since Newton. So revolutionary that at first only a few scientists even understood what he was talking about.
Louis Pasteur challenged the entire theory of disease. His notion that disease could be caused by microscopically invisible germs was considered ludicrous by all other biologists and physicians.
Jesus Christ challenged the entire religous authority which practically governed most aspects of life in his day.
Da Vinci performed the first autopsies, cutting open dead bodies and drawing what he saw. His drawings about 600 years later are still anatomically highly accurate. Had they caught him, he would have been executed.
Socrates was forced to drink poison (hemlock) because of his teachings by questioning instead of the prevailing methods.
And the inquisition put Galileo under house arrest adn showed him the instruments of torture forcing him to recant his scientific theories and the evidence he published to support them.
These men were far in advance of conventional minds of their day and were considered extreme and dangerous radicals by those whom they challenged. It is only in retrospect after their ideas have been proven to the point where even small children learn them and we take them for granted as facts all of our lives that they no longer seem extreme. |
| Skeptic is trying to defend himself, because ... | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 9, 2003 11:19 PM | | ... he knows the shoe fits.
b ;-)
R.O. |
| ..... because he is right (nt) | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 4:53 AM | | |
| Really? | BluesDaddy
Sep 10, 2003 5:55 AM | | How about in mathematics? Isn't it "extreme" to insist that 2+2 *always* equals 4? How about in medicine? Isn't it a little *extreme* to insist that your doctor scrub up before *every* surgery? Hmmm, I bet the families of the Astronauts recently killed wish NASA had been a little more extreme concerning safety!
Ah, yes, there are no absolutes, of that I am absolutely sure! |
| Really? | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:25 PM | | b Ah, yes, there are no absolutes, of that I am absolutely sure!
Oh, but we are not sure of this, are we? Do we know and understand the whole of the universe :) |
| This is so absurd it deserves a response. | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 7:03 AM | | Your response is offensive. Hitler was also an extremist. One assumes you also approve of terrorism as it is a extreme response to perceived wrongs. The truth is that there are two sides to any dispute and extremism is not helpful in resolving disagreements for everyone's benefit.
It doesn't surprise me that you hold these view by you conservative political statements in the past. I find your comments on this point very hard to stomach. I am not above taking extreme action in my own defense, but I clearly recognize that such action is not the optimal solution.
By the way, Barry lost in his bid for the presidency when he made that idiotic statement--in large part due to his extremist positions. |
| Oh, and by the way... | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 7:11 AM | | What is so great about our "founding fathers"? They were wealthy bigoted males who in some cases held slaves and slept with them. They started a rebellion because they didn't want to pay their taxes. Damn few of them actually faught.
Perhaps you should read some history instead of simply waving a flag and believing what you were taught in elementary school.
I guess you are an example that shows that intelligent people can be extremists. |
| What tripe trap... | BluesDaddy
Sep 10, 2003 8:39 AM | | Name me any "bigotry" some held that was *not* held by the prevailing culture in Europe? Or which similar bigotries could not be found in *any* culture of the time period?
Most of these men risked life, limb and property and it wasn't because they "didn't want to pay their taxes" but because they had *no voice* in the government to which they were paying them.
Perhaps *you* should get beyond the current PC revisionism of our day and read some primary sources from some of these folks. |
| Right | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 4:56 PM | | Your elementary books are right, and the history professors are revisionist because they challenge your elementary school, patriotic myth version of history.
Bigotry is bigotry despite the fact that it is prevalent. When they said "all men are created equal" they meant white, property owning males. Most Americans who led the revolution did so because they did not want to give any fraction of their new found wealth to the motherland. Look it up somewhere other than the nightly TV news.
You probably think France didn't win the revolution for us, too. Well, hey, revise away...it is so much easier than dealing with reality. |
| Right | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 6:25 PM | | "When they said "all men are created equal" they meant white, property owning males."
Yet the fact remains that The United States of America has evolved into the most free and democratic nation in the history of the world, all warts and injustices not withstanding. (I'd be the first to say that the 2000 presidential election was stolen but I lived in Europe for a while and I wouldn't recommend living there. Not if you're black, not if you're hispanic, not if you're Turk or Arab or Chinese or Indian.) |
| How extreme... | BluesDaddy
Sep 10, 2003 8:44 AM | | ...and stupid as well. Skeptic pointed out that Hitler was an extremist. You apparently didn't really read what he wrote. His point is that not *all* extremism is worthy of being vilified. I would daresay you approve of the "extreme" measures used to liberate Europe from Hitler's grasp. Hmmm?
And if someone is attacking you with a knife, why would countering that attack with "extreme prejudice" *not* be the "optimal solution"? |
| Sorry to butt in | rb122
Sep 10, 2003 8:54 AM | | But I can answer this:
b And if someone is attacking you with a knife, why would countering that attack with "extreme prejudice" *not* be the "optimal solution"?
Ancient masters of the martial art Aikido dealt with this issue. It was and is a defensive art that emphasized respect for one's opponent by subduing an opponent without causing them mortal or serious injury.
Who would argue that disarming the knife-wielding attacker without "extreme prejudice" i.e excessive force would NOT be the optimal solution? Taken further, if you could talk the attacker out of the attack, would that not be optimal?
Extreme prejudice is never optimal; it's just sometimes all we have. |
| Sorry to butt in | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 11:42 AM | | Perhaps had Mr. Czar been on one of those hijacked planes two years ago on 9-11-01 he could have talked the Arab terrorists out of attacking the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. Do you think the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvaina was brought down with less than extreme measures? Now what idiot would say yes to that?
By the way Mr. Czar, there is a word in the English language for people who take extreme measures in extremely dire situations especially when it is at the risk of their own lives and that word is .....HERO! |
| Sorry to butt in | rb122
Sep 10, 2003 11:57 AM | | b Do you think the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvaina was brought down with less than extreme measures? Now what idiot would say yes to that?
Not even an idiot would suggest otherwise. That same idiot would also not state that the plane going down and killing all those people was an "optimal" outcome. A lesser of two evils, yes, but not optimal.
Extreme measures are sometimes necessary, but they are never the best way to accomplish something. |
| Examples of extremism | RobotCzar
Sep 16, 2003 11:04 AM | | The men who hijacked that plane, and Bin-Laden himself, have taken extreme action because they believe they are "right". In fact, they believe God told them to do it. What more "moral" motivation can one have?
Now, do I believe they are right. No way. Do I believe skeptic is right when he sites moral superiority for his extremism (which he seems to derive from his god and his narrow world view)? No way.
This is EXACTLY why extremism is hardly ever a good idea. |
| Sorry to butt in | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:34 PM | | But in? On an open forum? :) :) |
| This is so absurd it deserves a response. | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 11:36 AM | | I said that you have to determine if an extremist is right before you judge him or his views. What more could you want?
Barry Goldwater was painted as an extremist by the democrats in the media. He lost and Johnson won. A lot of Americans got killed in Viet Nam as a result of the policies of the non extremist president. Would a more extreme president have saved lives? Was Truman an extremist to have dropped two atom bombs on Japan? A lot more Americans would have died in the war if he hadn't. By many accounts, so would many more Japanese.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. I think that is a sentiment Patrick Henry could have agreed with. So could Nathan Hale, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams, and Voltaire. Neville Chamberlain would not have agreed with it and look at where the world wound up as a result of what he did. |
| Stick to EE, skep; your history sucks | RobotCzar
Sep 17, 2003 10:14 AM | | Barry's quote speaks for itself. No one had to paint him as an extremist, he said so.
Truman (or rather his military advisors) were extreme in dropping two atomic bombs on Japanese cities (cities made up of non-combat an non-defense industry civilians including innocent children (and Americans). There is no evidence beyond the miltary to support the claim that the war was shortened at all by this act.
The facts are that the Japanese had practicaly zero military resources (including oil) and were conducting surrender negotiations at the time the bomb was dropped. Their single demand was to retain their emperor, which they were granted in the end anyway. The atomic terror bombing of Japan was a needless loss of life motivated primarily by revenge. Even if you think the bomb made any difference, a demonstration (recommended by the scientists who made the bomb) could have achieved the same result without the huge loss of life and the stigma of being the only nation to use atomic weapons (that's WMDs for you who watch the nightly news).
Again, try to get some history from sources other than TV or high school textbooks. |
| Mr. Czar, do you know anything about anything? | skeptic
Sep 17, 2003 5:37 PM | | Once again you are wrong, dead wrong. You sound like some left wing radical who wants to revise history and weave a litainy of lies about the United States.
When the Emperor of Japan decided to surrender, the phonograph recording he made to announce it to the population who would accept only that message of surrender, almost didn't make it to the radio station but was nearly intercepted by the generals who were determined to fight until the last Japanese man, woman, and child was dead. The Japanese during world war two were religious fanatics and zealots in the very same sense that suicide bombers and Al Qaeda terrorists are today. There is no doubt that there would have been a huge number of casualties on both sides had the Japanese not had a compelling and face saving reason to surrender, namely in awareness of the reality of a new kind of weapon which could have annihalated their entire civilization. Can you tell any American on this board or anywhere in the world why one extra American life should have been sacrificed to save the Japanese from losing their lives in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Whose father, grandfather, uncle or brother should now be dead 58 years having lost his life in the protracted war you would have advocated? No they wound not have given up by a mere demonstration of the bomb. And by the way, they had their own atom bomb project and would not have hesitated to use it on us had they gotten it first, just the way the didn't hesitate to commit the inhuman attrocities on the civilians in the lands they conquered and the prisoners they took. Too bad you are a little too late. You could learn a lot watching the History Channel right around August 6 when they show documentaries about the entire event.
