I'm afraid I did. Your logic was flawed.
Art Dudley on blind 'tests'
- Thread starter paskinn
- Start date
- Status
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
I don't need to sell anything to make a living so your usual FOO argument is redundant on me
You are joking, right?
Really? The statement that tests done in artificial circumstances may not have wider applicability is flawed.... how? And what is the word 'logic' doing there?
Rhetoric is not logic, it's rhetoric.
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Yea, I know it's a bit of fun - that's as it should be. But some people use these sessions for more than just fun
My suggestions came from an interest (& thought others might be too) in how such a blind listening session stands up to differentiating known audible but subtle differences?
Julf
Facts are our friends
But you label yourself as "trade"?
Daniel Quinn
Banned
As a matter of logic , the two are not mutually exclusive .
P.S - Can somebody please point me in the direction of were merlin or avole satisfactorily deal with the time/space limitations of hitherto undertaken DBT and the absurdity of making generalizations based upon them . ta .
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
I know this subtlety escapes you & even posted it in my last post.
You fail to recognise that not all blind tests are equal - a typical oversight. Look at the equating of the Harmon tests to typical group sessions. And here again equating ABX to group listening sessions. It's a trick engaged in by those who aren't really interested in the actual test - just in the null results. As I said already calling something a sciency name doesn't make it science - but many try this tactic
An ABX positive results done by one person is not the same test environment as a blind listening group session. To ensure that no significant factor has been introduced that might now deliver false positives I suggested using these proven test files. Of course you could instead try to deflect attention away from such a simple test & continue to use rhetoric or as Steven says "stick to the script"
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Great. I guess you don't need a trade account then or to mention the JKDacs on the forum? Forgive my cynicism - I'm too old I guess.
No I'm not. You really should watch the first five minutes or so of this interview.
If anything, in the Harman lab, the "pressure" would be greater yet the results are consistent and have been for decades.
What IS different is the rigor with which Olive has logged and analyzed the results by listener category. The basic premise however of fast switching between test units, level matched in double blind fashion remains the same and is remarkably easy to achieve at home.
Last edited by a moderator:
Daniel Quinn
Banned
How is fast switching defined ?
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Anything from instant to five seconds depending on what you are testing for.
For the claimed tiny (night & day?) differences in Dacs, the shorter the better. Different studies have shown that increasing the inter track interval impairs listeners’ dis-
crimination of pitch, loudness, and timbre but it's hardly a chore to press skip on a transport and switch preamp input is it? Remember this is the INTER track interval - not the length of musical excerpt.
For the claimed tiny (night & day?) differences in Dacs, the shorter the better. Different studies have shown that increasing the inter track interval impairs listeners’ dis-
crimination of pitch, loudness, and timbre but it's hardly a chore to press skip on a transport and switch preamp input is it? Remember this is the INTER track interval - not the length of musical excerpt.
OK, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to ABX testing the only contentious issue stems from listeners having to decide an outcome in such a short period (2-3s) of time? Certainly even the staunchest of ABX detractors understand the requirement to level match and blind test any compared DUT's ..... though I do seriously wonder how many ensure that these two, basic, fundamental components are actually maintained!
If so, I wonder how many detractors have tried extending the time to whatever you wish and try the test this way?
If so, I wonder how many detractors have tried extending the time to whatever you wish and try the test this way?
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Yes, I don't need to mention my products & JKDAC is a product from two generations ago which only proves that I don't mention them
Watched it before & I don't like Olive's darting, shifting eyes - makes him look suspicious & a bit creepy - but maybe that's just me?
So did you miss the bit about using just one speaker in these speaker tests, did you miss the bit about using a panel which is filtered by age & hearing, did you miss the bit about trying to be as scientific as possible? Do you not know that they use a reference listening room designed according to recommendations contained in ITU standards, that they use a silent mechanical positioning system which ensures each speaker is positioned exactly in the same place, that they use listener training for their panel of listeners.
Do you miss the fact that what is being tested in Harmon are speakers where there is a universal acceptance that they will sound different. What is usually being listened to in group blind listening sessions are not the gross differences between speakers but the subtle differences between electronic devices
Are you really trying to equate Harmon's listening tests to home based group listening sessions?
Daniel Quinn
Banned
That is just absurd .
thanks for that Merlin . You have done me and pfm a favor .
me because i will never ever argue with you again , the fact you advocate such a methodology for establishing difference means you are now the David Icke of PFM to me .
You have done pfm a favor cause this will mean there will be considerably less of my ego centric ramblings to read .
I wish you all the best in your crusade .
Anybody know what happened to david icke ?
thanks for that Merlin . You have done me and pfm a favor .
me because i will never ever argue with you again , the fact you advocate such a methodology for establishing difference means you are now the David Icke of PFM to me .
You have done pfm a favor cause this will mean there will be considerably less of my ego centric ramblings to read .
I wish you all the best in your crusade .
Anybody know what happened to david icke ?
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
I think I would trust Olive over you I'm afraid - but that's just me I guess.
As for the rest, you are just grasping at nettles again.
Download the AES Paper on how statistically all listening groups faired as well as how the speakers did and how those results corresponded with scientific principles.
It should put most of the rest of your missive to bed for those interested enough to read it. The important point is that the double blind test continues to produce reliable results yet the sighted one does not. Same room. Same listeners. Same products.
The listening room in inconsequential as all it does is establish a level playing field for the loudspeakers. It does not interfere. Are you now saying that the listening room acoustics will have an impact on which Dac someone prefers?
Or are you trying to say in a round about way that we accept that loudspeakers are different because they are. But Dacs might be? Very slightly? And only when you can see the brand name?
As for the rest, you are just grasping at nettles again.
Download the AES Paper on how statistically all listening groups faired as well as how the speakers did and how those results corresponded with scientific principles.
It should put most of the rest of your missive to bed for those interested enough to read it. The important point is that the double blind test continues to produce reliable results yet the sighted one does not. Same room. Same listeners. Same products.
The listening room in inconsequential as all it does is establish a level playing field for the loudspeakers. It does not interfere. Are you now saying that the listening room acoustics will have an impact on which Dac someone prefers?
Or are you trying to say in a round about way that we accept that loudspeakers are different because they are. But Dacs might be? Very slightly? And only when you can see the brand name?
merlin
Avatar changed - Town names deemed offensive.
Wasn't he into religion?
It's not me who's irrationally clinging to religion here Gerald
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
That is the point that emerges from those posters trying to argue the superiority of blind testing - they will accept any lax procedure as being valid as long as it excludes sightedness. They are blinded to (or simply choose to ignore) all other testing weaknesses. It would also seem that they are unwilling to include any controls in their "tests" as I have never seen any such controls used. This leads me to conclude that it's not an attempt to get to the truth of the matter - just an exercise in ensuring that null results are the outcome thus proving their world view
Ciunas Audio
Trade: Ciunas Audio
Is he goalkeeper for God's B team now?
Julf
Facts are our friends
What's up with a certain bunch of people being more concerned about the messenger and the presentation rather than the message?
You might have a PhD in Sound Recording, you might be the president of AES, and you might be Director of Research at a major audio manufacturer, but if you missed your media training sessions...
- Status