Your despicable lies about America are so nauseatingly reminiscent of the kind of communist propaganda we heard endlessly in the 1960s that I really can't bear to contemplate any further exchanges with you as I no longer have any respect for anything you say. I am not going to respond to any of your posts, political or otherwise until you appologize to every American on this board for your libel. |
| Let's lighten up guys | Norm Strong
Sep 17, 2003 9:14 PM | | The fact of the matter is that nobody knows what would have happened if we had given a demo of the atom bomb instead of just dropping it on Hiroshima. We can however look at the Hiroshima bomb as the "demo". It apparently didn't work, since we had to drop one on Nagasaki.
The Japanese didn't know whether we had one, two or twenty of these bombs. For all they knew, we had only one bomb and couldn't produce another one for a long period of time. They might very well have taken that gamble. In the fact we had only 2. Where would we have dropped our "last" atom bomb? Think about it. |
| This is a heavy topic (extremism) | RobotCzar
Sep 18, 2003 9:22 AM | | While I take and agree with your basic point, the Japanese did not have time to react to the first bomb. They did not know what hit them. You are right in saying we will never know if a demonstration would have worked as one wasn't done. I happen to think it was worth a try as an alternative to killing 100,000 people.
One might ask why we didn't wait a bit after the first bomb drop. There was zero reason not to wait a bit. Instead, scratch off another 100,000 innocents. We need the myth that the bomb ended the war a saved lives to maintain our self image. But, an objective look clearly indicates that this was not the optimal solution.
On can only conclude that if we had more bombs we would have dropped those, too. |
| I know quite a bit actually | RobotCzar
Sep 18, 2003 9:34 AM | | More that can be obtained from propaganda and official popular versions of history. You apparently are getting your history from The Learning Channel and The History Channel.
Also, I can think for myself as opposed to spouting propaganda slogans. Yay for our side!
Wake up and use you head for someting other that a repository for misinformation. Nothing I said in my note is inaccurate and you did nothing to offer any kind of evidence or argument that it is.
Don't you think TV might play up a story about general's taking over just a tiny little bit? You seem to swallow anything thrown your way if if makes you feel superior. You version of history as stated here and in previous notes is just bit too self serving and in line with popular myths.
I don't think you really know anything about real history, only what you remember from the textbooks, TV, and popular American jingoist mythology.
Count on me being here to set the record straight. I challenge everyone to seek out the real facts instead of the just accepting the mythology. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | okiemax
Sep 7, 2003 1:45 AM | | I've had trouble posting this, so my apologies if it comes up twice. I agree #4 is most important, providing you mean the cost of the equipment. I doubt many owners of expensive hifi gear hook it up with zip cord. The least important probably is hearing capability. My guess is yeasayers and naysayers hear equally well, but yeasayers are trying to get more out of listening. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | mtrycrafts
Sep 7, 2003 11:44 PM | | b but yeasayers are trying to get more out of listening.
No. they are trying to satisfy their imaginations. An impossibility as it changes all the time. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | skeptic
Sep 7, 2003 5:30 AM | | I think that depends on who they are. If they are audiophiles, then 3 and 5 play a role. By the time you disconnect one set of wires and connect another, you have largely forgotten exactly what you heard. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that a more expensive set sound better. That is why DBT and a setup that allows for fast easy switching is the only way to fairly test these products. Even some of the most ardent advocates such as JR freely admit that the differences are subtle and only audible with the best equipment.
However, we can't dismiss 1 because there is no way to know how many people who for example post here are in some way connected with manufacturing or selling these products. There's no way to surely identify all of the shills.
There's another possibility which is not listed and that is perversity. Some people will say they hear a difference simply beacuse they are looking for an arguement and this is sure to start one with some people. If you like debate, this is the best kind because no amount of evidence or logic will convince them. They will argue as long as you care to and most of them have a compulsion to always get in the last word. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | okiemax
Sep 7, 2003 9:52 AM | | I'm not convinced that DBT is a good way to test for differences. I like to try a new equipment for several weeks before deciding whether to keep it -- this gives me time to listen to a large variety of music in a relaxed setting. DBT isn't that thorough. |
| DBT does have its shortcoming. | Tony_Montana
Sep 7, 2003 2:42 PM | | Especially if differences [between test subjects] are subtle, and "duration" switching between them are long. For such instances, instantaneous switching might produce more favorable results (for quick decision :) |
| A double blind test is a method, not a duration | skeptic
Sep 7, 2003 7:04 PM | | A double blind test is a method to compare different things without knowing what they are so that their is no conscious or subconscious prejudice. It has no fixed duration. It can take six minutes, six months, or six years. It is the only way to know if there are really discernable differences exclusive of non objective factors. Audio asylum and Cable Asylum have stated this and endorsed it in the same breath as banning any discussion of it on the Cable Asylum message board. Since their stated objective is to discuss "positive experiences" with after market audio cables (which I read as endorsement whether these cables have objective merits in imporving the sound of audio systems or not), I find this enterely consistant with their policy and the implied purpose of their web site.
To dismiss the value of DBTs is to dismiss all fair testing of audio equipment and opt for an entirely subjective evaluation which will vary from one person to another. As I have stated in postings on other boards on this site, I love the warm blue, orange, green, and red glow of McIntosh vacuum tube equipment produced 40 years ago not to mention the feel of it even though it probably doesn't sound any better than the far cheaper technologically more advanced equipment I use today. I am not saying you should not prejudice your choices of what to buy, use, or like. But at least understand the reality behind it. |
| A double blind test is a method, not a duration | okiemax
Sep 7, 2003 9:11 PM | | I don't dismiss the value of DBT im general. I owe a lot to the DBT behind my prescription drugs. I just question it's value to me for hifi. I would be interested in the results of a DBT for any audio item I own or am thinking about buying, but have never had any luck finding such information. How can DBT results that don't exist be of value to me? |
| A double blind test is a method, not a duration | mtrycrafts
Sep 7, 2003 11:54 PM | | Why do you trust DBT in drugs but not in audio? Just because they didn't test your particular component?
DBTs have shown what is audibly different and the biggest answer is why that is so. Once we know why, then we can extrapolate pretty well, well enough.
But, without such a protocol, you have no idea what is audibly different and what is not.
Comparable speaker wires have never been shown to be audibly different, regardless what the claims are.
Most other competently designed components will fall into the same category. The Audio Critic has been reviewing components under DBT for a very long time. Not much differences. |
| A double blind test is a method, not a duration | okiemax
Sep 8, 2003 3:55 AM | | My guess is DBT would show little audible difference in any "comparable" cables and perhaps even a lot of "not so comparable" cables, particularily if the participants had only a casual interest in hifi. To a lesser extent this might be true for amps, preamps, cd players, etc. But what am I to think if my experience runs counter to the results of a DBT? One possibility is that I am fooling myself. Another possibility is that audio DBT is missing something. Given these choices, I would prefer to place my trust in what I hear. |
| A double blind test is a method, not a duration | skeptic
Sep 8, 2003 5:52 AM | | The problem is that you do not always know what you hear. You are easily fooled. Everyone is. And that is when the comparison isn't even rigged by people expert at selling you things. One of the best tricks I ever saw was Philips demo of the "Little David" loudspeaker at a trade show. When you first entered the room, two monster speaker enclosures were playing quite loudly. It was very impressive even for these enormous speakers. Then they switched on lights inside to reveal that these were empty frames covered in cloth and what was really playing was two very small speakers, each enclosure was about one cubic foot. (they were internally triamplified.)
DBT participants can be prescreened to have any level of listening experience or expertise. The only thing that is important is that the test is completely fair.
When a product has been used and accepted for decades by engineers, amatures, and professionals and someone comes along with something new that is more expensive, sometimes very much more expensive to do exactly the same thing, IMO the onus is on them to prove that it is better. So far, after more than twenty years of this kind of product in the marketplace, they haven't even shown that it is different let alone audibly better. What could the reason for this be? To my way of thinking it's because they can't and because they don't have to. There are enough suckers buying the stuff who don't want the proof to make it profitable. Any demonstration which would cast doubt on its value would be counterproductive to boosting sales and profits. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | RobotCzar
Sep 8, 2003 2:45 PM | | First off, let me say that whatever you might find as shortcommings of blind testing (and the attacks are pretty weak), the alternative of not blinding is disastorous as has been proven many times in the hard and soft sciences. The poor poor record of non-blind testing from N-rays to counting horses clearly indicates that an unblinded test is worthless. There really is no alternative to blind testing.
Now, are blind testing results valuable to you if they don't test equipment you are interested in? Given that the results are almost uniformly negative for electronic components and cables, one might be emboldened to speculate that the results also apply to any equipment you are interested in. The best summary of the results of controlled testing is that nobody has been able to distinguish electronics (and cables of course) when listening to music under any conditions. In other words, we are still waiting (after over 20 years of tests) for somebody to pass a DBT on the issues raised in this and other forums. (NOTE: DBT does show people can distinguish very subtle REAL audio differences such as slight frequency response errors or small differences in volume.)
Your guess that DBT shows little audible difference only among "comparable" equipment (by which I assume you mean similarly priced) is totally wrong. People have consistently failed to distinguish a cheap mass market receivers from megabuck separates, for example. If only deaf people have been test subjects, then will a real golden ear please come forth? Many who thought they were golden ears have failed.
How open is your mind? Gather more information about this topic. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | okiemax
Sep 8, 2003 8:20 PM | | I want to thank RobotCzar and skeptic for responding to my last post. I thought I made it clear in the first sentence of that post that my guess is DBT will show little audible difference in hifi equipment. RobotCzar concluded that I meant just the opposite. Oh well, I try reading too fast too, but I just wanted to clear that up.
The problem I have with DBT in audio is that some conclusions drawn from it conflict with my listening experience. I might be more impressed with audio DBT if a different approach helped verifying its validity. How about shifting attention from equipment to program material.
It would be interesting, for example, to see if participants in a DBT could tell the difference between two similar symphony orchestras playing the same work. You could switch from Orchestra A To Orchestra B during the pause between the first and second movements of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. If listeners picked up on the change, it would be a plus for DBT. If listeners didn't notice, it would raise questions about the validity of DBT in audio, since we already know the perfomers are in fact different. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | mtrycrafts
Sep 9, 2003 12:05 AM | | b The problem I have with DBT in audio is that some conclusions drawn from it conflict with my listening experience.
Yes, that is natural in many instances because your experience was in sighted comparisons where human psychology takes over, your brain will feed you erroneous and unreliable information. This is well known as Robot indicated.
My experience at a magic show is certainly different from reality. Same with audio.
b I might be more impressed with audio DBT if a different approach helped verifying its validity.
Validity of what? A different approach from DBT with bias not controlled for? It cannot verify a DBT.
b How about shifting attention from equipment to program material.
Oh, but you are listening to the program material, played through two components under test.
b It would be interesting, for example, to see if participants in a DBT could tell the difference between two similar symphony orchestras playing the same work.
That will not validate DBT one way or the other.It will only tell you that yes, there is or is not a difference.
b If listeners picked up on the change, it would be a plus for DBT.
No, I think you are confused about DBT. This will tell you that the two performances are different, nothing more.
But, it is not that simple. What you need to do is compare the 2 performances and be able to correctly identify one over the other at a statistically significant number, not just a one time correct guess.
b If listeners didn't notice, it would raise questions about the validity of DBT in audio, since we already know the perfomers are in fact different.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
There was an experiment many years ago, conductors, musiciand and ordinary people trying to identify the out takes from performances that the conductor rejected as being not suitable. Under DBT, they didn't do so well.
No, that is not an indication of a flaw in DBT protocol, just that ones hearing is not as good as one thinks it is.
After all, your hearing has limits, finite limits. Most likely you cannot hear 20kHz. Very few people can.
As was suggested, try to research this area of audio, and human psychology of bias. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 5:04 AM | | First of all, a double blind test which doesn't play the same musical passage or tones from one trial to the next is invalid. It is impossible to call a test fair if the unknown equipment being tested isn't put to the identical challenge. Generally the passages must be long enough to allow the listener to become attuned to the character of the sound but short enough so that his brief memory isn't overtaxed to the point where he forgot the sound of the beginning of one trial by the time the next one appears.
The selections MUST at some point challenge the equipment to exhibit its limits. Of course two amplifiers of entirely different capabilities may sound indistinguishable when playing music at modest levels with efficient speakers without crazy crossovers playing music which doesn't present extremes of frequencies or frequency combinations. Try a pair of AR3s playing loud deep organ pedals for a while. That will separate the 40wpc $200 mass market receiver from the $5000 200 wpc high end power amplifier. (in the mid 1960s a high end solid state Scott reciever with a MOSFET output stage didn't survive this test. Scott said it was because the AR3 fell below 1 ohm at some frequencies. AR said that they would sue Scott if we could get them to say that in writing.)
As for the music itself, most performances of the same music are so different in EVERY respect that blind tests aren't really needed. This is especially true if you are familiar with the music. See my review of the Shostokovich 5th symphony in which I compared the tempo of the beginning of the 4th movement of 3 different recordings by three different orchestra/conductor combinations. Differences not only in tempo, instrumental balance, and every other musical factor are not only often obvious but when combined with differences in recording techniques, recording equipment, acoustics caputred of the recording venue, and the post recording decisions made in the mastering sessions give each recording and performance its own signiture. And how well I know this when comparing vinyl and cd recordings of the same performance made from the same master tape by different recording engineers and balance engineers. There is no need for a double blind test here. The differences are usually gross. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | okiemax
Sep 9, 2003 4:53 PM | | Thanks guys. I appreciate the efforts that went into the posts by mtrycrafts and skeptic. I would agree that listener skill is important in DBT, but that I think is part of the problem. How do you know from one DBT to the next that you have any consistency in the skills of the participants? Comparisons with DBT in medicine to imply good company are a bit of a stretch. I may be wrong, but I don't think DBT in medical studies require any special skills or abilities on the part of subjects other than being able to remember and speak. Anyway, even a well designed double blind test with highly skilled participants isn't necessarily representative of me in a home listening environment.
The placebo effect freqently is offered as an expalnation for a listener's preference for a particular cable or component (i.e., I want it to sound better, so I fool myself into thinking it sounded better). This is different than the placebo effect in medicine -- not only did the subject who took the sugar coated pill think he would get better, he really did get better, as opposed to being fooled into thinking he was better. Well, I seem to be taking off on an entirely different subject. I have doubts about the placebo effect in general --some medical researchers claim it's a myth, and that we are just witnessing plain old regression to the mean.
Let me get to the point before I lose this post like a have before. A friend recently loaned me an expensive silver interconnect to put between my integrated amp and cd player. I had high hopes for increased detail, etc. But it was a big disappointment -- too bright in my system. He also loaned me an aftermarket power cord which I doubted would make any difference. Wrong again! It improved the base performance -- very apparent, not subtle. I no longer put much stock in th placebo effect.
P.S. I enjoyed skeptic's review of Haitink's Shostakovich. You got a lot of enjoyment from a 67 cents garage sale LP. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 5:51 PM | | Participants in a double blind test can be prescreened. They could have to pass a test proving that they can hear subtle changes in volume, in pitch, have an absolute hearing sensitivity over a specified frequency range, can identify the sounds of different musical instruments, can name 25 composer, can recite the declaration of independence backwards. You can put any criteria you want to select the participants you feel most appropriate, usually meaning most sensitive to what you are trying to test for. The main point of a DBT is that it is completely fair so the the participants can't make a choice based on prior knowledge of which piece of equipment they are listening to. The test should also as I said meet other criteria to be as relevant as possible to getting an outcome which would conclusively prove or disprove the audible equivalence of the equipment being tested. That no such tests have demonstrated the ability of these aftermarket products to improve sound system performance either in a laboratory test showing more accurate waveform transfer or audibly is highly suggestive that it simply can't be proved. I would not recommend that anyone spend even one cent on these products until such evidence is forthcoming. |
| A double blind test is the ONLY method | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:04 AM | | While training is important, it is not when you want to establish your ability to hear differences by eliminating your biases. Training will give you quicker results and better ones if your hearing is excellent as well. |
| I disagree on a couple of points | RobotCzar
Sep 15, 2003 10:21 AM | | You seem overly concerned with the "skill" of the subjects of a blinded test of perception. This is pretty common, but the facts are that nobody, even "skilled" listeners and those who have reported hearing differences, have been able to distinguish cables in blind tests. Why assume they can when there is no evidence to back that idea (nor any theoretical reason).
It is true that subjects of clinical tests are not "trained" to observe symptoms and drug effect, but I don't see how that lessens the fact that only blinding protocols are accepted for most drug testing. The implication that placebo can cause physical changes, or impressions of physical changes within the body certainly seems to be to make it easy to believe that placebo effect can affect perception. (In addition there is plenty of direct scientific evidence that expectatioins, peer pressure, and other factors can and do effect perception.) There is no reason to believe that expert listeners would be less susceptible to "placebo effects".
In a practical, common sense view; I would find it easier to believe that people fool themselves into believing they were hearing a difference than that they were feeling better or cured because of a pill that should have no actual effect.
You are picking nits and ignoring the large body of evidence that indicates that people often and frequently believe what they want to instead of what is really happening. You should be more concerned with the evidence that shows "experts" making claims that they cannot back up when blinded. Such reports are proven unreliable and are unacceptable to the scientific, medical, and legal communities.
The hard evidence that expensive cables (or any reasonable cables) have audible differences is nil. |
| I disagree on a couple of points | okiemax
Sep 16, 2003 2:31 PM | | Thanks RobotCzar for your response. I'm not sure I understand exactly what is meant by the "placebo effect" in the DBT audio context, but I think it means if I hear differences in cables it is because I expect or want to hear differences, rather than differences actually existing. I am influeced by things such as advertisements, favorable reviews, and opinons of friends in expecting the cable to improve the performance of my hifi system. I want the cable to be an improvement, so I fool myself into thinking it is an improvement.
I can't say with certainty that I have never been fooled because of the placebo effect. It's probably happened in particular cases with cables as well as other audio components. But I don't think the effect is long lasting --you eventually realize it's not better. It sure would be nice if the placebo effect was lasting, since each time I tried a supposedly better cable, I would be one step closer to audiophile heaven.
I also have experienced just the opposite of the placebo effect several times. I wanted and expected a new component to make my system sound better, but it made it worse. Conversly, I didn't expect an improvement from a new component, but got one. These experiences make me think that too much may be attributed to the placebo effect.
You had some comments on double-blind testing of audio components. I have some thoughts on the subject too, but would like to save them for another post. |
| Thanks to you, too | RobotCzar
Sep 17, 2003 6:50 AM | | I appreciate you civility and the content of your comments.
Your definition of the "placebo effect" is similar to mine. My readings in psychology lead me to believe that the effect is stronger and more prevalent than you think. Many people are not able to do what you do: overcome your initial reaction. Most get defensive and entrench their opinions.
I am not aware of any information about how strong a placebo affect is in the face of counter evidence, but it is well established that people cannot judge their responses as being due to a placebo.
It may be misleading to say we "fool" ourselves into believing (though that is a good summary). Our perception is quite subjective and context sensitive--we may actually percieve differently due to the factors you mention. |
| Thanks to you, too | okiemax
Sep 18, 2003 12:15 AM | | In my last post I promised more thoughts on audio double blind testing. I'm afraid I don't have more than a couple of points to make at this time, but the second one may be tedious reading, so please bear with me.
The results of most DBT ABX experiments I have seen reject the null hypothesis that the two components being tested sound different. I think to conclude this is proof of no difference in sound may be a misinterpretation of what the null hypothesis means. I am rusty on statistics, but I think it means the experiment does not provide sufficient evidence of a difference, not proof of no difference.
It might be interesting to turn the question around. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference in the sound of the two components. I'm not sure what you would ask the listeners, but perhaps a single test could be 30 seconds of music played on Component A followed by 30 seconds of the same on Component B, and then the choice of saying they were the same or different. The test could be repeated with the listener as many times as needed. My guess is the null hypothesis from such an experiment would be rejected(not sufficient evidence that the two components sound the same).
Comments would be welcomed. |
| Thanks to you, too | mtrycrafts
Sep 18, 2003 12:30 AM | | b My guess is the null hypothesis from such an experiment would be rejected(not sufficient evidence that the two components sound the same).
No. If the statistics are such that it indicates a difference, then that is what it demonstrates. If the statistics does not show a difference, the null cannot be rejected. After a while, with zero positive outcomes, one is prudent in accepting the null hypothesis.
Frick wrote about this, "Accepting the Null Hypothesis."
b I think to conclude this is proof of no difference in sound may be a misinterpretation of what the null hypothesis means.
While this may not be proof to you, with zero evidence for a difference, what is one to think? Test until you have tested everyone on the planet? Then what? Is that how science operates? Or, uses the tools we have, statistical analysis. |
| Thanks to you, too | okiemax
Sep 18, 2003 11:30 AM | | Your second point is a good one, but I am not clear on your first point. I may have failed to adequately explain that I was proposing a different type of DBT experiment with a different hypothesis.
The null hypothesis in the proposed test would be that the two different components sound the same. The test would be AB rather than ABX. One test would be 30 seconds of music on Component A followed by 30 seconds of the same music on Component B, and the participant would have the choice of indicating either A and B sounded the same or they sounded different.
My guess is that if you did this kind of test repeatedly with a number of participants the choices would tend to be even (e.g., with 20 participants and 16 tests, I would expect about 180 "sounds the same" answers and 180 "sounds different" answers). Therefore, the null hypothesis would be rejected, and the conlusion would be that there is not sufficient evidence the two components sound the same. I don't think this would happen with every experiment, but probably would happen more often than not. |
| Thanks to you, too | mtrycrafts
Sep 18, 2003 10:13 PM | | b The test would be AB rather than ABX.
That is not a controlled test. Might as well be a sighted one.
b One test would be 30 seconds of music on Component A followed by 30 seconds of the same music on Component B, and the participant would have the choice of indicating either A and B sounded the same or they sounded different.
That is exactely what happens in a sighted listening. What is there to test? 75% will indicate a difference. That is human nature, not changeable outside of evolution.
b My guess is that if you did this kind of test repeatedly with a number of participants the choices would tend to be even
No. Absolutely not. Unless the test is set up that one is really different like not level matched. Otherwise, you might as well expose the same component twice.
b Therefore, the null hypothesis would be rejected, and the conlusion would be that there is not sufficient evidence the two components sound the same.
Under your premis of an equal number of differences and sameness, you cannot reject the null. You can only reject the null if the outcome is positive. Your example demonstrated that as you could not get a statistically significant difference. How can you reject the null which would mean a difference? Your numbers did not show such a difference. |
| Short reply | okiemax
Sep 20, 2003 11:07 AM | | Mtrycrafts, I'm puzzled by your comments. Why is the DBT experiment I proposed the same as a sighted listening? The listeners would not see the equipment, nor would the have prior knowledge of what we are comparing.
Why wouldn't the null hypothesis be rejected with a 50/50 outcome? Isn't that the same as the results of one of the Tagmclaren ABX experiments,where the null hypothesis was rejected?
I'm sorry that I don't have time to address all of your comments, but I only have limited time here on the public library computer, which is the only one avialable to me until the power is restored to my home(about 6 more days I'm told). Yes, the hurricane did it. I also hope to eventually reply to your comments about my ideas for selecting listeners for DBT experiments. |
| I'm not sure your understanding is correct | RobotCzar
Sep 24, 2003 8:16 AM | | I don't quite agree with your definition of the null hypothesis.
That hypothesis does not make any assumption about whether or not subjects can distinguish components. I suggest that the real definition of "the null hypothessis" is the assumption that the results for a small random sample of subjects is the same as the results for any other sample (or the population at large). In other words, there is no significant differences among groups of tests subjects (if randomly selected and large enough).
I can't see how an ABX test, for example, makes any assumption about whether or not subjects can distinguish components. That, in fact, the the very thing the test is addressing. The ABX test does not ask subjects to determine if A is the same or different than B. It asks if X is A or B. |
| I'm not sure your understanding is correct | okiemax
Sep 26, 2003 1:39 AM | | Based on what I have read about double blind testing(DBT) of audio components the hypothesis and null hypothesis generally are implied or stated as follows. HYPOTHESIS: the difference between Component A and Component B can be heard. NULL HYPOTHESIS: A sounds the same as B. In the studies I have seen, DBT results do not disprove the null hypothesis. However, they don't prove it either. The quote is from <http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx/abx_p9.htm>
"Note that no matter what score is achieved, A=B cannot be proven. That is the ABX Double Blind Comparison can never be used to prove two audio components sound the same. The notion that ABX can prove components sound the same is a common misconception about ABX." |
| DBT overview | RobotCzar
Sep 9, 2003 4:55 PM | | Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements or position. It isn't the first time, communicating by text is even more imprecise than speaking.
A lot of misinformation is passed on about blind testing. The facts (as I seem them) are that blind testing is required to eliminate bias. I feel strongly that 99.9% or more of scientists would back that statement.
I have tried to make clear that there are many subtle audio differences that can and are easily distinguished by typical blind testing protocols like ABX. We cannot test the effectiveness of blind testing by testing something we "know" to be distinguishable because that is exactly what the DBT tests. It would be illogical to give the test and then not believe its results based on the fact that you know the tested items are distinguishable. Note that I did not say the they are audibly different--a DBT does not test that. We can simply measure differences physically. Some known differences are not identified in DBTs because people cannot detect the difference (our senses have limitations).
I think that many people could pass a test of distinguishing orchestras or even conductors. I couldn't be sure unless a blind tests was done.
The facts to date are that nobody has been able to reliably distinguish properly performing electronic audio components or cables when listening to music. Many such tests of many people have been tested over the past 25 years.
In addition, many people have strongly claimed to be able to eaily hear differences but failed to prove it when tested (i.e., there is clear proof we cannot believe what people claim to hear). Also, people have been tested with identical inputs but have claimed to hear differences (e.g., identical cable with different color exteriors).
There is no logical scientific reason to doubt blind testing and plenty of evidence to doubt any tests that are not blinded. |
| Here is a simple notion to challenge your assertion | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 6:08 PM | | You say if I understand you correctly that two amplifiers, any two amplifiers would sound identical. Lets start with two extreme cases and see where it gets us. Would you agree that a pocket radio amplifier would sound different driving an inefficient acoustic suspension speaker than a $5000 Bryston power amplifier and preamplifier? Of course you would if for no other reason than when the pocket radio's 250 milliwatt amplifier ran out of power which might be just enough to make the speaker audible, it would distort badly. Lest suppose that the amplifier designs could change, the smaller one getting increasingly more powerful and accurate while the more expensive one compromised again and again reducing its power capability, its frequency response and increasing distortion. As the two amplifier exteremes come closer together in design, the sound produced by them becomes more and more alike, there comes a point somewhere in the middle where they are physically and electrically identical and therefore indistinguishable audibly. The question is how far apart must they remain in order to still be audibly different. I don't think we have firm answers to that. It is still a matter of conjecture and also dependant on the sensitivity and training of the person doing the listening not to mention the program being fed. |
| Your reply does not suit you | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 6:19 AM | | You make such bold statements on so many topics, but you seem to wimp out a bit here.
Obviously amplifiers can be built that have differences that can be heard. The issue at hand relates to amplifiers that meet some minimum standards, namely that they have flat frequency response (variation of say less than a dB at all frequencies) in the audible range and distortion below the human threshold to hear (say, 1% THD). That statement pretty much applies to all amplifiers (and other electronics) offered for sale to consumers. Does that mean there aren't some real klunkers out there? No. Does it mean that many tube amps do not meet the minimum standards? Yes.
In writing in these forums we must make statements that overgeneralize or I would waste a lot of space qualifying. Consider any statement by me that nobody can hear differences in amplifiers to equal nobody can hear differences in amplifers that perform beyond the range of humans to detect a difference. By the current evidence this would include all commercial solid state ampifiers that have been tested (and probably extends to all amplifiers being sold). So the best simple statement we can make to help people understand what is important in home audio is to say that people haven't demonstrated that they can distinguish amplifiers.
Being techincally oriented, I suggest you don't attribute a "sound" to an ampifier as they don't make any (except hums and clicks). Ampifiers output an electrical signal. I understand that we sometime use a shorthand and say that an amp produces a sound, but I feel that misleads the uninitiated. |
| Your reply does not suit you | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 11:26 AM | | "So the best simple statement we can make to help people understand what is important in home audio is to say that people haven't demonstrated that they can distinguish amplifiers."
Within reasonable limits, I can buy that.
But I did have one interesting experience about 3 years ago. When I moved into my new house and dragged my equipment over (myself, I didn't trust the movers with that) I temporarily hooked up my loudspeakers to a different amplifier (a venerable old AR integrated solid state) instead of the Mosfet 120 I usually use. My sister who is a violinist and lives in my house and has absolutely no interest in audio equipment told me how horrible it sounded and said I should hook up a different amplifier. Now what do you make of that? (Yes it did sound different to me too but hardly unbearable.) |
| Well... | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 5:22 PM | | First, I'd say that your evidence is anecdotal and useless. But, on an informal level, I'd say that perhaps the old AR had seen better days. Recall, too, that the AR amp was one of the first solid state amps to deliver "high power" (a hefty 50 watts) to home audio buffs. Perhaps it was a bit of a strech, even though those amps had good specs. Most likely, it could be the combination of first generation with old age.
So, I claim your old AR is not performing properly, but I can't really say. |
| Well... | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 6:08 PM | | I think it performed just fine. It still works perfectly to this day. It was purchased in 1968. Although it was rated at 50 wpc into 8 ohms and 60 into 4, lab tests showed it was typically 90. I think it's real design weakness was an interstage driver transformer which was also the phase inverter. The output stage was direct coupled. It was intended as a low cost way to satisfactorily drive AR3a. The other alternatives at the time were separtes. Your choice was McIntosh, Marantz, CM Labs, Crown, Dynaco, and not much more. I think it was High Fidelity Magazine that called it "unimpeachable." Now isn't that a crazy way to describe an amplifier? I have always considered that the main difference between the sound of one audio amplifier and another is usually attributable to differences in real world frequency response when driving actual loudspeaker loads. Testing frequency response of an amplifier at one watt working into an 8 ohm resistive load may have told us something about the differences between amplfiers in 1953 but in 2003, it is almost useless. It is not my experience or my understanding that solid state power amps change the way they make loudspeakers sound due to their aging.
I have also said that it is impossible to know when listening to an audio amplifier to know what amplifier it is because whatever shortcomings you hear, you cannot know which component or whether it's the recording itself that caused it. |
| I'm still surprised at your reluctance | RobotCzar
Sep 11, 2003 7:45 AM | | I could't even afford the AR back then, let alone and separates from the companies you name.
Most amp tests I read these days (mainly in The Audio Critic when it is published) do not simply test at one watt in to a resistive load, but rather look at distortion and at various outputs into various loads. (But I admit that most specs for cheaper amps will not include such information.) It's intersting that you mention High Fidelity Magazine because that mag was probably the best consumer level mag ever. I miss it.
I don't quite agree with your points about amp differences for a few reasons:
1. The more complete tests I mention above tend to show that frequency response and distortion do not rise above audibility for any amp I have ever read about.
2. The proof of the pudding: in all listening tests I have ever read about, that people fail to distinguish even cheap receivers from expensive separates. Or even cheap amps from their own amps, with their own music, etc.
Because you are a rational, scientific type, I would expect that you would back the notion that until somebody does distinguish amps, we should assume people cannot. It clearly goes against the current evidence to assert that people can distinguish amps (with the qualification I have previously made). Even if you do not believe the published tests are very good, the lack of evidence that people can distinguish amps is pretty significant.
I also wonder at your claim that amps cannot be tested due to variations in the recording. It seems clear to me that would not be a problem if one used the same recording with both amps (e.g., via an input switch). I am not talking shortcommings, but rather simply the ablility to distinguish amps. If I can't distinguish them, how could one have shortcommings? |
| I'm still surprised at your reluctance | skeptic
Sep 11, 2003 3:43 PM | | I believe that the differences in the sound of amplifiers within their power capabilities if and when they exist are due to differences in frequency response when these amplifiers are connected to real world loudspeaker loads. The tests normally performed on amplifiers are not designed to be sensitive to these differences. They use a purely resistive and passive load.
"I also wonder at your claim that amps cannot be tested due to variations in the recording."
I didn't exactly say that, at least I don't think I did. It certainly isn't what I meant to say. Perhaps this will clear up my meaning. If you walk into a room and listen to a sound system, you have no way to know what amplifier is powering it just by listening. That is because whatever sonic signiture (I'll call it that just for convenience) the sound has cannot be directly attributed to any one or combination of elements in the recording/playback chain. Any one of them from the recording itself to the loudspeakers might be responsible.
BTW, a pair of KLH 6s sounded much better (clearer) connected to the AR amplifier when it was acquired than it did with an HK A500 integrated tube amplifier it replaced (that was 35 years ago.) Surprisingly, after probably 20 or 25 years of storage, I reconnected it 3 years ago and it still works too. All original tubes and capacitors. Amazing. |
| DBT overview | okiemax
Sep 9, 2003 8:48 PM | | Thanks for the the response. I'm not saying there has never been a well designed audio DBT with statisically significant results. It would be interesting for me to look at the methodology behind some actual DBT studies, but they are hard to find (didn't have much luck using Google).
I did run across an article titled "A Spat Among Audiophiles Over High-End Speaker Wire" in the December 23, 1999 New York Times, and will pass along the followig quote from that piece. " So far no research paper contending to prove or disprove the value of fancy wires has been accepted for publication by the leading industry publication, The Journal Of Audio Engineering Society." My search of the web site for the Society didn't turn up anything more recent. |
| DBT overview | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:15 AM | | AES has no DBT published on audio components. No one has come up to the table to do it. Wonder why.
However, there are published in other places. Nothing peer reviewed. But then the golden ears don't have any DBT to use as a reference.
<http://www.tagmclaren.com/members/news/news77.asp>
<http://www.pcavtech.com/abx/abx_data.htm>
<http://forums14.consumerreview.com/crforum?14@142.gbpHa8C4hbx^21@.ef469fd/11>
While the rest has a number of DBTs published, the list is of importance to understand what is in audio.
EXPERIMENT IN LISTENING:
-Referrences-
"The Grass is Always Greener in the Outakes", Gould, Glenn, High Fidelity, Aug 75, pg 54-59.
"Are those Ears Really Golden? (Or only Iron Pyrites)", Smith, Thomas H., Peterson, Michael R., and Jackson, Peter O., The Audio Amateur, 1/80, pg 34, 36, 38, &32.
"The Great Ego Crunchers: Equalized, Double Blind Testing", Shanefield, Daniel, Hi-Fidelity, Mar 80, pg 57-61.
"Audio Specifications and Human Hearing", Davis, Mark F., Stereo Review, May 82, pg 48-52.
"Flying Blind", Nousaine, Tom, A case against long term listening,Audio, Mar 97, pg 26-30.
"Can you Trust Your Ears?", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Aug 97, pg 53-55.
"Can you Trust Your Ears?", Nousaine, Tom, Presented at the 91st AES Convention, Oct 91, Print #3167
"The Science of Listening", Masters, Ian G., Audio Dec 97, pg 40-47.
"Ten Years of A/B/X Testing", Clark, David L., Presented at the 91st AES Convebntion, Oct 91, Print #3167.
"High-Resolution Subjective Testing Using a Double-Blind Comparator", Clark, David, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol30, no 5, May82, pg 330-338.
TWEAKS:
-Referrences-
"High-Fi Audio Pseudoscience", Davis, Fred E., Skeptical Inquirer, vol 15, no 3, Spring 91, pg 250-254.
"More on Hi-Fi Audio Claims", Davis, Fred E., Skeptical Inquirer, vol 16, no 1, Fall91, pg 90, 91.
"Effects of Stray Light within a CD: Preliminary Data", Davis, Fred E., Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 19, no 3, pg 25-27.
"CD Magic", Pholmann, Ken C., Stereo Review, July 91, pg 39-42.
"R.I.P.: The Green Ink Myth", Canal, Larry, CD Review, Sep 90, pg 3 & 110.
"The Urge to Tweak", Whyte, Bert, Audio, Apr 91, pg 29-32.
"Simple Sampling", Watkinson, John, Hi-Fi News and Record Review, Jan 91, pg 37-41.
"To Tweak, or Not to Tweak?", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Jun 98, pg 79-81.
CABLES:
-References-
"Amplifier-Loudspeaker Interfacing", Greiner, R.A., JAES vol. 28, no. 5 May 80, pg
"Another Look at Speaker Cables", Greiner, R.A., BAS Speaker Dec 78, addendum March 79
"Cables and the Amp Speaker Interface", Greiner, R.A., Audio, Aug 89, addendum Nov 89,
"Forum: Twist and Turns", Greiner, R.A., Audio, Jan 92, pg.
"Effects of cable, Loudspeaker and Amplifier Interactions", Davis, Fred E., JAES, vol. 39, no. 6 Jun 91, pg.
"Speaker Cables: Testing for Audibility", Davis, Fred E., Audio, Jul 93, pg.
"Alpha-Core Goertz M1 & M2 Speaker Cables", Davis, Fred E., Audio, Aud 94, pg. 64, 65.
"The Amp/Speaker Interface", Meyer, E.B., Stereo Review, June 91, pg
"Cable and Sound Delivery", Newell, P., Studio Sound, Jul 91, pg
"Cable Bound", Olsher, D., Stereophile, Jul 88, pg
"Getting Wired", Warren, R., Stereo Review, Jun 90, pg.
"Loudspeaker Cables", Moir, J., Hi-Fi News& Record Review, May 79, pg.
"Making the Right Connections", Murray, E., CD Review, Aud 91, pg.
"Speaker Cables Compared", Ward, C. J., Thompson and Harling M., BAS Speaker, Apr 80,
"Speaker Cables: Science or Snake Oil", Pass, Nelson, Speaker Builder, Feb 80, pg.
"What's All this Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Pease, R. A., Electronic Digest, Dec 27, 90, pg.
"What's All this Splicing Stuff, Anyhow?", Pease, R. A., part 2, Electronic Design, Jul 11, 91, pg.
"Will 'Beasty' Speaker Cables Improve your Audi |
| Part 2 | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:17 AM | | "Will 'Beasty' Speaker Cables Improve your Audio?", Honeycutt, R. A., Radio-Electronics, Feb 91, pg.
"The Wire and Cable Scene: Facts, Fictions and Frauds", Aczel, P. The Audio Critic, Part I- Issue 15, Spring-Winter 90-91; Part II-Issue 16, Spring-Fall 91, pg 51-57; Part III- issue 17, Winter 91-92, pg.50-52.
"Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian, Audio lab test, Audio Scene Canada, Jun 81, pg 24-27.
"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.
"Cable Conflicts: The Mystery of Getting Wired", Klein, Larry, Electronics Now, Dec 93, pg. 80& 83.
"Wired Wisdom, The Great Chicago Cable Caper", Nousaine, Tom, Sound & Vision(Canada), Sep 95, pg. 73-76.
"Beating the Bafflegab & Filtering the FooFooDust", Hayward, James, Part 1- Marshall's Audio Ideas Guide(Canada) Summer/Fall 94
"Making the Connection. Part Deux: A Closer Look at the Role of Loudspeaker Cables", Hayward, James, Winter 95. Reprints available from Kimberkable.
"1/4" Cable Roundup", Gallagher, Mitch, Keyboard, Apr 99, pg. 44-48.
"Speaker Cables, Measurements vs Psychoacoustic Data", Villchur, Edgar, Audio, Jul 94, pg 34-37.
"The Truth About Speaker Cables", Hoffman, Williwam R., Popular Electronics, Jul 95, pg 46-48, &93.
"Cross Talk, Do Cables Have a Sonic Personality all their Own?", Kessler, Kehn & Nousaine, Tom, Video, May 96, pg. 36-40.
"Does Wire Directionality Exist?", Lampen, Stephen, Speaker Builder, 3/98, pg 30, 31.
"String 'em Up!", Butterworth, Brent & Griffin, Al, Home Theater,
"Walking the High Wire", Butterworth, Brent, Home Theater, Nov 98, pg 94-102.
AMPLIFIERS:
-References-
"Topological Analysis of Consumer Audio Electronics: Another Approach to Show that MOdern Audio Electronics are Acoustically Transparent", Rich, David and Aczel, Peter, 99 AES Convention, 1995, Print #4053.
"The Great Debate: Is Anyone Winning?", Nousaine, Tom, Proceedings of the AES, 8th International Conference, 1990.
"Audiolab Test: Six Power Amplifiers", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, May 1977, pg 44-50.
"Audiolab Test: Amplifiers and Speaker Cables", Masters, Ian G., Audio Scene Canada, Jun 1981, pg 24-27.
"Do All Amplifiers Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G., Stereo Review, Jan 1987, pg 78-84.
"Audible Amplifier Distortion is not a Mystery", Baxandall, Peter J., Wireless World, Nov 1977, pg 63-66.
"Amplifier Tests on Test-2, The Panel Game", Colloms, Martin, Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Nov 1978, pg 114-117.
"Amplifier Tests on Test-1, Without Prejudice", Hope, Adrian, Hi-Fi News& Record Reviewe, Nov 1978, pg 110-113.
"Positive Feedback: Rational Amplifier Testing", Walker, P. J., Hi-Fi News & Record Review, Jul 1977, pg 135.
"Some Amplifiers Do Sound Different", Carlstrom, D., Kruger, A., & Greenhill, L., The Audio Amateur, 3/1982, pg 30, 31.
"Equipment Profile", Greenhill, L. & Clark, D., Audio, Apr 1985, pg 56-60, 82-97.
"Power Amplifiers and the Loudspeaker Load",Johnson, J. H., Audio, Aug 1977.
"Amplifier Design & Sound Quality", Holman, Tomlinson, Audio, Nov 1996, pg 26-31.
"The Amp/Speakers Interface, are your Loudspeakers turning your amp into a Tone Control?", Meyers, E. Brad, Stereo Review, Jun 1991, pg 53-56.
"Audio Power Amplifiers for Loudspeaker Loads", Benjamin, Eric, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol 42, No. 9, Sep 1994, pg 670-683.
"A New Look at Medium and High-Priced Power Amplifiers", Rich, David, The Audio Critic, #20, Summer 93, pg 14.
"Reasonably Priced Pre amplifiers for the Reasonable AudiophilesRich, David, ", The Audio Critic, #18, Spring/Summer 1992.
Amp Tests, Boston Audio Society Speaker, Vol 21, No.2, pg 18-20, Sep 1997.
CD PLAYERS:
-References-
"Do All CD Players Sound the Same?", Masters, Ian G, Stereo review, Jan 1986, pg 50-57.
"6 Top CD Play |
| Part 3 | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:19 AM | | "6 Top CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Pholmann, Ken C., Stereo Review, Dec 1988, pg 76-84.
"The New CD Players: Can You Hear the Difference?", Phollmann, Ken C., Stereo Review, Oct 1990, pg 60-67.
CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 75, Jun/Jul 1999.
CD Player Comparison, The Sensible Sound, # 74, Apr/May 1999.
"On HDCD", Rich, David, The Audio Critic, # 23, Winter 1995/96, pg 21.
JITTER:
-References-
"Theoretical and Audible Effects of Jitter on Digital Audio Quality", Benjamin, Eric and Gannon, Benjamin, 105th AES Convention, 1998, Print 4826.
"Clock Jitter, D/A Converters and Sample Rate Convertions", Adams, Robert W., 95th AES Convention, Print #3712.
"Theory and VLSI Implementation of Asynchronous Sample Rate Converters", Adams, R. A. & Kwan, T., 94th AES Convention, 1993, Print #3570.
SPEAKERS
-References-
"Listening Tests, Turning Opinions Into Facts", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 30, No.6, Jun 1982, pg 431-445.
"Subjective Measurements of Loudspeaker Sound Quality and Listening Preference", Toole, F. E., Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 33, No 1/2, Jan/Feb 1985, pg 2-32.
"Loudspeaker Measurements and Their Relationship to Listening Preferences", Toole, F. E., Part 1, Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, Vol 34, No.4, Apr 1986, pg 227-235; Part two, JAES Vol 34, No.5, May 1986, pg 323-348.
"Listening Tests-Identifying and Controlling the Variables", Toole, F. E., Proceedings of the 8th International Conference, AES, May 1990.
"Hearing is Believeing vs Believing is Hearing: Blind vs Sighted Listening Tests ond Other Interesting Things", Toole, F. E. and Olive, S. E., 97th AES Convention, Nov 1994, Print #3894.
"What's Really Important in Loudspeaker Performance?", Davis, Mark F., Hi-Fidelity, Jun 1978, pg 53-58.
"Dipole Confusion", Holman, Tomlinson, Stereo Review, Jul 1998, pg 68-70.
"One, Two, Five, Ten...and Counting", Eargle, John, Audio, Jun 99, pg 25, 26.
"Bass verses Space, Room Acoustics and Good Sound", Winberg, David J. and Ferstler, H. W., Audio, Aug 1999, pg 28-33.
"Breaking Wind", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Jan/Feb 1997, pg 90-94. (Break in myth)
"Test Report: Dynaudio MW 190, 12" Subwoofer", Nousaine, Tom, Car Stereo Review, Oct 1997, pg 83-88. (More break in myth)
"Birth of the Boom-Room Acoustics", Nousaine, Tom, Audio, Jun 1998, pg 32-37.
"A Tale of Two Rooms", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Jan 1999, pg 80-81.
"Monster Bass", Nousaine, Tom, Audio, Jan 1999, pg 37-41.
"The Subwoofer that Shook the World", Nousaine, Tom, Sound & Vision,' Jun 1999, pg 105-109.
"Subwoofer Secrets", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Jan 1995, pg 97-101.
"Stereo Bass: True or False?", Nousaine, Tom, Speaker Builder, 6/95, pg 16, 17.
"How big is big enough", Nousaine, Tom, Stereo Review, Sep 1997, pg 69-72.
"Multiple Subwoofers for Home Theater", Nousaine, Tom, 103 AES Convention presentation, Print #4558.
JUST NOTICABLE DIFFERENCES:
-References-
"Level Discrimination as a Function of Level for Tones from .25 to 16khz", Florentine, Mary, et al, Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 81(5) May 1987, pg 1528-1541.
"On the Relations of Intensity JND's to Loudness and Neural Noise", Zwislocki, J and Jordan H., Journal of Acoustics Society of America, 79(3), Mar 86, pg 772-780.
"Auditory Intensity Discrimination at High Frequencies in the Presence of Noise", Viemeister, Neal F., Science, vol 220, 16 Sep 83, pg 1206-1208.
"Speaker Cables, Measurements vs Psychoacoustic Data", Villchur, Edgar, Audio, Jul 94, pg 34-37. |
| Geez, mtry.... | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 6:26 AM | | You are one useful guy to have around. It the above list published on the Web anywhere or do I have to copy it from the responses above? |
| Geez, mtry.... | rb122
Sep 10, 2003 10:13 AM | | If sheer volume proves anything, Mtry rests his case! :)
Seriously, you should read some of this stuff - very enlightening. But it appears Mtry's reference list has grown exponentially since he presented it to me several months ago! |
| Geez, mtry.... | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:38 PM | | You received a selected list specific to your case:) |
| Geez, mtry.... | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:37 PM | | The links are :) the list is not. Much of it is my collection, except the first reference to another person's work.
You can print it :) |
| DBT overview | okiemax
Sep 10, 2003 12:50 PM | | Thanks MTRY. I'm impressed . It would have taken me months to put all that together. The Tagmclaren study is the most convient for me to review since much of the documentation is presented. I haven't gone over the study thoroughly, but do have a couple of quick observations.
One of the 12 participants in the cable test did pretty good in that 11 of 15 of his responses were correct. One participant in the amp test got 10 of 15 correct. Researchers didn't say whether it was the same guy. Assuming their performance was a result of skill rather than chance, might they do even better in additional test as they gained experiece in participating in DBT?
My other observation has to do with the lack of uniformity in the responses as a test progresses. The number of correct responses stays within a fairly tight range until about two-thirds of the way through the 15 test, then starts fluctuating. For example, the number of correct responses in the the first five interconnect test were 6,7,5,7,5 and the number correct in the last five were 3,7,10,2,3. I don't know if this means anything, but the researchers should have addressed it.
I'm curious about what you said about AES and DBT. It looked like you were implying that AES or the contributors to its Journal have a vested interest in steering clear of DBT. However, I may have the wrong impression. |
| DBT overview | RobotCzar
Sep 10, 2003 5:15 PM | | It is important to understand that it is expected that some people will score well by chance. Statistical analysis should deal with that, but a good score by any one person surely could be due to chance (the test would be very odd if everybody scored right at 50% when guessing). Obviously that person could be retested, but perhaps that violated the protocol.
AES is a professional organization that clearly does not want to damage the audio "industry" as many of its members are employed by that industry. I'd say they don't see it as there job to resolve any "issues", especially ones that might break anybody's rice bowl or that don't have a scientific leg to stand on like the validity of blind testing.
Do you seriously doubt that any scientific journal would insist on a blinding protocol in any test of human perception? The government insists on blinding for clinical drug testing AND courts insist on it to resolve issues involving human perception.
It also seems clear to plain common sense. If you say you can tell cables apart, but you can't when you don't know which is which, then sorry, I don't believe you can. |
| DBT overview | okiemax
Sep 10, 2003 8:23 PM | | Sure, some participants will do well and others will not, and if you do another test their standings should change (i.e. the best on the first test shouldn't be the best on subsequent test). My point was that the guy who did pretty well on the interconnect DBT in the tagmclearn study might have done so because of his skill as a listener rather than by chance. It probably was by chance, but is that the only posssible conclusion? I also wondered if he also was the person who did best on the amp DBT. Again, he probably wasn't, but if he was it might be worth looking into further.
Another thing that caught my attention (see my last post) were greater fluctuations in the numbers of correct responses between about test 10 and test 15 in both experiments. Fluctuations would be expected, but why are they greater toward the end of the experiment? Beats me. Any ideas? |
| DBT overview | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:49 PM | | If I recall correctly from other information who was part of the test or close to it, the two people with the best scores were not the same people.
I am surprised that you are looking at patterns in the scoring runs. Maybe there is a hidden message? Why not look at the run from 3-12 or any other span? Why your span?
I just remembered a link to a Chicago DBT after much effort to get it going:
<http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_405262383>
Maybe there is something in his pattern? Not sure.
I have been inforemd that AES would not publish a DBT on wires as a peer paper. No idea why. But, no one has tried yet either to take them to task with a paper. Or any DBT of audio components for that matter. Wonder why no one has. |
| New info | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 9:59 PM | | from the link itself:
The researchers did in fact say:
b The highest individual scores were 11 out of 15 on the cable test (achieved by two of the participants) and 10 out of 15 on the amplifier test (also achieved by two participants, but not those who scored highest in the cables test).
2 people got 11 of 15, under the minimal p.05 although they used p.01. Most others use the p.05.
The last is the statement that they were not the same people. :) |
| New info | okiemax
Sep 10, 2003 11:38 PM | | Yes, you were right about the best scorers in the two test not being the same people. I'm sorry I didn't see that on first reading. I'm puzzled by the score runs. Here are the correct scores for the interconnect for the 15 test:6,7,5,7,5,4,7,7,7,5,8,3,7,10,2. And here are those for the amp: 6,7,7,7,7,7,4,8,5,4,5,7,5,3,3. I hope these are correct.
The scores are closer in about the first two-thirds of the experiments. Listener fatigue crossed my mind , but I am not sure how it would show up in the numbers. The researchers say there was no evidence of listener fatigue. It might be interesting to look at scores of individual participants. I don't recall seeing those in the tables, but I will look again. |
| Listener Fatigue = MAT | RobotCzar
Sep 11, 2003 7:55 AM | | I is hard to see how one could conclude anything about listener fatigue if one concludes that the listeners were making random responses (guessing).
The whole idea of "listener fatigue" seem to me to be without much basis. Consider that a professional listener (like a Navy sonar operator) is expected to listen for hours without significant degradation of performance. I am unaware of any data supporting the notion that there even is a phenominon of listener fatigue. Certainly, our attention wanders when listening for longish periods, but when one again attends to the sound I don't know if there is much degradation in performance (for reasonable time periods).
MAT = mythical audio term |
| New info | mtrycrafts
Sep 11, 2003 11:33 PM | | I looked at his tables again. No it doesn't supply the results of each person. Actually it is hard to follow as it is lumped together. But, 10 correct in the 14 trial would not be consistent with fatigue. The amp tes may be. |
| New info | okiemax
Sep 12, 2003 10:01 PM | | It is hard to pursue the "fatigue" question with the results show in the tagmclaren study because the data are too aggregated. It would be interesting to see if the participants with the highest overall accuracy scores did their best early(say in the first 5 test). If that were the case, it might mean they were adversely affected in some way by the length of the experiment.
The participant in the study were volunteers, perhaps audiophiles given the setting, but there is no information on how they were screened. I know it would be more expensive to do a DBT if screening and training participants is involved, but the value would be greater. |
| New info | mtrycrafts
Sep 12, 2003 11:33 PM | | b It would be interesting to see if the participants with the highest overall accuracy scores did their best early(say in the first 5 test).
Yes, that would be interesting. But, this link shows that, while a different person is the subject, he didn't do well in the first 5 trials.
<http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_405262383>
I doubt fatigue will show up in a 15 trial test.
Lance Armstrong has no problems with fatigue :)
b If that were the case, it might mean they were adversely affected in some way by the length of the experiment.
Not if on the 14th trial 10 correct scores were given.
b but there is no information on how they were screened.
Screened for what? Are golden ears screened before they claim to hear everything? Are there participants tested for threshold detection studies? Even on one such JASA paper I posted, the best and the average varied at 16kHz from 1dB JND to 3dB average JND.
b but the value would be greater.
To whom? Are golden ears trained? Tested first? |
| New info | okiemax
Sep 13, 2003 4:04 AM | | The Nousaine/Singh experiment was not a DBT nor was it a scientific study. You or I can do the same kind of experiment at home with the help of family or friends. It might be fun, but we will have trouble selling the results.
I didn't mean that fatigue would manifest itself in a participant going from getting it right every time to getting it wrong every time. I was referring to fluctuations occuring near the ends of the two runs. Its moot anyway because the scores of individual participants, which might shed some light on this subject, aren't there for us to study.
I have an idea for a simple way to screen for DBT experiments on audio equipment. I haven't thought it through, and maybe it's already been done, but I will put it out for comments anyway. A fairly large numer of volunteers would be needed -- 50 might be enough. I'm using two different speaker cables(A and B) in this example, but any equipment could be tried. Cable A would be 12 awg zip cord and Cable B would be any highly regarded copper audiophile cable of about the same gauge. I would use a music selection that is easy to follow (popular vocalist on well-known song) and well-recorded on an SACD.
TEST 1: Play 30 seconds of the music twice with no change in the speaker cable (use either A or B) Excuse those who say they hear a difference, since no difference exists. TEST 2: Play the selections again, first using Cable A , and then Cable B. Excuse those who say they don't hear a difference. TEST 3: Do an ABX test with the remaining participants. ADDITIONAL TEST: It might also be interesting to see how each of the two excused groups would do on the ABX test. |
| New info | mtrycrafts
Sep 18, 2003 12:40 AM | | b The Nousaine/Singh experiment was not a DBT
Yet he still could not perform well. If there was a flaw in the testing, you'd het a positive outcome.
I am not sure about your selection process what it will determine. You would eliminate 75% of the listeners as that is human nature and shown by experiemnt that if you show the same component twice, 75% will still make a difference selection.
And, eliminating people people on test two will not tell you if there were differences or not. Just an arbitrary criteria on your part.
I just don't see what this selection process will accomplish?
You better aim for 100 initial participants :) |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | pctower
Sep 7, 2003 4:21 PM | | Wouldn't try to speak for anyone but myself.
For me, if I try something new and perceive a significant improvement that brings me pleasure, that's all I care about. If I believe the pleasure is worth the cost, and budget permits, I'll buy.
That's pretty much how I make all my entertainment and pleasure-based decisions.
Are there other factors at work I'm not aware of. I'm sure there are, but if they are not in my conscious mind, they are irrelevant to my pleasure-based decisions.
I suspect I'm fairly typical of most so called yeasayers. Most don't bother posting here or elsewhere. They just go about enjoying their music and systems. Fortunately for the regulars here, there are a few yeasayers who want to argue or make claims, and that keeps places like this board going. This board is a marvelous outlet for those who, for whatever subconscious, societally imposed or genetically encoded reason find great pleasure in standing in judgment of others. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | skeptic
Sep 7, 2003 6:53 PM | | You may not post here much any more but when you do, you remind us that you are still an idiot. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | mtrycrafts
Sep 9, 2003 12:07 AM | | I hate to say it but that is uncalled for. He has different ideas but certainly evolved a lot from his first appearance here. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 4:43 AM | | From Cro Magnon to Neanderthanl.
He still straddles both sides of the fence on every arguement provoking anyone and everyone any chance he gets and then goes sulking away when he gets his ears boxed. Not just here but on other boards like Cable Asylum. And yet no matter how many times he does it and swears he won't do it again or says he is leaving never to return, somehow he always comes back as sooner or later starts the same thing all over again. In that respect, I can't see that he has changed one iota from day one. |
| PC might be the only person on this board.. | Tony_Montana
Sep 9, 2003 5:25 AM | | ....who has somewhat modified his views.
If you compare his [current] posts from while back (I like to check out the archives once in while and seen his past posts), you will see a transformation of his views on the whole cable thing which is a rare thing in the cable [argument] business.
Although he has not lost his bites against cable naysayers, but he has started to question the validity of yeasayers and some of outrageous claims they keep making. I guess you have to crawl before you could walk.
And as far as him sitting on the fence, I don't think he got any other choices. If you don't agree with either camps, fence is the only place you will find yourself :)
. |
| PC might be the only person on this board.. | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 5:49 AM | | I am not referring to his views. I can respect someone who sticks to his guns even if I don't agree with him. BTW, I never said all wires sound the same myself. And despite the way I usually come across in this debate, I have also said on occasions that I am a maysayer at heart and still wait to be convinced. What I am referring to is his penchant for provoking people. And he freely admits it. Perhaps lawyering has gotten to him and he likes to debate anything and everything purely for its own sake. I have stopped responding to his postings because I think he has always tried to get my goat and in doing so has gotten the better of me even when he loses the debate. Far more clever than I gave him credit for. The bottom line however is that his arguements are pointless. If one side is winning, he takes the other side just to keep the debate going. After a while it grows wearisome. |
| Have you ever heard of that song "Lawyers In Love"? | Tony_Montana
Sep 9, 2003 4:47 PM | | By Jackson Brown. Here is the lyrics to that song:
I think my heart must just be slowing down
Among the human beings
In their designer jeans
Am I the only one who hears the screams
And the strangled crys of Lawyers In Love
God sends his spaceships to America, The Beautiful
They land at 6:00 and there we are, The Dutiful
Eating from TV trays, Tuned into Happy Days
Waiting for World War 3 while Jesus slaves
To the mating calls of Lawyers In Love
Oooo Shalala Oooo
Oooo Shalala Oooo
Oooo Shalala
Oooo Shalala
Last night I watched the news from Washington, The Capitol
The Russians escaped while we weren't watching them, like Russians do
Now we've got all this bloom, we needn't got the room
And I hear the USSR will be open soon
As vacation land for Lawyers In Love
Lawyers In Love
Oooo Shalala Oooo
Oooo Shalala Oooo
Oooo Shalala
Lawyers In Love
What does that got to do with Pctower...I don't have the foggiest idea. May be PC does  |
| PC might be the only person on this board.. | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:22 AM | | b you will see a transformation of his views
Yes, and how, especially towards the need for DBT. A hell of a lot more than the folks at AA. |
| I must confess... | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 11:47 AM | | ...that there came a time when I stopped reading most of his postings. They were an utter waste of time. You have a better chance of making sense in a debate by arguing at a brick wall. While his views may have changed, the way he provoked people never seemed to vary. So I lost interest. |
| re: What does make a person a yeasayer? | pctower
Sep 10, 2003 1:27 PM | | b He still straddles both sides of the fence on every arguement provoking anyone and everyone any chance he gets and then goes sulking away when he gets his ears boxed. Not just here but on other boards like Cable Asylum. And yet no matter how many times he does it and swears he won't do it again or says he is leaving never to return, somehow he always comes back as sooner or later starts the same thing all over again. In that respect, I can't see that he has changed one iota from day one.
Please point to a single instance where I have argued both sides of a specific argument. Yes, I accept neither the pure yeasayer or pure naysayer sides. From a purely scientific viewpoint, I fall heavily in the naysayer camp. In the way I choose my own personal components Im an unabashed, un-recovering yeasayer.
And yes I do find certain claims and statements made by one side or the other with which I take issue with. But the fact that I challenge a specific claim or statement of a person on one side of the Great Divide certainly cant be seen as arguing in favor of the broad positions of the other side.
An yes, at times I do take swipes at people or groups, such as my wiseass remark about people standing in judgment of others. When I do, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) a minimal level of a sense of humor in the people to whom those comments seem directed. I can't help but mention that you too seem to relish throwing your own jabs on occasion.
As for my leaving here, the record is clear on that. I left over what I perceived as a matter of principle involving an attack on my personal integrity, and I returned after resolution with those involved. A couple of months ago I posted here that I was making a significant change in my career and would have little time for posting. I made it clear however that I would check back occasionally.
As for AA, I cancelled my listing there under pctower when MM was banned. I did so out of principle and protest. As Steve Eddy began posting more, I decided to go back and give it another chance. I argued strongly in favor of establishment of the Prophead board where there would be no restrictions on technical discussions. I fought hard against the concerted efforts of Risch, Curl and Hansen to destroy that board.
I witnessed the banning of Steve Eddy from the Cable Asylum in one of the most trumped up, arbitrary actions I have ever seen. I also realized that Rod M was siding with the Curl-Risch-Hansen thugs at the Prop Head Asylum.
About the same time that I was transitioning into my new position where I have little time for things like audio boards, I received an e-mail from Steve saying he was canceling his listing on AA he was so disgusted. As I knew I would not be posting much in the future, I followed suit as my form of protest over what was going on by deleting my Phil Tower listing, but I did so quietly and never made a point of it at AA or here.
Steve changed his mind and stayed around for another month or so. I notice he no longer posts at AA, but I havent checked to see if he finally removed his listing.
The thugs have accomplished their mission of completely transforming both the Prophead and the new Tech Squared board into cesspools, and I find little of interest there any longer. I have long stated my lack of interest for the inane discussions that occur on the subjectivist boards such as the Cable Asylum. I reach my own Neanderthal subjective conclusions wholly within the confines of my own soundroom and need no ones assistance in assembling a system that I enjoy. I am careful to point out that the personal decisions I make have no basis in science, have not been vetted under proper control conditions, and are meaningful to no one but me.
I have no idea why you have been on a personal vendetta against me. I really dont care. I do find it strange however that I am so closely aligned with |
| Continued... | pctower
Sep 10, 2003 1:29 PM | | I have no idea why you have been on a personal vendetta against me. I really dont care. I do find it strange however that I am so closely aligned with you politically, and find little of your scientific statements to disagree with, that we seem to be so much at odds with one another on this board. |
| Continued... | mtrycrafts
Sep 12, 2003 11:36 PM | | I am sorry it came to this:( |
| "... but certainly evolved... from his first appearance here." | Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
Sep 9, 2003 10:18 AM | | Classy move. I would like to think that applies to not just Phil but for many on this board.
MikE |
| "... but certainly evolved... from his first appearance here." | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:24 AM | | Who else are you thinking of besides rb with his last post at digital? |
| "Oh | mtrycrafts
Sep 10, 2003 12:25 AM | | b Classy move.
I am a class act  |
| As far as I'm concerned ... | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 8, 2003 9:31 PM | | ... anyone who would classify themselves as a naysayer or yeasayer is identifying themselves as an extremist. Most extremists have a very narrow vision which can stem from a number of sources, ranging from genetic defects to simple stupidity. In the final analysis, all extremists are stupid, because their extremism makes them stupid.
R.O. |
| RO, That is the most extreme statement I ever heard (nt) | skeptic
Sep 9, 2003 4:39 AM | | |
| A weak defense. (nt) | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 9, 2003 11:24 PM | | (nt)= no text. |
| You are amoral | skeptic
Sep 10, 2003 5:00 AM | | " In the final analysis, all extremists are stupid, because their extremism makes them stupid. "
By your definition anyone who takes any firm position on anything is an extremist. Anyone who isn't an agnostic is an extremist whether he believes in god or is an athiest. Anyone who takes a position on what is right or wrong in life is an extreminst. Am I an extremist? Yes! Since that is your definition, I plead guilty.
Since you have taken an extreme position on extremists, what does that make you? If you don't know, refer back to the first sentence in this posting. Your words, not mine. |
| Skeptic, you're just like Jon Risch. | RADAR O_Riley
Sep 11, 2003 11:38 PM | | He also lies about what others have said, which is one reason he's so unpopular. Here you have lied about the way I have defined extremism, in an effort to mask the fact that you are such an amoral extremist Why are you and Jon such jerks? (Two peas from the same pod?)
If you want to participate, at least you could be honest. How dare you lie, then question my morals. You are what you say others are, another trait we've all observed in Mr. Risch. Are you and he the same person?
R.O. |
| Skeptic, you're just like Jon Risch. | skeptic
Sep 12, 2003 4:43 AM | | It is one thing to call me stupid because by your definition I am an extremist. It is another thing to compare me to John Risch. This is where I begin to take offense. Then to suggest that I AM John Risch is beyond the pale. I see no further point to responding to your inanities. Perhaps I might engage you again when your bout of insanity is over and you become civil once again. And then maybe your insanity is permanent. |
| My definition.... | Monstrous Mike
Sep 9, 2003 9:37 AM | | A yeasayer is an audio lover who is both open and closed-minded at the same time. How is that possible you ask? Let me elaborate.
An possible action, equipment, tweak, twist, method, prayer, etc. that can improve the sound of a system must be explored. This is a very open-minded approach.
However, when such an improvement is perceived, the action, equipment, tweak, twist, method, prayer, etc. that was "apparently" the direct result needed to achieve this improvement is now undeniable. There may be a search for scientific explanation or logical reasoning via audio forums or perhaps not. Regardless, the increase in enjoyment has been reached and is no longer in question. This is a very closed-minded approach.
And don't bother to respond to this pctower because I am very closed-minded about this definition and do not intend to change it because it has brought me pleasure that is all that I care about. |
| Nice | Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
Sep 9, 2003 10:26 AM | | I'll but that. I'm sure many resort to such an approach. And I do to... with a twist. I'll never say anything is constant or will continue to bring pleasure. How could it unless we as people stop evolving. If that is not the case then we should - but I don't believe must - test the satisfaction of "our things".
MikE |
| Yes, it was nicely said :) | Tony_Montana
Sep 9, 2003 5:10 PM | | Howdy
You said:"I'll never say anything is constant or will continue to bring pleasure."
I believe the pleasure is constant, but human perception is the one that is evolving.
For example, you might think you have the best sounding system in the whole universe and enjoy it tremendously. But if somebody after listening to your system tell you that your system sound like crap and she/he have heard better system. Would you still enjoy your system like before? In this case, nothing has chaged except the human perception :) |
| |
